Pat Speer

Think of yourself as a bullet fragment. You are traveling through a brain on the way to some skull. An exit defect opens up as you smash through the skull, with the opening on the outside of the skull being larger than the opening on the inside aspect of the skull, as result of the energy spreading outwards. You never touch the outside of the skull. You would leave no trace on the outside of the skull. Now, if you hit the skull at a shallow angle, and broke into pieces, with some pieces continuing onwards, the skull would show entrance beveling along with exit beveling. And lead from the inside of the bullet would be apparent on the exit beveling.

The lead smear is on the outside of the skull--on bone that has been beveled outwards. This makes no sense for a bullet entering at this location (as the beveling denotes an exit) and makes no sense for a bullet exiting this location (as an exiting missile would not smear lead on the outside of the skull). But it does make sense if the bullet both entered and exited at this location, as proposed by Dr. William Kemp Clark.

I liked Jack although we disagreed on plenty. When one watches his presentations one should consider that he had convinced himself that most all official theories are fake. I remember him venting about the photographic evidence for the moon landings being fake and 9/11 being faked. This attitude was illuminated by my contact with him and my realization he also thought Obama was a secret Muslim and that the Theory of Evolution was the biggest hoax of all. The man had fake on the brain. Now, that said, I was the one who bought the HSCA testimony of Robert Studebaker (and had it put up on the Mary Ferrell site) and pieced together that the HSCA said the blow-up of one of the back yard photos was a first gen print, when the DPD insisted it was created through the use of a copy camera and that they never had the negative to this photo. This meant that either the DPD was lying about this--or that the HSCA photo panel couldn't tell a first gen print from a negative from a second gen print from a photo of an original. This is huge. If they couldn't tell a first gen from a second gen then all the back yard photos could be photos of pieced together photos. In any event, when I brought this up Gary Mack went into "Does not compute" mode and sent me email after email telling me I was joining forces with his old buddy but at that time nemesis Jack White.

As you. may very well remember, this was something widely discussed almost 20 years ago. I noticed that the foot had been retouched on the published photo and couldn't tell what it actually was. Jack White thought it was a hand. HIll's positioning in the Miller photo convinced me it couldn't be his right foot. But Bill Miller convinced me it was his left foot. In the photo above, HIll's left foot is unseen, but is presumably hooked over the side of the limo by the passenger compartment. His right foot, which is seen, is over the side by the trunk. If he picked up that foot and pulled his right knee to his chest it would account for his appearance in the Miller photo. Or so I think today. Tomorrow could be different.

If you look at the unretouched Miller photo published in the Sat Post you will see what appears to be a left foot, not a right foot dangling over the edge of the back seat compartment. I believe it was Bill Miller who tried to replicate Hill's position in the photo, moreover, and found it could not be done with the right foot dangling over the right side of the compartment.

We've been over this. It's Hill's left foot hanging over the side. The middle photo has been re-touched to make it look like JFK's foot, but it was almost certainly Hill's left foot.

1. Mantik and Horne cited Robinson as evidence for a forehead entry years before they developed their three headshot theory. He was in fact their star witness for such an entry. Their presentation of him as such a witness is irrational, if not dishonest. 2. James Jenkins has specified that the wound he saw was on the side of the head slightly above and forward of the ears. This is not the location of the red arrow in the illustration above. It IS however pretty much the location of the green arrow. This makes it all the more troubling that in JFK: What the Doctors Saw Horne is presented to indicate that the wound Jenkins saw was at the red arrow. I mean WTF? Now, it COULD be that the film-makers mis-represented Horne's beliefs, as Keven has stated. But this is hard to believe seeing as this film was a re-edit of an earlier film in which Horne was not included, and Horne is clearly presented as the guide whose interpretations of the evidence should be followed. IF the film-makers had misinterpreted and/or deliberately misrepresented Horne's views, why did he not inform them of this after an early screening, and why has he not said so publicly? As he has not we can only assume his views were not misrepresented. And that's not even to mention that Horne has a LONG history of misrepresenting Jenkins' statements and actions regarding the autopsy...to such an extent that Jenkins felt it necessary to add a section to his book in which he disavowed Horne's claim Jenkins was kept out of the morgue before the beginning of the autopsy, and was not there during the period Horne claims Humes altered the body. So, yeah, Horne has a history of making stuff up about people when they say things that fail to support his "theory." It's a pattern. Reed said he took x-rays, sat down in the audience, and was then asked to leave. As the x-rays fail to show the skull as Horne wants us to believe it was prior to alteration, Horne tells his readers Reed sat down in the audience, was asked to leave after Humes started altering the body, and was then brought back to take the x-rays. Similarly, Robinson said he arrived at the beginning of the autopsy and later saw a wound or wounds on the cheek. As Horne needs his readers to believe this cheek wound was actually a wound on the forehead, which Horne claims was concealed by Humes in pre-autopsy surgery, he tells his readers Robinson arrived far before the beginning of the autopsy, and in fact delivered the body. And that he then saw a wound on the forehead. So, no, it's not a big stretch to think he had more recently added to his misrepresentations about Jenkins by telling the people behind JFK: What the Doctors Saw that Jenkins saw a wound on the forehead--where Chesser now claims there was a wound.

I think he was talking about me. For some reason he was offended by my suggestion people like Horne should be held to the same standards as people like Specter and Posner. This tribalism is silly, IMO. I have met most of the "names" involved in JFK research. And I can guarantee that many of the most famous CTs think more highly of some of the top LNs than they do some of those on their own "side." Let's take for example Cyril Wecht. Cyril disagreed with men like Baden, Specter, and Bugliosi. But he thought more highly of them than he did men like Lifton and Fetzer.

