PatSpeer.com: Fact Check

[Greg Burnham]

Greg, why is it OK to accuse Pat Speer of cherry picking but not you? Would you prefer this thread to remain focused on criticism of Pat Speer only?

Followed up by the predictable Straw Man.

Definition of Straw Man: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated.

OK, Greg. Go ahead and knock down that argument.

Followed up by the predictable dripping sarcasm in lieu of substantive offerings.

[Stephen Roy]

I wish we could disagree and debate without being condescending.

[Greg Burnham]

I wish we could disagree and debate without being condescending.

Me too.

[Ollie Curme]

I wish we could disagree and debate without being condescending.

Me too.

I agree as well. I gave eight posts on this thread regarding how researchers necessarily cherry pick evidence in order to support their view, but Greg has refused to debate the very issues he raised, dismissing my posts as a "predictable derailing of the thread" and "followed up by the predictable straw man"

This entire post started out as an attempt to discredit an important researcher by cherry picking a few sentences out of a million word web site and arguing that those few examples constitute a pattern of deception. Ms. Cranor said on page 3 of this post that she takes issue with Mr. Speer's "deceptive methods", not his theories. Wouldn't it be more constructive to argue the theory that he puts forward?

[Greg Burnham]

Wouldn't it be more constructive to argue the theory that he puts forward?

I started this topic so I know what it is about. It is a topic dedicated to FACT CHECKING the premises upon which Pat Speer has based his conclusions as evidenced by the title of the thread.

You are free to start a new topic discussing his "theories" if you wish. However, I am not one who is inclined to promote any "theory" at all -- and I am certainly not willing to allow you or anyone else to steer this thread from its original purpose.

[Ollie Curme]

Wouldn't it be more constructive to argue the theory that he puts forward?

I started this topic so I know what it is about. It is a topic dedicated to FACT CHECKING the premises upon which Pat Speer has based his conclusions as evidenced by the title of the thread.

You are free to start a new topic discussing his "theories" if you wish. However, I am not one who is inclined to promote any "theory" at all -- and I am certainly not willing to allow you or anyone else to steer this thread from its original purpose.

By my account you've "fact checked" three of Mr. Speer's assertions which were found on a web site with over 1 million words (3500 equivalent book pages). If you don't want to be accused of "cherry picking", you've got a lot more "facts" to check.

[Greg Burnham]

Wouldn't it be more constructive to argue the theory that he puts forward?

I started this topic so I know what it is about. It is a topic dedicated to FACT CHECKING the premises upon which Pat Speer has based his conclusions as evidenced by the title of the thread.

You are free to start a new topic discussing his "theories" if you wish. However, I am not one who is inclined to promote any "theory" at all -- and I am certainly not willing to allow you or anyone else to steer this thread from its original purpose.

By my account you've "fact checked" three of Mr. Speer's assertions which were found on a web site with over 1 million words (3500 equivalent book pages). If you don't want to be accused of "cherry picking", you've got a lot more "facts" to check.

Indeed, as I already indicated several times in posts above, stay tuned for Part 2 and Part 3.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Does anyone here know the size, location, and cause of JFK's wounds?

[Greg Burnham]

Does anyone here know the size, location, and cause of JFK's wounds?

Why not do your own research? History Matters

[Ollie Curme]

Does anyone here know the size, location, and cause of JFK's wounds?

I think we're getting a much better understanding of the head wounds as researchers pull various things together. We have the autopsy report, which is suspect, but it's reasonable to think that they changed as little as they had to in terms of descriptions and measurements in order to fit the scenario they were given. We have the autopsy photos and X-rays, which again, may have been altered, but there is probably some evidence there. And we have the witness descriptions which vary all over the place but from which you can pick up some consistent clues. The bullet entry hole by the EOP described in the autopsy report can be seen in the back of head and mystery photo. The mystery photo also gives good evidence as to the size of the skull defect after all the loose skull pieces were removed. In the mystery photo you can see two bullet holes in the skull: one by the EOP and one by the cowlick. There is good evidence that the bone fragment by the cowlick was missing at both Parkland and initially at Bethesda, which would allow the Parkland doctors to see the occipital and parietal lobe damage they described. The sheer size of the skull defect that the autopsy doctors described: 6.5" x 4" would have encompassed much of the top right side of JFK's head from the frontal bone to the rear of his skull. I think the brain wounds and descriptions are more suspect due to all the evidence that the brain exam was faked.

