JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Patrick Differ]

So the Parkland Doctors who were trauma Doctors used to treating gunshot wounds were ALL wrong in what they saw. A gaping wound in the back of the skull?
And the Zapruder Film backs up the Autopsy diagrams by Humes in Bethesda? Eventhough it clearly does not explain the explosion in the Zapruder film in the front of Kennedys Head.
And the Magic Bullet was pristine eventhough it shattered Connallys ribs and hit bone. But since it was a heavy metal jacket at high velocity and was at a perfect angle of alignment to Kennedy and Connally, which it wasnt, it was a slight acute angle, that is fully plausible. Eventhough the 2nd shot to the head with the same gun and bullet type acted completely different at high velocity and the bullet actually exploded apart. And as the Autopsy sketch shows exited the front of the head but did not hit Connally or Kellerman. Actually the Zapruder film shows Kellerman not moving at all. He completely froze.

IN terms of frame 225 v 245 that would actually make a difference to the number of bullets. If the magic high velocity hits Kennedy and Connally at 225 or even 245 you would expect an immediate reaction from Connally. Yet the frames in the Zapruder film show no reaction by Connally for a second, 2 seconds for Frame 225.
The Warren Commission had a difficult time explaining the discrepancy. Connally originally believed he was hit with a seperate shot The Zapruder film appears to back up that possibility. Kennedy is reacting and Connally is not moving.
The WC also had a hard time reconciling why Tippit witnesses heard 3 shots but 4 shells were found. And why the killer would stop and leave shells at the scene to implicate himself for any reason.

Why withold documents for over 60 years??

[Herlock Sholmes]

So the Parkland Doctors who were trauma Doctors used to treating gunshot wounds were ALL wrong in what they saw. A gaping wound in the back of the skull?

Dr. Carrico, who was one of those Doctors, was asked by Vincent Bugliosi if the Doctors who thought that they’d seen a rear head wound could have been mistaken he replied “Absolutely.”

That they mistook a mass of blood and gore and hair around an area of the head that the President was lying on is hardly a surprise. The Doctors who were employed to find the cause of death, unlike the Parkland Doctors who were focused on the throat, were the autopsy doctors. Their results count. And the pathologists of the HSCA who all confirmed their findings.

All babyish talk of ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ just expose the inherent weakness of conspiracy theorist points. Oswald killed Kennedy. All else is dishonesty. It’s a deliberate bandwagon, grown over the years, by researchers/writers who are simply out for money and self-aggrandisement. I’m sick and tired of wading through all of this infantile stuff.

[Patrick Differ]

You use some harsh words to defend your position there Mr Holmes. From my own perspective I see legitimate debate in some areas that show doubt. I would especially be skeptical of those " government " officials who had axes to grind with this President. As I said before there is counterpoint to much of what is debated here. There is a reason for withholding classified documents. As an American I just want to know the truth and I don't see anything infantile in that at all. I also lean towards not trusting government to not lie to its citizens. I would rather question it then march blindly to their drum. But that's just me.

[Fiver]

So the Parkland Doctors who were trauma Doctors used to treating gunshot wounds were ALL wrong in what they saw. A gaping wound in the back of the skull?

Lets look at what the doctors said.

Said the large wound was in the back.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from this wound.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?
Dr. CLARK - I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound?
Dr. JONES - There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

Said the large wound was in the front.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the bullet hit his head?
Dr. AKIN - I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound
Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury which you noted in the President's head?
Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than that.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound?
Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput?
Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe with respect to the head wound?
Dr. SALYER - I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound.

Did not specify.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe the President's condition to be at the time you arrived?
Dr. BASHOUR - The President was lying on the stretcher, the head wound was massive, the blood was dripping from the head, and at that time the President had an endotracheal tube, and his pupils were dilated, his eyes were staring, and they were not reactive, there was no pulsations, his heart sounds were not present, and his extremities were cold.