1. McClelland said the trach incision he witnessed is the trach incision in the photos. Perry testified to expanding the wound so he could look inside to see the nature of the damage. That is as should be expected. Milicent Cranor--a researcher to whom all your heroes defer--looked into this and concluded that the large incision is as expected--under these circumstances--and that the claims of Lifton and others that the throat wound must have been altered--because it doesn't look like a typical trach incision--is jibber-jabber. 2. While it wouldn't surprise me if ER doctors when testifying sometimes refer to a wound as an entrance or an exit, I was unable to find instances where ER doctors have been presented as witnesses to counter the conclusions of a pathologist. IOW, I am fairly certain they are not presented as equal authorities on these matters. I mean, as a lawyer you would have to know there is a difference between a cop saying a man pulled out a machete and a crime scene investigator saying a butter knife was found on the scene, right? The first reported what he believed he saw, and the second reported on what he observed through careful study, and concluded as an official result. IF you have come across examples of ER doctors testifying as experts on gunshot wounds to dispute the findings of a coroner or pathologist, I would appreciate your sharing links to reports on these cases. As to your request for more info...from chapter 19h... In the early 1990's, now Associate Professor Daniel Simons of the University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana created a video of six people passing basketballs back and forth, while moving around in a circle. Simons played this video to unsuspecting subjects, asking them how many passes were made, or whether the women in the video made more passes than the men. No matter. The passing was just a distraction. During the middle of the short video-taped passing demonstration, a man in a gorilla suit walked into frame and stood in the middle of the basketball players. What Simons really wanted to know was if anyone counting the number of passes would notice this man in the gorilla suit. He got his answer, which continues to confound people to this day. He found that, upon first viewing, only about 50% of those looking straight at--no, actually studying--a video of a man in a gorilla suit, had any recollection of seeing him, when their attention was drawn to unrelated details. One can view this video, here.http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php The application of Simons' experiment to the Kennedy case should be obvious. From the failure of so many to note the gorilla in the room one can easily extrapolate that the team trying to save Kennedy's life was so focused on trying to save his life that the exact location of his head wound was only a fuzzy afterthought...subject to confusion... And should this explanation not suffice, and should one still refuse to believe that the excitement of a trauma room can lead to mistakes in bullet wound identification (and/or that trauma room physicians are not properly trained to judge the direction of bullet wounds) one should know that Wake Forest University indirectly studied this from 1987-1992, by comparing the reports of trauma specialists with the corresponding reports of forensic pathologists. This study, as described in an April 28, 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, found that, with multiple gunshot wound victims, trauma specialists mistakenly identified the number of shots or the direction of fire 74% of the time, and that, even with single shot victims with through and through wounds, they were mistaken 37% of the time. And, no, this wasn't an aberration. It may even have been an understatement. In Forensic Science, An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques (2003), long-time forensic pathologist Dr. Ronald Wright notes that emergency room physicians without forensic training tend to rely on the general rule that exit wounds are larger than entrance wounds, and fail to understand that this rule doesn't apply to contact wounds of the head (wounds in which the gun is held against the head). As a result, writes Wright, "the error rate of emergency room physicians without forensic training in determining directionality of suicidal contact gunshot wounds to the head is almost 100%." Doctors make mistakes. Lots of 'em...

