The JFK Back Wound

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat never ceases to amaze me. He seems to persist in the naive believe that politics and pressure

played no role in the case. Egad! Just consider what Nurse Bell said about Malcolm Perry having

been kept up all night while they tried to badger him into changing his mind about the neck wound

as a wound of entry! He ignores the best evidence--the earlier testimony--for less reliable evidence

WITH NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION. Using his methodology, we should simply accept the latest

version of the "lone gunman" theory because it is the most recent! His approach is dumbfounding!

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

Edited March 1, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Jim, I must ask again: if you're gonna go on and on about Robert Livingston, might you also make the videos of him speaking--using HIS words--available to others?

I'm currently inclined to dismiss the poor man's claims, not just because they run counter to my current impressions, but because those pushing his story--chiefly, YOU--have been sitting on his filmed interviews and presentations for two decades now.

If he's as credible as you claim, you should make the tapes available. If he's not, well, then you should stop citing him in your posts.

It's on a VHS tape I have somewhere. I will see if I can find it. But to suggest that Robert B. Livingston,

a world-authority on the human brain (whose credentials appeaf in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

was a "poor man" is despicable. I am reporting personal conversations with him. There is no alternative

explanation for the extruding cerebellum. I know you LOVE TO DISMISS everyone who was competent

and who was there, which is your demented methodology, but some of us follow logic and evidence. If

the tentorium HAD NOT BEEN RUPTURED, the the cerebellum COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRUDING:

And to suggest that these thoroughly competent physicians, who were well-experience with gun shot

victims, could not tell the difference between cerebellar and cerebral tissue is COMPLETELY INSANE.

And the location of the wound seen in Frame 374 is consistent with the diagrams of Charles Crenshaw

and of Robert McClelland, which Pat Speer wants to relocate on the RIGHT SIDE OF THE HEAD, which

is a blunder he commits because he ignores that JFK's face is FURTHER TO THE LEFT than he prefers:

So who's views are more defensible? Those of physicians WHO WERE THERE and of a frame that

actually shows the wound or of someone WHO SYSTEMATICALLY DISTORTS AND MISREPRESENTS

THE EVIDENCE to support his idiosyncratic theory of the wound ON THE RIGHT-SIDE OF THE HEAD?

Edited March 1, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

My responses in BOLD.

Jim, I must ask again: if you're gonna go on and on about Robert Livingston, might you also make the videos of him speaking--using HIS words--available to others?

I'm currently inclined to dismiss the poor man's claims, not just because they run counter to my current impressions, but because those pushing his story--chiefly, YOU--have been sitting on his filmed interviews and presentations for two decades now.

If he's as credible as you claim, you should make the tapes available. If he's not, well, then you should stop citing him in your posts.

It's on a VHS tape I have somewhere. I will see if I can find it. But to suggest that Robert B. Livingston,

a world-authority on the human brain (whose credentials appeaf in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998),

was a "poor man" is despicable.

When I wrote "poor man" I was not referring to Livingstone's achievements in life, but to his condition at the time of his testimony in the Crenshaw case--that of an old man saying he'd come forward at the last minute to 'save the world.'"

I am reporting personal conversations with him. There is no alternative

explanation for the extruding cerebellum.

Wrong. Livingstone claimed in YOUR book that it was possible to mistake macerated cerebrum for cerebellum. He just chose to believe the Parkland doctors wouldn't make such a mistake. The Parkland doctors themselves--with the apparent exception of McClelland--chose to differ. And who the heck are we to tell them they were incapable of making such a mistake?

I know you LOVE TO DISMISS everyone who was competent

and who was there,

Livingstone wasn't "there."

which is your demented methodology, but some of us follow logic and evidence. If

the tentorium HAD NOT BEEN RUPTURED, the the cerebellum COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXTRUDING:

And you taught critical thinking? You assume something that has been disputed by those who were "there", and then relish in a wild theory built upon this disputed fact, and then attack ME for not respecting those who were "there"? Garrison nailed it: black is white and white is black.

