Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Pat Speer

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

56,552 profile views
  1. Pat Speer

    “Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.

    I thought Humes said he burned his notes because of the blood...did he say he burned his first draft for the same reason? I must admit I do agree with DVP on something, and that is that Specter knew the actual location of the back wound and that the Rydberg drawings were inaccurate... This is not less troubling, however, it is more troubling... WHY? Because AFTER testing the SBT using the real location, Specter sought to hide that he did so. I sincerely doubt he'd have done this if he thought it "worked." Here's a section on this from chapter 10 at patspeer.com: As we've seen, the Rydberg drawings were made at the request of the Warren Commission. As we've seen, Chief Justice Earl Warren prevented anyone from checking their accuracy. This should lead us to conclude, then, that, as of May 24, 1964, the day of the Warren Commission's re-enactment of the shooting, the wound locations depicted on the Rydberg drawings were presumed to have been accurate. This raises an intriguing question...why weren’t they used in the re-enactment? I mean, news photos of the re-enactment, published in, among other places, the New York Times, make it clear as day that on May 24, 1964, more than two months after the Rydberg drawings had been placed into evidence as the official representations of the president's wounds, those running the re-enactment had relied upon other sources when placing a chalk mark on the back of the stand-in for President Kennedy, in order to designate the wound location. Well, why was this done? Well, the thought occurs that someone--in this case, Warren Commission Junior Counsel Arlen Specter--was trying to be accurate. An April 30, 1964 Specter memo, after all, admitted that, in opposition to Dr. Humes’ sworn testimony, and in opposition to Specter’s subsequent words in the Warren Report, the Rydberg drawings “were made from the recollections of the autopsy doctors as told to the artist.” The measurements on the face sheet were not used in the creation of the Rydberg drawings, and Arlen Specter knew it. It seems likely, then, that he wanted to see for himself if his single-bullet theory made sense--when using the actual locations of Kennedy's wounds. In any event, the Warren Report says that for the re-enactment “The wounds of entry and exit on the President were approximated based on information gained from the autopsy reports and photographs.”Well, this is curious. Which photographs? Certainly not the ones Chief Justice Warren withheld from the doctors? Oh, yeah? Specter, in his 2000 autobiography, Passion for Truth, finally shed some light on this matter. He admitted that on the day of the re-enactment in Dallas he was shown an autopsy photo of the back wound by a member of the Secret Service, Thomas Kelley. (The Saturday Evening Post had mentioned Kelley’s name in regards to this incident in 1967 and Kelley had admitted his role to researcher Harold Weisberg a few years later.) While Specter didn’t say he consulted this photo before approving the chalk mark on the jacket of the stand-in, one can only assume he used it to confirm its location. Specter and Kelley’s use of the photos wrongly denied them in their passion for truth can only be considered admirable. And yet... When one looks at the re-enactment photo published in the New York Times and re-printed in the Doubleday edition of the Warren Report, it is clear that a bullet passing through the chalk mark on the President's stand-in’s back and continuing on to hit Connally’s stand-in in his armpit would most likelyexit from the President’s stand-in’s chest, and not his throat. Specter had seen the Zapruder film. He knew Kennedy wasn’t leaning forward before the first shot. He knew, for that matter, that the theory he was testing left no room for deflection and he knew--from the photo Kelley showed him--that the chalk mark was accurate and that the wounds didn’t align. It is truly troubling, then, that on June 4, 1964 Thomas Kelley testified that the location for the chalk mark used during the re-enactment was "fixed from" CE 386. As shown on the slide above, the entrance on this drawing was inches away from the entrance used during the re-enactment. While it's true, for that matter, that Kelley claimed they'd also conducted "an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time" this actually makes matters worse, as it suggests that the bullet hole on the coat aligned with the wound on CE 386, when the fact was their examination of the coat, if anything, proved the wound to have been inches lower than on CE 386, in alignment with the wound on the autopsy photo. (The 1977 testimony of Lyndal Shaneyfelt in a civil suit brought by Harold Weisberg confirmed that the coat was at Kelley's and Specter's disposal during the re-enactment.) That Kelley's inaccurate testimony was no simple mistake becomes clear, moreover, once one realizes that the man taking his testimony, and leading him to make such a claim, was someone who undoubtedly knew better--you guessed it, Arlen Specter. And it's even worse than that. Not only did Specter extract false testimony from Kelley regarding the source of the chalk mark used in the re-enactment, he asked Kelley if Exhibit 386 was the "basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck." Well, this was in striking contrast to Specter's former descriptions of the wound. Here, then is a quick recap of Specter's earlier descriptions of this wound: 1-23-64 statement of objectives: “There would seem to be considerable amount of confusion as to the actual path of the bullets which hit President Kennedy, particularly the one which hit the right side of the back.” 3-12-64 memo Specter to Rankin on a 3-11-64 meeting with Dr.s Humes, Boswell, and Galloway: "All three described the bullet wound on President Kennedy's back as being a point of entrance." (And then later) "According to Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeons hypothesized that the bullet might have been forced out the back of the President on the application of external heart massage..." 3-16-64 testimony of the autopsy doctors: Specter asks Dr. Humes about a wound in the “upper part of the back” and “the President’s back or lower neck” and asks Dr. Finck about a “back wound.” 4-30-64 memo Specter to Rankin: "Someone from the Commission should review the films to corroborate the autopsy surgeons' testimony that the holes on the President's back and head had the characteristics of points of entry. None of the doctors at Parkland Hospital in Dallas observed the hole in the President's back or the small hole in the lower portion of his head." (And then later) “It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President’s back so that the angle may be calculated.” 5-12-64 memo Specter to Rankin: (It is essential that) “The photographs and x-rays confirm the precise location of the wound of entrance in the upper back of the President as depicted in Commission Exhibits 385 and 386.” (And then later) “The characteristics of the wounds on the President’s back and on the back of his head should be examined closely in the photographs and x-rays...” So, yeah, it seems mighty suspicious that, subsequent to 5-24-64, when he was shown a photo of a back wound, Specter would suddenly start calling this wound a neck wound. But it's even worse than that. Not only did Specter, during Kelley's 6-4-64 testimony, start calling the back wound a neck wound, he cut off and corrected Kelley when Kelley started to call it a shoulder wound. Mr. KELLEY. From the evidence that has been shown previously, the wound in the throat was lower on the President's body than the wound in the shoulder, and---- Mr. SPECTER. By the wound in the shoulder do you mean the wound in the back of the President's neck, the base of his neck? Mr. KELLEY. Yes. Specter's behavior is not just suspicious, then, it's incredibly suspicious. It smells to high heaven. It seems obvious, then, that Specter and Kelley were conspiring to keep from the record that Specter had looked at an autopsy photograph that proved the Rydberg drawings--already part of the record--inaccurate. As FBI agent Robert Frazier, only moments later, told Commissioner Allen Dulles that the location of the chalk mark used in the re-enactment was determined by the measurements on the face sheet, Kelley’s lie may also have been designed to hide that these measurements proved the wound Specter had taken to claiming was on the back of Kennedy's neck...was really inches lower on his back.
  2. Pat Speer