When I created a timeline for my website I noticed something I think others had overlooked... From chapter 3: On 5-14-64, a week after President Johnson waived his impending mandatory retirement, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover testifies before the Commission. (5H96-120) Despite his taking an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, he offers up the Hoover truth. Hoover Truth: “I have read many of the reports that our agents have made and I have been unable to find any scintilla of evidence showing any foreign conspiracy or any domestic conspiracy that culminated in the assassination of President Kennedy.” (Note: Hoover had known for three years or more that organized crime and the anti-Castro elements likely to set up Oswald were linked and were conspiring to murder Fidel Castro, Oswald’s supposed hero. Even though this information could lead one to suspect that Oswald killed Kennedy in retaliation, or that Oswald was indeed set up, Hoover failed to mention anything about this to the Commission.) Hoover Truth: “There have been publications and books written, the contents of which have been absurd and without a scintilla of foundation of fact." “I, personally, feel that any finding of the Commission will not be accepted by everybody, because there are bound to be some extremists who have very pronounced views, without any foundation for them, who will disagree violently with whatever findings the Commission makes.” (Note: two of the loudest voices to argue against the Commission’s findings were not extremists at all, but former FBI agents William Turner and Jim Garrison. More pointedly, the President for whom the report was written, Lyndon Johnson, never believed its findings. ) Hoover Truth: “I don’t think you can get absolute security without almost establishing a police state, and we don’t want that.” (Note: by 1964 Hoover had long been using the FBI to infiltrate and discredit organizations he found personally despicable. These FBI-trained infiltrators would frequently encourage the targeted organizations to engage in violent activity, in order to help discredit them in the public eye. Curiously, one of the organizations targeted by Hoover under this program (COINTELPRO) was the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, an organization publicly discredited in New Orleans by the actions of Lee Harvey Oswald.) Hoover Truth: (When asked if he still agreed that Oswald acted alone.) “I subscribe to it even more strongly today than I did at the time the report was written. You see the original idea was that there would be an investigation by the FBI and a report would be prepared in such a form that it could be released to the public… Then a few days later, after further consideration, the President decided to form a commission, which I think was very wise, because I feel that the report of any agency of Government investigating what might be some shortcomings on the part of other agencies of Government ought to be reviewed by an impartial group such as this Commission.” (Note: Hoover failed to admit that he originally told President Johnson the Commission would be a “three-ring circus." Hoover also failed to acknowledge that the FBI had been tasked not only with investigating the shortcomings of other agencies, i.e. the State department, CIA, Secret Service, and Dallas Police Department, but the potential shortcomings of the FBI itself, as the FBI had failed to add Oswald’s name to the Security Index used by the Secret Service to track possible threats to the President.) Hoover Truth: (When asked by Congressman Hale Boggs if he had thoughts on Oswald’s motivation.) “My speculation, Mr. Boggs, is that this man was no doubt a dedicated Communist… He stayed in Moscow awhile and he went to Minsk where he worked. There was no indication of any difficulty, personally on his part there, but I haven’t the slightest doubt he was a dedicated Communist.” (Note: Hoover was obsessed with Communism, and saw Communists as evil and everywhere. His domestic intelligence chief William Sullivan later wrote a book admitting that by the early 1960s a large percentage of American communists were in fact FBI informants.) Hoover Truth: “Now some people have raised the question, why didn’t he shoot the President as the car came toward the storehouse where he was working? The reason for that is, I think, the fact there were some trees between his window on the sixth floor and the cars as they turned and went through the park. So he waited until the car got out from under the trees, and the limbs, and then he had a perfectly clear view of the of the occupants of the car, and I think he took aim, either on the President or Connally, and I personally believe it was the President in view of the twisted mentality the man had.” (Note, as demonstrated by the photos of the assassination scene taken by the Secret Service, and published by the Warren Commission as Exhibit 875, there was a clear shot down Houston, should a sniper have been so inclined. The only trees were to the right of the sniper’s nest, blocking its view down Elm.) No, I'm not joking. Here's a photo taken from the sniper's nest during the Secret Service's 11-27-63 re-enactment. There are no trees to the left of the window. As a result, the sniper would have had a clear shot at the limo as it approached the corner. Hoover was full of beans, or blowing smoke, or both (the conditions seem to be related). Hoover Truth: (When discussing the attitude of the Soviet Government, and the KGB in particular, towards Oswald) “I think they probably looked upon him more as a kind of a queer sort of individual and they didn’t trust him too strongly. But just the day before yesterday information came to me indicating that there is an espionage training school outside of Minsk—I don’t know whether it was true—and that he was trained in that school to come back to this country to become what they call a 'sleeper,' that is a man who will remain dormant for 3 or 4 years and in case of international hostilities rise up and be used.” (Note: this from the man who just swore there was not one “scintilla” of evidence indicating a foreign conspiracy. It seems Hoover couldn’t help but kick a little sand in the direction of Russia when given the opportunity.) Hoover Truth: “Now, we interviewed Oswald a few days after he arrived…There was nothing up to the time of the assassination that gave any indication that this man was a dangerous character who might do harm to the President or to the Vice-President, so his name was not furnished at the time to the Secret Service. Under the new criteria which we have now put into force and effect, it would have been furnished because we now include all defectors.” (Note: here, Hoover almost certainly commits perjury. Hoover concealed from the commission that on December 10, 1963, he’d censured or placed on probation 17 employees (5 field investigators, 1 field supervisor, 3 special agents in charge, 4 headquarters supervisors, 2 headquarters section chiefs, 1inspector, and 1 assistant director) for what the inspector of the internal investigation, James Gale, termed “shortcomings in connection with the investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination.” When Assistant director Alan Belmont complained about this action, stating that since “all of the supervisors and officials who came into contact with this case…are unanimous in the opinion that Oswald did not meet the criteria for the Security Index…it would appear that the criteria are not sufficiently specific,” Hoover blasted him. On Belmont’s addendum to Gale’s December 10, 1963 memo, Hoover wrote “They were worse than mistaken. Certainly no one in full possession of all his faculties can claim Oswald didn’t fall within this criteria.” On September 24, 1964, the day the Warren Report, which included criticisms of the FBI’s investigation of Oswald prior to the assassination, was released, Hoover pounced again, writing that the employees who failed to properly investigate Oswald “could not have been more stupid.” He then punished these employees a second time. On September 30, 1964, Inspector Gale wrote “It is felt that it is appropriate at this time to consider further administrative action against those primarily culpable for the derelictions in this case which have now had the effect of publicly embarrassing the Bureau.” When a number of top FBI officials reacted angrily to the Warren Report’s criticism of the Bureau, and began planning ways to defend the FBI in the press, Hoover reiterated his position that the FBI was in fact to blame. On a 10-1-64 memo from Alan Belmont to Clyde Tolson, he wrote: “We were wrong. The administrative actions approved by me will stand. I do not intend to palliate actions which have resulted in forever destroying the Bureau as the top level investigative organization.” ) Hoover Truth: “There was very aggressive press coverage at Dallas. I was so concerned that I asked my agent in charge at Dallas, Mr. Shanklin, to personally go to Chief Curry and tell him that I insisted that he not go on the air any more until this case was resolved. Until all the evidence had been examined, I did not want any statements made concerning the progress of the investigation. Because of the fact the President had asked me to take charge of the case I insisted that he and all members of his department refrain from public statements.” (Note: immediately following Oswald’s death, Hoover’s man in Dallas, Mr. Shanklin, listed all the evidence against Oswald for the New York Times. Moreover, the Times’ 11-25 description of the evidence indicates that Shanklin misrepresented the results of the paraffin tests, stating that they showed “particles of gunpowder from a weapon, probably a rifle, on Oswald’s cheek and hands.” While the test results were consistent with Oswald firing a pistol, the test results were negative for his cheek. Therefore, there was nothing whatsoever about the tests that suggested Oswald had fired a rifle.) Hoover Truth: “Well, I can tell you so far as the FBI is concerned the case will be continued in an open classification for all time. That is, any information coming to us or any report coming to us from any source will be thoroughly investigated, so that we will be able to either prove or disprove the allegation.” (Note: in February 1967, Edward Morgan, a lawyer representing CIA front-man Robert Maheu and mafia strategist Johnny Rosselli, contacted columnist Drew Pearson and told him about the joint CIA/Mafia attempts to kill Castro, and the possibility they’d backfired on Kennedy. Pearson then told Chief Justice Earl Warren, who in turn told Secret Service Chief James Rowley. When Rowley told Hoover about the incident, Alex Rosen drafted the FBI response. Rosen would later testify that he was sick and that an unidentified subordinate wrote this under his name. His response: “no investigation will be conducted regarding the allegations…to Chief Justice Warren.” The letter, which was sent to Chief Rowley under Hoover’s name on 2-15-67, went on to state “The Bureau is not conducting any investigation regarding this matter. However, should Mr. Pearson, (Morgan), or (his) source of information care to volunteer any information to the Bureau, it would be accepted.” The internal memo from Rosen to White House/FBI liaison Cartha Deloach, for that matter, added: “Consideration was given to furnishing this information to the White House, but since this matter does not concern, nor is it pertinent to the present Administration, no letter was being sent.” Hmmm... It follows then, that if Hoover's testimony to the Warren Commission had in fact been truthful, and that the FBI was in fact committed to investigating any leads that would subsequently come their way, well, then Hoover clearly failed to tell as much to the men who would be tasked with conducting such an investigation.)