And to suggest that these thoroughly competent physicians, who were well-experience with gun shot

victims, could not tell the difference between cerebellar and cerebral tissue is COMPLETELY INSANE.

Tell that to THEM, if any of THEM are still living.

And the location of the wound seen in Frame 374

There is no such wound, just your belief you see a wound.

is consistent with the diagrams of Charles Crenshaw

and of Robert McClelland,

I assume you mean the diagram not created by McClelland which he disavowed when interviewed by the ARRB?

which Pat Speer wants to relocate on the RIGHT SIDE OF THE HEAD,

What silliness. I'm not relocating anything. I'm just reporting the fact that the wound seen by the witnesses to the shooting was in the location of the wound shown in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos, and that the very witnesses you pretend saw a wound on the far back of the head, also support that the wound was on the right side of the head, only further back than in the photos.

which

is a blunder he commits because he ignores that JFK's face is FURTHER TO THE LEFT than he prefers:

I have no idea what you are talking about. At frame 374 we are looking at the back of JFK's head, with his right ear visible on the right side, just above his shoulder. This means the light section behind his ear is on the back of his head, and NOT on the side of his head, above his ear, where Mantik found a "white spot".

So who's views are more defensible? Those of physicians WHO WERE THERE

Exactly my point. You have been dismissing the views of those WHO WERE THERE for decades now.

and of a frame that

actually shows the wound

According to you and virtually no one else.

or of someone WHO SYSTEMATICALLY DISTORTS AND MISREPRESENTS

THE EVIDENCE

What hogwash. I received an award from Lancer last year for my attempts at providing information and evidence without charge. Now compare this to others--who try to tie every post back to a book they've got for sale.

to support his idiosyncratic theory of the wound ON THE RIGHT-SIDE OF THE HEAD?

If believing that something is actually where it is in the photos, films and x-rays is "idiosyncratic," so be it. But there are millions of people just as "idiosyncratic."

[Pat Speer]

My responses in BOLD.

Pat never ceases to amaze me. He seems to persist in the naive believe that politics and pressure

played no role in the case.

If you'd actually READ anything I've written beyond my responses to your nonsense, you'd know that I have devoted a great deal of effort at proving the autopsy doctors lied under pressure from Lyndon Johnson's "Justice Department."

Egad! Just consider what Nurse Bell said about Malcolm Perry having

been kept up all night while they tried to badger him into changing his mind about the neck wound

as a wound of entry! He ignores the best evidence--the earlier testimony--for less reliable evidence

WITH NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION.

What nonsense. It is you who reject the earliest statements--such as William Newman and Zapruder's statements on TV, and McClelland's initial report--in order to prop up your pet theory.

Using his methodology, we should simply accept the latest

version of the "lone gunman" theory because it is the most recent! His approach is dumbfounding!

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

Why not NEITHER? Why not accept the full spectrum of statements of those who saw Kennedy's body for more than the few seconds it was seen by Crenshaw, or who at least recorded their thoughts before 25 years or so afterward?

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

If you retain nothing else, Jim, from your time on this forum, let it be this: McClelland did not make that drawing and he disavowed its accuracy!

[Mark Wengler]

My responses in BOLD.

Pat never ceases to amaze me. He seems to persist in the naive believe that politics and pressure

played no role in the case.

If you'd actually READ anything I've written beyond my responses to your nonsense, you'd know that I have devoted a great deal of effort at proving the autopsy doctors lied under pressure from Lyndon Johnson's "Justice Department."

Egad! Just consider what Nurse Bell said about Malcolm Perry having

been kept up all night while they tried to badger him into changing his mind about the neck wound

as a wound of entry! He ignores the best evidence--the earlier testimony--for less reliable evidence

WITH NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION.

