10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

[Glenn Nall]

I find this thread rather odd. It's been my understanding that Pat believes that all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who said there was a large wound in the back of the head were wrong. They only imagined this wound because of the way they were looking at JFK's head. (This is some psychological phenomenon to which I believe Pat gives a name that I forget.) I find it odd that this unique and significant theory of Pat's about JFK's head wound(s) is mentioned nowhere (unless I missed it) in a thread about the conclusions of Pat Speer.

It also strikes me as odd that Cliff chooses to accuse Pat of "witness bashing," but only with respect to the location of the back wound and the nature of the throat wound. Cliff makes no mention of all the witnesses whom Pat in effect dismisses about the wound in the back of the head.

Perhaps, given its absence from this thread, Pat doesn't even hold this theory about the wound in the back of the head anymore. If so, then I'm out of date and apologize for bringing up something irrelevant.

exactly, Ron. thank you for seeing what i see. it's quite embarrassing, i think.

and he feels it's his duty to "correct" Pat. THAT is my point.

Oy.

[Glenn Nall]

i'm not defending Pat, even though I so far respect his energy - i'm defending myself. I LIKE it here in this forum. there are some smart people, and some nice people.

when i read a few months ago about how this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you, I was honestly worried, and that is when i came looking to participate. I was delighted to see that it was still alive, that an admin had posted a sticky about infighting JUST such as this, and that SOME people are not happy with it.

i do not want to go to another forum where this personal affrontery is commonplace. perhaps i can suggest one, tho...

so i speak my mind when i see someone clearly just picking a fight over SOMETHING THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL.

just in case it's not clear: The witnesses do not need a hero. nothing you can say or do is going to make Pat or anyone else change their behavior to suit you.

how is it that you don't know this?

QUOTE: this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you,. .UNQUOTE

Glenn: with all due respect, this is an absurd statement.

Pat Speer runs rough shod over the record, wherever and whenever it conflicts with his preconceptions.

So why shouldn't someone who holds the truth in high regard, want to set the record straight, which --often--means defending a witness.

This afternoon, I spent about an hour (or more) at Speer's website, perusing his manuscript. It was a very irritating experience, because he tends to de-focus everything.

its like being in a math class, where you're trying to learn number theory, and there's this student who raises his hand and says, "But I don't understand something. Why can't it be the case that 2 + 3 equals 6? And then holds forth on some completely extraneous line of argument, which distracts attention away from the issue at hand.

Sometimes we read a book and really get turned on by the material; with Speer, its as if you read and read and fall deeper and deeper into a pile of rubble.

Not "rubbish". . . mind you. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "rubble."

The man dissembles and wanders and indulges in the extraneous; and brings up things that are immaterial, all of this packaged in such a way that we think we're dealing with a serious thinker. You've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? With Speer, fasten your seatbelt, because nothing ever gets resolved.

In his bio, he says: "I had a midlife crises and so I decided to look for truth in the Kennedy assassination." Then he goes off on one tangent after another after another. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to Nowhere. One black hole after another.

Just look at his chapter titles: "19b: Stuck in the Middle with you" ; 19C: "Lost in the Jungle with Kurtz"; 21: "Rorschach Test".

Let me contrast Speer's style with that of someone who was one of my original "teachers" on this case: Vincent Salandria.

SPRING 1965- UCLA

It was the Spring of 1965 when--probably on the recommendation of Ray Marcus--that i went to the Periodicals Room of the UCLA Library, and read Salandria's original articles on the medical evidence.

There it was--clear as a bell--laid out out so a child could understand it: the back (or shoulder wound) was lower than the throat wound. It wasn't just the measurement: it was the damn clothing holes, in both the shirt and jacket.

I remember reading the sentences pointing out that if a bullet entered (from the rear) down where the clothing holes were, and then (somehow) really exited at the front of the throat, it would be following an upward path through Kennedy's body and fly harmlessly--and that was the word he used, "harmlessly"--over the Governor's head.