I discuss Johnson's bending of Warren's arm in the first section of Chapter 1 on my website... Here it is... While Chief Justice Earl Warren, the chairman of the Warren Commission, and the man tasked with overseeing its investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, is reported to have told his staff that "the truth was their only client," much evidence has arisen over the years to indicate that this simply was not so. The available record, in fact, now suggests that the Commission had another client, one whose interests were to be placed above and beyond the Commission's search for truth. This client was called... "national security" or, more specifically, President Lyndon Johnson. One need look no further than the memoirs of Warren, for that matter, to see that this is true. There, in the final pages written at the end of his long successful life, Warren admitted that he was strong-armed into chairing the Commission only after Johnson, Kennedy's successor, told him that if people came to believe there was foreign involvement in the assassination it could lead to a war that would kill 40 million. This, one can only assume, gave Warren the clear signal he was NOT to find for a conspiracy involving a foreign power. But when one reads between the lines--and reads other lines--a fuller picture emerges. Warren was also told he was NOT to find for a domestic conspiracy, or at least anything that could point back to Johnson. There were signs for this from the get-go. The Voice of America, the U.S. Information Agency's worldwide radio network, had initially reported, in the moments after the shooting, that Dallas, Texas, the scene of the crime, was also "the scene of the extreme right wing movement." It soon stopped doing so. This suggests then that someone in the government was particularly sensitive to the idea that the right wing would be blamed for the shooting, and had ordered the Voice of America to downplay the possibility of a domestic conspiracy. Above: a decidedly cold part of the mostly warm reception greeting President Kennedy at Love Field, Dallas, Texas, 11-22-63. This "sensitivity," moreover, was in the air and spreading. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, whose discussions in the days after the shooting sparked the creation of the Warren Commission, testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (the "HSCA") on 8-4-78 that he sensed that the rest of the world would suspect Johnson's involvement, and that this in effect "disqualified" Johnson from leading an investigation into Kennedy's death. Katzenbach then explained that this feeling had led him to believe that "some other people of enormous prestige and above political in-fighting, political objectives, ought to review the matter and take the responsibility" of identifying Kennedy's assassin. He said much the same thing in subsequent testimony. On 9-21-78 he told the HSCA that his primary concern in the aftermath of the assassination was "the amount of speculation both here and abroad as to what was going on, whether there was a conspiracy of the left or a lone assassin or even in its wildest stages, a conspiracy by the then vice president to achieve the presidency, the sort of thing you have speculation about in some countries abroad where that kind of condition is normal." Egads. These words suggest that Katzenbach, who was only running the Justice Department in the aftermath of the assassination, considered Johnson's involvement unthinkable, and not really worth investigating. And this wasn't the last time Katzenbach suggested as much. In his 2008 memoir Some of It Was Fun, Katzenbach wrote that in the days after the assassination: "Among the many conspiracy theories floating around were those that put conservative Texas racists in the picture and even some that saw LBJ as the moving force." That Katzenbach's concern about these theories influenced the Warren Commission's investigation, moreover, seems obvious. Howard Willens, a Justice Department attorney reporting to Katzenbach, was made an assistant to Warren Commission General Counsel J. Lee Rankin, and was tasked with 1) hiring the commission's junior counsel (the men tasked with performing the bulk of the commission's investigation), 2) assigning these men specific areas of investigation, 3) supplying these men with the FBI, Secret Service, and CIA reports pertinent to their areas of investigation, 4) working as a liaison between these men and the agencies creating these reports, and 5) helping to re-write the commission's own report. On 7-28-78, in Executive Session, Willens testified before the HSCA; he admitted: "there were some allegations involving President Johnson that were before the Commission and there was understandably among all persons associated with this effort a desire to investigate those allegations and satisfy the public, if possible, that these allegations were without merit." But these allegations weren't investigated, not really. The Commission's final report amounted to a prosecutor's brief against a lone assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald, and the 26 volumes of supporting data published by the Commission contained next to nothing on Johnson or other possible suspects. That this "clearing" of Johnson's name was a major factor in the commission's creation is confirmed, moreover, by a 2-17-64 memo written by Warren Commission Counsel Melvin A. Eisenberg. While reporting on the Warren Commission's first staff conference of 1-20-64, Eisenberg recalled that Chief Justice Warren had discussed "the circumstances under which he had accepted the chairmanship of the Commission," and had claimed he'd resisted pressure from Johnson until "The President stated that the rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives." Eisenberg's account of Warren's statements was supported, furthermore, by Warren Commission Counsel--and subsequent Senator--Arlen Specter in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth. In Specter's account, Warren claimed that Johnson had told him "only he could lend the credibility the country and the world so desperately needed as the people tried to understand why their heroic young president had been slain. Conspiracy theories involving communists, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, the military-industrial complex, and even the new president were already swirling. The Kennedy assassination could lead America into a nuclear war that could kill 40 million people..." Above: Cuban dictator Fidel Castro (L) and his new best-buddy, Premier of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev (R). Cuba's embrace of Russia and Communism scared the bejeesus out of many Americans, and Lyndon Johnson used this fear to scare Chief Justice Warren into chairing the Commission that would thereafter bear his name. Now this, apparently, wasn't the only time Warren admitted Johnson's worries extended both beyond and closer to home than the possible thermo-nuclear war mentioned in his autobiography. In his biography of Warren, Ed Cray reported that Warren once confided to a friend that "There was great pressure on us to prove, first, that President Johnson was not involved, and, second, that the Russians were not involved." And yet Warren refused to put Johnson's fears he'd be implicated on the record. While Warren was interviewed a number of times in his final years about the creation of the Commission, he never admitted in these interviews what he'd readily told his friends and the commission's staff--that Johnson had railroaded him onto the commission in part to clear himself. In fact, Warren claimed the opposite. When interviewed by Warren Commission historian Alfred Goldberg on March 28, 1974, Warren told Goldberg the opposite of what he'd told Eisenberg and Specter (and presumably Goldberg) in 1964. Instead of claiming Johnson told him "Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson," Warren now related "There were of course two theories of conspiracy. One was the theory about the communists. The other was that LBJ's friends did it as a coup d'etat. Johnson didn't talk about that." It seems likely, then, that even Warren thought it improper for the President, the head of the Executive Branch of Government, to pressure the Chief Justice of the United States, the head of the Judicial Branch of Government, to head a Commission to help clear the President's name. Above: a photograph showing the Warren/Johnson dynamic. Warren was older, receding, settled. Johnson, was younger, forward-leaning, and absolutely determined to have his way. Now, it's not as if Warren's fellow commissioners had a problem with serving this higher purpose--that of clearing their new President. John McCloy, Wall Street's man on the Commission, told writer Edward Epstein on June 7, 1965 that one of the commission's objectives was "to show foreign governments we weren't a South American Banana Republic."Well, seeing as the expression "Banana Republic" is not a reference to countries whose leaders have been killed by foreign enemies, but to countries whose leaders have been killed by domestic enemies, who then assume power, this is most certainly a reference to Johnson. And it's not as if this was all a big secret. The December 5, 1963, transcripts of the Warren Commission's first meeting reflect that Senator Richard Russell, Johnson's long-time friend and mentor, admitted "I told the President the other day, fifty years from today people will be saying he had something to do with it so he could be President." And it's not as if Washington insiders were unaware of this non-secret secret. In 1966, columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak published Lyndon B. Johnson: The Exercise of Power. There, they discussed the creation of the Warren Commission as follows: "There was first the question of the assassination itself. Inevitably, irresponsible demagogues of the left and right spread the notion that not one assassin but a conspiracy had killed John Kennedy. That it occurred in Johnson's own state on a political mission urgently requested and promoted by Johnson only embellished rancid conspiratorial theories. If he were to gain the confidence of the people, the ghost of Dallas must be shrugged off." Now, should one still doubt that Johnson was at least as concerned with suspicions of himself as of the Soviets, there is confirmation from an even better source: Johnson himself. In a rarely-cited interview with columnist Drew Pearson, cited in a November 14th, 1993 article in The Washington Post, Johnson admitted that, in his conversation with Warren, in which he convinced Warren to head his commission, Johnson brought up the assassination of President Lincoln, and that rumors still lingered about the conspiracy behind his murder 100 years after the fact. According to Pearson, Johnson admitted telling Warren that "The nation cannot afford to have any doubt this time." Well, that says it all. The doubt, according to Johnson, the nation could not afford to have, was doubt about Southern and/or military involvement in the assassination. The rumors about Lincoln's death, after all, revolved largely around his being murdered by The Confederate Army as revenge for his successful campaign to re-unite the States, or his being murdered by his own Secretary of War, or his being murdered by his Vice-President, a Southerner named JOHNSON. And Johnson acknowledged this was his concern in his presidential memoir, The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency 1963-1969, published 1971. Of the national mood on 11-24-63, after the man accused of killing President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, a purported communist-sympathizer, was shot down while in police custody, by Jack Ruby, a man with connections to organized crime, Johnson wrote: "The atmosphere was poisonous and had to be cleared. I was aware of some of the implications that grew out of that skepticism and doubt. Russia was not immune to them. Neither was Cuba. Neither was the State of Texas. Neither was the new President of the United States."

