Jump to content
The Education Forum

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)


Pat Speer

Recommended Posts

I just read this medicolegal thing by some pathologist in which he describes JUST HOW MUCH of a joke this autopsy was in terms of overall Medical procedure as POLICY. These US Naval officers had no more choice in their procedures than an intern would have, and how it was, given their performance as they themselves have attested to, in fact, a travesty.

It's one thing for we laypersons to see the many mistakes that are visible and unconscionable, quite another to compare their actions to how it was supposed to be done.

If anyone hasn't come across it, it's "Medicolegal Investigation of the JFK Murder" by Charles Wilber.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I take you are trying to excuse "these US Naval officers" for not knowing what they were doing, or else for having to follow procedures that were a joke. I would ask why the U.S.Navy would assign an autopsy of a president of the United States to people who didn't know what they were doing, or to require them to follow procedures that were a joke, or why the Navy would not know that its procedures were a joke. I happen to think that the Navy knew exactly what it was doing at Bethesda that night.

.

Sorry Ron. No way. First they did not normally do autopsys. They were 'doctors'. They were not allowed to publish there autopsy report/findings. The notes were burn, remember? Almost nothing they found was accepted. it was a total sham. Why were there so many people there? Why was the autopsy doctor not 'in charge'? They wanted the truth hidden, it was. We still do not have the 'truth'.

I guess I didn't make myself clear. I didn't mean that the "doctors" knew exactly what they were doing. It was the Navy that assigned some doctors to do the autopsy. It was the Navy who then wouldn't let the doctors be in charge. It was the Navy that allowed a roomful of people. It was the Navy that wanted the truth hidden. Et cetera, et cetera. Again, the Navy knew exactly what it was doing.

Right, Ron. knowing just how complicit each of the doctors were or weren't isn't really important because they very obviously had people above them who knew a lot more and clearly had more control.

that medicolegal summary just makes it quite clear that procedures were dashed to the ground, by whomever's hand. and he follows it with how an autopsy should have been done, procedure by procedure. it's really interesting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess.

in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it.

i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT.

i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it.

it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it.

i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you...

If I'm wrong, it's not an honest question. I can already see that the answer is going to be that since there is a 4, the other side is a vowel. but that wasn't the question and the condition was 'if it is a vowel' then. 4 is not a vowel , so you don't get to see the other side.

the REASON you're missing the whole idea is because you jumped to a conclusion from the very start that just isn't true.

where did you get the idea that you are limited in which cards you can turn over? the instruction is simple and clear: choose the minimal # of cards that need to be turned over to show whether the postulate is true or false.

that is exactly what it means, and everybody else read it correctly. so if you insist that it's worded wrong, go tell the masses. I understood it, and the man who got it right understood it, and the professionals who created it felt that it was worded properly.

maybe they're wrong. want to email them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of words posted on this thread regarding what Pat Speer has concluded. Many of you are castigating Mr. Speer for using the evidence we were given by the WC, claiming that the evidence doesn't accurately represent the truth.

But let's look at this from a different angle.

What Pat Speer has done is to take the evidence we were given--flawed or not--and use it to show that, even with their own evidence, the conclusions of the WC are unsupportable. Mr. Speer has educated himself in many different areas of anatomy and physiology, and other areas of scientific analysis, and used that knowledge to show that the conclusions of the WC are dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst.

What a back-assward way to approach the evidence.

Mark, it would be one thing for Pat Speer to declare that even with their own fraudulent evidence the WC conclusions are untenable -- but Pat insists the improperly prepared autopsy evidence is infallible!

How many violations of autopsy protocol were involved in the BOH photo and the written-in-pen "measurements"?

More than a half-dozen!

Does it make sense to declare such evidence infallible when it is repeatedly contradicted by the physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documents?

Please explain the logic here, Mark, because I know Pat can't.

Mark, this is another waste of air. You gave it an admirable attempt, but to no avail. He'll be insulting Pat's family next...

don't waste your time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of words posted on this thread regarding what Pat Speer has concluded. Many of you are castigating Mr. Speer for using the evidence we were given by the WC, claiming that the evidence doesn't accurately represent the truth.

But let's look at this from a different angle.

What Pat Speer has done is to take the evidence we were given--flawed or not--and use it to show that, even with their own evidence, the conclusions of the WC are unsupportable. Mr. Speer has educated himself in many different areas of anatomy and physiology, and other areas of scientific analysis, and used that knowledge to show that the conclusions of the WC are dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst.

What a back-assward way to approach the evidence.