What nonsense. It is you who reject the earliest statements--such as William Newman and Zapruder's statements on TV, and McClelland's initial report--in order to prop up your pet theory.

Using his methodology, we should simply accept the latest

version of the "lone gunman" theory because it is the most recent! His approach is dumbfounding!

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

Why not NEITHER? Why not accept the full spectrum of statements of those who saw Kennedy's body for more than the few seconds it was seen by Crenshaw, or who at least recorded their thoughts before 25 years or so afterward?

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

If you retain nothing else, Jim, from your time on this forum, let it be this: McClelland did not make that drawing and he disavowed its accuracy!

Pat that is the very drawing i sent Dr. McClelland and asked him this this what he saw that day and he replied yes.

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Thanks, Mark. Pat is so infatuated with his own perverse views of this that he is completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees,

even when the evidence is simply overwhelming, as it is in this case. He seems to think that JFK's head was rotated further to

the right when Frame 374 was taken than is consistent with everyone else's observations. Observe that, if it was rotated just a

bit further to the left--if his face was facing a few degrees further to the left--then all the evidence converges. So what is more

likely? That all the witnesses, including Charles Crenshaw and Robert McClelland, were wrong or that Pat is a few degrees off?

My responses in BOLD.

Pat never ceases to amaze me. He seems to persist in the naive believe that politics and pressure

played no role in the case.

If you'd actually READ anything I've written beyond my responses to your nonsense, you'd know that I have devoted a great deal of effort at proving the autopsy doctors lied under pressure from Lyndon Johnson's "Justice Department."

Egad! Just consider what Nurse Bell said about Malcolm Perry having

been kept up all night while they tried to badger him into changing his mind about the neck wound

as a wound of entry! He ignores the best evidence--the earlier testimony--for less reliable evidence

WITH NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION.

What nonsense. It is you who reject the earliest statements--such as William Newman and Zapruder's statements on TV, and McClelland's initial report--in order to prop up your pet theory.

Using his methodology, we should simply accept the latest

version of the "lone gunman" theory because it is the most recent! His approach is dumbfounding!

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

Why not NEITHER? Why not accept the full spectrum of statements of those who saw Kennedy's body for more than the few seconds it was seen by Crenshaw, or who at least recorded their thoughts before 25 years or so afterward?

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

If you retain nothing else, Jim, from your time on this forum, let it be this: McClelland did not make that drawing and he disavowed its accuracy!

Pat that is the very drawing i sent Dr. McClelland and asked him this this what he saw that day and he replied yes.

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

My responses in BOLD.

Pat never ceases to amaze me. He seems to persist in the naive believe that politics and pressure

played no role in the case.

If you'd actually READ anything I've written beyond my responses to your nonsense, you'd know that I have devoted a great deal of effort at proving the autopsy doctors lied under pressure from Lyndon Johnson's "Justice Department."

Egad! Just consider what Nurse Bell said about Malcolm Perry having

been kept up all night while they tried to badger him into changing his mind about the neck wound

as a wound of entry! He ignores the best evidence--the earlier testimony--for less reliable evidence

WITH NO RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION.

What nonsense. It is you who reject the earliest statements--such as William Newman and Zapruder's statements on TV, and McClelland's initial report--in order to prop up your pet theory.

Using his methodology, we should simply accept the latest

version of the "lone gunman" theory because it is the most recent! His approach is dumbfounding!

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

Why not NEITHER? Why not accept the full spectrum of statements of those who saw Kennedy's body for more than the few seconds it was seen by Crenshaw, or who at least recorded their thoughts before 25 years or so afterward?

I wonder who's view about this wound we should accept? The physician who was there or Pat Speer?

If you retain nothing else, Jim, from your time on this forum, let it be this: McClelland did not make that drawing and he disavowed its accuracy!

Pat that is the very drawing i sent Dr. McClelland and asked him this this what he saw that day and he replied yes.

