Jump to content
The Education Forum

WECHT CONFERENCE WAS OUTSTANDING!


Recommended Posts

I hope someone is planning to post a video of this conference on the internet.

My understanding is that no video set for the conference will be available, as they still had plenty of left-overs from the last one. I was told by Ben Wecht, however, that at some point they would make DVDs of individual presentations available.

They certainly recorded every presentation with the best equipment and have a very comprehensive record of it, and I know that it will someday be available to the public, certainly before the official government records are released.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

President Kennedy WAS HIT IN THE HEAD after Z313.

As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it.

I don't think this is accurate, Bill. A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's actual statements over the years, and I suspect you've been exposed to some of it. Robinson, to my recollection, said he saw a tiny wound on Kennedy which he thought was created either by bullet shrapnel from the outside, or a small bullet or bone fragment coming from the inside. This divot was not as large as a pencil, and was not a through and through hole through the skull, as one would expect from a bullet wound. Robinson was, in fact, quite dismissive of it, and thought he put a bit of wax in it, if anything.

stare%20of%20death%20photo.gif

Is that the wound Robinson is referring to, in the "notched" hairline area above and a little to the left of JFK's anatomical right eye?

--Tommy :sun

Pat Speer Replied:

No, I don't think so. He said it was at the temple. [...]

Pat,

Although not exactly "at the temple," the wound in the photograph looks pretty darn close to it.

Where would you say the wound is? (I'm still talking about the small dark circle in the "notched" part of JFK's hairline.)

In the "forehead?"

In a specific part of the skull with a Latin name that a mortician wouldn't necessarily know?

Or, perhaps, in the general "temple" area?

Sincerely,

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If JFK was shot from the back rear and the exit wound was in the front - then how come his handsome face wasn't destroyed and there was no distortion to the part of his face that should have been blown out if he had indeed been killed by a bullet from the rear?

I ask this to David V P or anyone who believes that the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest was the origin of the head shot, which appears to originate from the right front.

The bullet very likely changed course slightly after entering JFK's head. Which, IMO, is to be expected after striking such a hard object head-on at full speed. Plus, the angle at which Kennedy's head was tilted and angled at Z313 probably played a part in it too.

Plus, just one look at the Z-Film and the autopsy photos tells us where the large wound was located--and the photos also tell us that JFK's face is intact after the shot passed through his head. You don't think the Z-Film AND the photos are fakes, do you Bill?

What's the point of even having autopsy photos and X-rays if nobody is going to believe what they show? (And virtually no conspiracist believes anything they show.)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If JFK was shot from the back rear and the exit wound was in the front - then how come his handsome face wasn't destroyed and there was no distortion to the part of his face that should have been blown out if he had indeed been killed by a bullet from the rear?

I ask this to David V P or anyone who believes that the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest was the origin of the head shot, which appears to originate from the right front.

The bullet very likely changed course slightly after entering JFK's head. Which, IMO, is to be expected after striking such a hard object head-on at full speed. Plus, the angle at which Kennedy's head was tilted and angled at Z313 probably played a part in it too.

Plus, just one look at the Z-Film and the autopsy photos tells us where the large wound was located--and the photos also tell us that JFK's face is intact after the shot passed through his head. You don't think the Z-Film AND the photos are fakes, do you Bill?

What's the point of even having autopsy photos and X-rays if nobody is going to believe what they show? (And virtually no conspiracist believes anything they show.)

No David, i don't believe all the photos and x-rays are faked, I do believe that the Parkland doctors and SS agent Hill and Mrs. JFK when they say there was a huge gaping hole the size of a grapefruit in the back of JFK's head and the Harper fragment found on the street came from that part of the head - and that we could clearly see the entrance wound to the head if they would have done a standard forensic autopsy procedure and shave all the hair from the head so the wounds could have been clearly seen - a regular procedure that every mortician I have ever met told me is routinely done - but wasn't done for the autopsy of the President of the United States.

The only real option today is for the body to be exhumed and subjected to a proper, forensic autopsy with the best and most sophisticated equipment - x-rays, MRIs, photos from every angle and the proper probing of the wounds to determine if the single-bullet-theory is correct, and the proper examination of the head wounds to determine the exact beveling of the bones that indicate entrance-exit.