Mr. SPECTER - During the course of your presence near President Kennedy, did you have any opportunity to observe any wounds on his body?
Dr. CURTIS - After I had completed the cutdown, I went around to the right side of the patient and saw the head wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe there?
Dr. CURTIS - Oh--fragments of bone and a gross injury to the cranial contents, with copious amounts of hemorrhage.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the condition of the President when you entered?
DR. DULANY - Well, at this time his pupils were fixed and dilated and he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you now describe the wound which you observed in the head?
Dr. JENKINS - Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all of these other activities were under way. I was busy connecting up an apparatus to respire for the patient, exerting manual pressure on the breathing bag or anesthesia apparatus, trying to feel for a pulse in the neck, and then reaching up and feeling for one in the temporal area, seeing about connecting the cardioscope or directing its being connected, and then turned attention to the wound in the head.
Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to observe any of his wounds?
Dr. WHITE - I saw the wound in his head as he was brought into the trauma room where he was treated.

Other
Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition of the President when you arrived?
Dr. GIESECKE - There was a great deal of blood loss which was apparent when he came in the room--the cart was covered with blood and there was a great deal of blood on the floor. There was--I could see no spontaneous motion on the part of the President. In other words, he made no movement during the time that I was in the room. As I moved around towards the head of the emergency cart with the anesthesia machine and the resuscitative equipment and helped Dr. Jenkins to hook the anesthesia machine up to the President to give him oxygen, I noticed that he had a very large cranial wound, with loss of brain substance, and it seemed that most of the bleeding was coming from the cranial wound.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe specifically as to the nature of the cranial wound ?
Dr. GIESECKE - It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds on the President?
Dr. HUNT - I actually did not see the wounds.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you at any time see a wound to the head?
Dr. HUNT - No; I didn't see it.
Mr. SPECTER - And was there something obscuring your view from seeing the head wound?
Dr. HUNT - Yes; I could see his face and I could also see that a great deal of blood was running off of the table from his right side and I was on his left side.

[A P Tomlinson]

Lets look at what the doctors said.

Said the large wound was in the back.
Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?
Dr. CARRICO - Sure. This was a 5- by 71-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from this wound.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe the President's condition to be on your arrival there?
Dr. CLARK - I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as precisely as you can the nature of the head wound?
Dr. JONES - There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open.

Said the large wound was in the front.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you have any opinion as to the direction-that the bullet hit his head?
Dr. AKIN - I assume that the right occipitalparietal region was the exit, so to speak, that he had probably been hit on the other side of the head, or at least tangentially in the back of the head, but I didn't have any hard and fast opinions about that either.

Mr. Specter - Now, will you describe in as much particularity as you can the nature of the head wound
Dr. Baxter - The only wound that I actually saw--Dr. Clark examined this above the manubrium of the sternum, the sternal notch. This wound was in temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side and there was a large area, oh, I would say 6 by 8 or 10 cm. of lacerated brain oozing from this wound, part of which was on the table and made a rather massive blood. loss mixed with it and around it.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you now describe as specifically as you can, the injury which you noted in the President's head?
Dr. PERRY - As I mentioned previously in the record, I made only a cursory examination of the President's head. I noted a large avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe laceration of underlying brain tissue. My examination did not go any further than that.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the nature of the President's wound?
Dr. PETERS - Well, as I mentioned, the neck wound had already been interfered with by the tracheotomy at the time I got there, but I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput?
Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe with respect to the head wound?
Dr. SALYER - I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that--nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound-- cranial wound.

Did not specify.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe the President's condition to be at the time you arrived?
Dr. BASHOUR - The President was lying on the stretcher, the head wound was massive, the blood was dripping from the head, and at that time the President had an endotracheal tube, and his pupils were dilated, his eyes were staring, and they were not reactive, there was no pulsations, his heart sounds were not present, and his extremities were cold.

Mr. SPECTER - During the course of your presence near President Kennedy, did you have any opportunity to observe any wounds on his body?
Dr. CURTIS - After I had completed the cutdown, I went around to the right side of the patient and saw the head wound.
Mr. SPECTER - And what did you observe there?
Dr. CURTIS - Oh--fragments of bone and a gross injury to the cranial contents, with copious amounts of hemorrhage.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe as to the condition of the President when you entered?
DR. DULANY - Well, at this time his pupils were fixed and dilated and he had a large head wound---that was the first thing I noticed.