McClelland is erratic, at best. He's been telling researchers he drew the "McClelland" drawing for 20 years or so, when Thompson swears he had nothing to do with it.

Here's what McClelland told the ARRB:

DR. PERRY: Who is Josiah Thompson?

DR. McCLELLAND: He's a private investigator now, but he was a professor of history at this time -

MR. GUNN: Professor of philosophy at -

DR. McCLELLAND: --somewhere in Pennsylvania.

MR. GUNN: --Temple or Villanova. I'm forgetting which. There's a picture on Page 707 of Exhibit 264. I'd like to ask those of you who saw the head wound if this corresponds to what you observed or if any of you has -- based upon your own observations, it seems inaccurate in any way. Obviously, it's a drawing and so there will be a problem with it, but just your observations on it for those of you who observed the head wound. Does this look like what you saw in Parkland Memorial Hospital?

DR. McCLELLAND: I told him when he was asking me to describe that picture from which you reviewed this that the first thing I saw when I came in the room in addition to that attempted agonal respiration was the edge of the parietal bone was sticking up through the scalp. And that's not on this picture, but what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, it's not the entire wound. It's simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at that time and still do.

MR. GUNN: Does any of you have any--

DR. PETERS: I think that pretty much corresponds to what I said, occipitoparietal. It looks a little further down in the occiput in this picture, I think, but it was pretty far posteriorly because you had to be able to see the cerebellum --

DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah.

DR. PETERS: --and -

DR. McCLELLAND: Yeah, I agree, Paul. I think that this is a little bit lower or it doesn't indicate that there was still a - you know, maybe a shelf of bone left below that --

So...McClelland told the ARRB that "his" drawing only showed the back half of the wound, and that that back half was lower on the back of the head than he remembered it. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement. In fact, it's pretty much par for the course. When The Boston Globe talked to 14 of the Parkland witnesses in 1981, they found that 8 of them felt their recollection of the head wound was in conflict with the autopsy photos. Well, that is indeed interesting. I won't pretend it isn't. But what most people don't know--because they've never been told--is that 9 of these witnesses claimed the McClelland drawing was inaccurate, with a hole much lower on the back of the head than they remembered.

So why do so many conspiracy theorists continue to believe the Parkland witnesses endorsed this drawing? Because they've been lied to, that's why.

Edited March 5, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

DR. McCLELLAND: . . .what we were trying to depict here was what the posterior part of the wound looked like. In other words, it's not the entire wound. It's simply the posterior part of it and what I thought of as the critical part of it at that time and still do.

MR. GUNN: Does any of you have any--

DR. PETERS: I think that pretty much corresponds to what I said, occipitoparietal. It looks a little further down in the occiput in this picture, I think, but it was pretty far posteriorly because you had to be able to see the cerebellum --

I don't like to think of you as a "crackpot", but your obsession with moving the wound from the back of his head and slightly to the right has

become preposterous. We know there was also a skull flap, which the mortician described and which are visible in the HSCA photo and sketch.

Now correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me you have made it your life's work to prove that the Parkland and the Bethesda descriptions

of the wound were wrong and that the HSCA reconstruction--which most of us regard as completely indefensible--was correct. Am I right?

And this is why you have to dispute the eyewitnesses, Mantik's X-ray studies, and the observations of cerebellum from Parkland, correct?

Do you agree or dispute Doug Horne's discovery that Humes had taken a cranial saw to the wound and enlarged it from view one to two?

You really need to get a grip on yourself. Each time you return to this issue, your position becomes LESS AND LESS DEFENSIBLE. I have an

explanation for your confusion, which I have presented above: that, in relation to Frame 374, you believe that JFK's head was facing more to

the right, which has the effect of moving the wound toward the right side of his head. That is all that's required to bring all the information we

have--from the Parkland physicians, the other eyewitnesses, Mantik's study of the X-rays and Frame 374--into alignment. You should let it go.

