From: david@cats.ucsc.edu (David Wright)
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
Subject: Re: Head wounds
Keywords: Head wounds
Date: 10 Apr 92 03:43:13 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz


In article <8APR199218170277@rigel.tamu.edu> mst4298@rigel.tamu.edu (Mitchell S Todd) writes:

Mitchell writes that the Parkland people say the photos are what they saw.

I say this is irrelevent since:

1. The parkland people saw different wounds. The only wound that makes sense in
   this context is the head exit wound.

2. It only says that the Parkland people--except for Crenshaw--do not want
   to admit of conspiracy. Comparisons of their statements at the time reveal
   differences. See my reply to Joel or Bruce's reply to some article.

3. The throat wound is indeed different--as Crenshaw says. Oddly, Dr. Baxter
   said that the front neck wound and the back wound could be both entrance
   wounds. It is unknown if the Parkland doctors saw the throat wound
   recently. Yet they did explain to Lifton that the throat wound was precisley
   1-2 inches, and not 6-7 inches. 

Mitchell asks about if explanations change from Parkland, Bethesda, FBI, WC and
then the autopsy stuff. It is clear Mitchell has not read Lifton clearly. Let
me refer Mitchell to 

1) My reply to Joel

2) Lifton's Best Evidence

3) Point out that two Parkland doctors say the entrance wound was in the 
*left* front of Kennedy's head! There are a large number of contradictory
explanations that have a variety of explanations. I cannot go into all of
these now, but they are easily available in Lifton, in diagramatic form.

The question of the authenticity of the x-rays are interesting. McClelland says
that there are descrepencies in the x-rays. Mitchell says that McClelland needs
to see computer enhanced photos. Did he in fact see those? We do not know. Nor
do we know what he is referring to if in fact the compter enhancements make
a difference. Since the enhancements are widely agavailble, I do not see why
McClelland did not see them. 

Finally, there is a question of the "fake" photo. The photo, as released,
supports drawings such as Lattimer, page 216 which shows an entry at the back
, and and exit towards the front, leaving intact the rear part of the head. 
However, the photo is a fake or reconstruction in the sense that the scalp
has been folded over to show where an entry wound might be located. Mitchell
argues that the photo was not ill-intentioned, and merely wanted to show
the location of the wound. Yet there is no reason to reconstruct the head to 
show the hole in the scalp.  Also the location of the wound is not consistent
with Hume's description of the entry  wound. He apparently not only had nothing
to do with the photos, but the WR, who add access to autopsy photos, let
pictures of Humes' lower entrance wound be published in the report. 


-- 
   |^^^^^^|      _______________________________________________________
   |      |      |                                                     | 
   |      |      | "Be Prepared for Enormous Fustrations"              |
   | (o)(o)      O         --Kreps, A course in Micro theory, p. 352   | 
   @      _)    o|_____________________________________________________|  
    |  ____\ o o
    |     /   
   /     \                              All comments  are mine---(David Wright) 
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk