JFK Conspiracy Theories IV: The One With The Whales

[HSienzant]

You're just repeating very flimsy evidence. I can see how the photographs could be misleading, but they aren't the small wound and Boswell knew it.

I could say 'back at ya' but I doubt it would be persuasive to you. You're repeating your assessment, but not giving us any reason to doubt the intent of the photographer or the autopsists. See the four points (a - d) in the post above.

There are lost autopsy photographs. There is also the F8 autopsy photograph.

Neither of which would move the red spot from its location in the photo you did post.

Dr. Humes signed off on the autopsy report with Boswell's wound placements, and so did Dr. Burkley, the President's personal physician, as well as Admiral Galloway, a witness to the autopsy. Humes' descriptions of the wounds created the Rydberg drawings.

But the autopsy does NOT give a specific measurement for the wound placement on the skull. We all know this. So citing Humes and Burkley and Galloway signing off on it does not establish your argument in any way, shape, or form.

The bit of testimony about Humes agreeing with the cowlick entry was given on 9/7/1978, while testimony earlier on 9/16/77 has Humes making no comment when Boswell states on no uncertain terms that remembers the red spot being a small scalp defect, and the real small wound was much lower. Like I've said before, Dr. Humes may simply be forgetting about the reasons why the red spot can not be the small head wound.

And it's going to be more difficult to convince anyone that Humes recollection about the wound was 100% airtight and correct when you're arguing for his failure of memory in the same paragraph.

He also never retracted his earlier comments about the ruler not measuring the red spot. If you think the BOH photos depict the ruler being used to measure the wound, why would they be pulling back the scalp so that the actual location of the wound recedes?

Uh, to show the damage to the skull and the underlying bullet wound there?

You sort of have Humes as half a witness, with the disadvantage of his retractions coming long after he already produced unambiguous evidence proving the cowlick entry wound wrong.

On the other hand, you have Humes as sort of half a witness, with the disadvantage of his original claims being clarified later and admitted to be erroneous.

Do I even need to bring up that they got Humes to intentionally raise the back wound on the Rydberg drawings? This whole situation is just another back wound blunder.

Rydberg drawings are only schematic in nature, as testified to by Dr. Humes. This was previously quoted back to you.

Can there be a more desperate plea for some evidence of a cowlick entry wound? Why not real evidence?

You mean like the back of the head autopsy photo you posted? Isn't that real evidence?

And for the four reasons (a - d) posted, with those unambiguous reasons self-contained within the photo itself?

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

Small wound caused by what?

Perhaps a fragment from the large head wound.

 

[HSienzant]

I already gave answers to all of that and acknowledged that the red spot could be a minor wound, and that it might've even been responsible for creating that small prick you see on the peeled scalp on the open cranium photo.

Saying you already gave answers to all that, and actually giving answers to all that are two distinctly different things.

Some of the points were newly raised in that post, like Finck's failure of recollection in 1968 calling into question recollections given nine years later by two other autopsists. There's no way you addressed that point, despite your claim to the contrary that you addressed all that.

Nor did you ever explain away why the photo shows the hair parted at what you claim is NOT a wound, and no hair parted at where you claim the wound actually was, especially if you think the entire purpose of autopsy photographs in general is to document the nature, size, and location of the wounds.

Nor did you explain away why the photo is centered where you say there is no wound, again, if you think the entire purpose of autopsy photographs in general is to document the nature, size, and location of the wounds.

Nor did you explain away why the ruler is held at the location where you claim there was no wound, and not held at the location of the 'real' wound, if you think the entire purpose of autopsy photographs in general is to document the nature, size, and location of the wounds.

Nor did you explain away why the red 'blood' spot is still there, if the purpose of wetting the hair was to wash away extraneous blood to more clearly reveal the nature, size, and location of the wounds for the autopsy photographs.

Nor does you explain away why no extant autopsy photos show this lower wound in the hair clearly.

Hank

 

[traxy]

Perhaps a fragment from the large head wound.

Oh good, we're getting to the magic part of the show. I was waiting for this.

A fragment that...what...went backwards? How on earth would that even be possible?

