(PART 1072)


I spent another afternoon with David [Mantik] last week in Carlsbad. We discussed his latest presentation in Dallas. I have summarized it in this article.

Not only has another doctor, Michael Chesser, M.D., confirmed David's optical densitometry measurements from the post-mortem autopsy X-rays in the National Archives, but he went a step further. Dr. Chesser also took optical densitometry measurements from JFK's pre-mortem X-rays at the JFK Library in Boston.

Do you think they match?

Find out here ----> JFK Autopsy X-rays Proved Fraudulent


Many thanks, Greg.

Who had the power to cause such fraud?


LBJ, who managed the cover-up, with a criminal organization (CIA) and the corrupt FBI (Federal Bogus Investigations) at his disposal. The CIA and FBI both had the power to conduct such fraud with or without LBJ's involvement, but it probably helped to have LBJ order the Secret Service to cooperate with whoever wanted to play with the autopsy materials.


Greg [Burnham]:

Thanks a lot for this.

It's really neat that Dave [Mantik] got another doctor to go along with his compelling evidence on the x rays.

I have always thought that if we ever got a TV special on the ARRB, Mantik's stuff on this subject would be mandatory to be included. Because it is pretty easy to understand yet it's scientifically based. Plus it's visual.


BTW, if you don't mind a bit of editorializing, I think I have earned the right....

One thing that really bothers me of late about this so called critical community is this:

It's not very critical.

Greg [Burnham] posts on here one piece of very interesting evidence, and three people then jump on to say that now we know who killed Kennedy!

I mean, please. That is ridiculous.

The argument about who killed Kennedy cannot be made like that, i.e. on one piece of evidence in a post on a forum. It's kind of silly if you ask me.

But ever since the nineties, the critical community has been plagued with this unsophisticated trait. If I had to put a marker on it, it began when that blowhard Barr McClellan brought out his LBJ did it book for the 40th. And then the two other blowhards, Nigel Turner and Alex Jones, featured him on their shows. Well, I was one of the people who actually read that book, and took notes on it. It is really one of the worst books written on the case. The one piece of evidence the book had, the so called Wallace print, has now been called into question.

To me, the only way this case will be solved is INDUCTIVELY! Not deductively--that is having your pet theory and then jumping onto something to gird it. That is Lamar Waldron/ Barr McClellan disease.

As I noted above, Mantik's work is really interesting and it's good that he got someone to go along with him. But to say it solves the case--and that we know who killed JFK?

C'mon. We will never be taken seriously it we continue to do this stuff. We will (rightly) be perceived as a bunch of jejune axe grinders.


Oh, brother. As if Jim DiEugenio's 20+ theories of untenable junk deserve to be "taken seriously". Hilarious.

I'd be more inclined to believe that the moon is made out of peanut butter and jelly than to believe in any of the preposterous things you believe in regarding the JFK assassination, Jimbo.

Re: the silly "White Blob Added To The X-Ray" theory....

[Quoting John McAdams:]

"Mantik is the fellow who found a "suspicious" white blob over the back of Kennedy's skull in the lateral X-rays. He sees this as evidence of conspiracy, but he's never dealt with the fact that the HSCA published these x-rays in the 70s and there was no such blob then. The x-rays showed the back of Kennedy's head intact. Why would the Evil Minions tamper with evidence that SHOWED WHAT THEY WANTED IT TO SHOW?" -- John McAdams; December 22, 1999

More common sense from McAdams....


You [John McAdams] are forgetting that Dr. Mantik observed and measured--yes, measured--the unnatural white patch ON THE X-RAYS AT THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES.

You're also forgetting that the condition of the posterior of the skull in the AP x-ray was largely ignored by the HSCA's forensic pathology panel.


No, it was not. They quite clearly stated that the entry defect was in the cowlick area, and that this entry point was on the margin of the large wound. You might look at [what] the x-ray experts of the HSCA said about this:


The Ramsey Clark Panel saw the x-rays. They found the back of the head intact.

The HSCA FPP saw the x-rays, and they found the back of the head intact.

So in the late 60s and then in the late 70s, the x-rays showed "what the plotters wanted to show."

Why did they mess with them between the late 1970s and the time that Mantik got ahold of them?


It's not a point of whether or not the back of the head is intact.


Huh? It's not??! You must be joking.