If the victim was anyone other than the president of the USA, any suspicious death would require the local DA and medical examiner to exhume the body and have it subjected to a proper forensic autopsy the purpose of which would be to create new photos and x-rays and MRIs and other tests, the provenance of which would be maintained in order to be introduced into a court of law - at either grand jury or trial.

None of the existing autopsy photos or x-rays have a provenance that would be accepted by any court of law, so new ones would have to be obtained, and their provenance maintained for the court.

Whether JFK was shot by the left and the rear or the right and the front, the MO of the assassination was that of a covert intelligence operation, and the bullets came from the Pentagon.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No David, I don't believe all the photos and x-rays are faked...

Then you can't possibly believe President Kennedy had a great-big hole in the back of his head....can you? It's really that simple.

Either these pictures are depicting the true nature of JFK's head wounds after his death....or they aren't. And you just said you don't think these are fakes. So, where does that leave you?

JFK_Autopsy_Photo_1.jpg00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW, while there has been little headway in much of the case, some baby steps were apparent at the conference. When, in 2004, I went to the Lancer Conference and told people I thought the explosion in frame 313 came as a result of a bullet striking the skull at a tangent, just as claimed by Dr. William Kemp Clark, I was pretty much all alone. Now, if I've read them right, Tink Thompson and Robert Groden also believe this is a tangential strike, albeit from the front, and Sherry Fiester seems open to the idea.

In other words, some of the more prominent CTs are gradually coming round to my position there was no small entrance hole by Kennedy's right temple.

I missed Wecht's presentation, but he seemed open to Tink and Groden's new theory, and am pretty sure neither Mantik nor Aguilar discussed this never-seen (except possibly by Robinson) but long presumed entrance by the temple. So yeah, if I'm counting right, that means there were 7 presentations on the medical evidence, none of which discussed an entrance wound by Kennedy's temple.

This has only occurred to me in retrospect, of course, so it's possible one or more of the presenters mentioned it in passing. But I sure do remember hearing the word "tangential" a lot.

Baby steps.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No David, i don't believe all the photos and x-rays are faked, I do believe that the Parkland doctors and SS agent Hill and Mrs. JFK when they say there was a huge gaping hole the size of a grapefruit in the back of JFK's head and the Harper fragment found on the street came from that part of the head - and that we could clearly see the entrance wound to the head if they would have done a standard forensic autopsy procedure and shave all the hair from the head so the wounds could have been clearly seen - a regular procedure that every mortician I have ever met told me is routinely done - but wasn't done for the autopsy of the President of the United States.

You're right about the hair, Bill, but wrong, IMO, if you think this is suspicious. They were told Kennedy was gonna have an open casket funeral, and wanted him to look as natural as possible.

As far as the highlighted section above...this is why I went to Pittsburgh. The Harper fragment--if it was occipital--derived from an area at and below the level of Kennedy's ears, when the Parkland witnesses with any credibility thought the wound was at the TOP of the back of Kennedy's head, above his ears. That we should think the Harper fragment occipital because these witnesses thought the wound was on the back of the head thereby makes no sense. We can't have it both ways. Either the Parkland witnesses, on average, are to be trusted--in which case the Harper fragment is not occipital--or the doctors taking a quick look at the Harper fragment (after reading that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head)--and claiming the fragment was occipital, are to be trusted--in which case the Parkland witnesses are wrong.

We made a little progress in this area in Pittsburgh. David Mantik admitted that the white spot he's observed on the x-rays (which Jim Douglass and James Fetzer, among others, claim covers up the hole where the Harper fragment once lay at the back of the head) has NOTHING to do with the Harper fragment, and is inches away from where he (Mantik) believes it (the Harper fragment) once resided.

Baby steps.

P.S. Jackie told Teddy White and Bill Manchester, in separate interviews, that the head wound was at the top of the head, not back of the head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If JFK was shot from the back rear and the exit wound was in the front - then how come his handsome face wasn't destroyed and there was no distortion to the part of his face that should have been blown out if he had indeed been killed by a bullet from the rear?

I ask this to David V P or anyone who believes that the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest was the origin of the head shot, which appears to originate from the right front.

The bullet very likely changed course slightly after entering JFK's head. Which, IMO, is to be expected after striking such a hard object head-on at full speed. Plus, the angle at which Kennedy's head was tilted and angled at Z313 probably played a part in it too.