Mr. SPECTER - Now, will you now describe the wound which you observed in the head?
Dr. JENKINS - Almost by the time I was--had the time to pay more attention to the wound in the head, all of these other activities were under way. I was busy connecting up an apparatus to respire for the patient, exerting manual pressure on the breathing bag or anesthesia apparatus, trying to feel for a pulse in the neck, and then reaching up and feeling for one in the temporal area, seeing about connecting the cardioscope or directing its being connected, and then turned attention to the wound in the head.
Now, Dr. Clark had begun closed chest cardiac massage at this time and I was aware of the magnitude of the wound, because with each compression of the chest, there was a great rush of blood from the skull wound. Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound; there was part of the brain tissue, broken fragments of the brain tissue on the drapes of the cart on which the President lay.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you have an opportunity to observe any of his wounds?
Dr. WHITE - I saw the wound in his head as he was brought into the trauma room where he was treated.

Other
Mr. SPECTER - What was the condition of the President when you arrived?
Dr. GIESECKE - There was a great deal of blood loss which was apparent when he came in the room--the cart was covered with blood and there was a great deal of blood on the floor. There was--I could see no spontaneous motion on the part of the President. In other words, he made no movement during the time that I was in the room. As I moved around towards the head of the emergency cart with the anesthesia machine and the resuscitative equipment and helped Dr. Jenkins to hook the anesthesia machine up to the President to give him oxygen, I noticed that he had a very large cranial wound, with loss of brain substance, and it seemed that most of the bleeding was coming from the cranial wound.
Mr. SPECTER - What did you observe specifically as to the nature of the cranial wound ?
Dr. GIESECKE - It seemed that from the vertex to the left ear, and from the browline to the occiput on the left-hand side of the head the cranium was entirely missing.

Mr. SPECTER - Did you observe any wounds on the President?
Dr. HUNT - I actually did not see the wounds.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you at any time see a wound to the head?
Dr. HUNT - No; I didn't see it.
Mr. SPECTER - And was there something obscuring your view from seeing the head wound?
Dr. HUNT - Yes; I could see his face and I could also see that a great deal of blood was running off of the table from his right side and I was on his left side.

I'm a bit confused by this analysis. The ones you have listed as saying the wound was at the front almost all say the occipital parietal, which is the right rear.
Are you saying they were suggesting a Shot from the front? Even Giesecke under "other" refers to the "Occiput" which is... the back of the head. (even if he places it on the wrong side of the head.)

Go check George's post back on page 50 (#742) to see exactly where Dr Peters thought the "occipitalparietal area" is and where he thought the wound was.

[GBinOz]

It's an example of Klein's substituting when they were out of 91TS.

No it isn't. This is a change of order from a supplier by a retailer, not a substitution of a customer's order by a retailer. It's an example of a deliberately deceptive post attempting to prove a nonsense theory. You are suggesting that a rifle advertised in a February publication was out of stock by mid March so Kleins just sent a different rifle.

[GBinOz]

I'm a bit confused by this analysis. The ones you have listed as saying the wound was at the front almost all say the occipital parietal, which is the right rear.
Are you saying they were suggesting a Shot from the front? Even Giesecke under "other" refers to the "Occiput" which is... the back of the head. (even if he places it on the wrong side of the head.)

Go check George's post back on page 50 (#742) to see exactly where Dr Peters thought the "occipitalparietal area" is and where he thought the wound was.

You've heard the saying AP, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B******t. Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.

[Herlock Sholmes]

You've heard the saying AP, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B******t. Yet another example of a long deceptive cut and paste from this poster.

Any excuse for a dig at me isn’t it George?

[Herlock Sholmes]

It’s difficult to listen to pontifications from people who have only ever read books written from the conspiracy side. It’s hardly surprising that plots are seen in every corner. The world is riddled with conspiracy theorists. You can’t discuss anything properly when you just get ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ yelled back at every obstacle to their nonsense. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing about the bloody rifle!

Oswald killed Kennedy using that rifle. It shouldn’t require discussion. It’s what happened.

[GBinOz]

Any excuse for a dig at me isn’t it George?

Herlock, surely you can't claim the sole right to calling out long cut and paste posts. I observed deceptive intent in the post. You prefer labels of childish, dishonest and infantile. If you lash out it is reasonable to expect some push back (unless you are a President, of course). Note that you are not the poster referred to in my post.

