The EOP Entrance revealed

[Pat Speer]

Should one look through The Extreme Close Up section of chapter 13 at patspeer.com, one will find on the back of the head photo the location of the entrance described in the autopsy protocol. And no, it wasn't where I used to think it was, so this isn't something you've seen before.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Sorry, DVP, but the cowlick entrance was a hoax.

[David Von Pein]

Pat,

I think it's a case of Pat Speer seeing what he wants to see. (And, yes, I looked at your webpage on this, Pat. I see no "hole" in the place you think there is one.)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/boh-part-10.html

Also, let's ponder this question....

I wonder what the odds are of there being a "red spot" on the back of JFK's head in the autopsy picture below that only LOOKS like it could be a bullet hole--but really ISN'T--and then, on top of that coincidence, there happens to be another bullet hole somewhere else on the back of JFK's head that can't really be seen at all (except by Patrick J. Speer)?

Those TWO things MUST co-exist in tandem here in order for Pat to be correct --- a thing that looks like a bullet hole (but isn't) and something in the same picture that is pretty much invisible that is the actual bullet hole.

Again---what are the odds? Let's take it to Vegas and see.

And, btw, the red circle in the picture on the left below is certainly located BELOW the EOP, wouldn't you say, Pat? And we know the wound was said to be "slightly ABOVE the EOP", per the autopsy report (meager though that description is).

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

I think it's a case of Pat Speer seeing what he wants to see.

I think it's a case of seeing a faked photo that is worthless.

[David Von Pein]

I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA

Edited July 17, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA

Well that settles it. My bad!

[David Josephs]

I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA....

"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA

Well that settles it. My bad!

Funny, that's exactly what the WC did at every turn... just take the FBI and CIA and Secret Service's word for it... LOL

The HSCA is shown 6 xrays -

Hey Dave - you want to rethink that conclusion...

Dr. BADEN. I see. When Colonel Finck came in these had already been taken?

Dr. EBERSOLE. Yes, and repeated once.

Dr. BADEN. Now when you say repeated, were X rays repeated after the autopsy had started? Do you have an independent recollection of that?

Dr. EBERSOLE. The second group of X rays were taken either before the incision was made or very shortly thereafter.

Dr. BADEN. Dr. Finck arrived later. Now you have mentioned that the tracheostomy was sutured when you first saw it.

Dr. EBERSOLE. There was a sutured wound, a transverse wound at the base of the neck

Dr. EBERSOLE. Absolutely not. If I may add now, there was a specific Secret Service agent who did ask me to repeat some of these X rays when the first set showed no bullet.

Dr. BADEN. These three films in particular, were they all taken before the autopsy was begun?

Dr. EBERSOLE. Yes. The skull films were definitely taken before the autopsy.

Dr. BADEN. Did you repeat the skull films?

Dr. EBERSOLE. To my knowledge.

Here Dr E begins the conversation by making up medical terms and then telling us that the xrays we see cannot possibly be the same as the skull he saw.

Thanks Dave... anytime you post WCR or HSCA propaganda it becomes so easy to illustrate how the Evidence IS the Conspiracy...

Upon removing the body from the coffin, the anterior aspect, the only things noticeable were a small irregular ecumonic area above the super ecolobular ridge and a neatly sutured transverse surgical wound across the low neck. As we turned the body on the autopsy table there was a textbook classical wound of entrance upper right back to the right of the midline three or four centimeters to the right of the midline just perhaps inside the medial board to the upper scapula.

Again I would like to emphasize this was a textbook wound -- round, smooth, pure pellish, no raised margins. The back of the head was missing and the regular messy wound

[Michael Cross]

Should one look through The Extreme Close Up section of chapter 13 at patspeer.com, one will find on the back of the head photo the location of the entrance described in the autopsy protocol. And no, it wasn't where I used to think it was, so this isn't something you've seen before.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Sorry, DVP, but the cowlick entrance was a hoax.

The gifs you use are spectacular. Thanks.

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

I think it's a case of Pat Speer seeing what he wants to see. (And, yes, I looked at your webpage on this, Pat. I see no "hole" in the place you think there is one.)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/index.html#JFK-Head-Wounds

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/boh-part-10.html

Also, let's ponder this question....

I wonder what the odds are of there being a "red spot" on the back of JFK's head in the autopsy picture below that only LOOKS like it could be a bullet hole--but really ISN'T--and then, on top of that coincidence, there happens to be another bullet hole somewhere else on the back of JFK's head that can't really be seen at all (except by Patrick J. Speer)?

Those TWO things MUST co-exist in tandem here in order for Pat to be correct --- a thing that looks like a bullet hole (but isn't) and something in the same picture that is pretty much invisible that is the actual bullet hole.

Again---what are the odds? Let's take it to Vegas and see.

And, btw, the red circle in the picture on the left below is certainly located BELOW the EOP, wouldn't you say, Pat? And we know the wound was said to be "slightly ABOVE the EOP", per the autopsy report (meager though that description is).

