Pat Speer

OK, let's be specific. What are we disagreeing on? That the Parkland witnesses were pressured into changing their testimony (regarding JFK's head wound) by Moore? That's not debatable. It did not happen. They did not change their testimony and the Rydberg drawings show a wound on the back of the head. Or that there were cover-ups regarding the back wound location and head wound entrance location? That too is not debatable. It happened. Do you think it was just a coincidence that Joe Ball wrote a memo saying he needed to explain how a shot from above could enter the back and exit the throat, and that he went along with Specter when Specter spoke to the doctors and ordered up the Rydberg drawings? And do you think it was a coincidence that Clark hired Fisher to debunk the crap in Thompson's book, including his demonstration that the head wound trajectory made little sense, and that Fisher then "found" an entrance high on the back of JFK's head, which essentially nullified the original autopsy report? Now, I suspect what you meant is that we disagree on Crenshaw. And I suppose we do...

What do you mean "unprofessional"? The CIA Manual on Assassination specifies that one should fire reduced-charge bullets. A reduced-charge bullet is thereby evidence the assassin was familiar with CIA tactics, and strongly suggests the shooter was not Oswald. As far as your original question, Specter and others have long said the SBT was unnecessary to the single-assassin solution. Mark Fuhrman, for example, wrote a best-seller in which he both dismantled the SBT and insisted Oswald acted alone. They say simply that Oswald fired three shots: one that struck Kennedy in the back, one that struck Connally, and one that struck Kennedy in the head. This is why the fact of two headshots is so dangerous to the lone nut solution. They don't have an answer for it.

This is the kind of stuff I discuss on my website, Michael. Crenshaw never made a statement until years after the assassination, and then only after he'd been exposed to tons of conspiracy material. P.S. There is no indication Moore even talked about the head wounds. The Parkland witnesses indicated the head wound was on the back of the head in their early statements and then again in their testimony, and the autopsy doctors created a drawing showing the wound at the top of the back of the head. In the aftermath of the release of this drawing, back in 1964, moreover, none of the Parkland witnesses--not one--came forward to say it was inaccurate. Now, that said, yes, there was a cover-up of the medical evidence. First, the WC attorneys and autopsy doctors conspired to move the back wound up to the back of the neck...to better sell that this bullet came from above and exited the throat. And second, the Clark Panel realized that a trajectory connecting the small wound on the back of the head and the large wound on the top of the head made little sense in light of Kennedy's position in the Zapruder film, and "found" an entrance wound 4 inches higher on the back of the head. And yet, almost no one beyond myself discusses these two provable cover-ups..

What a cop out. I have written books of material on the witnesses and what they said. I spent hundreds and hundreds of hours and near that amount in money pouring through newspapers, books, and articles and reporting on what was said in these materials. My website has far and away the most complete collection of witness statements ever complied. When one looks at these statements in the context of where these witnesses were standing, it becomes quite clear that the first shot rang out as Kennedy was passing the Thornton Freeway sign.

I suspect there are plenty of things I disagree with in the film, and plenty of things I agree with. But I am one of those who've been waiting for the 4-hour version to come out. My TV viewing these days is restricted largely to things I can watch with my wife. She was born on 11-22 and has missed out on many a birthday dinner while I was off at a conference. And she works from home and helps take care of me. So I thought it best to spare her from my obsession for awhile... As for your assertion the film is a flop in comparison to Stone's and DiEugenio's hopes, and even expectations, you may very well be correct. But I don't know. So maybe Jim can tell us. Let's be straight, Jim. What were your expectations for the film? It seems obvious you and Oliver hoped the film would make more of an impact. That's only natural. But it also seems likely you feared it would go unnoticed, both here and abroad. I'm guessing you're both disappointed the film hasn't made more of an impact, and pleased that it's made some impact. Am I right? If I am, Steve, you can hardly call it a flop. I read an interview the other day in which Francis Ford Coppola said that even though One From the Heart bankrupted his studio, he didn't consider it a failure, or a mistake. People create things for different purposes. Oliver and Jim wanted to update JFK with some of the info released over the last 30 years. Did they accomplish this? Will people watch this film in 30 years? I suspect they will.