Do you notice that the further down the rabbit hole you tumble, the more ridiculous and fanciful your explanations get?

What if the autopsy doctors were simply confused about the precise location of the entry wound? The skull was a shattered mess with pieces shifting around the entire time, and only Finck had previous experience with gunshot wounds. Seems far more plausible than the nonsense you're coming up with.

 

[MicahJava]

Oh good, we're getting to the magic part of the show. I was waiting for this.

A fragment that...what...went backwards? How on earth would that even be possible?

Do you notice that the further down the rabbit hole you tumble, the more ridiculous and fanciful your explanations get?

What if the autopsy doctors were simply confused about the precise location of the entry wound? The skull was a shattered mess with pieces shifting around the entire time, and only Finck had previous experience with gunshot wounds. Seems far more plausible than the nonsense you're coming up with.

I only speculated that the red spot could have any depth if the dot in the circled area of the cranium photo matches the location of the red spot. But if you already agreed on that orientation of the open cranium photo, then the apparent EOP hole is undeniable.

 

[MicahJava]

Saying you already gave answers to all that, and actually giving answers to all that are two distinctly different things.

Some of the points were newly raised in that post, like Finck's failure of recollection in 1968 calling into question recollections given nine years later by two other autopsists. There's no way you addressed that point, despite your claim to the contrary that you addressed all that.

Nor did you ever explain away why the photo shows the hair parted at what you claim is NOT a wound, and no hair parted at where you claim the wound actually was, especially if you think the entire purpose of autopsy photographs in general is to document the nature, size, and location of the wounds.

Nor did you explain away why the photo is centered where you say there is no wound, again, if you think the entire purpose of autopsy photographs in general is to document the nature, size, and location of the wounds.

Nor did you explain away why the ruler is held at the location where you claim there was no wound, and not held at the location of the 'real' wound, if you think the entire purpose of autopsy photographs in general is to document the nature, size, and location of the wounds.

Nor did you explain away why the red 'blood' spot is still there, if the purpose of wetting the hair was to wash away extraneous blood to more clearly reveal the nature, size, and location of the wounds for the autopsy photographs.

Nor does you explain away why no extant autopsy photos show this lower wound in the hair clearly.

Hank

The only mission left for the cowlickers is to make the best of their zero compelling evidence, and hope that nobody finds the sea of contradictory evidence placing the wound at the EOP. Hope no lurkers read the whole thread, or they'll be reading the same coherent answers to your questions over and over again.

 

[Meadmaker]

Over in some other thread there was some griping about some sort of government official who had done something or another with some email somewhere. A lot of people thought she should have been prosecuted, but the FBI director said some sort of blah, blah, blah stuff and said he wouldn't. That thread has gone on for an awfully long time and people seem to think it's important, or something. I don't get it, myself.

My contribution to that thread was mostly to note that, to the best of my knowledge, the people who work for the FBI are competent, conscientious, and honest. I think that's true of most government officials. Sure, politics influences them, but there's a limit to how much they'll do. For the most part, they are patriotic and law abiding.

So, I'm no expert at analyzing forensic evidence, but the story that those people tell seems pretty reasonable to me. It all sort of fits together, and if I can't find the third cervical vertebrae in a photograph, or figure out what lobes of the brain connect this part of the head with that part of the head, I end up having to trust a guy like Humes or Boswell. I don't see anything wrong with their narrative, and they seem pretty well respected. I'll go with their story.

I wish I could inspire the loyalty that the alleged conspirators somehow have inspired. They managed to get some pretty important people to stick with some pretty serious lies, all in the service of some seriously illegal and anti-patriotic activity, which most people would be loath to engage in. I can't even get an employee to stop whining about tasks she is given. These guys can get people to kill for them, and not just knocking off enemy soldiers or suspected terrorists. These guys say, "I want that guy dead, and I want no one to be able to prove who did it, but I want them to pin it on a guy who makes peanuts for a living by filling textbook orders.....when he gets around to it."

Somehow, it all falls into place, against all odds. That's some organizational talent that they've got there.

I just don't see how they do it. My experience with responsible people in the government is that they mostly want to do the right thing. That's true today. That was true in 1963. I just don't know how I could manage to recruit a guy like James Humes to help me cover up the assassination of the President of the United States.