Of course, I used this in writing my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence ("The Case for Three Assassins") that was a cover story in the January1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine, but who knew--back in 1965--that 40 years later, a so-called "researcher" would come along, inform us that he got involved because of a mid-life crisis (and that he personally assembled a library of over 1,000 books); that he had analyzed all this closely and--ta da!--all previous analyses were wrong!

I've stopped debating this sort of thing, but I don't blame Cliff Varnell one bit for reacting as he does, and for framing his reaction as a defense of witnesses.

Another example: Having assembled a list of 64 witnesses who believed the shots came from the front (and specifically, the knoll), AND (in addition) having assembled and published a 32 chapter book [best Evidence] which lays out the case that the body was covertly intercepted and altered ("hijacked" is the term preferred by Cliff V.) how do you think I react when i see Speer glibly informing those reading his posts that it is illogical to believe that shots were fired from the knoll; or that it is illogical to believe that the President's body was altered?

Speer is not nearly as bad as DVP, of course. He uses words like "loopy" and "zany" Speer, imho, is someone whose writing and thinking results in a series of de-focused arguments which, if one does not know the record, appear to be superficially credible.

If he doesn't like a witness (like Nurse Audrey Bell, who I interviewed in person in 1982, and then on camera in 1989) --and who says that that JFK's head wound was at the back of his head--Speer asserts she has no credibility.

Really! Speer even says she wasn't in the room. If he doesn't like a witness who--along with two others--spent over an hour in a personal meeting with Dr. Kemp Clark (who told him that JFK was shot twice from the front--a simple statement) out comes the knives and we are treated to a bunch of ad hominem nonsense.

Over 50 people say the car stopped, or slowed seriously--an event not on the Zapruder film.

Not a problem. Speer vouches for the film (anyway)

He places great weight on the backward and leftward "head snap", apparently unaware that no one actually saw such a motion, and (consequently) that that motion is an artifact of the alteration (i.e., good evidence of the editing process; of editing --and frame removal--to eliminate the car stop).

But Speer is hopelessly blind to this sort of data.

The list goes on.

Here's another example of what happens when one follows Speer into his defocused pile of rubble.

SPEER ON LBJ AND AND AF-1 (when the plane was on the ground at Love Field). . .

I really liked Speer's chapter about Lyndon Johnson on AF-1. Speer lines up a dozen reasons Johnson has to be lying --asks "What is he hiding?" (my quotes)--and concludes that Johnson was part of the plot. (Really! He says that. . . ) But. . .the notion that the body was removed from the coffin prior to takeoff is zany? So let me see if I understand Speer's "logic": Johnson is guilty of being party to a state crime (because he lied to Robert Kennedy on a whole bunch of details). almost all of which are related to the bod; but shots did not come from the knoll and the autopsy photos are authentic representations of the body? (which was not altered?)

Confused? Don't worry about it. . . its just Speer laying out another argument that perhaps 2 + 3 equals 7.

Speer is going to be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Lancer Conference. People will fly in from all over probably not because they believe the Warren Report but because they don't--and are looking for the truth.

I hope that when he stands up and addresses this group, he will--in the interest of full disclosure--read the passages from Aubrey Rike's book where Rike describes how, in moving Kennedy from the hospital gurney to the Dallas casket, that he could feel the hole in the back of Kennedy's head.

That's right--the hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

That's what Rike told me (also) in 1980, in an on-camera interview at his home.

Oh. . . I know., Speer will say that 25 years later, while straightening things out during his mid-life crisis, he met Aubrey at another conference, and that Aubrey told him something different, and so the games he plays will go on. And on. And on.

Get it? Its like a game without end. Like a non-convergent Taylor Series in mathematics.

Nothing converges. Truth can't be found, because--by the time Speer gets through massaging the data--there's nothing left but an out-of-focus illegible mess.

