The Autopsy Photos: A New Perspective

[Pat Speer]

This is the complete presentation I prepared for the Dallas Lancer Conference. Due to its size, I can not post it here on this Forum. Please click on the link and review. There is a download page and a slide show page. Resolution on the slideshow makes the text difficult to read, the download page is recommended. Comments appreciated.

This presentation was updated November 2005. It is now available here. http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

JFK: A New Perspective (2005)

Edited November 29, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Richard J. Smith]

Pat,

Simply outstanding. All too often, in our guessing game of shots, shooters, and speculation, we sometimes forget the real evidence that's present in the medical testimony, x rays, and photos pertaining to the autopsy. Thanks very much for this very informative presentation.

Richard

[Pat Speer]

Thanks, Richard. I feel that so many people have been impressed by the works of David Lifton, Robert Groden, and Jim Fetzer, that they fail to realize that all the medical evidence, taken at face value, still points to a conspiracy. A classic example of this is in Dr. Mantik's paper, where he observes that lead is apparent on the outside of the Harper fragment and that therefore the Harper fragment must have come from the occipital region, as (HSCA skull reconstructionist Dr.)Angel's site implies a parietal entry...an option that virtually no one would support." Well, I guess I'm virtually no one. I simply find it easier to support a tangential wound near the President's temple than the x-rays and autopsy photos of the back of the President's head all being fake.

Here, Mantik has an opportunity to accept the autopsy information and conclude there was a conspiracy, as a shot striking Kennedy in the area in question woluld either come from the front, (not likely due to there being no rear exit on the autopsy photos) or represent a second head shot from the rear, and yet he chooses instead to embrace a theory whereby all the autopsy photos are fake. This is a big reason why the mainstream media refuses to take the research community seriously.

As I tried to show on my website, it simply makes no sense for the Warren Commission and the HSCA to create a series of blatantly false exhibits if the original sources, i.e. the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos, and the x-rays, are fake. Why create fake representations of fakes? Maybe it's easier for Dr. Mantik and Dr. Fetzer et al to believe in a vast government conspiracy than to believe that their colleagues, such as Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, don't know how to interpret autopsy photos or x-rays. Or were co-erced into lying.

My apologies to anyone offended by my outburst.

Edited December 1, 2004 by Pat Speer

[Pamela Brown]

Pat Speer,Dec 1 2004 said:

Maybe it's easier for Dr. Mantik and Dr. Fetzer et al to believe in a vast government conspiracy than to believe that their colleagues, such as Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, don't know how to interpret autopsy photos or x-rays. Or were co-erced into lying.

Thanks for your beautifully presented and thought-provoking essay. It is analysis such as this that should give each of us ammunition in dealing with the irrational misstatements of the LNTs.

I agree that the situation surrounding the medical evidence is so complicated (at times, unnecessarily so, by the changes in the WC and HSCA location of the entrance wound, etc) that it is difficult to become oriented to what the issues really are. You have done well at articulating them.

I have had my concerns about the interpretations of both Baden and Wecht. I know at one point Lifton called Wecht a "sheep in wolves' clothing" which seems to sum things up pretty well.

Pamela

[Pat Speer]

Pamela, thanks for the encouragement. At one point in my analysis I was stumped as to where the extra bullet went. After visiting your website, however, and seeing the Stoughton photo, I became convinced that there was a quick clean-up of the car, and that this is when CE399 was found... As to which SS agent found the bullet and placed it on the gurney, and as to whether he knowingly removed or wiped up the fragments of a second bullet, I'm still in the dark. I'm curious if you've been able to figure out if a clean-up occurred and who was involved.

[John Dolva]

this looks like an excellent topic. I've yet to follow links etc so can't comment but as John has asked that new topics be posted after checking list first it's probably a good one to revive.