 

[HSienzant]

Dr. James Humes Warren Commission testimony:

Dr. PETTY: Can I go back to another interpretation which is very important to this committee? I don't really mean to belabor the point, but we need to be certain, as certain as we can be-and I'm showing you now photograph No.15, and here, to put it in the record, is the posterior hairline or margin of the hair of the late President, and there, near the midline, and just a centimeter or two above the hairline , is an area that you refer to as the in-shoot wound ?

Dr. HUMES. Yes, sir.

That is incorrectly sourced by you as from his Warren Commission testimony. It is from his HSCA testimony 14 years after the autopsy.

Here's his testimony where he clarifies the point.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm

Humes recollection does not support your case.

Warren Commission Testimony by Roy Kellerman:

Mr. KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here
Mr. SPECTER: Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN: Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER: In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.

Let's put that in context... Kellerman says the small entry wound is approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches below the massive exit wound. Here's some of what you didn't quote:
Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below.
Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below.
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct; about that, sir.

Kellerman's recollection does not support your case.

1996 AARB Deposition of John Stringer, autopsy photographer:

Q: That's going to be my next question for you. Are you able to identify the hole that the doctors identified on the night of the autopsy as being the entrance wound in the skull?
A: I think this was a piece of bone, but it was down near there - right
about in there. (Stringer is pointing out this in the BOH photo: NSFW - autopsy photo

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/03kdUB7.jpg[/qimg])

Q: You're referring to what appears to be a piece of matter or something -
A: Yes.
Q: - that is near the hairline?
A: Mm-hmm. But it was near there.
Q: And you're certain that that's where the doctors identified the entrance
wound as being; is that correct?
A: Yeah. Yeah, I would think so. That's I what I remember.
Q: I'd like to point out the spot that appears somewhat red that is near the end of the ruler, and ask you whether that was an entrance wound, or whether the doctors during the night of the autopsy identified that as an entrance wound?
A: It looks like blood. I would say it was. There was blood all over the place. But I don't think it was anything out of the ordinary. I don't think there was a hole there for the bullet wound. You would have seen the hole.

Fourteen years after the fact, his recollection is as above, correct?

1996 AARB deposition of Dr. Boswell:

Q. Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there, could you identify where the entrance wound was in the body of President Kennedy, outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you're pointing to correspond to the larger wound that is to the right of the ruler in the photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.
A. Yes.
Q. So it's the wound that comes closer to being towards the tip of the ruler towards the neck?
A. No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.
Q. You're referring to a second marking that is somewhat below--
A. Right.
Q. --the larger marking. Was the ruler covering, the ruler in the photograph covering any other wound on the back--
A. No.
Q. --that you're aware of?
A. It's just about over the vertebral bodies, the midline. There's nothing underneath it.

Boswell is saying the wound is to the right of the ruler, not at the bottom at the hairline. He specifically rules out anything close to the neck, calling it a blood clot. Boswell's recollection does not support your case.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If a subsonic bullet entered the EOP, it could have deformed and exited the throat to create the wound seen at Parkland hospital. If that happened, what happened once it exited is up to how much you can say it might've deflected.

You are changing your claim. Previously, you had only a fragment of the bullet exiting the throat, now you have the whole thing exiting. And saying your cited source (Pat Speer) is wrong.

I'm still combing through the sea of information at this point, but I've linked to patspeer.com a few times, which compiles evidence that a bullet entered the EOP and a fragment exited the throat (which was the suspicion of some people who saw the body).

That still leaves you with a magic bullet however. What happened to this bullet once it exited the throat? Did it hit Connally?

You previously claimed this might have happened at approximately Z224.

The EOP wound did not have to be made at or near the 313 shot. It could be responsible for the 224 reactions.

However, you have an issue there as well. JFK is pointing to his throat wound two seconds later with his left hand, after you have a bullet entering the back of his skull and exiting his throat.

