Jump to content
The Education Forum

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)


Recommended Posts

We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade, or does anyone disagree? So what do we know about JFK's wounds? Only what we know from eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who had no reason to lie or fabricate. There was a back wound with no way to know where the bullet wen, absent a real and credible autopsy. There was a throat wound that the doctors who attended JFK took to be an entry wound. Again, no way to tell where the bullet went. There was a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, characteristic of an exit wound, i.e. a shot from the front. There were other head wounds seen at Bethesda that were not seen at Parkland, which suggests exactly what Humes uttered as heard by the FBI agents, surgery to the head area, which can only mean alteration of the body prior to the so-called autopsy. That is basically what we know IMO, which means a conspiracy. What the government shows us with its photos and x-rays and its final "autopsy" report (after the first one I believe was burned) is worthless, one photo being an obvious fake and thus none of them being trustworthy. We can argue forever, to the delight and amusement of the conspirators, about the exact nature of the wounds and type of weapons used. We know enough to know there was a conspiracy, but little else with respect to medical evidence due to the theft of the body from Dallas, after which any hope of knowing more died.

Thank you, Ron Ecker...

It would be wonderful if the community could use this, something so simple to define the current state of investigation and MOVE on from there... there WAS a conspiracy, now, what's next?

Edited by David G. Healy
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please note that all of Pat's photos are lateral views.

I suggest the following experiment:

Get a hand held mirror; stand in front of a wall mirror with your shoulders perpendicular so that you have a reflection of a lateral view.

Glance over and notice that the top of your shirt collar appears to be a little under the level of your ear lobes.

Now turn your back to the wall mirror and hold up the hand mirror so that it reflects a posterior view of the back of your head.

The top of your shirt collar will appear to have dropped a couple of inches!

That's because the lateral view Pat must use is an optical illusion.

I called John Hunt out for this garbage back in '99...Zombie Pet Theories...

So now I get it. It's all a joke, right? I mean, you didn't even read the captions to those images. The images I posted demonstrate that McAdams and Zimmerman routinely lie about the back wound location on their exhibits, in which they propose the bullet entered at a level far above the throat wound. But, no, instead of agreeing with me on this obvious point, you choose to pretend there's some sort of optical illusion at work. In other words, you are defending them. So...does that mean you think a bullet entrance at T-1 really IS above the level of the throat wound? If so, please demonstrate.

FWIW, I'm not pushing Hunt's "garbage." Hunt's study of the bunching of the clothing led him to believe the holes on the clothing were consistent with the single-bullet theory. I do not. Much as yourself, I argue that the holes on the clothing prove the single-bullet theory a fraud.

Link to post
Share on other sites

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

If the holes in the shirt and jacket answered that question, you wouldn't need to ask

The holes in the clothes raise the question -- they don't answer it.

I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence.

I will agree that it is of value as evidence that a bullet went through the material of the shirt and jacket. nothing else

And yet you say it is a good question to ask -- what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Your admission that this is a good question puts the lie to your claim the physical evidence is meaningless.

I'm with Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and E. Martin Schotz. This ain't about me.

Schotz said the clothing evidence was as valuable as all of the 26 volumes of the Warren testimony, or close to it.

Yet no one can say what that value is?

I can repeat its value over and over.

Did you bother to read this?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html

ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that.

And what difference would it make if it did? the bullet hole in his back is in the spot shown in the photo regardless of where the hole in the shirt is

This photo to which you refer doesn't exist.

You can't get an off the rack shirt to behave like that.

BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?)

He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt.

When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover-up is suppression of the physical evidence.

Those who claim the clothing evidence is useless indulge obfuscation.

Pray tell what it is that is being obfuscated?

1) The prima facie case for conspiracy.

2) The proper context for understanding the throat x-ray.

3) Persons of Interest working for the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft Detrick, MD.

4) The fabrication of the Fox 5 autopsy photo.

Yeah, much obfuscation.

Job #1 of the cover-up -- ignore or misrepresent the clothing evidence.

"This photo to which you refer doesn't exist." Cliff, are you saying you've never seen a photo of JFK's back that shows the bullet wound?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron

If a FMJ bullet travelling at 2000 fps (1367 mph) has the ability to pass right through a man's chest and out the other side, and still retain enough velocity to do some serious damage on the other side, what velocity would a so called "bad round" be travelling at to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch or so?