    Prayer Man

    I spent some time talking to Wes Frazier at the 2017? Lancer conference, and he told me he was working on a book with his son. When he did this, I told him he should not focus on his theories about what happened, but to instead focus on sharing as much information as he could about the TSBD, and its cast of characters. I then asked him about Dougherty, and whether he was truly "retarded", or merely autistic, or a weird egg. He said that Dougherty was plenty friendly and plenty smart, and was a huge guy. He said that he and Lovelady would, at times, try to wrestle with Dougherty, but that Dougherty could hold them off with one hand. Or something like that. I didn't take any notes. I figured the book would be coming soon enough. Let's hope that it's still in the works.
  3. Pat Speer

    “Hogwash” by the silly wc rascals.

    A quick point, Cory. They took the slope into account when they tested the trajectory. If they hadn't the Connally stand-in would be 3 degrees lower than the Kennedy stand-in (which would serve to lift the back wound against the throat wound), and the trajectory would almost work. P.S. A number of the photos posted by DVP came from my website, which is fine. I would like to point out, however, that 2 of them were first posted on this forum by a researcher named John Hunt, who actually got off his rear and traveled to the archives, and scanned hundreds of never-before published photos hidden away in the FBI's bulky files (which are not available on the Mary Ferrell or Harold Weinberg sites). I was informed recently that John died this past November. Here's to John...
  4. The Unexpurgated Pike Report was eventually published in the states, by McGraw-Hill, in 1992. I stumbled across it in a book store, long after I'd consigned myself to reading the excerpts in the Voice.
  5. Pat Speer