Plus, just one look at the Z-Film and the autopsy photos tells us where the large wound was located--and the photos also tell us that JFK's face is intact after the shot passed through his head. You don't think the Z-Film AND the photos are fakes, do you Bill?

What's the point of even having autopsy photos and X-rays if nobody is going to believe what they show? (And virtually no conspiracist believes anything they show.)

Can you show us what you mean by slightly? The trajectory of the fatal bullet, if it entered at the cowlick as you claim, would tear off the back and top of Kennedy's head. The HSCA trajectory analyst was only able to make sense of this--and have the bullet pass some distance in the skull before exploding from the right temple area--by pretending Kennedy was sitting nearly upright in the car when struck in the head. This is demonstrated below. (And yes, this is a slide I showed in Pittsburgh).

forwardlean.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I found the Wecht Conference as a whole exceptional.

Dr. Robert N. McClelland, M.D., was very compelling and credible about what he saw at Parkland from just feet away. Dan Hardway, Esq. and Robert K. Tanenbaum, J.D. gave stunning presentations on how their HSCA street level investigations were stymied and stonewalled at every turn by the very government agencies they were legally charged to examine.

Jeff Morley, David Talbot, Jim Lesar, Esq., Joan Mellen, Larry Sabato, and others gave high quality and useful talks on JFK's history, legacy, and too many still classified files, along with how to locate and demand them. Morley's myth shattering and NARA search techniques, and Talbot's lively preview of his upcoming Allen Dulles bio The Devil's Chessboard were highlights. Russ Baker spoke potently about the media.

I missed Bill Kelly's presentation on the Air Force One tapes, but I had the pleasure of meeting Bill in person and will catch his work on the streaming video which will be made available.

Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, M.D., J.D. and Oliver Stone were erudite, fiery, and very witty.

The speaker order needed help, including more overview and historical context the first two days, when more students were present. There was esoteric and detailed forensics which undoubtedly lost some.

By far the most interesting and thoughtful continuing education courses I've ever taken.

-- Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat

I have read the original notes on the Tom Robinson interview and I do not understand what you mean by "A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's statements over the years". Mr. Robinson quite clearly stated in his interview that the hole in JFK's temple was approximately 1/4" in diameter. Last time I checked, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also approximately 1/4" in diameter.

If it was not a through and through hole, why would Mr. Robinson so clearly state it was an exit wound from inside the skull? He also tells a rather confusing story in which an FBI agent present at the autopsy, claiming to be a ballistics expert, told Mr. Robinson the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head was an entry wound and the small 1/4" wound in the temple was an exit wound. Utter nonsense, of course, as, if anything, the reverse ould be true. What surprises me is that Mr. Robinson seems to accept this information from the FBI "ballistics expert" as Gospel. Surely, a man in his trade would have encountered through and through bullet wounds before, and would know that exit wounds tend to be much larger.

From patspeer.com:

Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing.

Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed.


PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?
ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?
ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.
PURDY: On his right side?
ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.
PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?
ROBINSON: Yes.
PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?
ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.
PURDY: Approximately what size?
ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.
PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?
ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When then asked if that was the only place he thought a bullet could have exited, he repeated "It was no bullet. It was a fragment or a piece of the bone." When then asked yet again--for once and for all--what he thought caused the wound, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel.
This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round so many pretend it is, nor a bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

So why pretend otherwise?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat

Have you ever seen an entrance wound made by a 6.5mm (.257 calibre) bullet?

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If JFK was shot from the back rear and the exit wound was in the front - then how come his handsome face wasn't destroyed and there was no distortion to the part of his face that should have been blown out if he had indeed been killed by a bullet from the rear?

I ask this to David V P or anyone who believes that the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest was the origin of the head shot, which appears to originate from the right front.

The bullet very likely changed course slightly after entering JFK's head. Which, IMO, is to be expected after striking such a hard object head-on at full speed. Plus, the angle at which Kennedy's head was tilted and angled at Z313 probably played a part in it too.

Plus, just one look at the Z-Film and the autopsy photos tells us where the large wound was located--and the photos also tell us that JFK's face is intact after the shot passed through his head. You don't think the Z-Film AND the photos are fakes, do you Bill?