DSL

8/2/15 - 9:55 p.m.PDT

Los Angeles, California

with all due respect, this is an absurd statement.

no - it's not. it's one thing to "set the record straight." that requires saying something JUST ONCE.

look at the amount of energy you have spent trying to set PAT, not the Record, straight.

if you think that's normal, then you have control issues.

the record is set straight = Your Opinions differ from Pat's.

straight? everybody got it?

i hope my opinions are worthy of your approval when i get around to relaying them. may i run them by your before i publish them to make sure they're suitable for public consumption?

you can tell me how to improve my way of thinking, too.

yay.

my point is that it's the constant barrage, not the setting straight of the record. what i as the newcomer here see is infighting. useless arguing that changes nothing. kinda like romper room. do you not see it?

Edited August 3, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

and for the record, if it makes anyone happy, i will pay closer attention to Pat's theories when i get to them.

better now? is that your goal, to warn people of his eccentricities?

[Cliff Varnell]

and for the record, if it makes anyone happy, i will pay closer attention to Pat's theories when i get to them.

better now? is that your goal, to warn people of his eccentricities?

My goal is to attack the JFK cover-up with emphasis on the long-suppressed physical evidence.

Pat Speer claims JFK wore his clothes up around his earlobes.

His entire analysis of the back and throat wounds is based on this nonsense.

Draw your own conclusions...

Edited August 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

i'm not defending Pat, even though I so far respect his energy - i'm defending myself. I LIKE it here in this forum. there are some smart people, and some nice people.

when i read a few months ago about how this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you, I was honestly worried, and that is when i came looking to participate. I was delighted to see that it was still alive, that an admin had posted a sticky about infighting JUST such as this, and that SOME people are not happy with it.

i do not want to go to another forum where this personal affrontery is commonplace. perhaps i can suggest one, tho...

so i speak my mind when i see someone clearly just picking a fight over SOMETHING THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL.

just in case it's not clear: The witnesses do not need a hero. nothing you can say or do is going to make Pat or anyone else change their behavior to suit you.

how is it that you don't know this?

QUOTE: this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you,. .UNQUOTE

Glenn: with all due respect, this is an absurd statement.

Pat Speer runs rough shod over the record, wherever and whenever it conflicts with his preconceptions.

So why shouldn't someone who holds the truth in high regard, want to set the record straight, which --often--means defending a witness.

This afternoon, I spent about an hour (or more) at Speer's website, perusing his manuscript. It was a very irritating experience, because he tends to de-focus everything.

its like being in a math class, where you're trying to learn number theory, and there's this student who raises his hand and says, "But I don't understand something. Why can't it be the case that 2 + 3 equals 6? And then holds forth on some completely extraneous line of argument, which distracts attention away from the issue at hand.

Sometimes we read a book and really get turned on by the material; with Speer, its as if you read and read and fall deeper and deeper into a pile of rubble.

Not "rubbish". . . mind you. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "rubble."

The man dissembles and wanders and indulges in the extraneous; and brings up things that are immaterial, all of this packaged in such a way that we think we're dealing with a serious thinker. You've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? With Speer, fasten your seatbelt, because nothing ever gets resolved.

In his bio, he says: "I had a midlife crises and so I decided to look for truth in the Kennedy assassination." Then he goes off on one tangent after another after another. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to Nowhere. One black hole after another.

Just look at his chapter titles: "19b: Stuck in the Middle with you" ; 19C: "Lost in the Jungle with Kurtz"; 21: "Rorschach Test".

Let me contrast Speer's style with that of someone who was one of my original "teachers" on this case: Vincent Salandria.

SPRING 1965- UCLA

It was the Spring of 1965 when--probably on the recommendation of Ray Marcus--that i went to the Periodicals Room of the UCLA Library, and read Salandria's original articles on the medical evidence.

There it was--clear as a bell--laid out out so a child could understand it: the back (or shoulder wound) was lower than the throat wound. It wasn't just the measurement: it was the damn clothing holes, in both the shirt and jacket.