OF COURSE that's what it's all about, Jim. That's the ENTIRE genesis for the "White Blob" X-ray debate! Otherwise, this whole topic about the X-rays is a complete non-issue.

Dr. Mantik thinks that President Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head and that's why somebody (allegedly) tampered with the X-rays.

Why ELSE would the forever-unidentified and unknown "they" be monkeying around with the X-rays? Just for kicks?


You know, I always said you had problems with the English language.


The point of the issue is not whether the x rays show an intact skull.

What Mantik is arguing is that the rear of the skull appears to be overexposed which is where a white patch appears. And it obstructs that so you cannot decipher what is back there.


And, as I said before, the ONLY possible reason for anyone to have wanted to add a "white blob" or a "white patch" to the X-ray would be to fake the X-ray to make it look like the back of the President's head was intact (i.e., with no missing bone).

Therefore, the bottom-line issue about this matter IS, indeed, "whether the
x rays show an intact skull"

If that's NOT the "issue", then for Pete sake, what is?

You think Mantik believes that somebody faked an X-ray that already showed an intact back of the head?

That's really crazy, Jimmy. (Even for you.)


See how long it is before I deal with you directly again.


Oh, the horror! I'm back on Ignore. I'll surely be committing hari-kari now!

Geesh. What an ego.



Statements by James Jenkins in a videotaped interview with Bill Law in 1998:

"Dr Humes, who removed the brain, made an exclamatory statement -- "the damn thing fell out in my hand." Jenkins said that "The brain stem had already been severed...To me, this indicated that the brain had been surgically removed and then replaced...I came out of that autopsy expecting them to say that there were two shooters, one in the right front, one behind...What we saw that night was nothing relating to the (final and official) pathology report. There was no relation to it."

​If Jenkins was with the body from its arrival to the autopsy, when did the above scalpel cuts take place?


Jenkins tries to be very careful, and consistent. But he's only human, and sometimes reverses himself, or at least appears to reverse himself. One attendee at the conference tried to play "gotcha" with him, and pointed out to him that [Harrison] Livingstone had claimed he'd said one thing, and that he was now saying something else entirely. To which Jenkins responded by claiming that Livingstone sometimes had trouble understanding what he'd been telling him.

Jenkins doesn't have a "theory" per se, or one he cares to share. From what I can gather, and I've read his interviews and talked to him several times now, he suspects there was more to it than Oswald, and that at least one shot impacted on the side of the head. He also believes the back wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory, and that the bullet creating this wound didn't even enter the body.

And then there's his recollection regarding the brain. He says his impression was that the brain stem was at least partially cut before Humes went to cut it, and that when he transfused the brain, it was apparent to him that the cut along the brain stem was uneven, like it had been cut, and then cut again. So, yes, it would SEEM like Jenkins would readily accept that the head had been reconstructed before he saw the body.

And he has never ruled that out, as far as I am aware. He is quite specific and quite clear when you talk to him, however, on several points, which all too many people seem unwilling to grasp.

1. The back of the head between the ears was not a gaping hole upon the body's arrival at Bethesda. It was shattered like an eggshell beneath the scalp. (Note: radiology tech Jerrol Custer, who helped position the skull for the x-rays, said much the same thing.)

2. IF the body was altered, it happened before the body arrived at Bethesda.


Not necessarily, Pat. It could have been altered at Bethesda before the above witnesses saw it.


No. That's the point, Ray. Jenkins insists that he was with the body the whole time after it arrived. People think that autopsy surgeons are responsible for the body during an autopsy. But that's just not true. The bulk of the dirty work--lifting the body from the casket, moving the body to the table, handling and weighing the organs, transfusing the brain, helping the morticians re-assemble the body, etc--is performed by the autopsy assistants, in this case, Jenkins and O'Connor. They later became brothers-in-law. As such, they had plenty of opportunity to discuss the autopsy. Even so, they had a number of disagreements regarding their recollections of the autopsy. Such is life, I suppose...

Telling Jenkins he might have missed Humes' performing a mini-autopsy before the main event is like telling the janitor of a playhouse he failed to notice that the star of the play came in early and cleaned up the theater before going on stage. It's deeply insulting to his intelligence. It was Jenkins' job to know what was going on in his morgue, and to be of assistance, and telling him he was oblivious to what was going on on the biggest day of his career is just insulting, and desperate.