A couple of points. 1. I was one of the first to write about Elmer Moore and am to some extent responsible for bringing what we know about Moore to this forum, and to the research community in general. 2. You seem to miss the nuance. ER doctors DO NOT make positive determinations as to entrance and exit. They have no specialized training to do so and their impressions are not considered trustworthy. Studies have been done in which ER doctors are as likely to be wrong as they are right when it comes to determining entrance and exit wounds in bodies with more than one wound. As a consequence, dedicated professionals do not insist wounds they observed were entrances and exits, but will instead insist that these wounds looked like entrances or exits. So, yes, Perry said he was willing to accept that the wound was an exit wound, but always maintained that it looked like an entrance wound. This is as one would expect from a doctor with his training. All the Parkland witnesses, including McClelland, initially did the same. I give props to McClelland, however, for specifying in his WC testimony that the tiny throat wound could only have been an exit for a projectile traveling much slower than the presumed bullet. My years-long study of the wound ballistics literature proves he was correct. P.S. Here's what I have on Moore. Almost none of this was widely known when I first shared this with this forum. From chapter 3c: Should the Warren Commission's refusal to reach a conclusion on the number and timing of the shots, and its deliberate and ongoing efforts to deceive the public regarding Oswald's ability with a rifle not cause one to wonder if their entire investigation wasn't a political charade, and should Gerald Ford's misrepresentations of the evidence against Oswald not confirm these suspicions, then one needs to learn more about...Moore. Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore, that is... After seeing Moore's name pop up numerous times in the most suspicious of circumstances, I asked researcher Gary Murr if he’d ever looked into Moore, and it turned out that he'd shared my curiosity. He sent me some of what he’d compiled on Moore. I then matched this up with Moore’s 1-6-76 testimony before the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (aka the Church Committee). Some years later, moreover, I discovered the following photo of Moore online, where it had been posted by researcher Vincent Palamara. (This photo once accompanied a newspaper article in which Moore discussed his service for four U.S. Presidents. One might note, moreover, that he's placed LBJ at the top and JFK at the bottom.) Here, then, is what we know about Moore... At the time of the assassination, Elmer Moore was a Secret Service investigator assigned to their San Francisco office. A week after the assassination, 11-29-63, he was instructed to go to Dallas and assist Inspector Thomas Kelley with his investigation of the assassination. Once there, he conducted the Secret Service’s investigation of Jack Ruby, in order to establish the connection or lack thereof between Ruby and Oswald. Not surprisingly, he found no connection. On 12-5-63, he oversaw the Secret Service Survey of Dealey Plaza. The survey plat of this re-enactment, published by the Warren Commission as CE 585, and Moore’s subsequent reports, reveals that he concluded, after studying the Zapruder film, that the fatal head shot at frame 313 occurred when Kennedy was 34 feet further down the street than his fellow Agent Howlett concluded only the week before, and 29 feet further down the street than the Warren Commission would conclude 6 months later. This is a bit suspicious. Is it a coincidence that Kennedy’s traveling this extra distance would give the presumed sniper more time to aim, and make Oswald’s purported shooting feat less fantastic? The next week, on 12-11, Moore engaged in more mysterious activity. He visited the doctors at Parkland hospital who’d worked on Kennedy, and showed them the official autopsy report stating that the throat wound was an exit. This came as a surprise to some of these doctors, who’d initially believed and stated that the throat wound was an entrance, and repeated this speculation to reporter Jimmy Breslin, whose article on their treatment of Kennedy was in that week’s Saturday Evening Post. Since the doctors were giving interviews and repeating what was believed to be incorrect information, it only makes sense then that someone in the government would want to set them straight. Evidently, it was Moore’s job to set them straight. Now here’s where things get weird. Moore’s 1976 testimony reflects that on 12-19, he was ordered to contact Chief Justice Earl Warren and request that he accept Secret Service protection.He had known Warren for over 20 years. But he had never worked in the protective detail of the Secret Service beyond temporary assignments. Nevertheless, he successfully convinced Warren he needed protection, and was Warren’s near-constant companion and bodyguard from that day until after the Warren Report was issued the next September. In this role, as bodyguard, he accompanied Warren to Warren’s questioning of Jack Ruby. But Moore was more than just a bodyguard. He admitted to the Senate Committee in 1976 that he had “discussions daily” with Warren. The obvious and vital question of whether or not Moore kept anyone informed of these discussions was not asked. The equally obvious question of whether anyone thought it was a conflict of interest to have one of the Secret Service’s chief investigators act as Warren’s personal security, when Warren was supposed to be reviewing the Secret Service’s investigation, also was not asked. (A Church Committee document listing the names of 27 "Secret Service Agents investigating the Assassination of President Kennedy" lists Moore as one of three "supervisors," with 24 subordinates.) What was discussed in 1976 was Moore’s relationship with James Gochenaur. Gochenaur had come forward with the allegation he’d met Moore in 1970, and that Moore had told him about some of his experiences investigating the assassination of President Kennedy. More to the point, Gochenaur said that Moore had guiltily admitted he’d badgered Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his testimony about the President's throat wound. So how did Moore respond to this allegation? Well, Moore admitted meeting Gochenaur, and discussing the assassination with him, but denied telling Gochenaur he'd pressured Dr. Perry. Moore’s behavior, however, reveals he was greatly concerned about Gochenaur’s allegation, perhaps concerned enough to lie. He'd arrived for questioning with a personal attorney. He expressed the opinion that “to induce any witness to change his testimony, of course that’s a felony.” So far, so good. Moore’s testimony fell apart, however, when he tried to explain what DID happen when he talked to Dr. Perry and the other Parkland doctors. Moore testified: “I was given a copy of the Bethesda autopsy. A mimeographed copy. There were numerous copies sent to the Dallas office and it was assigned to attempt to determine the trajectory of the bullets, the missiles, from the wound, and the report I referred to covers this…Well, what happened here, when I received the autopsy reports, there were medical terms and measurements that I was not familiar with one. I recall it was the acromion which is a process of the shoulder blade, I learned through Dr. Perry. And I think the description of the neck strap wound, the first bullet in the President’s neck, was determined about 14 centimeters from the acromion process arc, and another arc from the mastoid of 14 centimeters... They’re exactly the same measurements. And I was not sure of these in medical terms. The logical thing I thought at the time was to go out to talk to these people and also to let them see for the first time the results of the autopsy because they had not had the opportunity to actually see the fatal wound at all. They had never turned the body over at Parkland. They were engaged in respiratory and circulatory, you know, the trauma actions rather than examining wounds. So I had talked to Dr. Perry and he was, as I recall, 34 years old, a very personable man. He was very disturbed, as he had been quoted, where he had performed the tracheotomy through the exit wound, which is right over the Adam’s Apple, it went by part of the tie. He was quite disturbed that he had been quoted in the press as having said that is an entrance wound, and he had denied that consistently, that he ever said that, that what he said was there was a wound there and it could have been an entrance or an exit…And then when he saw the autopsy report, which was