    Oswald...Smart or Learning Disabled

    The "know-it-alls" was not a dig at anyone on this forum, but at the many LN writers to build their impressions on the misguided belief Oswald was a mouth-breathing wife-beater, and far dumber than those determined to convict him, i.e., the Warren Commission, its staff, and the writers to follow in their footsteps. The fact is, Oswald was smarter than many of these men. including, quite possibly, Warren, Dulles, Ford, Specter, Manchester, Posner, Mailer, Bugliosi and King. The man is an enigma. But he was no dummy.
  6. Pat Speer

    Oswald...Smart or Learning Disabled

    If memory serves, Oswald's IQ was in the top 10%, which means he was smarter than the vast majority of know-it-alls to investigate him, or write about him. As far as his saying "axed" instead of "asked"...this has nothing to do with dyslexia, and everything to do with his being a poorly educated person from the south.
  7. Thanks, Vince. I just added it to my discussion of the single-bullet theory. What's particularly striking is how the presumed entrance on the back of the shirt seems to line up at the same level as the slit by the collar. Well, this undercuts the credibility of the WC and those defending it, who hold that at the time of the shooting this entrance was actually inches above the level of the slit by the collar. I mean, think about it. They have a hole 4 inches BELOW the bottom of the back of the collar at a level two inches or so ABOVE the bottom of the front of the collar! Someone should do a study of the normal drop in collar from back to front. I bet it's normally 3 inches or so, not 6!
  8. Pat Speer

    Pre Autopsy Surgery

    A little food for thought... Lifton and Horne et al have long claimed the body was altered, and that the wound as seen at Bethesda was 4-5 times larger than the wound seen at Parkland. Now Jenkins comes along and says no, the wound he saw was small, about 1/5 the size of the wound Dr. McClelland says he saw at Parkland. And he says as well that the large hole seen at Bethesda was seen after the scalp was pulled back and skull fell to the table. And that, furthermore, he was with the body from the beginning, and no pre-autopsy surgery was conducted at Bethesda. So now, Horne, who claims the body was altered at Bethesda, and Jenkins are totally at odds. But Lifton and Jenkins are also at odds. While Jenkins has a feeling the brain he saw was not Kennedy's actual brain, and had surreptitiously been placed back in the skull before the autopsy, his statements force those believing the body was altered into a corner. If they find Jenkins credible, Lifton and Horne's theory is finito, and there was no pre-autopsy surgery performed to disguise the nature of the skull wounds. (Jenkins, after all, now claims he saw an exit wound on the back of the head and an entrance wound by the ear). And if they find Jenkins not credible, well, then, that shoots down the alterationist argument we need to listen to the witnesses and ignore the photos and x-rays. So...which is it?
  9. Pat Speer

    James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

    You're correct, but not for the reasons stated. The damage to the brain described by the doctors in the autopsy report, and by Clint Hill, is consistent with a "gutter" wound of both entrance and exit, and not with the exit of a bullet that entered near the EOP. Dr. Clark noticed this, and initially said the wound was yessirree a wound of both entrance and exit. And the Clark panel (no relation) noticed this as well...which is why they "decided" the bullet really entered near the top of the head...at the approximate location of the gutter. The damage to the brain proved there were two shots to the head--which is why the EOP entrance had to be disappeared.
  10. Pat Speer