There was no pre-autopsy surgery etc at Bethesda. Not unless Jenkins is lying. Which seems highly unlikely, considering his other statements. If I recall, Horne in his book expressed some frustration that Jenkins was not interviewed by the ARRB. If he was sincere about this, we should all be a little frustrated. If Horne had interviewed Jenkins, after all, he would not have been able to cough up his silly theory regarding the pre-autopsy autopsy at Bethesda.

Oh, wait, who am I kidding? Jenkins said much the same thing at the 2013 conference, and Mantik and Horne turned around and trumpeted his statements as supporting Horne's theories. Balderdash.


Jenkins said the body arrived wrapped in sheets, and O'Connor said it arrived in a body bag.

You know what? I don't think they were together when each saw the body arrive.


Y'know, it's funny. They were brothers-in-law and they discussed this off and on for years. And yet apparently they never thought of the possibility the body came in twice, and that they each missed an entrance. And there's a reason for that... They worked together, side by side.

I mean, really. It's as if no one has ever had a job where they knew what was going on around them. My brother has worked in hospitals for over 30 years, running the plant and keeping the equipment up to code, etc, and I guarantee you even HE would know if the President of the United States was brought into the hospital two different times in two different wrappings.



Jenkins told David Lifton that there were skull fragments in the casket. He describes their putting them back together, and his description included the following:

"I would say the parietal and occipital section on the right side of the head -- it was a large gaping area .... I'm laying my hand on the back area of my skull .... if I spread my fingers and put my hand back there, that probably would be the area that was missing .... When they put it back together, it would probably have been about the size of your fist -- which was an actual hole missing."

If there was no hole in the back of the scalp, how did the fragments of bone escape?

Furthermore, later in the interview Jenkins commented on the back-of-head autopsy photographs:

"When I told Jenkins that autopsy photographs showed that the back of the head was essentially intact, except for a small bullet entry wound at the top, he was incredulous. 'That's not possible, That is totally--you know, there's no possible way. Okay? It's not possible.' "

(Best Evidence, 1980, page 616, 617)

Apparently either Jenkins' story has changed, or you have misremembered what he told you.

Jerrol Custer told David Lifton that the wound in the skull was posterior in the skull and said that....

".... he exposed, and returned to the morgue, X-rays showing that the rear of the President's head was blown off."

(Best Evidence , p. 620)

FWIW, in May 29, 1992 and November 18, 1993 press conferences Custer repeated his consistent claim that the current X-rays are forgeries.


Yikes. Let's be clear. Jenkins' recollections do not support the legitimacy of the autopsy photos. He doesn't flat out say they are fakes, but he readily acknowledges they don't reflect what he remembers. His recollection is of a head wound further back on the head. But he is also adamant that the back of the head between the ears was intact, and that the cerebellum was basically intact and not exposed by a hole on the back of the head. Now, he was the guy who handled the brain. If there was a gaping hole through the cerebellum, one would think he would have noticed.

As far as Custer, jeez, how many times do I have to repeat this? Custer denounced the x-rays multiple times...after being shown the computer-enhanced x-rays published by the HSCA, which were not only computer-enhanced to increase the contrast, but cropped to remove the jaw. When interviewed by the ARRB, however, and shown the original un-enhanced, un-cropped x-rays, he recognized his mark on the x-rays, and acknowledged them as Kennedy's x-rays, and x-rays he'd taken. Same with Edward Reed, the other radiology tech at work on 11-22-63.

So now, ask yourself, is it a coincidence that Custer and Reed both denounced the x-rays when shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays published by the HSCA, and then signed off on their authenticity once shown the originals? I suspect not.

Rather than recognize the obvious--that they had failed to recognize the enhanced x-rays because they had a different appearance than the x-rays they normally saw at Bethesda, and then recognized the originals shown them by the ARRB, because they looked just like the x-rays they had seen at Bethesda--Horne (and I presume Mantik) assume Custer and Reed got all scared once shown the originals, and lied. That's pretty pathetic, IMO.

It's amazing how so many of the medical witnesses (e.g. Carrico, Jenkins, Perry, Ebersole, Custer, Reed, Stringer, Riebe) are heroes when they tell people like Lifton, Mantik and Horne what they [want] to hear, but are written off as liars and cowards when they tell them what they don't want to hear.