the first occasion, they got a copy, I think, the following day or so, was sent down from Bethesda, and they had been in contact with the doctors by phone, I believe…but they were quite interested in the autopsy report. And after reading it I think it was Dr. Perry first and then Dr. Carrico came in. And after they read it they asked if there would be any objection to other staff doctors seeing it who had attended the President in some manner or another and were interested in it. And I saw no objection. So they went into a little conference room—I would say six or seven doctors—and discussed it for possibly ten or fifteen minutes, and I left.” (When asked why he went to Parkland) “(To see) If it could be determined from the wounds the trajectory of the bullets. Did they come from the sixth floor of this and could this be proven by the—(When asked what Perry told him) “Well, that was not actually for him to answer, but what he was doing for me was determining where this wound was on the body and what direction it went.” The problem with Moore's testimony is it’s just not credible. I mean, really, Moore just so happens to show Perry the autopsy report, telling him the throat wound is officially an exit, to let him "see for the first time the results of the autopsy because they had not had the opportunity to actually see the fatal wound at all...They had never turned the body over at Parkland"? It was all just for Perry's general information, mind you, and not to get him to shut up? And really, Moore just so happens to pick Perry, the guy who told the nation in a press conference the throat wound was an entrance, as the guy to teach him a little anatomy? Moore's contention he consulted with Perry about the relative locations of the wounds, as opposed to his telling Perry the official conclusion about the relative positions of the wounds, is also suspect. The measurements for the back wound on the autopsy report, 14 cm from acromion and 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process, as we shall see, place the back wound in the back, at the same level as the throat wound. Moore’s 12-11 report, after his meeting with Perry, however, asserts that the missile path of the first bullet to strike the President “is from the upper right posterior thorax to the exit position in the low anterior cervical region and is in slight general downward direction.” I doubt a doctor would say such a thing. The upper thorax is, by definition, below the lower cervical region, unless the body is leaning forward. And the Zapruder film studied by Moore demonstrated that Kennedy was not leaning forward before the shots were fired. The probability, then, is that Moore went to Parkland at least in part to bring Perry into line, and let him know that the throat wound was officially an exit., and below the back wound. Now let's be fair. As Moore, in his testimony, expressed skepticism wound locations could effectively establish a bullet’s trajectory, he may honestly have figured the entrance on Kennedy’s back was close enough. This doesn’t explain, however, his reporting that the back wound was above the throat wound--something the measurements shown to Perry proved false. One should wonder, furthermore, if Moore noticed that the location of the back wound in the drawings created by the autopsy doctors in March was far higher than the wound location he’d mapped out with Perry, and if he told Chief Warren about this problem... Or even if the apathetic attitude towards the wound locations and trajectories revealed by Moore in his work for the Secret Service infected the Commission’s re-enactment in May... If that's it, moreover, that Moore was apathetic to the extreme, well, that may have been just what qualified him for the job. A 1-7-64 Treasury Department memorandum for the file reflects that Moore, who’d been traveling with Earl Warren since 12-19, was asked by Warren on 12-2 if “he could be available to the Commission for an indefinite period to assist in its work.” A 12-8 memo from Secret Service Chief Rowley reflects that Moore was assigned to “furnish any service, assistance, and cooperation the Commission considers necessary.” Hmmm... These memos fail to mention Moore’s purported role as Warren’s bodyguard. This raises the question, then, of whether Moore was protecting Warren or helping him run the investigation. In Professor Gerald McKnight’s book Breach of Trust, he discusses a document found in the voluminous archives of researcher Harold Weisberg, now held at Hood College. Among the documents recovered via Weisberg’s numerous Freedom of Information Act lawsuits was a February 7. 1964 letter from General Counsel Rankin’s Secretary, Julia Eide. This letter reflects that “all the waste material” (that is, notes, carbons, tapes) of the 1-22-64 meeting of the Warren Commission, in which they discussed the possibility Oswald was working for the FBI, was to be turned over to Secret Service Inspector Elmer Moore and burned. Huh? Doesn’t sound like straight guard duty to me... That Moore was more...than Warren’s guard dog... is undoubtedly intriguing. In the years following the assassination of President Kennedy, it would be revealed that the Secret Service has been used at times as a private intelligence unit answering only to the President. Richard Nixon used them to spy on his own brother, and, according to Nixon aide Alexander Butterfield, spy on other political candidates as well. Huh... This raises the uncomfortable possibility that Moore was President Johnson’s eyes and ears on the Commission, put in place, with Warren's acquiescence, to help keep the commission "in line." Huh... This might explain why Moore, a long time Warren acquaintance, was brought into the Secret Service’s investigation on the same day Warren agreed to chair a Presidential Commission reviewing the Secret Service’s findings. And that's not all... This might explain as well how Anthony Lewis, a writer for the New York Times, while working on a book with Johnson's close associate Abe Fortas, became privy to information that could only have come from within the Commission. And it might also explain Moore’s seemingly exaggerated concerns about Gochenaur’s statements, and his willingness to lie about his visit to Perry. And, while we're at it, it might also explain why Moore, the only one working with the Commission to admit measuring out 14 cms from the tip of the mastoid process on a body, failed to alert Warren that this put the wound on Kennedy’s back, inches below the location on the drawings entered into evidence on March 16, 1964 as the official representations of the President’s wounds. And, oh yeah, before I forget... it might also explain why an HSCA contact sheet (brought to my attention by Vince Palamara) reveals that Moore called HSCA staff member Eileen Dinneen on 3-9-78 to tell her that "a young lawyer" on the Schweicker Committee (sic--he meant Church Committee) "had been ready to send him to jail for perjury" and that, as a consequence, "he would refuse to answer questions about matters he was already questioned about." I mean, that's some balls, right? He called the HSCA to tell them he'd refuse to answer any question he'd ever been asked before, seeing as his answer to such a question might reveal an inconsistency in his story, and the possibility/probability he'd been lying. Now that's some public servant! There’s also this… On November 22nd 2003, Senator Arlen Specter addressed a crowd at an assassination conference held at Duquesne University. He told the crowd about his work for the Warren Commission and of being shown an autopsy photo of the President’s back wound on May 24, 1964. This autopsy photo, as we have seen, should have convinced Specter that the wound on Kennedy's back was inches below the level depicted in the commission's exhibits, and that it was therefore doubtful the shooting had occurred as purported. Instead, Specter stuck by his belief the bullet causing this wound, after striking Kennedy's back on a sharply downward trajectory, had somehow exited from his throat. Now, in his 2000 book Passion for Truth, and in previous interviews, Specter had said that Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley had shown him this photo. On this day, the 40th anniversary of the assassination, however, he told the audience it was “Elmer Moore, who was the Chief’s bodyguard.” Yikes. If it was in fact Moore, well, that would suggest Specter was shown the photo with Warren’s blessing. And this, in turn, would suggest that Warren, Moore and Specter all knew the wound was on the back and inches lower on the body than as shown in the commission's exhibits...and that they'd conspired to hide this from the public...