Remember what happens to flesh when it is struck by a bullet? I provided the links a few pages back of a bullet traveling through gelatin.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tex378zgV1k
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTHo0K2Sc0g

Here's another: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dr7dpEDNNC4

Now imagine that's JFK's brain rippling as it strikes the inside of his skull. That concussive effect would have caused him to collapse immediately.

Here's an image of a man being shot in the head and notice he simply collapses. Why would JFK still be sitting upright and pointing to his throat at that point?

NSFW - Vietnam prisoner shot

[qimg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ch223f-1d84[/qimg])

Magic bullet?

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I only speculated that the red spot could have any depth if the dot in the circled area of the cranium photo matches the location of the red spot. But if you already agreed on that orientation of the open cranium photo, then the apparent EOP hole is undeniable.

Nobody is agreeing with your interpretation. We're just chasing you down your own rabbit hole.

Another way of saying this is "Accepting your claim for the sake of argument, then doesn't this imply..."

Accepting something to pursue the thought further doesn't mean the poster accepts your argument.

But if you have to go to that extent to find agreement, you're conceding you lost.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

The only mission left for the cowlickers is to make the best of their zero compelling evidence, and hope that nobody finds the sea of contradictory evidence placing the wound at the EOP. Hope no lurkers read the whole thread, or they'll be reading the same coherent answers to your questions over and over again.

Nobody here is licking any cows, or pretending to.

You gave no coherent answers to those points. Repeating your claim does not make it more true.

Assuming the 'red spot blood' is at the cowlick instead of the more reasonable interpretation that the hair is not a natural part there, but was parted by the autopsists to display the wound.

Your assumption, your burden of proof. Now, explain how you concluded that was a natural part. You never did. That is only the start of your problems with your interpretation of the evidence.

Hank

 

[traxy]

I only speculated that the red spot could have any depth if the dot in the circled area of the cranium photo matches the location of the red spot. But if you already agreed on that orientation of the open cranium photo, then the apparent EOP hole is undeniable.

What on earth are you talking about? Where have I commented on anything with regards to the open cranium photo?

And why do you allow yourself to openly speculate about bullets and fragments doing all kinds of wild and illogical things, yet inexperienced autopsy surgeons being less than certain regarding the location of a wound on a decimated skull is somehow a bridge too far?

 

[HSienzant]

I just don't know how I could manage to recruit a guy like James Humes to help me cover up the assassination of the President of the United States.

And as pointed out by Vincent Bugliosi, everyone has to fall into line. Presumably, not ONE person ever said "no way" to the conspirators. Humes must have agreed, as did Boswell and Finck. If any other pathologist was ever approached prior to these three and said no, they certainly haven't come forward to talk about it. Of course, conspiracy theorists would simply chalk that up to 'convenient deaths' by the murder squad that bats cleanup for the conspirators.

And of course, Admiral Burkley must have been in on it as well, since he suggested to Jackie Kennedy that Bethesda would be one of the two places in Washington to have the autopsy (Walter Reed Hospital being the other). He steered her to those places, of course, because there were pathologists at both standing by willing to cover-up the death of a President and frame some poor schmuck.

And the Secret Service agents who took the body from Parkland must have been in on it as well, for if they weren't, then the Dallas coroner, Earl Rose, must have also been recruited into the conspiracy.

It was good that the conspirators thought ahead and managed to enlist all these people and got their full cooperation. Sometimes I get to thinking I must be the only one not enlisted in this conspiracy.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Can you site your answers to these points, complete with reference to the evidence that establishes your interpretation is correct?

(a) If the hair was washed to remove blood and brains, why was what you called "the red blood spot" still there, if it's not a bullet wound?

(b) Why would the hair be parted there, and not at the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

(c) Why would the photo center this 'red spot' and not the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

(d) Why would the ruler be near the 'red spot' and not the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

(e) Why would the hair be washed to remove blood and brains from near the red blood spot and not be washed near the supposed EOP bullet wound entry site, if the purpose of these photos is to document the wounds?

 

[HSienzant]

No Other... I gave you the standard reference book for forensic examinations at the time. It claims no test could determine how recently a gun had been fired. It directly quotes that the tests offer no time frame. Are you able to support any of that with citations? And I would find it incredibly odd if the tests used in firearms were uniquely accurate for the time compared to any other test available in industry.