I have no idea.

Well, I can tell you, the bullet would be moving at little more than a crawl.

For comparison, the .38 Special "Colt Cobra" revolver that Jack Ruby used to shoot LHO had a muzzle velocity of between 800 and 900 fps, depending on the weight of the bullets. This bullet entered the left side of LHO's abdomen and almost managed to exit the right side before it came to a halt, passing through several organs and blood vessels on the way through. With this in mind, we know 800 fps would not be the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's back, as this bullet would likely have been found in the forward part of JFK's chest cavity.

Realistically, I believe a bullet would have to be travelling around 300 fps (204 mph) in order to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch.

While this might be feasible if the rifle muzzle was a few inches from JFK's back, a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign.

1. Bullet drop. If the rifle is sighted in to hit a target at 100 yards (or whatever range you choose) firing bullets with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, the shooter will have no idea he has chambered a "bad round" and will aim as if he is shooting a normal cartridge. At such a reduced velocity, the bullet will not have enough energy to reach its target or, for that matter, anywhere close to it. In fact, at such a low velocity, the bullet will have dropped so much, it is more likely to hit the back end of the limo than anything else.

2. Bullet stability. The spiral riflings inside a rifle barrel impart a high speed spin to a bullet that gyroscopically stabilizes the bullet in flight. Without this spin, the bullet will tumble in flight, end over end. Not only will this prevent the bullet from making a neat entrance wound as seen on JFK's back, the tumbling bullet presents an un-aerodynamic surface that will quickly rob the bullet of velocity; making it go even slower and causing it to impact even further back from the limo.

3. Barrel blockage. Will a bullet travelling this slow have enough energy to even make it out of the barrel?

In summation, I believe the "shallow" back wound caused by a "bad round" to be a fabrication, and further evidence of a well contrived conspiracy that involved the autopsy doctors at Bethesda. Unfortunately, JFK researchers were taken in by this ruse, for the sole reason it served the purpose of discrediting the Single Bullet Theory. I believe there is ample evidence the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated there.

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign. When did it get established that the shot was fired from the 6th floor?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

If it was a fabrication, then Humes certainly fabricated early on, by probing the wound with his finger and claiming it didn't go anywhere. This would make Humes much more of a conspirator than he is generally given credit for, as he would have known virtually from the outset to conceal the use of exotic bullets.

I'm not saying that's not the case. I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy.

The autopsists took the idea of a high tech weapon strike seriously.

The FBI men took the idea of a high tech weapon strike seriously -- they called the FBI Lab to investigate.

We can see JFK in the Zap react in a manner inconsistent with a First-Strike/Kill-Strike hit, but totally consistent with a paralytic strike.

So we're gonna summarily dismiss the high tech weapon scenario in favor of a scenario loaded with defective rounds and incompetent shooters?

I don't get it. (Actually, I do. I don't think many people born before 1970 are capable of taking this high tech weapon scenario seriously.)

We can see JFK in the Zap react in a manner inconsistent with a First-Strike/Kill-Strike hit, but totally consistent with a paralytic strike. Who thought that up?

So we're gonna summarily dismiss the high tech weapon scenario in favor of a scenario loaded with defective rounds and incompetent shooters? Is one fantasy so much different from the other?

I don't get it. (Actually, I do. I don't think many people born before 1970 are capable of taking this high tech weapon scenario seriously.) Were you born before 1970?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that all of Pat's photos are lateral views.

I suggest the following experiment:

Get a hand held mirror; stand in front of a wall mirror with your shoulders perpendicular so that you have a reflection of a lateral view.

Glance over and notice that the top of your shirt collar appears to be a little under the level of your ear lobes.

Now turn your back to the wall mirror and hold up the hand mirror so that it reflects a posterior view of the back of your head.

The top of your shirt collar will appear to have dropped a couple of inches!

That's because the lateral view Pat must use is an optical illusion.

I called John Hunt out for this garbage back in '99...Zombie Pet Theories...