I feel like Al Pacino in The Godfather 3. "They keep pulling me back!" As stated, I wrote two chapters explaining my views on this issue and demonstrating mass deception on the parts of some of those selling that JFK's large head wound was really low on the back of the head. I took no comfort in coming to these conclusions. I like Bob Groden and have spent time with him on the knoll, answering questions. As discussed in chapter 18c, I studied what the witnesses were REALLY saying and ignored the spin put on their statements by those selling books. And the earliest statements suggest a wound further toward the back of the skull than shown in the autopsy photos, but higher up on the back of the skull than shown in the so-called McClelland drawing, which, of course, was not actually drawn by McClelland. This led me to write chapter 18d, in which I discussed the months I spent studying cognitive psychology, and my subsequent conclusion most of the Parkland witnesses were wrong as to the exact location of the wound. My writing of these chapters upset many, and continues to upset many, most of whom refuse to actually read them. It's like trying to get a born-again Christian to read Darwin. This backlash culminated, moreover, in a hit piece written by Millicent Cranor, in which she attacked me for claiming those saying the Parkland witnesses were right about the location of the large head wound place this wound low on the back of the head. This, in effect, proved my point. After studying the evidence, she thought it was ludicrous that anyone would think the McClelland drawing was an accurate depiction of the wound. And yet she refused to acknowledge that book after book, video after video, article after article, has claimed as much. It's amazing to me that people on this forum and within the community are so incensed about bs when it's coming from the likes of Posner and Bugliosi, but turn a blind eye to it when it comes from some of the more famous conspiracy theorists to write on the case. Since some seem to want to duke this out right here right now, I'll provide a taste of chapter 18c. When one looks at the history of the controversy, that is, the history of the purported Parkland/Bethesda divide on the location of Kennedy's large head wound, one finds that much of it was stirred up by writer Harrison Livingstone in the years 1979-1981. In 1979, on a trip expensed to the Baltimore Sun, Livingstone went to Dallas and asked a number of witnesses to Kennedy's wounds a series of questions about them, and showed them the HSCA's tracing of the back of the head photo--the photo illicitly copied by Livingstone's soon-to-be-partner Robert Groden. While the Sun never published a detailed article on these encounters, Livingstone did publish his version of such an article in the 11-22-81 issue of The Continuing Inquiry newsletter. Here are the sections of the article on the witnesses: "'That's not the way I remember it,' said Dr. Richard Dulany, a medical resident who was on duty in the emergency room when Kennedy was brought in, after looking at a copy of an offical autopsy photograph. According to Dr. Dulany, there is a 'definite conflict' between the wounds as portrayed in the photo and the wounds which he observed in the emergency room. There were at least 22 witnesses in Dallas who have described a 'large hole in the back of the head.' Dr. Dulany insists that the photo does not show the large, gaping wound which had blown out the back of the president's head." (Note that Livingstone fails to reveal the degree of this 'conflict'--was Dulaney told that the autopsy photo he was shown was genuine? Was he willing to sign an affidavit saying the photo was a fake? Or did he simply assume he was mistaken?) "Dr. Paul Peters, professor and chairman of the Urology Department at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School at Parkland, also questions the accuracy of the disputed photograph. Dr. Peters told the Warren Commission: 'We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound.'' After seeing the pictures, he said, 'I don't think it's consistent with what I saw. There was a large hole in the back of the head through which one could see the brain. But that hole does not appear, in the photograph.'" (Note the lack of certainty. Peters 'questions.' Peters doesn't 'think' it's consistent. In other words, Peters, as Dulaney, was unwilling to say he thought the photo was a fake.) "The president's widow also described a severe wound at the back of the head to the Commission: 'But from the back, you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair and his skull on...''' (This, as we've seen, was a misrepresentation of her statements, which in fact suggested the wound was at the top of the head, and more readily viewed from behind.) "Doris Nelson, a Dallas nurse who was the supervisor of the emergency room when Kennedy