Mark, it would be one thing for Pat Speer to declare that even with their own fraudulent evidence the WC conclusions are untenable -- but Pat insists the improperly prepared autopsy evidence is infallible!

How many violations of autopsy protocol were involved in the BOH photo and the written-in-pen "measurements"?

More than a half-dozen!

Does it make sense to declare such evidence infallible when it is repeatedly contradicted by the physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documents?

Please explain the logic here, Mark, because I know Pat can't.

Mark, this is another waste of air. You gave it an admirable attempt, but to no avail. He'll be insulting Pat's family next...

don't waste your time.

The only person on this thread who has tried to make this personal is YOU.

If you can't argue a fact why do you post at all?

YOU are the type of person this Forum tried to lose -- all you do is xxxxx personalities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BE5_HI.JPGWill this one do? Cliff

This is the Fox 5 "Back of the Head" autopsy photo.

The upper artifact is considered the "wound."

It aligns with T1.

It's a fugazi. There's no evidence that John Kennedy is the subject of this photo.

No chain of possession.

Not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

Fugazi, and I ain't talkin' the band.

It's as good as evidence as any other autopsy photos or info. All of it is a sham. But, why pick and choose which part you accept. All or none.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Pat Speer:

"P.S. If you think it ridiculous that a rifle bullet would not transit beyond the outer layers of the skin, perhaps you should consider the alternative. In your scenario, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that three doctors inspected the body of the most famous patient they would ever see, and found the entrance of a high-velocity bullet on his back flesh, but couldn't find any entrance beyond the flesh. Now, do you know how ridiculous this is? I've read dozens and dozens of books and articles on gunshot wounds, and this just does not happen. I mean, I've yet to find a single case study in which doctors valiantly tried to probe a high-velocity torso wound, but couldn't find any entrance into the body. Have you?"

I'll go one better than that, Pat. Not only did those three doctors hide the true nature of the back wound with the "short shot" and "shallow back wound" fairy tale, they also lied about a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head.

P.S.

I've also read many medical papers, and the majority of doctors will not try to probe bullet tracks for two reasons.

1. Tissue has a tendency to swell and close behind a bullet track, closing off the track.

2. Probes tend to make their own track if used too aggressively.

P.P.S.

Don't you dare get snarky with me and start making cracks about me being a self-appointed ballistics expert. I have likely forgotten more about ballistics than you will ever know. The reality of this situation is that a bullet travelling slowly enough to only penetrate an inch in flesh never would have found its target in the first place, for the reasons I have already outlined.

Uhh, sorry, Robert. Dead tissue doesn't bruise or swell, and pathologists do indeed insert metal probes from entrance to exit, and take pictures of the these probes within the body. Here is what the HSCA FPP had to say about Humes' inability to probe the back wound:

"The panel believes that the difficulty which Drs. Humes, Finck, and Boswell experienced in trying to place a soft probe through the bullet pathway in President Kennedy’s neck probably resulted from their failure or inability to manipulate this portion of the body into the same position it was in when the missile penetrated. Rigor mortis may have hindered this manipulation. Such placement would have enabled reconstruction of the relationships of the neck and shoulder when the missile struck. It is customary, however, to dissect missile tracks to determine damage and pathway. Probing a track blindly may produce false tracks and misinformation."

Note that they don't criticize them for trying to probe the wound, or offer up any silliness about the track being closed off. No, they propose that the president's corpse stiffened up in such a way that the path through his body was twisted, and was not easily probed. They make it clear, moreover, that they believe they could have successfully probed the body, if only they'd manipulated his body into the position he was in when shot.

Note that they don't criticize them for trying to probe the wound, or offer up any silliness about the track being closed off. I'm not sure what time the probe of the back wound was attempted but Rigor should not have been affecting his back before about midnight that night. I think it's like the other wounds, no matter what was really found, the public would still only be told the 'public' story. There is no way the bullet from the back came out his throat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BE5_HI.JPGWill this one do? Cliff

This is the Fox 5 "Back of the Head" autopsy photo.

The upper artifact is considered the "wound."

It aligns with T1.

It's a fugazi. There's no evidence that John Kennedy is the subject of this photo.

No chain of possession.

Not prepared according to proper autopsy protocol.

The "wound" has a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below.

Fugazi, and I ain't talkin' the band.

It's as good as evidence as any other autopsy photos or info. All of it is a sham. But, why pick and choose which part you accept. All or none.

Noi, actually Fox 5 is the worst of the lot.