I suggest the following experiment: Is there a purpose for this? I don't see how that duplicates what went on in the automobile. As I said, if you want to know where the bullet hit him, just look at a photo of his back after the shooting.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade, or does anyone disagree? So what do we know about JFK's wounds? Only what we know from eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who had no reason to lie or fabricate. There was a back wound with no way to know where the bullet wen, absent a real and credible autopsy. There was a throat wound that the doctors who attended JFK took to be an entry wound. Again, no way to tell where the bullet went. There was a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, characteristic of an exit wound, i.e. a shot from the front. There were other head wounds seen at Bethesda that were not seen at Parkland, which suggests exactly what Humes uttered as heard by the FBI agents, surgery to the head area, which can only mean alteration of the body prior to the so-called autopsy. That is basically what we know IMO, which means a conspiracy. What the government shows us with its photos and x-rays and its final "autopsy" report (after the first one I believe was burned) is worthless, one photo being an obvious fake and thus none of them being trustworthy. We can argue forever, to the delight and amusement of the conspirators, about the exact nature of the wounds and type of weapons used. We know enough to know there was a conspiracy, but little else with respect to medical evidence due to the theft of the body from Dallas, after which any hope of knowing more died.

You are exactly correct Ron.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Finck told the HSCA that he tried to use a metal probe to determine the bullet path, but was unsuccessful.

So then he had the X-rays made when, according to the X-Ray techs, the lungs and internal organs had already been removed.

Hmmmmm. So what were they EXPECTING to find, if the internal cavity was already empty?

My OPINION is that they were simply taking the x-rays to be able to say...they took x-rays but didn't find a bullet.

Sounds like a basic CYA move, when the autopsy report and the x-rays were meant to never be disclosed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"I said a hole in the shirt doesn't prove he was shot, you say it does."

these proofs require supporting evidence. if Bill is KNOWN to have put on a shirt with no holes in it, a gunshot is heard and when the shirt is removed it contains a bullethole, then that's just about concrete proof Bill will also have a bullet hole in him.

IF those things cannot be established, then the shirt is not proof - now, it may be highly suggestive of a bullet hole in Bill, but in and of itself it does not, what's the word... it is not absolute proof that he was shot. and i'm thinking in this forum, when the word proof is used that it means and only means incontrovertibly established, and not strongly suggestive.

i bet this is where much disagreement lies, in the understanding of this word as it's used in this forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oops

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Finck told the HSCA that he tried to use a metal probe to determine the bullet path, but was unsuccessful.

So then he had the X-rays made when, according to the X-Ray techs, the lungs and internal organs had already been removed.

Hmmmmm. So what were they EXPECTING to find, if the internal cavity was already empty?

My OPINION is that they were simply taking the x-rays to be able to say...they took x-rays but didn't find a bullet.

Sounds like a basic CYA move, when the autopsy report and the x-rays were meant to never be disclosed.

this deserves emphasis.

hmmm > "So then he had the X-rays made when, according to the X-Ray techs, the lungs and internal organs had already been removed."

new to me. is this at all verifiable? I've read the testimony of the organs being removed, and of Finck partially probing the wound; if the time of these events are documented, that's quite a hard thing to defend, even though the WC can defend anything and get away with it, it's still some pretty good ammunition.

and this, too: just how established is it that the report and the x-rays were not meant to be published?

Edited by Glenn Nall
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that all of Pat's photos are lateral views.

I suggest the following experiment:

Get a hand held mirror; stand in front of a wall mirror with your shoulders perpendicular so that you have a reflection of a lateral view.

Glance over and notice that the top of your shirt collar appears to be a little under the level of your ear lobes.

Now turn your back to the wall mirror and hold up the hand mirror so that it reflects a posterior view of the back of your head.

The top of your shirt collar will appear to have dropped a couple of inches!

That's because the lateral view Pat must use is an optical illusion.

I called John Hunt out for this garbage back in '99...Zombie Pet Theories...

So now I get it.

I don't see any evidence of that at all.

It's all a joke, right?

Your "work" on the back wound is a bad joke, correct.

I mean, you didn't even read the captions to those images.

I could care less about Zimmerman and McAdams. They put the back wound at C7/T1 -- you put the wound at T1.

All of you are demonstrably wrong.

The images I posted demonstrate that McAdams and Zimmerman routinely lie about the back wound location on their exhibits, in which they propose the bullet entered at a level far above the throat wound. But, no, instead of agreeing with me on this obvious point, you choose to pretend there's some sort of optical illusion at work.