From "Reclaiming History":

"In addition to the testimony of the Parkland doctors, conspiracy theorists cite the recollections and testimony of several eyewitnesses in attendance at the autopsy as further "proof" that the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. Once again, these eyewitness accounts (some of them, recollections over three decades old) are supposed to supersede the autopsy photographs and X-rays that show the large defect was primarily to the right front.

Remarkably, the list by conspiracy theorists of eyewitnesses to this supposed back-of-the-head exit wound is so expansive it frequently even includes two of the autopsy pathologists, Drs. Humes and Boswell, who we know concluded that the bullet exited in the right front of the skull. Apparently the fact that they mentioned in their autopsy summary that the large exit defect "extended somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions" got them a ticket into the club of rear-exit believers.

Indeed, even Captain John H. Stover, commanding officer of the Naval Medical School, who reported in 1978 that he saw "a wound on the top of the head," qualified for the back-of-the-head list.

The list includes three Secret Service agents (William Greer, Roy Kellerman, and Clint Hill) and two FBI agents (James Sibert and Francis O 'Neill) whose testimony points to a right-rear or back-of-the-head exit wound.

The above is not to suggest that all of the lay witnesses at the autopsy thought the exit wound was to the right rear or back of the president's head. For instance, James Curtis Jenkins, a lab technician during the autopsy, told HSCA investigators that the large head wound was to the "middle temporal region back to the occipital."
[See MD65; Page 4]

Chester Boyers, the chief petty officer in charge of the lab at Bethesda who was present at the autopsy, said the exit wound was to the right front of the president 's head.

Richard A. Lipsey, a personal aide to General Wehle, told the HSCA it was obvious that a bullet "entered the back of his head and exited on the right side of his head."

Also, at the London trial, Paul O'Connor, the naval hospital corpsman who assisted in the president's autopsy, testified he "assumed" that the bullet to the president's head "had hit him from the rear and had come out the front only because of what other physical evidence was present."

When I said to O'Connor, "You told me over the phone that this large massive defect to the right frontal area of the president's head gave all appearances of being an exit wound, is that correct?"

O'Connor: "Yes, on the front."

None of the aforementioned people or witnesses had a close-up view of the president's head. Only four people in the autopsy room did, the three autopsy surgeons and John Stringer, the chief medical photographer for the navy at the autopsy who took the only photographs of the president's head.

When I spoke to Stringer, he said there was "no question" in his mind that the "large exit wound in the president's head was to the right side of his head, above the right ear." And in an ARRB interview on April 8, 1996, Stringer said, "There was a fist-sized hole in the right side of his head above his ear."
[MD227; Page 3]

Though, as we shall see later, Stringer's recollection of matters is questionable, he said he remembers this very clearly. When I asked him if there was any large defect to the rear of the president's head, he said, "No. All there was was a small entrance wound to the back of the president's head. During the autopsy, Dr. Humes pointed out this entrance wound to everyone."

So we see that all four people who were much closer to the president's head than anyone else, and whose business it was, as opposed to the many other people in the room, to know where the wounds were, have no question in their mind that the exit wound was to the right front side of the president's head, not the rear."

-- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Pages 408-410 of "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" (2007)


I could refute or discredit every single one of the example testimonies given by Bugliosi and quoted [above] by DVP. But I know it would make no difference to DVP, and Bugliosi is dead. So I won't waste my time.

But for anyone who sees DVP's post and is wondering about these people's testimonies, I suggest they look for the complete history of these people's testimonies on Dr. Aguliar's List of Head Wound Witnesses and decide for themselves what is fact and what is fiction. Just do a search on the page for the person's name.

Almost every witness to Kennedy's head wound said that there was a large hole on the rear right side of the head. Dr. Aguliar lists over forty of them, all of them professionals and most of them medical professionals. Some of them changed their minds when they were told that the autopsy photos showed no hole on the back of Kennedy's head. Others held their ground and insisted that the photos had been doctored.



But what about the Zapruder Film? It most certainly does NOT show a big hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head. In the Z-Film, the exit wound in JFK's head is clearly located toward the FRONT and RIGHT SIDE of the head, above the President's right ear....

So that makes THREE separate areas of photographic evidence which all corroborate each other with respect to the location of the large wound in President Kennedy's head:

1. The autopsy photos.

2. The autopsy X-rays.

3. The Zapruder Film.

Do you, Sandy, really think that ALL THREE of the above pieces of photographic (visual) evidence are fake in this case?