I remember reading the sentences pointing out that if a bullet entered (from the rear) down where the clothing holes were, and then (somehow) really exited at the front of the throat, it would be following an upward path through Kennedy's body and fly harmlessly--and that was the word he used, "harmlessly"--over the Governor's head.

Of course, I used this in writing my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence ("The Case for Three Assassins") that was a cover story in the January1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine, but who knew--back in 1965--that 40 years later, a so-called "researcher" would come along, inform us that he got involved because of a mid-life crisis (and that he personally assembled a library of over 1,000 books); that he had analyzed all this closely and--ta da!--all previous analyses were wrong!

I've stopped debating this sort of thing, but I don't blame Cliff Varnell one bit for reacting as he does, and for framing his reaction as a defense of witnesses.

Another example: Having assembled a list of 64 witnesses who believed the shots came from the front (and specifically, the knoll), AND (in addition) having assembled and published a 32 chapter book [best Evidence] which lays out the case that the body was covertly intercepted and altered ("hijacked" is the term preferred by Cliff V.) how do you think I react when i see Speer glibly informing those reading his posts that it is illogical to believe that shots were fired from the knoll; or that it is illogical to believe that the President's body was altered?

Speer is not nearly as bad as DVP, of course. He uses words like "loopy" and "zany" Speer, imho, is someone whose writing and thinking results in a series of de-focused arguments which, if one does not know the record, appear to be superficially credible.

If he doesn't like a witness (like Nurse Audrey Bell, who I interviewed in person in 1982, and then on camera in 1989) --and who says that that JFK's head wound was at the back of his head--Speer asserts she has no credibility.

Really! Speer even says she wasn't in the room. If he doesn't like a witness who--along with two others--spent over an hour in a personal meeting with Dr. Kemp Clark (who told him that JFK was shot twice from the front--a simple statement) out comes the knives and we are treated to a bunch of ad hominem nonsense.

Over 50 people say the car stopped, or slowed seriously--an event not on the Zapruder film.

Not a problem. Speer vouches for the film (anyway)

He places great weight on the backward and leftward "head snap", apparently unaware that no one actually saw such a motion, and (consequently) that that motion is an artifact of the alteration (i.e., good evidence of the editing process; of editing --and frame removal--to eliminate the car stop).

But Speer is hopelessly blind to this sort of data.

The list goes on.

Here's another example of what happens when one follows Speer into his defocused pile of rubble.

SPEER ON LBJ AND AND AF-1 (when the plane was on the ground at Love Field). . .

I really liked Speer's chapter about Lyndon Johnson on AF-1. Speer lines up a dozen reasons Johnson has to be lying --asks "What is he hiding?" (my quotes)--and concludes that Johnson was part of the plot. (Really! He says that. . . ) But. . .the notion that the body was removed from the coffin prior to takeoff is zany? So let me see if I understand Speer's "logic": Johnson is guilty of being party to a state crime (because he lied to Robert Kennedy on a whole bunch of details). almost all of which are related to the bod; but shots did not come from the knoll and the autopsy photos are authentic representations of the body? (which was not altered?)

Confused? Don't worry about it. . . its just Speer laying out another argument that perhaps 2 + 3 equals 7.

Speer is going to be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Lancer Conference. People will fly in from all over probably not because they believe the Warren Report but because they don't--and are looking for the truth.

I hope that when he stands up and addresses this group, he will--in the interest of full disclosure--read the passages from Aubrey Rike's book where Rike describes how, in moving Kennedy from the hospital gurney to the Dallas casket, that he could feel the hole in the back of Kennedy's head.

That's right--the hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

That's what Rike told me (also) in 1980, in an on-camera interview at his home.

Oh. . . I know., Speer will say that 25 years later, while straightening things out during his mid-life crisis, he met Aubrey at another conference, and that Aubrey told him something different, and so the games he plays will go on. And on. And on.

Get it? Its like a game without end. Like a non-convergent Taylor Series in mathematics.