From the HSCA analysis, emphasis added:

<quote on>

Among the JFK assassination materials in the National Archives is a series

of negatives and prints of photographs taken during autopsy. The deficiencies

of these photographs as scientific documentation of a forensic autopsy have

been described elsewhere. Here it is sufficient to note that:

1. They are generally of rather poor photographic quality.

2. Some, particularly close-ups, were taken in such a manner that

it is nearly impossible to anatomically orient the direction of view.

3. In many, scalar references are entirely lacking, or when present,

were positioned in such a manner to make it difficult or impossible

to obtain accurate measurements of critical features (such as the wound

in the upper back) from anatomical landmarks.

4. None of the photographs contain information identifying the victim;

such as his name, the autopsy case number, the date and place of the

examination.

In the main, these shortcomings bespeak of haste, inexperience and

unfamiliarity with the understandably rigorous standards generally

expected in photographs to be used as scientific evidence.

<quote off>

Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question, Cliff: is the back wound on the Fox 5 photo below or above the level of Kennedy's throat wound?

Looks considerably below it to me. Seems to be about 2 inches below the bottom of his shoulder blade.

I can't make out any numbers on that ruler, but the hole is about 3/4 of the ruler, near the bottom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the perspective this photo is taken from is actually quite misleading? JFK's head is tilted back quite severely, and this has the effect of shortening the neck; making the entrance wound appear much closer to the scalp line and, hence, higher on the neck (the area of C7/T1).

However, in the photo, we can make out the outline of the scapula (shoulder blade) adjacent to the entrance wound, and even the crested top of the scapula, which appears to be slightly higher than the entrance wound.

If we look at this anatomical diagram, this location actually puts the level of the entrance wound at thoracic vertebra T3; exactly where the death certificate said it was.

stock-vector-levator-scapulae-muscle-did

The thoracic vertebrae are distinguishable from the cervical (neck) vertebrae by the fact you can see the ends of the ribs attached to the thoracic vertebrae. Vertebra T3 is the 3rd one down from the neck with ribs attached to it.

If the bullet entered at the level of T3, the only place it could go is into the top of JFK's right lung.

picture11315252633436.jpg

The posterior view shows the relationship between vertebra T3 and the lungs best. "RUL" stands for "right upper lung".BE5_HI.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question, Cliff: is the back wound on the Fox 5 photo below or above the level of Kennedy's throat wound?

T3 is well below the throat wound -- obviously!

I fail to see the value in discussing a wound that never existed.

When are you going to demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar dropped into an elevated position?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the perspective this photo is taken from is actually quite misleading? JFK's head is tilted back quite severely, and this has the effect of shortening the neck; making the entrance wound appear much closer to the scalp line and, hence, higher on the neck (the area of C7/T1).

However, in the photo, we can make out the outline of the scapula (shoulder blade) adjacent to the entrance wound, and even the crested top of the scapula, which appears to be slightly higher than the entrance wound.

If we look at this anatomical diagram, this location actually puts the level of the entrance wound at thoracic vertebra T3; exactly where the death certificate said it was.

stock-vector-levator-scapulae-muscle-did

The thoracic vertebrae are distinguishable from the cervical (neck) vertebrae by the fact you can see the ends of the ribs attached to the thoracic vertebrae. Vertebra T3 is the 3rd one down from the neck with ribs attached to it.

BE5_HI.JPG

Looks like about T 8 to me. it's below the bottom point of the scapula. the scapula extends from T2 to T7 and it's slightly below that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question, Cliff: is the back wound on the Fox 5 photo below or above the level of Kennedy's throat wound?

T3 is well below the throat wound -- obviously!

I fail to see the value in discussing a wound that never existed.

When are you going to demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar dropped into an elevated position?

Cliff which wound are you saying never existed, the one pictured on his back or the throat wound? Or some other wound?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question, Cliff: is the back wound on the Fox 5 photo below or above the level of Kennedy's throat wound?

T3 is well below the throat wound -- obviously!

I fail to see the value in discussing a wound that never existed.

When are you going to demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar dropped into an elevated position?

Cliff which wound are you saying never existed, the one pictured on his back or the throat wound? Or some other wound?

The high back wound

The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars -- that location is not at the top of the back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A simple question, Cliff: is the back wound on the Fox 5 photo below or above the level of Kennedy's throat wound?

T3 is well below the throat wound -- obviously!

I fail to see the value in discussing a wound that never existed.

When are you going to demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar dropped into an elevated position?

Cliff which wound are you saying never existed, the one pictured on his back or the throat wound? Or some other wound?

The high back wound

The bullet holes in the clothes are 4 inches below the bottom of the collars -- that location is not at the top of the back.

I agree that the bullet wound in his back in that photo is several inches down from his neck, 5 or 6 inches or so.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...