was brought there, and who helped to treat the dying president, said that government autopsy photos of the skull are 'not true. There was no hair.' She said, while disputing the most controversial photograph, which merely shows a small entry wound in the cowlick area, which is four inches from where the autopsy report itself describes it, 'There wasn't even any hair back there, on the back of the head. It was blown away. All that area was blown out.'" (Well, here's a decent witness. Of course, she later showed Life Magazine where she thought the wound had been--and it was what most of us would call the top of the head.) "Claiming that the Photographs were too 'gory,'...the (HSCA) actually published exact tracings of them. It was these tracings, which are described as being accurate down to the last detail, which the Dallas medical witnesses recently evaluated for this report. (One witness, however. Dr. Malcolm Perry of the Cornell Medical Center, was shown prints of the actual photographs by Sun reporters in 1979, and also strongly denounced them as being inaccurate.)" (Hmmm...Perry was Kennedy's primary physician in the ER, why not quote him directly? Could it be that Perry was not shown the photo by the reporters, as claimed, but by Robert Groden, who kept no notes?) "The list of medical witnesses who have challenged the autopsy photos includes Dr. Robert McClelland, professor of surgery at the University of Texas Medical School in Dallas. Seventeen years ago, he told the Warren Commission that he stood at the head of the operating table in the emergency room 'in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot...in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity.'' Recently, after viewing a sketch of the gaping head wound which had been drawn by an independent investigator, Dr. McClelland said that it accurately portrays what he 'vividly remembers' seeing on the operating table after the president was rushed into emergency. He firmly rejected the autopsy photos." (Livingstone failed to reveal that McClelland's initial report on his 'vivid' recollections of the wound on the back of the head...placed the wound in the left temple.) "Margaret Hood (Margaret Henchllffe at the time) had been an emergency room nurse for 12 years prior to the assassination. The nurse, who helped wheel the wounded president into the room and later prepared his body for the coffin, recently drew a sketch of the wound on a skull model provided by reporters. That sketch also showed a large wound at the back of the head. 'You couldn't see much of the wound,' said Ms. Hood. 'It didn't affect his face or ears at all. it was more to the back.' Ms. Hood also strongly disavowed the photographs." (Well, once again, what does that mean-- 'disavowed'? Did she say they weren't consistent with what she remembered? Or did she accuse the government of misconduct?) "Dr. Ronald C. Jones, a professor of surgery who was Parkland Hospital's chief resident in surgery at the time of the murder, originally described for the Warren Commission 'what appeared to be an exit wound in the posterior portion of the skull.' He also rejected the autopsy photos, and drew an outline with his finger of a large hole at the back of an imaginary head. In addition, he described the drawing which Dr. McClelland had approved as 'close.'" (Once again, this was too vague. Is it really a story when someone remembers something a bit differently than it is depicted in some photographs? No, I don't think so. The story comes when that person is willing to swear on a stack of Bibles their recollections are correct, and publicly accuse someone of faking the photographs. None of Livingstone's witnesses have gone that far.) "Patricia Gustafson (then Patricia Hutton), another emergency room nurse at the time of the shooting, helped to wheel the president from the limousine into treatment. Ms. Gustafson, testifying before the Warren Commission, outlined a 'massive opening on the back of the head.' Recently, describing an effort to place a pressure bandage on the head wound, she said: 'I tried to do so, but there was really nothing to put a pressure bandage on. It was too massive. So he told me just to leave it be.' Asked if she was sure about the location of the wound, she said yes: ''It was the back of the head,' she said, while rejecting the autopsy photos." ("Rejecting"? What does that mean? I reject what looks back at me in the mirror each morning, but that doesn't mean I think it's fake, and part of some massive conspiracy.) "Fouad Bashour was an associate professor of medicine in cardiology at the time of the shooting. Interviewed by this reporter at his office in 1979, Dr. Bashour insisted that the official photo which he was being shown did not accurately depict the location of the major wound. 'Why do they cover it up?' he asked several times. 