    James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

    It's cute how Sandy uses an image from my website but then conveniently ignores my discussion of the image. The entire focus of that chapter is on an alarming fact...Researchers have long claimed that these witnesses are consistent with one another, and are proof the wound was REALLY on the back of the head in the location presented in the "McClelland" drawing (which was not in fact drawn by McClelland). But this, as you can see, is a myth. From patspeer.com, chapter 18c. In his best-selling and highly-influential book High Treason, published 1989, Robert Groden held that the wound location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing "was verified by every doctor, nurse, and eyewitness as accurate," and that these witnesses described an "exit wound... almost squarely in the back of the head (the occiput)." In his more photo-intensive follow-up, The Killing of a President (1993), moreover, Groden appears to back up this claim. The photographs of 18 witnesses pointing to their heads are presented, accompanied by the following text: "The Parkland Hospital doctors were the best eyewitnesses to the President's wounds. They had at least 20 minutes, and some had longer, to examine the President's injuries immediately after the shooting. The doctors' oral and written statements provided the only reliable clues to the snipers' locations and bullet trajectories..." From this one might assume the witnesses presented were at Parkland and had 20 minutes or more in which they viewed the President's wounds. But this is far from the case. Only 10 of these witnesses were at Parkland and very few of these witnesses got much of a look at the President. When one studies the photos of these witnesses, moreover, there's a bigger surprise. Many of these purported "back of the head" witnesses are not actually pointing to a wound location on the back of their heads, as one would guess, but are instead pointing out a wound location on the top or side of the head, at locations just as close or closer to the wound location depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays as the wound location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing...the drawing they'd purportedly "verified." (Although Groden, in The Killing of a President, claims Dr. McClelland himself made this drawing, he is clearly mistaken. In June, 2010, Josiah Thompson, who first published the drawing, wrote me and confirmed that while this famous drawing--which has come to represent the "actual" location and appearance of the president's large head wound to many, if not the majority, of conspiracy theorists--was based upon Dr. McClelland's description of the large head wound to the Warren Commission, Dr. McClelland had in fact "had nothing to do with the preparation of the drawing.") And it's not as if Groden is the only one making false claims about these witnesses... In Murder in Dealey Plaza, published 2000, Dr. David Mantik claimed "virtually every eyewitness described...a large (orange-sized) hole at the right rear of the head...just above the hairline." When given the chance to co-write an article with Dr. Cyril Wecht for The Assassinations (2003), moreover, he repeated this nonsense. He wrote: "The compilations of Gary Aguilar, M.D., have convincingly shown that the Parkland Hospital physicians and nurses, and even the Bethesda autopsy personnel themselves, almost unanimously recalled a large hole at the low right rear of Kennedy's head." And, as if to prove their calling this wound "low" was not a mistake, Mantik and Wecht later asked "Was cerebellum missing at the low right rear, where the Parkland medical witnesses (including six physicians) saw massive trauma?" Now, look back at the photos in Groden's book reproduced on the previous slides... Is it a true statement that these witnesses "almost unanimously" pointed out a wound location at the LOW right rear of their heads? NO. NO. And HELL NO. Let's count then and make it official. First of all, we need to define our terms. For a wound to be LOW on the back of the head, it would have to be at the level of the ear or below, in the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing, correct? So let's run back through the photos and note which ones show someone pointing out a wound below the top of their ear. Beverly Oliver points out a large wound at the level of the ear and above. She represents 1 witness whose recollections are consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Phil Willis points out a wound above the level of his right ear. This means only 1 of 2 witnesses so far discussed have had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Marilyn Willis points out a wound on top of her head. This lowers the ratio to 1 of 3 witnesses. Ed Hoffman points out a wound at the top of the back of his head. This lowers it further to 1 of 4 witnesses. Ronald Jones points out a wound above and in back of his ear. This means the recollections of but 1 of 5 witnesses so far discussed are consistent with what Groden, Aguilar, Mantik, and Wecht have been feeding us. Charles Carrico points out a wound on the back of his head above his ear. The ratio drops to 1 of 6 witnesses. Richard Dulaney points out a wound at the top of his head. It spirals downward to 1 of 7 witnesses. Paul Peters points out a wound above his ear. It's clear now that only 1 of 8 witnesses had recollections consistent with what so many have long claimed. Kenneth Salyer points out a wound on the side of the head, by the ear. It bottoms out at 1 of 9 witnesses. Robert McClelland points out a wound on the back of his head, both below and above the top of the ear. This means but 2 of 10 witnesses so far discussed had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Charles Crenshaw points out a wound mostly behind the ear. He lifts the ratio back to 3 of 11 witnesses. Audrey Bell points out a wound at the level of her ear. The ratio soars to 4 of 12 witnesses...1 in 3. Theran Ward points out a wound by the ear. It drops back to 4 of 13 witnesses. Aubrey Rike points out a wound on the back of the head above the ear. The ratio drops to 4 of 14. Paul O'Connor points out a wound behind the ear. The ratio rises back to 5 of 15 witnesses. Floyd Riebe points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 6 of the 16 witnesses have depicted a wound at the low right rear. Jerrol Custer points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 7 of the 17 witnesses have depicted a wound consistent with the wound described in the conspiracy literature. Frank O'Neill points out a wound on the back of his head above the ear. So there you have it. Only 7 of these 18 witnesses can honestly be claimed to have described a wound at the "low right rear" a la Mantik and Wecht, at the "bottom of the back of the head," a la Lifton, or in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing, a la Groden. 7 of 18, need it be said, is not the "almost unanimous" claimed by Mantik and Wecht, based on the research of Aguilar, nor the "every" purported by Groden. But it's actually worse than that... FAR worse than that. Now, let's go through Groden's "witnesses" again, taking into account circumstances and statements not provided those relying on Groden's book.
  11. Pat Speer