Classic, David. I tell people the bullet hole is visible on gif files in the Extreme Close Up section of chapter 13, and you post slides in which the hole is not readily visible to try to get people to not look at those gif files.

And then you go off the rails.

1. You claim no one else sees the shape pointed out above the final gif file, by the words here...and here. This is malarkey of the worst kind. EVERYONE sees that shape. Some might choose to believe it's not the bullet hole observed at autopsy, even though it's exactly where they said it was. But everyone sees it.

2. You make out that the location for this shape is well below the EOP. Well, this only shows how little you understand about anatomy. It's a common misconception among those only marginally aware of the medical evidence that the EOP is on the ridge that lies at the far back of the skull, when it's actually a small bump well below that ridge. This is demonstrated here: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/External_occipital_protuberance

3. You try to spin that it's obvious the cowlick entrance is a bullet wound. Well, this is pretty ridiculous, seeing as but one of the three experts consulted by the ARRB thought it was a wound, and that the vast majority of non-government hired experts allowed to view the autopsy materials in the past 25 years, culminating with Dr. Peter Cummings, the forensic expert hired by NOVA in 2013, have concluded it is not a wound.

4. In your spin, you conceal that even if the cowlick entrance is a wound, it is quite obviously not the wound observed at autopsy. Although Dr. Humes was harassed into briefly signing off on the cowlick entrance, none of the other autopsy witnesses who saw the wound ever said the red spot in the cowlick was a bullet entrance. Even worse, Dr. Finck, who said he measured the wound, arrived after the area containing the red spot had been removed from the skull, so the brain could be removed. Even worse, the red spot is, according to the HSCA FPP's final report, 50% wider than the wound measured at autopsy, 4 inches higher on the skull, and more than half an inch closer to the midline of the skull. In other words, it fails to match the wound described in the autopsy report in EVERY way. (Not the that Clark Panel--the 'discoverers" of the purported cowlick entrance--were willing to admit as much. In their report they pretended the spot was the same size, shape, and distance from the midline as the hole observed at autopsy. Essentially, they pushed that the wound was the same as the wound in the autopsy report, only higher. And Dr. Baden, in his HSCA testimony, followed their lead. But they were lying, as proven by the HSCA FPP's final report, in which better sense prevailed.)

So why have you strapped yourself to this obviously sinking ship? Oh, that's right. The Bug. He did it, so you've gotta do it.

And yet, guess what? I'm giving you a second chance. Please go back to chapter 13, only this time look at the gif files. And then report back on whether 1) you still think the red spot looks like a hole, and 2) you still claim there is no shape visible on the final gif file below where I say "here and here".

Edited July 18, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Should one look through The Extreme Close Up section of chapter 13 at patspeer.com, one will find on the back of the head photo the location of the entrance described in the autopsy protocol. And no, it wasn't where I used to think it was, so this isn't something you've seen before.

http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

Sorry, DVP, but the cowlick entrance was a hoax.

The gifs you use are spectacular. Thanks.

You're welcome. I knew when I posted this someone would say I'm making stuff up, and someone else would say the photos are worthless because everything is fake fake fake, but I hoped that a few would actually take a look.

[Glenn Nall]

Pat - If you'll permit me a bit if newcomer ignorance: the way your post is worded, i'm under the impression that this is new material or something...? not quite sure, its being in chapter 13 and all.

i look forward to reading this later (saw it's length and i have to make room on my schedule .

just scanned the last two chapters of Yankee and Cowboy and need to prep it as a single document and post it here, then i'll read through this.

eager to see whether it's fake, fake, fake or not. i can't wait.

[Pat Speer]

Pat - If you'll permit me a bit if newcomer ignorance: the way your post is worded, i'm under the impression that this is new material or something...? not quite sure, its being in chapter 13 and all.

i look forward to reading this later (saw it's length and i have to make room on my schedule .

just scanned the last two chapters of Yankee and Cowboy and need to prep it as a single document and post it here, then i'll read through this.

eager to see whether it's fake, fake, fake or not. i can't wait.

Here's some background for you, Glenn.

In 1968, after books came out questioning how a bullet fired from six floors up could enter low on the back of Kennedy's head and exit from the top of his head, a secret panel was convened by the U.S. Justice Department, which ultimately concluded the bullet did not in fact enter low on the back of the head, but towards the top of the head.

The findings of this secret panel were released the next year, at a time just prior to the end of the Johnson Administration, as part of its effort to derail Jim Garrison's attempts at gaining access to the autopsy materials.

Even so,, it was three years before the migration of the head wound was reported in the press.

Although the autopsy doctors vehemently argued against this conclusion, this conclusion was nevertheless rubber-stamped by the HSCA pathology panel, in part because the members of this panels felt the brain photos incompatible with a low to high trajectory within the brain. In other words, they felt that a bullet entrance low on the head, as described in the autopsy report, proved Kennedy had received two wounds to the head. As they were unwilling to say such a thing, they had no choice but to say the bullet entered at the higher entrance.