'This is not the way it was.'" (Livingstone hid that Bashour only saw Kennedy's wound for a few seconds.) "Dr. Charles Baxter, interviewed the same day, who had earlier told the Warren Commission 'There was a large, gaping wound in the back of the skull,' also questioned the autopsy photos." (Well, wait a minute. Baxter had told the Warren Commission "There was a large gaping wound in the skull." He had said nothing about the "back of the skull." In fact, it's worse than that. Baxter at first exclaimed "literally, the right side of his head had been blown off," but then later specified that the wound was in the "temporal parietal plate of bone laid outward to the side." This was a wound on the side of the head, and not the back of the head, as claimed by Livingstone. And "questioned?" What's that mean? And why not quote Baxter from his most recent interview? It seems likely from this that Baxter was mostly supportive of the photos in his interview with Livingstone, and that Livingstone didn't want to admit as much in his article.) "After being shown the most controversial photo. Dr. Marion Jenkins (he told the Warren Commission, 'There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) . . . even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound'), blurted: 'No, not like that. Not like that, because... No, you want to know what it really looked, like? Well, that picture doesn't look like it from the back.' Dr. Jenkins demonstrated several times, on his own and a reporter's head, that the large exit wound had been located on the back of the skull: 'You could tell at this point with your fingers that it was scored out (that the edges were blasted out).'" (It seems likely from this that Jenkins didn't trust Livingstone's assertion the photo was an official photo, and was simply trying to show them what he remembered. He was certainly much more cautious in his subsequent interviews. This highlights the problem with the article--it shows that the memories of Kennedy's wounds of some witnesses are inconsistent with what is shown in the autopsy photos, but fails to explore the strength of their recollections, or even what this means...if this is in fact unusual for people trying to remember the specifics of something that happened 16 years prior.) "Dr. Charles Carrico, now a professor of surgery at the University of Washington in Seattle, was a general surgeon in residency at Parkland when the president was shot--and the first doctor to reach him. He told the Warren Commission about a large gaping wound, a five-by-seven-centimeter defect in the posterior skull, which he observed in the occipital region. But he has not been interviewed since." (Is it a coincidence that Livingstone failed to interview Carrico, and that Carrico would come to totally reject Livingstone's claims?) "In addition to these medical figures, three other physicians who were involved in treating the , stricken president-Doctors Gene C. Akin, Jackie Hunt, and Adolph Giesecke, have not fully endorsed the autopsy pictures." (In other words, they partially endorsed the autopsy pictures. Well, what part? Since, if they'd said the head wound was wrong, Livingstone would most certainly have let his readers know about it, it seems likely they said they thought the photos of the head wound looked pretty good to them...and that Livingstone didn't want us to know about this.) "Two crucial medical witnesses, meanwhile, have not yet been interviewed about the case. Dr. Kemp Clark, who was the senior physician on duty in the Parkland 'trauma room' when the wounded president was brought in, refuses to comment--although he described for the Warren Commission '... a large wound in the right occiput, extending into the parietal region.'' (Livingstone hid from his readers that Clark accepted the conclusions of the autopsy report and Warren Commission.) "Diana H. Bowron, a British nurse who worked in the Parkland emergency room in 1963, could not be located as of this writing. However, Ms. Bowron did tell the Warren Commission: 'the president was moribund. He was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee, and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of car, I saw the condition of his head...the back of his head...it was very bad; I just saw one large hole.''' (Aha! A good, credible witness...whom Livingstone hadn't even spoken to...or shown the autopsy photo...) It seems clear from this, then, that Livingstone was pushing an agenda in his article, and that he wasn't particularly interested in telling his readers the whole story. I mean, why else short-change the recollections of those "not fully" endorsing the photos, and emphasize the recollections of several others--including Mrs. Kennedy--whom he didn't even interview? And here are some more reasons to believe he cherry-picked his quotes to push a fantastic theory he knew few would buy if he was more forthcoming... First of all, he