    James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

    My responses in BOLD.
  12. Pat Speer

    James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

    Joe, The right side of the skull was either missing, or shattered beneath the scalp. As a consequence, much of the skull fell to the table (or peeled off with the scalp) as the scalp was reflected. The scalp was reflected along the lines of the scalp lacerations, moreover, and this enabled the doctors to remove the brain without performing the normal incisions required to remove a brain. Thus, the brain was removed from the right side of the head, and no skullcap procedure was performed. This is what Jenkins has long stated. It supports what Dr. Humes had long-stated. Jenkins has long-stated as well that Humes made a remark as he removed the brain that, when taken with the difficulty he (Jenkins) had infusing the brain, made him suspect the brain was just sitting in the cavity when Humes removed it, and that someone had somehow put the brain back into the skull. I have witnessed Jenkins discussing this with others. When asked how he could explain the brain's being placed into the skull, when the hole he saw at the beginning of the autopsy was too small for the brain to pass through, he said he had no explanation, but that that was his impression--that the brain removed by Humes had been placed back in the skull. In his new book, written with the help of body-alteration theorists, however, he makes out that he saw incisions along the head which marked where scalp and skull could have been pulled back to facilitate the replacement of the brain. I'm fairly certain this is a new addition to his story.
  13. Pat Speer

    James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

    Nope. As demonstrated on the images above, Jenkins has routinely pointed to the top of his head above his ear as the location of the gaping hole observed at the beginning of the autopsy. He has long-claimed as well that the back of the head--meaning the far back of the head at the level of the ears--was shattered but intact beneath the scalp, but that it fell to the table upon reflection of the scalp. This is, for that matter, the official story, and is backed up by, among others, Jerrol Custer. There was no gaping hole on the far back of the head at the level of the ears. Very few witnesses claimed to see as much, It is a CT myth, that, apparently, was recently sold to Jenkins.
  14. Pat Speer

    James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

    Read those words carefully. There's some deception involved. For decades, certain CTs--including the CTs helping Jenkins with his book--have been claiming the head wound was on the back of the head at Parkland, and is accurately depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing (which was not actually drawn by McClelland). Jenkins, however, has long claimed the wound was on the top of the head, and that the skull on the back of the head in the location of the wound in this drawing was present., but shattered beneath the scalp. Jenkins was thereby a huge obstacle for those claiming the witnesses suggest the photos are fake and that the head wound was really on the back of the head. So Jenkins has thrown them a bone, and is now claiming the wound he saw resembled the wound in the drawing AFTER the scalp was reflected. Well, think about it. This is as much as admitting that the wound he saw before the scalp was reflected did not resemble this wound. It's all gobbledy-gook designed to sell that the wound was on the back of the head, and that witnesses (such as Jenkins and McClelland) share the same recollection. But it's all smoke and mirrors. I mean, think about it. Jenkins says the hole he saw was 2.5-3 by 1.5 to 2 in (3.75 to 6 sq in), while McClelland says the hole he saw was 4 by 5 in (20 sq in)... So...yes... the hole as described by McClelland was 3 1/3 to 5 1/3 times as large as the hole described by Jenkins. The wounds they describe are not remotely similar, and it's foolish to pretend that they are...
  15. Pat Speer

    James C Jenkins - JFK Autopsy Pathologist

    The image of Jenkins from 1990 comes from a video not available online, but William Law shows essentially the same image in his book In the Eye of History. The second image comes from the interview linked to on this thread. There's also this. (I put these side by side for comparison purposes.) These come from a 1991 video-taped interview with Harrison Livingstone. The image at left is Jenkins demonstrating the location of the hole on the top of the head at the beginning of the autopsy. The image at right shows the location of this hole at the end of the autopsy, after the skull had been re-constructed by the morticians. Note that it's several inches further to the back, and actually on the back of the head. Well, this makes sense seeing as the morticians were told to prepare for an open-casket funeral, and were attempting to hide the hole in a pillow. In short, Jenkins is a top-of-the-head witness, and not a back-of-the head witness.