JFK: Which do you believe: the Parkland Doctor's sketch or the Photo?

[TruthIsAll]

Go to this thread. View post #68.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=771514#782909

Which one do you believe?
1) the sketch
2) the photo
3) both
4) neither

[kcwayne]

1. Question

I have read some of the debate you had going with William Seger, and am not clear on your position on the Zapruder film, and especially your view of the frames from the Zapruder film.

The film and frames show Kennedy's head exploding in the frontal region of his head, and none of the frames I have see show similar blowout damage to the back of the head.

Putting the controversy of the autopsy statements aside for a moment, the Zapruder film does not support the idea of a massive blowout wound to the back of the head.

So are you saying the Zapruder film is a fake?

[TruthIsAll]

2. Of course, I believe the Zapruder film, when viewed in motion, not just

a couple of stills.

And I disagree with your premise that the film does not show a massive exit wound. JFK is driven violently back and to the left. Pieces of his skull and brains fly in back of the limo. You can see Jackie reaching for them.

The best evidence is a combination of the Zapruder film and the Parkland doctors INITIAL renderings.

Let me turn your question around. Do you really suggets that the back of JFK's head as depicted in the photo is believable? I can't spot any wound. Can you? Even an entry wound would be apparent.

Consider this. If JFK was struck in the BACK of the head, would'nt the bullet have exited in the front? Would there not be massive damage to the front - to his face? Other autopsy photographs, not shown here, do not show any damage whatsoever to his face.

The film clearly points to a bullet striking the front right temple, causing massive damage to the rear upon exit, just as the sketch shows.

[Padraig18]

3. The X-rays show massive damage to his face.

Multiple linear fractures into the sinuses, etc, as well as the temple region. not all 'damage is visible to the naked eye.

[TruthIsAll]

5. What massive X-ray damage? Look at the face.

If he was shot in the back of the head, where is the damage? I don't see it in the back or the front - in the photos.

I see it clearly in the back - as shown in the sketch.

What was the doctor's motive in presenting his sketch, in which he obviously depicts an exit wound in the back of the head? It could only have been to present what he and the others observed. Up close. With only doctors present. Remember, Oswald was not yet even a suspect.

What is the motive of those who took the photos?

[kcwayne]

4. JFK's movement after being shot does not mean there was

a massive wound (as depicted in the drawing) to the back of the head, nor does tissue and bone landing on the back of the car. The way his skull was opened up, tissue exploded upward, as depicted in Zapruder. The car was moving at about 15 miles per hour, so the motion backwards of ejected tissue is aided largely by the speed of the car moving forward.

At any rate, the film does not show an explosive wound emanating from the back of the head, and as he leans over against Jackie, it looks undisturbed.

The autopsy photo is of too poor quality to make a judgement on. It does show a wound on the top right consistent with the wound obvious in Zapruder's film. But the quality of the photo (as renedered on the Internet) is too poor to be useful in analysis. Do you know of a source that has a rendering from the original negatives, or that even has the original negatives? Seeing that photo would be far more illuminating.

As to the bullet entering the back of the head, an exit from the face seems the most likely, especially since Kennedy's head was on a declination relative to a shot from the rear, because the street slopes downward away from the School Book Depository at the location where he was shot. But a shot hitting bone will deflect, so I don't think you can rule out completely that the shot could have entered from behind. The lack of a competent autoposy is a real problem here, as competent forensic pathologists could have shed alot more light on this evidence. I have major problems with that.

[Minstrel Boy]

6. Parkland was THE trauma hospital in Dallas

Those people knew entrance from exit wounds.

The autopsy record is admittedly incomplete and shows evidence of tampering. For instance, some X-rays show damage which isn't supported by photographic evidence, and the Assassination Records Review Board found a 90-95% likelihood that two entirely different brains had been examined; brains which provided contradictory evidence as to the damage and the direction of the headshot. What's more, two federal agents who attended the autopsy told the ARRB that the autopsy photos of the back of the head were inaccurate, and that they recalled seeing a large defect in the right rear part of the skull. The agents suggested a flap of scalp was pulled over the right-rear defect before the photos were taken
(http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id126.htm).

An interesting sidebar: do you know the story of Regis Blahut? He was the CIA liaison to the House Select Committee on Assassinations. In June 1978 Blahut was discovered to have broken into the safe containing the autopsy photos. Blahut's only comment to the press: "There are other things involved that are detrimental to other things."

About Zapruder, it's kinda odd how, when the Warren Commission published stills, the frames showing the fatal head shot were reversed. J Edgar Hoover, whose FBI reviewed the film for the commission, called the reversal "a printing error."

[Octafish]

7. Kick to the BFEE's pants.

Kick for history.