The "temples" are not high on the forehead above the eyes and no amount of twisting can make it so. It is also important to note that Livingstone and Horne were both no doubt familiar with Robinson's HSCA interview and talked to Robinson separately--and that he told both of them the "wounds" he saw were on the cheek. The cheek is next to the temple. As he failed to mention to either of them anything about a wound anywhere else it is clear this was the wound he was thinking of when talking to Purdy--he just used slightly different verbiage. As far as his seeing two different wounds...this is nonsense cooked up by Mantik so he won't have to admit he was wrong on this issue. A little dialogue to demonstrate the situation... Purdy: "What did your mom wear to your graduation?" Robinson: "A blue dress." Purdy: "Was there a pattern on this green dress?" Robinson: "Yes... There was a pattern on the blue dress." Mantik, 25 years later: "Aha! His mom was wearing a green dress! This proves the photos of the graduation ceremony have been faked, quite obviously by the deep state!" Reasonable person: "Well, no, David, he said it was a blue dress... And he later said it was a Navy blue skirt." Mantik: "But he said 'yes' when asked about a green dress! This proves that there were two dresses! One Navy blue skirt and one green! And that she must have changed dresses mid-ceremony...a change mot reflected in the official photos of the graduation..." EGADS!!!

Robinson was later asked about this by Livingstone and Horne, and both times he said the tiny wound or wounds he saw were on the cheek. It is folly, IMO, to twist Purdy's words into being Robinson's words, when Robinson quickly corrected Purdy and was asked about this other times and said no such thing... Here is the next bit from the interview with Purdy... Purdy: You say it was in the forehead region up near the hairline? Robinson: Yes. Purdy: Would you say it was closer to the top of the hair? Robinson: SOMEWHERE AROUND THE TEMPLES. Robinson had thereby specified that the wound was NOT where Mantik and Horne have long claimed it was, and NOT where Chesser claims he found a hole on the lateral x-ray. This whole line of silliness gets worse, moreover, when you take a step back and realize that Robinson never got a close look at the body until the re-construction. And yet Horne uses him as a witness for a hole in the forehead Horne claims was somehow cut away BEFORE the beginning of the official autopsy. To recap... Horne claims Robinson delivered the body to the autopsy and witnessed the pre-autopsy surgery, when Robinson's actual words make clear he did not deliver the body and arrived around the beginning of the official autopsy. Horne would later support his claim by citing Robinson's recollection of the body being brought in and out, or some such thing, when, as we've seen, Robinson had actually mentioned this as something that DID NOT happen. Horne claims Reed as an additional witness to the pre-autopsy surgery. But Reed said he saw Humes cut on the head AFTER the taking of the official x-rays, and that he was asked to leave and never returned to the morgue after performing the x-rays and seeing Humes begin the cutting. Well this won't do. So Horne claims Reed saw the cutting, was asked to leave, and then brought back to perform the x-rays after the skull had been altered. So it's not really a surprise to see that Horne has recently claimed Jenkins saw a bullet hole where he has long claimed Robinson saw a hole. It's just a continuation of his pattern of taking people's statements and claiming they said something different than they said, and then citing these imaginary statements as proof of his otherwise unsupportable theory. It's all smoke. Now, if someone wants to take the divergent descriptions of the wounds at Parkland and Bethesda and take from this that the body was altered somewhere in between (a la Lifton), that's a separate discussion. But Horne's claim the body was altered by Humes at Bethesda falls apart upon close inspection.

Oh my. The "official story" of Watergate is incredibly damaging to the reputation of the U.S. and the elevation of a secret plot to get Nixon only makes us look a lot more competent than we are. 1. Nixon's people got drunk on their ability to do sneaky stuff off the books. 2. They got caught breaking into the Watergate. 3. The Nixon Administration pressured the justice department into covering it up. 4. But McCord was unwilling to rot while Nixon's people escaped punishment. He was also upset that 1) they were trying to pin the break in on the CIA when he knew for a fact it had nothing to do with it, and 2) the justice department was clearly in the bag for Nixon and uninterested in fully investigating the case. So he blew the whistle. 5. And he wasn't the only one upset by the cover-up. Mark Felt was in line to run the FBI but was pushed aside so Nixon could have someone personally beholden to him in charge. So he fed stuff to Woodward to keep the story alive. 6. If you wanna call disgruntled people leaking info that they know may lead to the end of a presidency a "coup," well then have at it. But the argument can be made that they were doing their patriotic duty and the country was better off as a result.

Doug Horne is not a member of this forum. We are as free to call him a liar as we are to call Arlen Specter a liar, or Gerald Posner a liar. As it stands, however, I suspect he simply screwed up when he said Jenkins saw a bullet hole on the forehead. Jenkins is the neutron bomb to his theory, and he knows it. He probably WANTED to believe Jenkins said he saw a hole on the forehead, and ended up saying Jenkins when he was thinking of Robinson. Of course, Robinson never said it, either. .