There's a good collection of evidence by Ms, Cranor and Mr. Speer linking the EOP wound to the throat wound.

The other wound was his back wound, which I think all autopsy observers agreed did not penetrate the chest cavity, and given its position seen in the back photo, that means it was a very shallow wound.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Ollie Curme

[Greg Burnham]

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy report, which is suspect, but it's reasonable to think that...

Greg Burnham finishes the sentence with ... under such circumstances, anything we glean from it is also suspect, as in, if A = B and B = C then A = C.

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy photos and X-rays, which again, may have been altered, but there is probably some evidence there.

Greg Burnham: However, if the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered then any "evidence" they contain is unreliably suspect by definition. Moreover, the probative value of the presumed existence of "evidence there" (assumed by Curme) cannot be reasonably established.

Again, under the circumstances of having to evaluate "suspect" evidence ... while the autopsy report can be properly used for self-impeachment purposes, it otherwise has limited utility in terms of discovery. That's why Millicent refrains from discussing the reliability of the autopsy report itself and confines her observations to Pat Speer's treatment of that same evidence (autopsy report and expert witness testimony contained therein and elsewhere).

This is why I recommend to Jon that he conduct his own research. It's not because I don't wish to be helpful. It's because someone of Jon's intellect and ability has the wherewithal to evaluate the potential probative value--or lack thereof--of available "evidence."

Edited February 21, 2016 by Greg Burnham

[Sandy Larsen]

Thanks Ollie for the time you spent writing your explanation. Finally I understand all the talk of this "mystery" photo. I also realize that much of what I had always seen as the inner surface of the skull is actually outer surface.

I saw the Michael Walton animated gif but didn't know from where he got the fracture lines and holes. Now I know it's from the mystery photo.

BTW, should it really be called a mystery photo? Well, it certainly was to me till now.

From Sandy Larson:

Okay, I get it that Pat (probably) doesn't allow for a large wound in the back. And that there is a wound just to the right of the EOP that is hard to see without adjusting the contrast on the BOH photos. But I'm having trouble following what you say because I don't know what the mystery photo is. I do see a photo that's hard to understand, and I think it's the one you're talking about. When I look at it I get the feeling I'm looking down into the base of a cranium, through the spinal column. Is that it? I see that Pat has posted it a number of times, but I see no descriptions of what I'm looking at. You say the skull is missing on the right side in the photo, but I see not skull on the left either... or front or back. And I certainly can't make out any defects. It would be nice had Pat drawn some arrows and labeled them

One other thing... it seems you didn't describe any shots. I guess one shot went in through the EOP hole. What about the other hole... the big one. Was it supposedly a tangential one?

Ollie's response:

OK, let's start with Michael Walton's Excellent GIF he posted on page 2 of this thread:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view

This GIF superimposes the BOH photo with the mystery photo. Now they weren't necessarily taken from the exact same perspective, but I think it's good enough to show the idea. Michael has circled the beveled half circle in the skull near the vertex or cowlick which in Mr. Speer's interpretation is the impact point of a bullet coming from the back and producing a tangential wound near the top right part of the head. In Ms. Cranor's article The Third Wound, she interprets this as either a tangential wound or the outshoot from a frontal shot.

An important point to note here is that a piece of skull bone immediately adjacent to the beveled half circle measuring 10x6.5 cm (4 x 2.5 inches) together with two smaller fragments were found in the limousine and brought to the autopsy where it was determined that the 10x6.5 cm fragment had a matching half circle which fit with the half circle you can see by the vertex.