Nothing converges. Truth can't be found, because--by the time Speer gets through massaging the data--there's nothing left but an out-of-focus illegible mess.

DSL

8/2/15 - 9:55 p.m.PDT

Los Angeles, California

with all due respect, this is an absurd statement.

no - it's not. it's one thing to "set the record straight." that requires saying something JUST ONCE.

look at the amount of energy you have spent trying to set PAT, not the Record, straight.

if you think that's normal, then you have control issues.

the record is set straight = Your Opinions differ from Pat's.

straight? everybody got it?

i hope my opinions are worthy of your approval when i get around to relaying them. may i run them by your before i publish them to make sure they're suitable for public consumption?

you can tell me how to improve my way of thinking, too.

yay.

my point is that it's the constant barrage, not the setting straight of the record. what i as the newcomer here see is infighting. useless arguing that changes nothing. kinda like romper room. do you not see it?

You don't appear interested in the issues involved.

You can't discern the difference between attacking someone's claims and attacking that person personally?

Pat Speer seems like a great guy, actually.

Seriously flawed as a JFK researcher, however.

Just say'n,,,

[Cliff Varnell]

I find this thread rather odd. It's been my understanding that Pat believes that all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who said there was a large wound in the back of the head were wrong. They only imagined this wound because of the way they were looking at JFK's head. (This is some psychological phenomenon to which I believe Pat gives a name that I forget.) I find it odd that this unique and significant theory of Pat's about JFK's head wound(s) is mentioned nowhere (unless I missed it) in a thread about the conclusions of Pat Speer.

It also strikes me as odd that Cliff chooses to accuse Pat of "witness bashing," but only with respect to the location of the back wound and the nature of the throat wound. Cliff makes no mention of all the witnesses whom Pat in effect dismisses about the wound in the back of the head.

Perhaps, given its absence from this thread, Pat doesn't even hold this theory about the wound in the back of the head anymore. If so, then I'm out of date and apologize for bringing up something irrelevant.

exactly, Ron. thank you for seeing what i see. it's quite embarrassing, i think.

and he feels it's his duty to "correct" Pat. THAT is my point.

Oy.

Absolutely!

That's right!

It's my patriotic duty to "correct" anyone who passes -- no matter their good intent -- The Big Lie about the murder of JFK.

The base-of-the-neck-back-wound is the Biggest Lie of all.

[Cliff Varnell]

The base-of-the-neck-back-wound is the Biggest Lie of all.

As noted earlier the significance of this goes far beyond the Single Bullet Theory.

At 4 inches below the bottom of the collars the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the air-pocket overlaying C7/T1.

The throat wound was an entrance -- just as described by the Parkland folks.

The back shot didn't exit -- no round found there during the autopsy.

The throat shot didn't exit -- no round found there during the autopsy.

Forget the SBT/headwounds/windshield/etc.etc.etc.

The central question in the murder of JFK is:

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

Edited August 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Cliff, have you ever watched my recent videos on the SBT? In them, I go through the development of the theory step by step, and show how Specter and the WC sold the "base of the neck back wound" lie to conceal that the wound was too low. I then show how the HSCA FPP tried to correct this lie, by saying that Kennedy was leaning over a ridiculous amount at the time of the first shot. And that this led them to hire a hack from NASA to 1) move the back wound back up to the base of the neck, and 2) claim Kennedy was leaning forward at the time of the first shot, and then sat up in the car in time for the head shot.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the big lie, that YOUR research conceals.

[Brian Schmidt]

A couple of thoughts on this thread:

Philosophy has been characterized as a conversation through the ages. At the risk of sounding too grandiose, I believe JFK assassination research can be characterized in a similar fashion--with knowledge being passed down from early researchers to modern ones. With discussion and debate along the way, initial theories may be augmented or thrown out and replaced with new ones, depending on analysis or new information coming available.