If so, that's a heck of a lot of fakery you've got to prove. And so far, no one has come close to proving that ANY of those three photographic items have been faked or altered.

And there's also the fact that the closest witnesses to the head shot in Dealey Plaza, who had a good view of the RIGHT side of JFK's head as it was exploding in front of them, said things in their first interviews on WFAA-TV on 11/22/63 that support the idea that the President's large head (exit) wound was located just exactly where we find it in the autopsy photos and X-rays and in the Zapruder Film---i.e., above JFK's right ear. Those witnesses include Abraham Zapruder himself and Bill and Gayle Newman....


I can't believe that forty eyewitnesses, the majority of whom were medical professionals, can be wrong about this.


Well, let's face it, no matter which side of the "Head Wound" debate you decide to endorse, a whole bunch of people are going to turn out to be dead wrong. That's just a fact of life.

If you're an "LNer", like I am, you've got to try and reconcile how all of those witnesses at Parkland Hospital (and some Bethesda witnesses too) could possibly have seen something that did not exist---a big hole in the back (or "occipital") part of JFK's head.

And if you're a "CTer", then you've got to ask yourself how the autopsy doctors (Humes, Boswell, and Finck) could have ALL been dead wrong, because not a one of them ever said that Kennedy had a huge hole in the back of his head. (Conspiracy believers, I guess, must think that all three of those doctors decided to get together after the autopsy and tell a bunch of lies in the official autopsy report that each one of them attached his name to. Yeah, right.)

And the CTers also need to somehow reconcile those autopsy photos and X-rays, which do not come close to depicting a gaping back-of-the-head wound described by many of the Parkland witnesses, such as Dr. Robert McClelland.

And then there are the few witnesses on the north side of Elm Street who watched the assassination occurring as it actually happened. Those witnesses, of course, did not get an extended or detailed look at JFK's head injuries, but they were looking right at the President when his head exploded into a cloud of blood and brain tissue....and, as I mentioned earlier, the closest Elm Street eyewitnesses were interviewed almost immediately after the assassination and they said things on live television that support and corroborate (in general) the things we see in Abraham Zapruder's home movie and in the autopsy pictures and X-rays.

So, whether you're an LNer or a conspiracy believer, quite a few people are going to have to be placed into the "THEY WERE WRONG" category when it comes to the question of: Where was President Kennedy's large head wound located?


Evidence can be altered, especially when it is hidden from everybody.


But the photographic evidence I talked about earlier isn't being "hidden" from anybody now. That is, the Zapruder Film and the autopsy photographs and X-rays. We have ALL of that stuff to examine now at our leisure. And the HSCA and Rockefeller panels did too. And they determined, independent from one another, that JFK was struck by only TWO bullets, with both of those bullets coming FROM BEHIND the President's car, including the one and only missile that struck JFK in the head.

As I asked before, do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?

(Of course, there was no opportunity whatsoever for any plotters to have altered the Zapruder Film prior to that film being developed and copied for the Secret Service and FBI on November 22, 1963. Abe Zapruder himself stayed with his film every step of the way through the processing and copying stages at Kodak and the Jamieson film lab. Do CTers think Abraham Zapruder was part of a plot or a "cover-up" too?)

In short --- the THREE layers of photographic evidence---one of which (the Zapruder Film) was a privately-owned non-Government home movie---prove for all time, IMO, that President John F. Kennedy did NOT have a large wound in the back portion of his cranium after he was shot in Dallas on 11/22/63.


The Zapruder film was not privately owned. Life Magazine bought the rights for $1,000,000 in today's dollars. Very few people saw the Z film till Geraldo Rivera televised it in 1975. And the ones who did see it lied about it.


Zapruder's film was privately owned (by Abraham Zapruder) at the time it was developed, processed, and copied for the Secret Service on 11/22/63. And that's the most important timeframe that I was referring to when I said the film was a "privately-owned non-Government home movie".

Because in order for the silly Z-Film Alterationists to have a prayer of being right about the film being altered, that film certainly MUST have been altered BEFORE any of the three copies were made at the Jamieson film lab on November 22nd. And there's no way in hell anyone "altered" the film that quickly. Not even George Reeves as Superman could have accomplished that ultra-fast film-altering feat. Therefore, based on that timing factor alone, we can have all the confidence in the world that the film was most certainly NOT altered.