And yes. I "just made a statement", because, well.... Test firsings in a factory fire the gun. With a cartridge. Which leaves residue. So...yeah... As far as the forensics at the time were concerned, proving a gun had been fired did nt prove it had been fired at any given time.

But again, these tests were redundant. Because there was evidence of cartridges being spent and bullets being fired from that rifle, to the exclusion of all others.

Care to offer a better explanation of the evidence?

Or is an argument that there was a supposed gap in evidence, that might somehow mean something different happened, all you have?

Because REALLY, even if a test was not carried out, given the only shells and bullet fragments recovered were from that rifle, what dreaded revelation are you hoping it will prove?

And of course, let's not forget that Oswald's weapon was a military surplus weapon, left around from World War II. Presumably it was fired a few times back then as well.

Curiously, "No Other" still hasn't been able to even provide a name for this test. He could have avoided all this embarrassment of believing conspiracy books by reading the thread in its entirety (including all predecessor threads).

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

That is incorrectly sourced by you as from his Warren Commission testimony. It is from his HSCA testimony 14 years after the autopsy.

Here's his testimony where he clarifies the point.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/m_j_russ/hscahume.htm

Humes recollection does not support your case.

Misquote/wrong link.

Let's put that in context... Kellerman says the small entry wound is approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches below the massive exit wound. Here's some of what you didn't quote:
Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed.
Mr. SPECTER. All right.
Representative FORD. Above the ear and back?
Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here.
Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor?
Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him.
Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture?
Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger.
Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger.
Mr. KELLERMAN. Right.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent?
Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below.
Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below.
Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct; about that, sir.

Kellerman's recollection does not support your case.

What do you think Kellerman is describing if not the EOP wound?

Here's a drawing he did for the HSCA:

NEVER above the ears. NEVER.

Fourteen years after the fact, his recollection is as above, correct?

I believe so.

Boswell is saying the wound is to the right of the ruler, not at the bottom at the hairline. He specifically rules out anything close to the neck, calling it a blood clot. Boswell's recollection does not support your case.

Hank

No, you are distorting what he's saying and anybody who can read can see it.

 

[Axxman300]

Bolded is untrue. One nearly whole bullet was found after falling off a stretcher in Parkland Hospital. Two large fragments were found in the Presidential limousine the evening of the assassination. Three spent shells were found in the Depository at the window where numerous witnesses saw an assassin or a rifle. All six of these pieces of evidence were ballistically traceable back to the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Depository.

No bullet fragments matchable to that weapon were ever recovered from either body. A few small fragments of lead were taken from JFK's head at autopsy, and another few from Connally's injured wrist. But none of these were of sufficient size or had any lands or grooves that could be matched to any weapon.

Hank

True, but the bullet fragments weren't Connally's body prior to Elm Street, and the only shots fired came from Oswald on the 6th floor.

Also makes me wonder why the Carcano round never caught on in a big way with the damage it does.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Here's a drawing he did for the HSCA:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/d4DLAzg.jpg[/qimg]

NEVER above the ears. NEVER.

How accurate would you claim the other features on that drawing are?

 

[HSienzant]

What do you think Kellerman is describing if not the EOP wound?

Here's a drawing he did for the HSCA:

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/d4DLAzg.jpg[/qimg]

NEVER above the ears. NEVER.

He has it at the level of the bottom of the ears. Do you believe the EOP is that low? Do you believe the autopsists put it that low?

Also, he has the large head exit wound in the wrong place, doesn't he? Was it isolated to the back left side of the head as he drew it?

No, you are distorting what he's saying and anybody who can read can see it.

No, he says the wound is higher and the lower area is a blood clot.

Q. I'd like you to notice in that photograph- -and, again, --that there is a little white marking--I don't know what it is--that is very near the hairline.
A. Here?
Q. Yes. Do you see that either matter of tissue or something--
A. I have seen that and worried and wondered about it for all these many years. Some people-- many people have alleged that to be the wound. I don't think it is [the wound].
. . .
Q. Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there, could you identify where the entrance wound was in the body of President Kennedy, outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you're pointing to correspond to the larger wound that is to the right of the ruler in the photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.
A. Yes.
Q. So it's the wound that comes closer to being towards the tip of the ruler towards the neck?
A. No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.
Q. You're referring to a second marking that is somewhat below--
A. Right.