Edited March 5, 2013 by James H. Fetzer

[Randy Gunter]

It's very amusing to see all these alpha egos in a tug-of-war over so many personal opinion calculations and conclusions over ONE altered photo. Dr. David Mantik proved long ago that the radiological photos were fake, and not those of JFK's true skull.

Why would any researcher assume that the other autopsy photos are any different? US Government hijacked and controlled autopsy, US Government controlled photos, and US Government controlled cover-up. What more do you need to know?

Realize until the real autopsy photos are found, which will be never, since LCDR Pitzer was executed for them, this always has been and always will be an exercise in futility.

[Micah Mileto]

The bright version of one of the autopsy photographs provided by Robert Groden shows why the throat wound is almost certainly higher than the throat wound. The left-profile optical illusion stuff is BS.

From this: http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/Groden-iv.jpeg

In this version, you can see the trach incision.

 

Notice the zigzag-shaped mark on the right shoulder, and where it is in relation to the trach incision. This zigzag mark is apparent on the back wound photo.

 

Edited June 11, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Mathias Baumann]

The mere fact that experts still cannot agree on some of the most basic questions shows that we cannot trust the autopsy photos.

This articles proves my point: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm

They were always meant to obfuscate, not elucidate. That's why there's no proper scale and no annotation. There should be no question at all about the exact position of the back wound - and yet there is.

Is this in itself proof of conspiracy? I'm not sure. But it certainly shows that those who tampered with the photographs certainly believed in one.

I think the "lone gunmen" are right in one regard: there certainly was no omnipotent and omniscient group of conspirators. The world doesn't work that way, it's much more complex and multi-layered.

I think we'll never understand the assassination as long as we keep believing that everything (seemingly) connected to it must be a piece of one and the same puzzle. I think that is the reason we are still not seeing a coherent picture.

For instance: I do not believe that Oswald was being "groomed" to be the patsy before about mid-October 1963. (That was when he got the job at the Book Depository.)

Here's my personal hypothesis (I won't call it a "theory" yet):

Oswald certainly was an interesting person: a highly intelligent former radar operator with access to top-secret military hardware, an avowed Marxist who'd gone to Russia and was married to a Russian wife, acquainted with Czarist aristocrats, someone who could be talked into commiting political murder (Walker)...

He must've attracted the attention of every single intelligence agency in the hemisphere. (And in fact he DID.) And I think they used him or tried to use him for different purposes. Guy Banister might've wanted someone to spy on left-wing students at Tulane University. The CIA saw the opportunity to set Oswald up and smear the FPCC by staging a radio debate with him. The exile Cubans on the other hand maybe thought they could use him for an assassination attempt on Castro and tried to get him into Cuba. The CIA again tried to find out what Oswald was up to and impersonated him in Mexico City.

After the assassination right wingers in the Dallas Police saw their chance to pin the blame on Castro and so they faked evidence to prove Oswald did it alone. Ruby's killing of Oswald again might simply have been revenge for the Tippit murder.

The cover-up was necessary when Johnson realized that the discovery of communist conspiracy might unravel world war III. That might explain all the discrepancies in the official record of the autopsy. It was an impromptu act and not pre-planned. I think that's why a lot of aspects just don't make sense and never will.

Now who were the actual conspirators? Certainly people who realized that when Oswald got the job at the Book Depository the opportunity of a lifetime had come, because they had the perfect patsy in the perfect place. All they had to do was to convince Oswald to take a rifle to work and point it out the window. Someone who knew that Oswald could easily be coaxed into doing something as stupid as that. Someone who knew everything about his background. Someone who had access to all his files. Or just someone who knew him personally very well? I don't know!

 

Edited June 12, 2017 by Mathias Baumann

[Micah Mileto]

On 3/4/2013 at 4:21 PM, Mark Wengler said:

Pat that is the very drawing i sent Dr. McClelland and asked him this this what he saw that day and he replied yes.

Do you have a copy of that letter to show?