Is this 10 x 6.5 cm fragment, from the car ,an accepted fact? Accepted by the WC? Accepted by CT researchers? Is it the same as the Harper fragment? (I thought the Harper fragment was found outside the car.)

This indicates to me that the bone up there was missing.

That seems like the most reasonable explanation.. Of course, any missing fragment had to have come out a nearby hole in the scalp. And we can't see any holes in the BOH photo. A photo that shows much of the right side of the head as well. No large holes for fragments to escape. Same with the "stare of death" photo of the front. No big holes. If the photos are all authentic, every missing fragment had to have come out a hole in the scalp at the very top of the head, anterior to the ears but posterior to the forehead and front hairline. That doesn't leave much room for there to have be torn scalp from which fragments exited.

This is one reason I don't buy Pat's theory.

So the issue in my mind is: If there was missing bone up there, which perhaps extended all the way down to the right rear margins of the defect as shown in the mystery photo, would that have afforded the Parkland doctors a view of occipital and parietal lobes? In other words, does the wound placement we see in the mystery photo allow for Parkland wound observations? I think it does.

So do I.

Take a look at a graphic from Pat Speer's Chapter 13: BOHcompwithovals.jpg

You can see the EOP inshoot hole circled in both the skull and the scalp, exactly where the autopsy doctors located it. There are more and bigger photos in Pat Speer's Chapter 13 that visualize this. The large skull defect begins, as Dr. Clark testified, above and lateral to the proposed EOP entrance wound. If the bone there was missing at Parkland, like the bone just above it by the half circle beveled hole, then that's low enough to afford a view of the occipital and parietal lobes and for Dr. Clark to assess the damage therein.

With respect to shot trajectories, Mr. Speer, and perhaps Ms. Cranor, both have suggested that the shot that entered low in the hairline traveled down the neck and out the front of the neck. Mr. Speer has that shot going in the EOP inshoot hole which can be seen in both the skull and scalp. Ms. Cranor proposed that that shot may have bypassed the skull and just traveled down the neck, but I believe she made that proposal prior to Mr. Speer's discovery of the visible EOP wound.

What you describe here is also what I believe, except I believe the fragment(s) going down through the neck broke off a piece of bone and this bone fragment exited the throat. Because there are holes in the shirt at that location which were apparently caused by the exiting projectile, and the holes tested negative for metal traces. To me it seems more likely that the bullet deflected off the base of the skull rather than entering. If so, it still could have punched a hole in the skull like the tangential wounds you describe here.

BTW according to autopsy witness Lt. Lipsey, Humes and the others were certain that the bullet that hit the back of the skull exited the throat. I suspect that that is what Humes wrote on his initial notes that he later burned.

Mr. Speer has a long discussion of tangential (or gutter) wounds in his chapter 16b: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16b%3Adigginginthedirt

These wounds are like a ricochet, the bullet hits, travels a short way along or through the surface and then flies off again. As Dr. Clark describes in his testimony, tangential wounds often generate far more trauma to the brain than a bullet which passes through the brain because the broken skull pieces act like secondary missiles and can cause extensive brain damage. See:

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35&search=kemp_clark+tangential#relPageId=31&tab=page

As I mentioned in a reply to Greg Burnham, the hypothesis of a tangential shot hitting the top of JKF's head from the rear has another piece of supporting evidence, which is the presence of skin tissue in one of the bullet fragments found in the front compartment of the limousine: CE 567, the nose bullet fragment allegedly found in the front compartment of the limo was tested and found to have human skin tissue on it:

http://www.maryferre...man skin tissue

Many people think that CE 567 and CE 569 are the remains of a bullet which hit the chrome molding near the rear view mirror. So how could they have gotten skin on them? Well, here are three hypotheses:

1) The bullet was fired from behind, richocheted off the top right side of JFK’s head and then hit the chrome strip. This, I believe is Pat Speer’s hypothesis.

2) The bullet was fired from behind and ricocheted off the top of a seat. Less likely to have a richochet off a soft seat.

3) The FBI planted evidence.

[Ollie Curme]

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy report, which is suspect, but it's reasonable to think that...