[GBinOz]

It’s difficult to listen to pontifications from people who have only ever read books written from the conspiracy side. It’s hardly surprising that plots are seen in every corner. The world is riddled with conspiracy theorists. You can’t discuss anything properly when you just get ‘fake’ and ‘forgery’ yelled back at every obstacle to their nonsense. I’m sick to the back teeth of hearing about the bloody rifle!

Oswald killed Kennedy using that rifle. It shouldn’t require discussion. It’s what happened.

If you are so dug in on your opinions why do you bother continuing to post? No, wait....I'm also dug in on my opinions so I can't reasonably suggest that solution. Maybe we can both learn something here my friend.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Herlock, surely you can't claim the sole right to calling out long cut and paste posts. I observed deceptive intent in the post. You prefer labels of childish, dishonest and infantile. If you lash out it is reasonable to expect some push back (unless you are a President, of course). Note that you are not the poster referred to in my post.

I commented about Fishy’s cut and pasting because it renders discussion impossible George. When Fiver cut and pasted he was doing it in response to another post to show what was actually said. Even then his posts weren’t as long as the ones pasted by Fishy. This isn’t me trying to tell another poster what to post. It’s purely about this being a discussion forum. A discussion is impossible if absolutely huge chunks are cut and pasted and presented as proof of something. To respond in detail to the points made would take hours for anyone.

What if I had Bugliosi’s book on Kindle for example and just cut and pasted one of the shorter chapters with an “more evidence of guilt” comment, just as Fishy did?There would be no way that you or Fishy or Cobalt or Patrick or anyone could reasonably be expected to respond to such a detailed chunk. Do you think it right that the thread should descend into a “let’s see who can cut and pasted one the most words competition? Why is it Herlock the bad guy as ever when I’m just trying to prevent the thread turning into a pointless cut and paste exercise?

I just did a long post but it wasn’t cut and pasted. It was the result of reading. But I accept that it was too long to allow for any detailed response as it would take someone considerable time to do it.

There was nothing intended as ‘deceptive’ in my post. I was pretty clear in what I meant George. Some of the things that we hear and read in this case is infantile and childish and I’ve listed them before ‘man in the drain’ ‘umbrella man’ ‘Garrison’s army of assassins’ ‘Beverly Oliver’s lies.’ When I see people still defending these aspects of the case can you not understand why it’s so disheartening? Can anyone be less believable than Ricky White and yet Fishy gloatingly proclaims him as part of the solution to the case.

I’ve said before that I didn’t want to get back into the case but failed miserably on that as here I am again. I’ll now re-double my efforts to leave it - especially as everything I seem to say annoys you so much George.

edit….reading your final line….maybe you’re right George. Frustration sets in. But I don’t think that we can get anywhere on small details though. That’s just my opinion. People have been squabbling over them for 60 years. One side will never convince the other I don’t think. Unless something new surfaces.

[Herlock Sholmes]

To be honest George I don’t really see how a JFK assassination thread can exist in this form. It’s too massive a subject. You couldn’t have a single Jack the Ripper thread because there are too many aspects of the case. The assassination is about 1000 times more complex.

[Fiver]

A first fact is that Oswald removed his rifle from the Ruth Paine garage on the morning of Nov 11, 1963 when Ruth was gone that morning, borrowed Michael Paine's blue-and-white Olds parked in front of Ruth's house, and Lee drove himself and Marina with their two children to a gunsmith to have the scope, which had come with the rifle and then had been removed by Oswald, reinstalled on it. The gunsmith trip was necessary because the threads were stripped requiring retapping, best done by a gunsmith. The reason for the scope installation was not for his personal use but because he was preparing the rifle for a conveyance. See the argument and evidence for this at https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content...op-109-pdf.pdf.

Your source's first "fact" us a lie. Oswald did not know how to drive.

second fact is that the rifle on the sixth floor of the TSBD on Nov 22, 1963 had been Oswald's, and Oswald was the next-to-last party in possession of that rifle prior to the assassination. (Oswald will not have been the last party in possession of the rifle before the assassination if his intention on Nov 11 to prepare the rifle for a conveyance was accomplished.)

Perhaps you should look at Post #3611 where you claimed that the rifle wasn't Oswald's.

Don't you realize your sources are contradicting each other?

[Fiver]

I'm a bit confused by this analysis.

You should be confused. I made some massive copy-paste errors. Thanks for the correction.