And then there's this, which you didn't quote:
Q. Holding aside the question of how someone might have done that [altered the autopsy photos], is there anything in that photograph that appears to be different from how you remember seeing it on the night of the autopsy?
A. No, and I've seen it many times since. I've seen this photograph many times since then, and it's--I think this was the photograph that was taken there. It's just that my memory of this apparent lesion--
Q. Down at the bottom towards the hairline?
A. --was in a different location. But everything else fits.
. . .
Q. Okay. Now, as you're looking at the photograph of President Kennedy, if you're looking at it as if President Kennedy were standing erect-- of course, he's lying on his side, but we'll look at it from the perspective of the ruler being vertical, pointing upwards, and the head pointing upwards. Could you identify where on the photograph the wound of entrance was located, please--the wound of entrance in the skull?
A. This is the one that I have--photograph that I have had a dilemma about for so many years. This is the white spot that you showed me in the other photograph.
Q. Yes, down near the hairline.
A. Yeah. And that is not where I thought that the wound of entrance was.

He's saying his recollection is that the wound wasn't that low. He clearly said the lower item is a blood clot. He clearly indicates he doesn't think that's the wound. I don't know how much plainer he could be.

Hank

 

[MicahJava]

He has it at the level of the bottom of the ears. Do you believe the EOP is that low? Do you believe the autopsists put it that low?

Also, he has the large head exit wound in the wrong place, doesn't he? Was it isolated to the back left side of the head as he drew it?

The point is that nobody puts the small wound above the level of the ears.

No, he says the wound is higher and the lower area is a blood clot.

Q. I'd like you to notice in that photograph- -and, again, --that there is a little white marking--I don't know what it is--that is very near the hairline.
A. Here?
Q. Yes. Do you see that either matter of tissue or something--
A. I have seen that and worried and wondered about it for all these many years. Some people-- many people have alleged that to be the wound. I don't think it is [the wound].
. . .
Q. Okay. Now, if we could go to the other wounds there, could you identify where the entrance wound was in the body of President Kennedy, outside of the scalp now? Does that wound that you're pointing to correspond to the larger wound that is to the right of the ruler in the photograph? Again, assuming President Kennedy were standing erect.
A. Yes.
Q. So it's the wound that comes closer to being towards the tip of the ruler towards the neck?
A. No, this is blood clot down here. This is not wound.
Q. You're referring to a second marking that is somewhat below--
A. Right.

And then there's this, which you didn't quote:
Q. Holding aside the question of how someone might have done that [altered the autopsy photos], is there anything in that photograph that appears to be different from how you remember seeing it on the night of the autopsy?
A. No, and I've seen it many times since. I've seen this photograph many times since then, and it's--I think this was the photograph that was taken there. It's just that my memory of this apparent lesion--
Q. Down at the bottom towards the hairline?
A. --was in a different location. But everything else fits.
. . .
Q. Okay. Now, as you're looking at the photograph of President Kennedy, if you're looking at it as if President Kennedy were standing erect-- of course, he's lying on his side, but we'll look at it from the perspective of the ruler being vertical, pointing upwards, and the head pointing upwards. Could you identify where on the photograph the wound of entrance was located, please--the wound of entrance in the skull?
A. This is the one that I have--photograph that I have had a dilemma about for so many years. This is the white spot that you showed me in the other photograph.
Q. Yes, down near the hairline.
A. Yeah. And that is not where I thought that the wound of entrance was.

He's saying his recollection is that the wound wasn't that low. He clearly said the lower item is a blood clot. He clearly indicates he doesn't think that's the wound. I don't know how much plainer he could be.

Hank

Boswell is pointing out this bit: NSFW - autopsy photo

Both Boswell and Humes have said at one point that the small wound could be by that white spot, because all they had to see were the BOH photos. Boswell is probably correct in saying that the wound wasn't that low, but he also explicitly says that the red spot isn't the wound and it's too high.