I remember an interview with Pat Speer in which he was recalling his research into forensic pathology and ballistics. In the interview, he said that he spent many hours at the UCLA Biomedical Library and thought to himself that he was probably standing in the same spot David Lifton stood 30 years prior. I understood this as a sort of reverence to the work of early researchers.

Of course, researchers are never going to agree on interpretation of evidence, and may clash and at times it becomes combative. But the strident tone in this thread is a bit disheartening, since I believe all parties on this forum really do have an honest desire for the truth.

Now for my take on the crux of the dispute between David Lifton and Pat Speer:

I don't think either Lifton or Speer is disingenuous in that they only portray evidence to fit the mold of their long-held view of the assassination.
The difference of interpretation comes down to opposing views of American politics and society and how the world works in general.

Lifton, after a close study of the contradictory testimony and physical evidence, is more confortable with a rather pervasive conspiracy involving the doctoring of evidence, alteration of the body, and faked photographs and video footage--through the means of synchronized covert government action.

Speer, on the other hand, is more skeptical of what he has defined as a 'massive' conspiracy, with control over multiple aspects of the chain of custody. From Pat's website's introduction, he states that fairly early on in his research, he made the decision that conspirators would not fake evidence which would lead people to believe in a conspiracy in the first place, and on this basis, to disregard alterationist literature and go on the working assumption that the medical records and other evidence was in fact real. He implies that the belief in faked evidence bore out of the cynicism of government secrecy surrounding the murder.

Lifton's counterargument would be that he didn't have a preconceived idea going into his research and let the evidence take him where it may. Further, early researchers had a clearer perspective on witnesses, as they had the actual people at their disposal to interview. Through the years, unfair dispositions may have been placed on certain witnesses, forcing later researchers to apply unfair weights to their claims.

Of course, Lifton's premise presupposes that it's possible, in a contemporary political setting, for a large degree of control over evidence and manipulation of government officials. So, I believe both Lifton and Speer begin with a bias--as is unavoidable in any research, no matter how objection one tries to be. The question is, which worldview best reflects reality?

Part of the reason I started studying the JFK assassination is because I wanted to really understand the true nature of institutions and men. I believe understanding controversial events in history--like assassinations--can be arrived at through studying physical evidence, or through the "social studies" aspect, for lack of a better term. Just how ruthless and bold (the ability to fake evidence in the public's face) are the world's most powerful men? How Machiavellian is our society?

I believe the Kennedy assassination is a micro-chasm of modern life--how one interprets the facts says a lot about the worldview of the researcher.

I don't want to put words in either Lifton of Speer's mouth; they are here to speak for themselves, but this is my take on it.

[Cliff Varnell]

Cliff, have you ever watched my recent videos on the SBT? In them, I go through the development of the theory step by step, and show how Specter and the WC sold the "base of the neck back wound" lie to conceal that the wound was too low. I then show how the HSCA FPP tried to correct this lie, by saying that Kennedy was leaning over a ridiculous amount at the time of the first shot. And that this led them to hire a hack from NASA to 1) move the back wound back up to the base of the neck,

Pat, the location to which you refer is only a fraction of an inch above your T1.

JFK wasn't shot in the back at T1.

The bullet holes in the clothes are too low, the witnesses, the valid documents, etc

Why can't you admit that?

and 2) claim Kennedy was leaning forward at the time of the first shot, and then sat up in the car in time for the head shot.

Yes, this was a conclusion drawn in concert with the US Gov't's effort to suppress the fact JFK was shot in the back at T3.

As far as I'm concerned, that's the big lie, that YOUR research conceals.

Non sequitur.

Just because I prefer to cut to the chase and avoid these rabbit holes you specialize in digging doesn't mean I'm concealing anything.

You claim JFK's collar-tops were aligned with his mastoid process.

How can you make that claim with a straight face?

[Ron Ecker]

From Pat's website's introduction, he states that fairly early on in his research, he made the decision that conspirators would not fake evidence which would lead people to believe in a conspiracy in the first place, and on this basis, to disregard alterationist literature and go on the working assumption that the medical records and other evidence was in fact real. He implies that the belief in faked evidence bore out of the cynicism of government secrecy surrounding the murder.