Do you REALLY think that the Z-Film plus the autopsy photos plus the autopsy X-rays were altered in order to "move" the large wound in JFK's head from the back to the right-front?


Yes I do think that. It's not the big deal you make it out to be. Bright college students could do it.


Oh, brother.


One has to be a real chump to believe all the lies the public has been fed regarding the JFK assassination. Just like the public was lied to about Viet Nam, 9/11 and Iraq, Iran-Contra, U.S meddling in other countries, assassinations, and coups.


But you've got to be an even bigger chump to believe that the Zapruder Film was altered (with lightning-like speed AND with Mr. Zapruder practically hovering over the film-fakers every step of the way), as well as believing all (or certainly most) of the autopsy photos AND X-rays were faked and altered by conspirators too (despite the fact the HSCA determined just exactly the opposite).

After the recent fruitful discussions regarding Lee Oswald's now-proven-to-be-legitimate (IMO) U.S. Postal Money Order, I was beginning to think that Sandy Larsen was possibly one of the more reasonable conspiracy theorists out here on the Internet. But I guess I was wrong, especially after reading Sandy's "Everything's Been Faked" posts in this discussion about the head wounds, and even more so after reading this really bizarre post written by Larsen concerning Doorway Man:

"When I look at the folks standing in the doorway in Altgens 6, it looks obvious to me that somebody pasted the profile of a man wearing a suit and tie just to Bill Lovelady's left. It looks pasted there because Lovelady is supposed to be standing in front of him, and yet part of him is in front of Lovelady, covering Lovelady's left cheek. Naturally I've wondered why somebody would do that. The only thing I can come up with is that they must have wanted to cover somebody up. If Oswald was standing in that location, that would explain the need for that." -- Sandy Larsen; December 11, 2015

So, it looks as if Mr. Larsen is firmly rooted in the "Virtually Every Piece Of Evidence In This Entire Case Has Been Faked And/Or Altered In Order To Frame Lee Harvey Oswald" camp after all. What a shame. ~sigh~


Regarding the photo taken by James Altgens showing Billy Lovelady standing in the TSBD doorway, I might point out to Sandy (and others), as I also pointed out to Ralph Cinque in THIS DISCUSSION in June of 2013, that the Altgens picture was published in many newspapers throughout the United States within literally hours of the assassination. And the picture was also shown on live television by Walter Cronkite of CBS at precisely 5:31 PM CST (6:31 PM EST) on 11/22/63, which was just 5 hours and 1 minute after JFK was shot (see the video clip below).

So if somebody managed to fake that Altgens photograph in order to "paste" in a man wearing a suit and tie, they must have been even faster than the film-fakers who allegedly altered the Zapruder Film on such short notice.

HERE'S one example of the Altgens/Lovelady picture being published in a newspaper--The Sheboygan Press--on the very same day of the assassination:

Another example of the famous Altgens image being published on November 22 can be found on this front page from a paper in Racine, Wisconsin.

And HERE is another paper that published a zoomed-in version of the same Altgens photo the next day (11/23/63), The Montana Standard in Butte, Montana. And "Shirt And Tie Man" is clearly visible here:


Think about this. The LN's have continually denounced the validity of the observations made by Parkland doctors of JFK's large gaping head wound being in the right rear of JFK's head, for the simple reason that JFK was lying on his back in Trauma Room One, and this wound would have been hidden from them.

Using this logic, doesn't it seem odd that these same doctors did NOT report a large gaping wound on any other part of JFK's head, considering the fact that every other part of JFK's head was completely visible to them?


I've often wondered why more of the Parkland witnesses didn't see at least some of the large wound in the right-front of JFK's head.

From this 2009 Internet discussion:


I have also wondered why very, very few of the Parkland Hospital witnesses said they saw the large exit wound on the right side of JFK's head (which is an exit wound that we positively KNOW was there when JFK was in the emergency room at Parkland).

Even if Jackie Kennedy closed up the flap of scalp on the right side of the President's head (which I think is quite possible), I would still think that a lot more people at Parkland would have been able to see the outline or at least SOME portion of the gaping RIGHT-FRONT exit wound, which is the wound that was causing (IMO) the large amount of "pooling" of blood toward the right-rear of JFK's head (which is what I believe to be the best explanation [to date] for how those Parkland witnesses could have all been mistaken about the location of the wound).