I find the whole xray thing hard to understand. The anatomy and radiography texts that I have read basically leads me to say that the xrays as available to me appear to be useless for serious analysis. For example, using the scale provided in a text on forensics that puts lead as the most opaque substance the following images tell me that the bullet fragmentation smearing is different from that of the reports. For example: Here are 3d 'graphs' of the grayscale values of the side xray show that the most opaque area is a broad vertical smear on the rear half of the skull. yet another reason for release of quality info to researchers.

the middle image is a view top down on graph, the first is a view of graph from the bottomof the xray, and the third a view from the front. (I hope these are easy to understand, I can twirl the graph about and view it from any angle to take these snapshots, so I'm familiar with them, is it an OK way to present info. to someone who hasn't seen it before?)

Edited July 14, 2005 by John Dolva

[John Dolva]

double post

[David G. Healy]

John wrote:

[...]

(I hope these are easy to understand, I can twirl the graph about and view it from any angle to take these snapshots, so I'm familiar with them, is it an OK way to present info. to someone who hasn't seen it before?)

_____________________

Perhaps a reference image of the actual xray would be appropriate, yes?

David

[Pat Speer]

In an incredibly tacky move, Pat Speer has bumped his own thread so those simply browsing on the Controversial Issues in History Forum will see his seminar.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Pat Speer

[John Dolva]

In an incredibly tacky move, Pat Speer has bumped his own thread so those simply browsing on the Controversial Iassues in History Forum will see his seminar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat, It Worked. I had no idea that this is where it was hiding. Thank you. look's good. I'll take time to read, have downloaded. I had deleted attachment, David, as I needed space. i have also now looked again at it and see it's not very clear what I was trying to show so I'll redo and post.

[Adam Wilkinson]

Pat, thankyou, there is great work there. As Pamela said, you have done well at articulating the issues surrounding the complicated medical evidence.

Well Done.

[Robin Unger]

Edited:

Edited November 26, 2005 by Robin Unger

[Robin Unger]

Edited:

Edited November 26, 2005 by Robin Unger

[Pat Speer]

Robin, we're on a similar track. You circled the small entrance in the hairline on F8 but didn't label it as such. This same entrance is apparent at the 2 o'clock position from the brain matter on the color photo of the back of the head. When they pulled the scalp up for the photo, they pulled the entrance slightly up from where the macerated brain matter had congealed in the hair.

The beveled exit at the top is the real mystery. The doctors did not report this in the autopsy protocol, nor in their testimony before the WC. In 66 when they saw the F8 photo they said it was taken from behind and showed the entrance in the hairline. In 67 they suddenly said it was taken of the forehead and showed the outshoot, even though none of the doctors in any of their interviews has ever said they took a picture of the outshoot, or even that there was a beveled outshoot on the skull. Humes and Finck in particular have said the only beveled outshoot was on the large fragment found on the floor of the limo. In order to continue this deception the Clark Panel and HSCA Forensic Panel etc. have all had to pretend this photo was taken from the front. My seminar and upcoming presentation are devoted to PROVING this photo was taken from behind.

I have recently developed the opinion that the beveled outshoot reflects the place where a slice of a bullet exploding upon entering the top of Kennedy's head from behind lodged under his scalp. This explains the red spot in the cowlick mistakenly believed to be an entrance. The hole in the scalp you circled as an entrance is I believe merely a tear in the scalp by the large entance/exit by the temple. I believe Kennedy was hit in the head by two bullets--one that hit him in the hairline and most probably exited his throat, and one that hit him on the top of the head and created a large gutter wound. I believe this is what Dr. Burkley alluded to in his statements to the HSCA about the possibility of two bullets striking Kennedy in the head. While looking online for photos of 6.5 mm head wounds, I found that most of the wounds, and all of the wounds as large as Kennedy's, were, in fact, gutter wounds. This idea that military bullets striking the skull create small entrances and huge exits, due to temporary cavitation, is a myth created by lone-nut theorists, much like the Thorburn response.

Edited October 4, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Robin Unger]

Thanks Pat.

I slightly refined the image, i beleive the right temple "ENTRANCE" wound at the hairline is possibly a little lower and too the right of where i have put the red box.