What's the point of even having autopsy photos and X-rays if nobody is going to believe what they show? (And virtually no conspiracist believes anything they show.)

No David, i don't believe all the photos and x-rays are faked, I do believe that the Parkland doctors and SS agent Hill and Mrs. JFK when they say there was a huge gaping hole the size of a grapefruit in the back of JFK's head and the Harper fragment found on the street came from that part of the head - and that we could clearly see the entrance wound to the head if they would have done a standard forensic autopsy procedure and shave all the hair from the head so the wounds could have been clearly seen - a regular procedure that every mortician I have ever met told me is routinely done - but wasn't done for the autopsy of the President of the United States.

The only real option today is for the body to be exhumed and subjected to a proper, forensic autopsy with the best and most sophisticated equipment - x-rays, MRIs, photos from every angle and the proper probing of the wounds to determine if the single-bullet-theory is correct, and the proper examination of the head wounds to determine the exact beveling of the bones that indicate entrance-exit.

If the victim was anyone other than the president of the USA, any suspicious death would require the local DA and medical examiner to exhume the body and have it subjected to a proper forensic autopsy the purpose of which would be to create new photos and x-rays and MRIs and other tests, the provenance of which would be maintained in order to be introduced into a court of law - at either grand jury or trial.

None of the existing autopsy photos or x-rays have a provenance that would be accepted by any court of law, so new ones would have to be obtained, and their provenance maintained for the court.

Whether JFK was shot by the left and the rear or the right and the front, the MO of the assassination was that of a covert intelligence operation, and the bullets came from the Pentagon.

BK

Bill, during the course of JFK's autopsy certain procedures and certain documents were properly executed.

We have the verified face sheet, the verified death certificate, the FBI report on the autopsy.

We also have the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors re throat entrance wound.

When combined with the physical evidence of the clothing defects and the consensus eye-witness statements describing the low back wound and the throat entrance, we have a complete picture of shots fired from two directions.

How is digging up JFK going to add to what we already know?

Why do you habitually disregard the extant evidence, Bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I missed Bill Kelly's presentation on the Air Force One tapes, but I had the pleasure of meeting Bill in person and will catch his work on the streaming video which will be made available.

I'm glad individual presentations will be available.

I'd spring cash for both Bill and Jim D.'s presentations.

The AF1 tapes and Kennedy's Vietnam policy are in the first class of research subjects, in my book.

The head wounds?

A horrible hideous rabbit hole I strongly advise newbies to avoid like the Black Plague itself.

Edited by Cliff Varnell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The speaker order needed help, including more overview and historical context the first two days, when more students were present. There was esoteric and detailed forensics which undoubtedly lost some.

The JFK Assassination Research Community is losing a generation.

Kids tune out because, in the words of one 25-year old I spoke with, "They make it so boring."

Sometimes I think I'm studying a different case, because JFK's killing seems pretty straight-forward once you focus on the throat and back wounds.

Which obviously didn't occur at Wecht!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Robert Morrow

It is possible, generally speaking, for a single tangential shot to account for a massive obliteration of the side of the head as well as to the back of the head.

The only problem is, Greg --- the back of President Kennedy's head was not "obliterated". Every bit of skull bone in the back (occipital) of JFK's head is still there in the autopsy X-ray:

00JFKHeadX-Ray2.jpg

And that is a very important, forged, faked X-ray. If one person had seen a gaping hole in the back of JFK's head. BUT WHEN 30 PEOPLE BOTH AT PARKLAND AND BETHESDA TALK ABOUT A LARGE GAPING HOLE IN THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD, THEN WE CAN "ASSUME" THAT THE VERY X-RAY YOU ARE LOOKING AT HAS BEEN FORGED, FAKED, ALTERED.

So who is control of the evidence and the non-investigation of the JFK assassination? Lyndon Johnson and his longtime buddy and neighbor of 19 years, J. Edgar Hoover.

AND THOSE TWO MEN HATED JOHN AND ROBERT KENNEDY WITH THE INTENSITY OF 1,000 SUNS.

So the evidentiary record of the JFK assassination is completely corrupted. And that x-ray photo is a perfect example of it. It is totally fake. Either someone else's head or a JFK x-ray that has been altered.