But I've never been totally pleased with that "pooling" explanation, mainly because I'm wondering why nobody at Parkland claimed to see TWO wounds on the right side of the President's head:

1.) The place where the blood and brain tissue was "pooling" (the right-rear; which was mistaken for an actual HOLE in the President's head).


2.) The actual exit wound itself, located in the Right/Front/Top area of JFK's head, which is an exit-wound location that is confirmed in several different ways -- e.g., the Zapruder Film, the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, and the autopsy doctors' remarks about the exit wound location in post-1963 interviews, including these firm and unambiguous comments made by Dr. James Humes on CBS-TV in 1967:

"The exit wound was a large, irregular wound to the front and right side of the President's head." -- Dr. Humes; June 1967

BTW, I was a believer in the "Blood Pooling" theory before I ever read Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book. So it wasn't Mr. Bugliosi or Dr. Baden who convinced me that this is probably the best explanation for the Parkland witnesses' BOH observations. In fact, before reading Vince's book, I was truly hoping that VB would drop a bombshell on me and come up with something different and, frankly, BETTER, to explain away those BOH witnesses. But, alas, Vince doesn't have any better explanation than the "pooling" theory described by Dr. Baden in the book excerpt shown below:

"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head"." -- Pages 407-408 of "Reclaiming History" by Vincent Bugliosi

In 2006, I was theorizing the exact same thing:

"If I were to hazard a guess as to why (and how) so many different observers could all see the same (wrong) thing regarding JFK's head wound, I'd say it's possibly due to the fact that the massive amount of blood coming from the President's large wound on the right side of his head was pooling toward the BACK of his head while he was resting flat on his back on the hospital stretcher, creating the incorrect impression to the observers that the wound was located where the greatest amount of blood was seen." -- DVP; December 10, 2006


Dear David (and Bugsy, wherever you are),

Even IF Jackie had closed up a large gaping wound in the right front of JFK's skull (a miraculous accomplishment if ever I heard of one) there is something very simple that you are forgetting....

Unless Jackie had Krazy Glue and a tube of silicone to close up and seal this wound, something very obvious would have been going on in Trauma Room One that would have given away the "secret" and "hidden" great gaping wound in the right front of JFK's skull. JFK was being given blood transfusions and closed heart massage...was being performed in order to keep circulation and perfusion of the cells with oxygen ongoing.

As there were large arteries severed inside of JFK's cranium, with each chest compression, a great spout of transfused blood would take the path of least resistance and shoot out the open ends of this artery. It would not take many chest compressions before fresh blood would make it, in great amounts, past the "seal" that Jackie had supposedly made on the head wound. It would make a great mess of blood, and no amount of hair would be able to hide it.

Isn't it funny that none of the Parkland doctors saw something so obvious, and right out in the open?


Yes, I agree. It is.

But there's also no doubt whatsoever that a great big hole WAS there in the RIGHT-FRONT-TOP area of JFK's head. And here's the inescapable proof....


So how about this? There was no such wound to see at Parkland. (Obviously.) The gaping wound in the right side of the head was created by the butchers who conducted a pre-autopsy "autopsy." The Z film was then altered accordingly to show how this wound "occurred" in Dealey Plaza.


How did the unknown "they" (the film-alterers) manage to fake/alter the Z-Film so fast---BEFORE any of the three copies were made?

Or do you think "they" somehow performed a miracle by faking the film FOUR separate times (once for the original film and then they faked each of the three copies separately after those copies were created at Jamieson's)?

Any way you cut it --- it's impossible and unrealistic (not to mention ridiculous). But that never stopped an alterationist from proposing such silliness.


And before DVP pipes in with witness Newman's statement, Newman would have seen the back of JFK's head blown out, and must have been mistaken in that traumatic instant that the wound was more forward. What he thinks he saw simply can't be reconciled with what the Parkland doctors didn't see at close range and for an extended period.


Oops! Looks like you've forgotten a first-day witness (who appeared on WFAA-TV at 2:31 PM, Dallas time, just two hours after he filmed the assassination with his own camera). Was Abraham Zapruder being TOLD where to place his hand here?:

And then there's Gayle Newman as well. Was she part of the never-ending cover-up too, Ron? And this image was captured at approximately 1:18 PM CST, just 48 minutes after JFK was shot:

David Von Pein
December 9-12, 2015