Of course the conspirators would fake evidence as necessary to support the official story, without worrying about who would be led to believe in a conspiracy. What could be more "fake" than the single bullet theory? Did the conspirators decide not to go with the single bullet theory because it would lead people to believe in a conspiracy? Of course not.

It is safe to conclude from the statements of so many witnesses both at Parkland and Bethesda (as well as Hill in the limo) that there was a large wound in the back of JFK's head. It is therefore sensible and logical to conclude that the conspirators faked the autopsy photo showing the back of the head with no big hole in it. If that photo was faked, how can any of the autopsy materials be trusted, particularly considering who had control of it? It makes no sense to me to base research on the assumed legitimacy of the autopsy materials. And isn't it instructive that the two autopsy-related items that would have been legitimate and conclusive of a conspiracy - JFK's coat and shirt - were in fact not included in the autopsy at all?

Edited August 3, 2015 by Ron Ecker

[Cliff Varnell]

Speer, on the other hand, is more skeptical of what he has defined as a 'massive' conspiracy, with control over multiple aspects of the chain of custody. From Pat's website's introduction, he states that fairly early on in his research, he made the decision that conspirators would not fake evidence which would lead people to believe in a conspiracy in the first place, and on this basis, to disregard alterationist literature and go on the working assumption that the medical records and other evidence was in fact real. He implies that the belief in faked evidence bore out of the cynicism of government secrecy surrounding the murder.

This is money shot.

Pat Speer is making one huge, unsupported assumption -- "conspirators would not fake evidence that would lead people to believe in a conspiracy."

The Fox 5 autopsy photo may have been faked under time constraints, no thought given to it's ultimate implications.

Or the perps may have wanted -- as a contingency -- the flexibility to revise the lone nut scenario to a conclusion of conspiracy they could blame on Castro.

Pat Speer's Vulcan Mind-Meld with the conspirators doesn't rank as evidence, certainly, nor as a sound foundation for research.

Edited August 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

I find the autopsy material easy to sort out.

There is material like Burkley's death certificate, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, and the FBI report on the autopsy.

All of these were prepared according to proper professional protocols.

Then there is material not prepared according to proper protocols -- the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen.

We count the former and disregard the latter.

I mean, that is logical, no?

Edited August 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Cliff Varnell]

The base-of-the-neck-back-wound is the Biggest Lie of all.

As noted earlier the significance of this goes far beyond the Single Bullet Theory.

At 4 inches below the bottom of the collars the bullet holes in the clothes are too low to associate with the air-pocket overlaying C7/T1.

The throat wound was an entrance -- just as described by the Parkland folks.

The back shot didn't exit -- no round found there during the autopsy.

The throat shot didn't exit -- no round found there during the autopsy.

Forget the SBT/headwounds/windshield/etc.etc.etc.

The central question in the murder of JFK is:

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

The two most common explanations are:

1) The rounds were removed prior to the autopsy, or created prior to the autopsy as per David Lifton's mutilation scenario.

2) JFK was struck with high tech rounds designed not to show up in an autopsy.

The latter was The First Conspiracy Theory -- chronologically -- rendered by the autopsists when they had the body in front of them.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

Edited August 3, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

I find the autopsy material easy to sort out.

There is material like Burkley's death certificate, the contemporaneous notes of the Parkland doctors, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pencil, and the FBI report on the autopsy.

All of these were prepared according to proper professional protocols.

Then there is material not prepared according to proper protocols -- the autopsy photos, the autopsy report, the portion of the autopsy face sheet filled out in pen.

We count the former and disregard the latter.

I mean, that is logical, no?

Yes, but the items you consider to be "prepared according to proper professional protocols" were not technically part of the autopsy, except for the autopsy face sheet. They are certainly more reliable than the photos, autopsy report etc. which IMO are worthless except as evidence of a medical cover-up.