Greg Burnham finishes the sentence with ... under such circumstances, anything we glean from it is also suspect, as in, if A = B and B = C then A = C.

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy photos and X-rays, which again, may have been altered, but there is probably some evidence there.

Greg Burnham: However, if the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered then any "evidence" they contain is unreliably suspect by definition. Moreover, the probative value of the presumed existence of "evidence there" (assumed by Curme) cannot be reasonably established.

Again, under the circumstances of having to evaluate "suspect" evidence ... while the autopsy report can be properly used for self-impeachment purposes, it otherwise has limited utility in terms of discovery. That's why Millicent refrains from discussing the reliability of the autopsy report itself and confines her observations to Pat Speer's treatment of that same evidence (autopsy report and expert witness testimony contained therein and elsewhere).

This is why I recommend to Jon that he conduct his own research. It's not because I don't wish to be helpful. It's because someone of Jon's intellect and ability has the wherewithal to evaluate the potential probative value--or lack thereof--of available "evidence."

Greg, I know you want to keep this thread focused on attacking Pat Speer by arguing that he used witness testimony that you and Millicent don't think is reliable, but that's not what Jon asked. Jon was asking about our knowledge of JKF's wounds. And to completely dismiss the autopsy report and photos and X-rays when trying to understand JFK's wounds is ridiculous. In Ms. Cranor's article, The Third Wound, she relies heavily on her and others' interpretation of the mystery photo and the Back of Head photo and the X-rays to present her hypothesis that JKF had suffered a bullet wound to the head and another which linked his anterior throat wound to the rear head or high neck. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; use a little judgement in evaluating evidence in order to assess what is probably real and what has been falsified.

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

This goes back to the importance of Bethesda photographer Karl McDonald as a witness. Who everyone likes to ignore. For whatever reason.

See, he told the ARRB that for every impact wound area, there should be three shots: close up, medium shot, distance shot. That, of course, helps orient the viewer as to what he is looking at.

It took years, actually decades, for the critical community to orient that shot. And even today there are people who argue about it.

In my opinion, this was deliberate.

Edited February 21, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Burnham]

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy report, which is suspect, but it's reasonable to think that...

Greg Burnham finishes the sentence with ... under such circumstances, anything we glean from it is also suspect, as in, if A = B and B = C then A = C.

Ollie Curme said: We have the autopsy photos and X-rays, which again, may have been altered, but there is probably some evidence there.

Greg Burnham: However, if the autopsy photos and x-rays have been altered then any "evidence" they contain is unreliably suspect by definition. Moreover, the probative value of the presumed existence of "evidence there" (assumed by Curme) cannot be reasonably established.

Again, under the circumstances of having to evaluate "suspect" evidence ... while the autopsy report can be properly used for self-impeachment purposes, it otherwise has limited utility in terms of discovery. That's why Millicent refrains from discussing the reliability of the autopsy report itself and confines her observations to Pat Speer's treatment of that same evidence (autopsy report and expert witness testimony contained therein and elsewhere).

This is why I recommend to Jon that he conduct his own research. It's not because I don't wish to be helpful. It's because someone of Jon's intellect and ability has the wherewithal to evaluate the potential probative value--or lack thereof--of available "evidence."

Greg, I know you want to keep this thread focused on attacking Pat Speer by arguing that he used witness testimony that you and Millicent don't think is reliable, but that's not what Jon asked. Jon was asking about our knowledge of JKF's wounds. And to completely dismiss the autopsy report and photos and X-rays when trying to understand JFK's wounds is ridiculous. In Ms. Cranor's article, The Third Wound, she relies heavily on her and others' interpretation of the mystery photo and the Back of Head photo and the X-rays to present her hypothesis that JKF had suffered a bullet wound to the head and another which linked his anterior throat wound to the rear head or high neck. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater; use a little judgement in evaluating evidence in order to assess what is probably real and what has been falsified.

We are not attacking Pat Speer. This is an evaluation and/or criticism of his methodology, arguments, and ultimately, conclusions.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Greg Burnham