Horne routinely lies about Jenkins. He makes out that Jenkins was not in the morgue till the beginning of the official autopsy when he knows full well that Jenkins has always said he was in the morgue from hours before to hours after the autopsy and that no pre-autopsy surgery was conducted at Bethesda. We've been through this before. Jenkins is a nice guy, and tries not to upset researchers. He knows, furthermore, that Horne is an ally of Chesser and Mantik, with whom he is friendly. And yet he added this section on Horne into his book--a book written with the help of Chesser. (Douglas) "Horne is adamant about surgery to the head and believes that the surgery was done in the morgue by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell. The only problem with this theory is that I was present in th morgue all the time from approximately 3:30 P.M. Friday until 9:00 AM Saturday, the following morning. If Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell did Mr. Horne's 'illicit' surgery then it would have had to have been done outside the morgue at another facility...I have no direct knowledge of whether Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell performed Mr. Horne's 'illicit" surgery. The only thing I know for sure is that it was not done in the Bethesda morgue between 3:30 P.M. and 9:00 A.M. the following morning."

I don't think you should read my posts anymore, Sandy. Something goes haywire when you do. I pointed out a mistake (or deception_.) by Horne, and you try to make out I am mentally ill for noticing his mistake (or deception). A little background is in order. The late Gerry Hemming used to call me "The Noticer" because I noticed stuff most everyone else had missed. I am well-known in JFK circles for this ability, whatever it is. As a result I have been asked to speak at numerous conferences, been interviewed on numerous channels and websites, and been quoted in a dozen books or more. I am a guy who notices things. Such as this... And this.. . And this... So...yeah...before I started researching the single-bullet theory, not one of the thousands of researchers to study this case had noticed that 1) the back wound on the face sheet accurately reflected the measurements obtained at autopsy, 2) Dr. Humes had testified in a manner suggesting the bullet entering the EOP had exited the throat, and 3) the HSCA's trajectory expert had moved the back wound for his exhibits. I notice stuff...

You did NO fact-checking. I said he said something in a movie, so you looked for earlier statements from him where he said something else so you could proudly and publicly proclaim me to be a liar...without EVER watching the movie. Do you understand how weird that is? I am beginning to have deja vu all over again.

You're being ridiculous. The vast majority of members have no doubt watched the movie--which was one of the two most widely-watched JFK-related movies of the last ten years. No one who has actually viewed the movie has claimed my reporting of what Horne claimed Jenkins claimed is in error. Not one. But you write post after post claiming I am in error because Horne said something different years before... It's like I'm reporting on the Tarantino movie Inglorious Bastards and sharing that they successfully kill Hitler at the end. And you're saying that they couldn't kill Hitler because he killed himself, and only admitting days later that you haven't even seen the movie.

Watch the movie.

Are you actually claiming that someone did not say what they said in a movie viewed by millions of people because they did not say it in a book years earlier? My whole point is that these guys keep changing their theories and keep finding additional support for their theories by misrepresenting what people have said. Have you even viewed JFK: What the Doctors Saw?

Sloppy sloppy sloppy. 1. I have said numerous times where Horne said Jenkins saw a wound high on the forehead, He said it in "JFK: What the Doctors Saw." This is his most recent comment on the subject. I would be glad to accept that he simply screwed up and accidentally mis-informed millions of people, but the movie has been out a year and neither he nor Mantik nor Chesser have corrected his mistake. 2. It is silly to assume Robinson said something when he didn't say it. As stated, he quickly corrected Purdy and said "by the temple." He was then asked about this first by Livingstone and then Horne and told them what he saw was on the cheek. Now some have taken to pretending he was describing a different wound entirely and that Livingstone and Horne were too incompetent to ask him about the wound on the forehead, but it's clear as day they asked him about the wound he saw and he said it was on the cheeks.

Here's where I sit on this. I am open-minded about there being an entrance on the right temple. I in fact believe there was a large tangential entrance which stretched from above the ear to almost the temple. I am not as open about their being an entrance on the left temple, however, because the descriptions of the brain are inconsistent with such a wound and the trajectory makes little sense. But the forehead? The forehead entry is a hoax, IMO. NONE of the witnesses viewing the body saw such a wound, including those who saw the inside of the skull and those who cleaned up the president and would presumably have noticed such a thing. As far as Chesser, his underlying claim is that he has spotted a hole on the forehead on the lateral x-ray, that can not be made out on the a-p x-ray. I'm skeptical he will find validation from the forensic radiology world on this because this isn't how it works. Heck, Mantik has long claimed there is a hole on the back of the head on the A-P x-ray that can not be observed on the lat x-ray. So even he knows you are far more likely to make out a hole on the front or back of the head from the front than from the side. As stated, the circumstances of Chesser's "discovery" are also suspect. Mantik falsely claims Robinson saw a hole in a specific location and Horne joins in and just around the time people like myself start pointing out that they are fibbing Mantik is told he is no longer welcome at the archives. He then meets with Chesser and convinces him to go into the archives and double-check his work. Well, Chesser comes out with claims he found a bullet hole just where Mantik had been falsely claiming Robinson saw a hole. It smells as much as the WC's lifting the back wound when they realized the trajectories didn't align, Well, no, not THAT much...

If you read my chapters on this stuff, you'll see that my scenario accounts for an awful lot of stuff ignored by other scenarios. As far as Chesser's feeling he's found a hole, I was at the hospital just yesterday reviewing a CT scan with my doctor and he went on a tirade about a report written by a pulmonologist that suggested an anomaly on my lung scan was caused by the medications I'd been taking. He said that the guy was talking out of his butt and that you can't tell from an image what the cause of this or that is, and that too many doctors try to show off by presenting their impressions as if they are concrete science and from on high. Well, this made me think of the JFK assassination medical evidence. If you read the numerous reports and articles written on the autopsy photos and x-rays by supposed experts you will see that they contradict each other on many points and that the ones they agree upon are often because of groupthink. When I first looked into this stuff over 20 years ago now I was struck by a passage in one of Wecht's books, in which he denounced the "cult of expertise." I wish I could remember the exact quote or where I found it. But his point was that experts will often look at evidence through the prism of what other experts have said and that laymen will often just defer to what the experts say without analyzing stuff for themselves. I think he was talking about forensic science in general but I believe you could take from this he was talking about the single-bullet theory in particular. It bothered him to the end that so many of his colleagues signed off on it when it was so obviously bs and it bothered him as well that the media made him out to be the crank for using common sense and instead blindly trusted his colleagues. It humbled him, IMO. As a result, he was always open to what a layman like myself had to share with him. One of my great pleasures in research-land came at the 2014 Bethesda conference, when I started telling him about the presentation I'd just given on the single-bullet theory and where he grew so interested he asked if I could re-do the entire presentation just for him in the booth where he was sitting. So I got out my lap-top and showed him the presentation and started to cut it off at what I'd showed to the audience but he said no, to keep going, and I ended up going through and showing him a roughly 90 minute slide show...which got him very excited and fired up. Here is one of the things he did not know but was excited to find out.