To make the case that JFK's mastoid aligned with the top of his collars you employ a lateral view optical illusion.

I've well demonstrated this already.

In other words, you are defending them.

In other words, Pat, you can't defend this T1 nonsense to save your life so you want to make this about the SBT.

It ain't about the SBT.

It's about the historical fact JFK's back wound was at T3.

If you claim otherwise -- show us how the jacket collar dropped into an elevated position.

So...does that mean you think a bullet entrance at T-1 really IS above the level of the throat wound? If so, please demonstrate.

There was NO T1 back wound.

T1 ain't 4 inches below the bottom of your clothing collars.

You ignore the illogic of your claims about the clothing.

You cite lateral views to support your claim that the upper margin of Kennedy's clothing collars aligned with the mastoid process, employing an obvious, demonstrable optical illusion.

You are demonstrably wrong.

FWIW, I'm not pushing Hunt's "garbage."

Hunt used the same lateral view optical illusion.

Hunt's study of the bunching of the clothing led him to believe the holes on the clothing were consistent with the single-bullet theory. I do not. Much as yourself, I argue that the holes on the clothing prove the single-bullet theory a fraud.

Yeah, we've known that for over 50 years.

Who cares about the SBT?

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

That's what I want to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he did feel like a fool x-raying an empty chest cavity, as any evidence of a bullet would have been removed with the lung.

" I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy. "

I cannot state strongly enough the incorrectness of this thinking, and that this line of thought is precisely what those feeding us this disinformation wanted to produce in our minds.

Think of it for a second. JFK was shot in the back with a 162 grain full metal jacket bullet, travelling roughly 2000 fps (1363 mph) when it struck him. The only things that stood between this bullet and the space in front of JFK were two fragile ribs (assuming the bullet did not pass between ribs) and the top of a lung. With the weight of this bullet, and its velocity, it had enough energy to pass through Connally, as well, and still injure Kellerman.

This back wound is indeed a mystery, a bullet entering but not exiting. But, when one considers that the exact same bullet that entered JFK's right lung also caused the damage to JFK's head, the mystery begins to clear up a little.

Frangible bullets are made from powdered lead (or other metals) that is compressed or glued together into the shape of a bullet. They will disintegrate into dust if they come into contact with steel or concrete, but will easily penetrate brittle skull bone. If of the proper hollow point design, these bullets will disintegrate in a wound as they pass through soft, wet tissue, such as brain or lung. This disintegration into dust makes frangible bullets the most lethal bullets on the market today.

It was necessary to mask the nature of the back wound in order to maintain the myth that JFK was shot in the head with a FMJ bullet.

Geez, Robert. The bullet or fragment creating the back wound did not enter the body. This was not a story made up after the autopsy. This was confirmed by the FBI agents watching the autopsy, and by autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins, in numerous interviews. The doctors' failure to find an entrance into the body, moreover, was considered so problematic for the single-assassin conclusion that Arlen Specter chose to lie about it, and made up a story (that the bullet slid between some imaginary strap muscles on the back of the neck) that he told in the Warren Report and continued to tell until his death. So, yes, a story was created to hide what happened. But you're looking in the wrong direction.

You are lost, Pat, along with the majority of researchers who also have a complete lack of understanding of ballistics.

Ever since Tom Purvis fed you all that whopper about the "short shot", you've all gladly accepted the bullet that only penetrated an inch into JFK's back, only because it negated the Single Bullet Theory.

Do you have any concept at all how ridiculous that is?

P.S.

Confirmation by two FBI agents is hardly what one would call consultation with medical professionals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The bullet that entered JFK's back disintegrated to powder in the top of JFK's right lung, inflicting a pneumothorax in that lung (this was observed by Dr. Marion Jenkins and was the reason a chest tube was placed in JFK's right lung).

This is the same metal powder that was observed as hundreds of dust like particles in the x-rays of JFK's skull. This metal dust was also observed on the inside of the Harper Fragment when it was examined at Methodist Hospital. The bullet(s) that entered JFK's skull were also frangible bullets, explaining their disintegration into dust like particles.

Bullets, even hollow points, do not disintegrate into dust. Lead is malleable, not brittle.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme
Link to post
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...