Further proof of this is the Harper fragment, a skull piece found in the infield in Dealey Plaza, which was examined in real time at the Methodist Hospital. It was deemed by a doctor to be a piece of occipital bone - all of which seems to be there - none missing - in this forged xray.

In fact you, you can look at the Harper fragment today and compare it to that x-ray.

No, actually, you can not because the Harper fragment, a critical piece of evidence in the JFK assassination, has been thrown away because THE MURDERERS OF JOHN KENNEDY - LYNDON JOHNSON BEING ONE OF THEM - WERE RUNNING THE NON-INVESTIGATION INTO HIS DEATH.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat

I have read the original notes on the Tom Robinson interview and I do not understand what you mean by "A lot of stuff has been added on to Tom Robinson's statements over the years". Mr. Robinson quite clearly stated in his interview that the hole in JFK's temple was approximately 1/4" in diameter. Last time I checked, a 6.5mm Carcano bullet was also approximately 1/4" in diameter.

If it was not a through and through hole, why would Mr. Robinson so clearly state it was an exit wound from inside the skull? He also tells a rather confusing story in which an FBI agent present at the autopsy, claiming to be a ballistics expert, told Mr. Robinson the large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head was an entry wound and the small 1/4" wound in the temple was an exit wound. Utter nonsense, of course, as, if anything, the reverse ould be true. What surprises me is that Mr. Robinson seems to accept this information from the FBI "ballistics expert" as Gospel. Surely, a man in his trade would have encountered through and through bullet wounds before, and would know that exit wounds tend to be much larger.

From patspeer.com:

Well, then, what about the entrance on the front of the head observed by Robinson? Certainly, Robinson's recollection of THAT wound is important. Well, WHAT entrance on the front of the head? He saw no such thing.

Here is his discussion with Purdy of the wound he observed.

PURDY: Did you notice anything else unusual about the body which may not have been artificially caused, that is caused by something other than the autopsy?

ROBINSON: Probably, a little mark at the temples in the hairline. As I recall, it was so small it could be hidden by the hair. It didn't have to be covered with make-up. I thought it probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet that caused it.

PURDY: In other words, there was a little wound.

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Approximately where, which side of the forehead or part of the head was it on?

ROBINSON: I believe it was on the right side.

PURDY: On his right side?

ROBINSON: That's an anatomical right, yes.

PURDY: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline?

ROBINSON: Yes.

PURDY: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair?

ROBINSON: Somewhere around the temples.

PURDY: Approximately what size?

ROBINSON: Very small, about a quarter of an inch.

PURDY: Quarter of an inch is all the damage. Had it been closed up by the doctors?

ROBINSON: No, he didn't have to close it. If anything, I just would have probably put a little wax in it.

When asked later what he thought caused this wound, moreover, he claimed "I think either a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet. Or a very small piece of shrapnel." When then asked if that was the only place he thought a bullet could have exited, he repeated "It was no bullet. It was a fragment or a piece of the bone." When then asked yet again--for once and for all--what he thought caused the wound, he reiterated "A piece of the bone or metal exiting."

So, Robinson did not call this wound an entrance, nor think it was an entrance. No, he believed it to have been an exit for a very small fragment of some sort, or perhaps even a mark created by shrapnel. This is NOT the description of an entrance hole for an explosive round so many pretend it is, nor a bullet hole of any kind.

Heck, it was a wound so small that Robinson wasn't even sure he put wax in it.

So why pretend otherwise?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pat

Have you ever seen an entrance wound made by a 6.5mm (.257 calibre) bullet?

Robert, if you read Robinson's words--his words--not mine---you will see that he specifies that what he saw was not a bullet entrance, and may have just been a shrapnel wound. Robinson, as a mortician, had almost certainly seen some bullet wounds. As a cosmetician, he'd almost certainly noted the abrasion collars apparent at bullet entrances. Apparently, he noted no such collar on this wound. In fact, when one realizes that he said this may have been a shrapnel wound, it becomes clear he failed to note the through and through hole one would expect to find at a bullet's entrance.

Now, you can convince yourself what you like... but those wishing to believe Robinson saw a bullet's entrance should not go around saying Tom Robinson said he saw an entrance wound on Kennedy's forehead or some such thing, when he specified that he saw no such thing. Can we at least agree on that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...