The HSCA's staff then blackmailed Dr. Humes, the chief autopsist, into agreeing that the red spot on the autopsy photo was a bullet entrance, by letting him know that they would treat him as a hostile witness, and go over all the inconsistencies in his WC testimony when compared to the autopsy photos (i.e. his claiming the first bullet entered at the base of the neck) if he failed to do so. He did so, but reversed himself again in subsequent interviews and testimony. The other witnesses to the low entry never reversed themselves.

And yet, most of the media, etc, have continued to push that the red spot in the cowlick "discovered" by the Clark Panel was the entrance observed at autopsy, only 4 inches higher. A simple mistake. Yeah right. They failed to comprehend, moreover, that this spot was, according to the HSCA panel's final report, not only 4 inches higher on the skull, but 50% wider, and twice as close to the midline of the skull, than as recorded by the autopsy doctors.

And then, about ten years ago, I spotted a dark round shape low on the back of the head in the back of the head photo that I thought could be the bullet entrance. Some, like DVP, pretended there was nothing there. They also took to pretending the red shape looked just like a bullet hole. This led one LN, John Mytton, to create a gif file of the two widely available autopsy photos, which he claimed proved the red spot was a bullet hole.

But he was wrong. His gif file proved the red spot was not a hole, and that much of its "redness" was not a hole at all, but hair.

This gif file also failed to confirm the round spot I thought was a hole was in fact a hole, however.

And that's where it stood for the last two years...until few months ago when I decided to post super large versions of the gif files I'd created on my website. These files prove, IMO, that the bullet entered not where the Clark Panel said it did, nor where I for many years thought it did, but in a previously undiscovered location to the right of these locations...which just so happens to correspond with where the autopsy doctors said the bullet entered.

The shape at this location was not as apparent on the individual photos, moreover, because it was basically a dark shape. But with the two photos put together the slight difference in camera angle reveals that this dark shape is not in the hair but well below the hair, and that the hair above this spot is missing. It is therefore only a matter of time, IMO, before people come to realize that "EEGADS! That's the bullet entrance! Exactly where the doctors said it was!" And then come to deal with the ramifications of this fact...

That, to the minds of the HSCA forensic pathology panel, this proves Kennedy was hit by two bullets in the head...And that there was almost certainly two shooters.

Edited July 19, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Nall]

thanks, Pat - this is what i'm eager to look at, something concrete.

I'm familiar with the way the wound has played musical cowlicks over the years - look forward to looking at this. there's a lot to absorb...

i just found out that i can convert these scanned pdf's of Yankee Cowboy into text, with a little patience and editing of typos, so i've been doing that for the past couple of hours. it's taking a while but shortly we'll have the whole book available online.

thanks

[Mark Knight]

Pat, your low-on-the-head wound seems to be pretty close to what the late Tom Purvis had theorized. Purvis called this one the third shot, the one located past Z313...closer to about Z345. And right about where the original West survey for the SS said it happened.

Now, I corresponded for several years with Tom Purvis, and while he was firm in his belief of "3 shots/3 hits," I did eventually get him to admit that he couldn't place Oswald in the window with the rifle at the time the shots were fired. When I have more time, I plan to study your Chapter 13 in detail. I have great respect for your research, and for your integrity. You're not beyond admitting you were wrong when you find an error, and that goes a long way with folks like me who are simply seeking the truth.

[James DiEugenio]

Something that Pat should have added.

Baden was desperate to sell this cowlick entry wound to the public. So he told Ida Dox to draw her illustrations to make it look more like a bullet wound.

She did not do well the first time. So he wrote her a note saying, "You can do better", and attached to the note was a picture of a skin laceration.

Dr. Randy R found this notation at NARA and confronted Baden with it at the Wecht Conference in 2003. Gary Aguilar immediately chimed in and said, "The pictures in the archives do not have those raised ridges. It looks flat."

As LBJ once said about an advisor who was proved wrong, Baden "looked like he had just been struck in the face with a sack of manure." Except it was his own BS.

Edited July 19, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Chris Davidson]

Pat, your low-on-the-head wound seems to be pretty close to what the late Tom Purvis had theorized. Purvis called this one the third shot, the one located past Z313...closer to about Z345. And right about where the original West survey for the SS said it happened.

Now, I corresponded for several years with Tom Purvis, and while he was firm in his belief of "3 shots/3 hits," I did eventually get him to admit that he couldn't place Oswald in the window with the rifle at the time the shots were fired. When I have more time, I plan to study your Chapter 13 in detail. I have great respect for your research, and for your integrity. You're not beyond admitting you were wrong when you find an error, and that goes a long way with folks like me who are simply seeking the truth.

Mark,

If you take the elevation change derived from that SS plat at the last shot plotted, add .5ft for the curb and 60.7ft for the TSBD ledge, then subtract the WC determined head height above the ground, previously given, think CE884, apply the rifle in window "angle to horizon" from Z313, the other two sides of that triangle are the distances stated on the SS plat for the Z313 head shot.

Unlike breath mints, this is two "two shots in one".

chris