claimed, in the article, that "According to the recently interviewed medical witnesses, the president had been shot in the throat, from in front, in addition to the head shot." Well, this was just not true. Few of the witnesses interviewed by Livingstone even saw the throat wound before it was expanded by Dr. Perry, and those that did never told anyone else that the throat wound they saw WAS in fact an entrance wound...only that it appeared to be one. Now, this is an important distinction. These witnesses made observations, and formed recollections, and may or may not have formed opinions based upon these recollections. But Livingstone claimed they'd both presented these opinions as facts, which would have been thoroughly unprofessional, and universally shared the same opinion. It seems clear, then, that he was putting words in their mouths, and that he was exaggerating, or worse. Secondly, a 6-11-80 article on Livingstone by Maureen Williams found in the Bangor Daily News suggests Livingstone was not a healthy camper. I know this seems a cheap shot, but stick with me here. This article was on Livingstone at a time virtually no one knew who he was, written in his local paper. The article, it follows, was his idea, or at least written with his full cooperation. And yet, look what it reveals: "The federal government has stipulated that certain sensitive material concerning the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy in 1963 cannot be released to the public and media until the year 2039. One man who claims to be living in secrecy and fear for his life in eastern Maine, claims to have gotten some of that material through an underground source with connections in the Pentagon. Harrison Edward Livingstone, one of hundreds of private citizens who are involved in researching the assassination, carries his completed but rough manuscript of his book with him wherever he goes...He has kept on the move in recent years in several states, because he said he believes he's a 'hunted man.' In one of those states, he says, his car was fitted with an explosive device. In July 1979, a plane was to carry a team of reporters of the Baltimore Sun to Dallas, where they were to rendezvous with Livingstone. The plane was accidentally rammed by a jet fuel delivery truck on the airport apron. Livingstone says this was no accident. The incident caused the occupants to be confined in the plane for three hours, but what is stranger is that neither the newspaper or Livingstone could locate the investigative team for two days. In July and November 1979, the Baltimore Sun published two stories, containing purported new information and a lot of speculation, which Livingstone claims to have stimulated. 'But nobody read it...the wire services probably didn't pick it up, and one of the stories ran on a Sunday features page,' Livingstone said. Livingstone is convinced that some of the government's official autopsy photographs have been forged by an employee of the Central Intelligence Agency so they would be consistent with the so-called 'single-bullet, single-gunman' theory. Livingstone said that on July 30, 1979, he traveled to Dallas where he interviewed various physicians who attended the dying president at Parkland Hospital. In tape-recorded and transcribed interviews, Livingstone said, medical doctors Adolph Giesecke, Robert McClelland, Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, Fouad Bashour, Jacqueline Hunt, and Marion Jenkins, indicate that the official government photo shown them may have been fake, because it shows an entrance wound in the occipital-parietal section of the president's head. Livingstone says they all told him that when the president was wheeled into Parkland's emergency room for initial medical treatment, the wound they saw in the back of his head looked like an exit wound...Robert Groden of Hopelawn, N.J., a photographic consultant to the House Assassinations Committee, said 'My visual inspection of the autopsy photos and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs..." The article then proceeded to quote Jack White on the possibility the photos had been faked, and Dr. Cyril Wecht on the probability there was more than one shooter. It then reported: "On the other hand, Dr. Paul C. Peters, professor and chairman of the Division of Urology, University of Texas Health Science Center at Dallas, told the NEWS that he has never seen any of the official government autopsy photos. He was one of the many doctors and nurses who tried to revive the dying President 17 years ago. But after studying the forensic observations of Dr. John Lattimer, a retired Columbia professor, he believes that the gaping hole he saw in the right rear of the felled President's head should not be considered a true exit wound, but a 'tangential' wound, caused by a shallow bullet entry at the back of his neck." Well, where do we begin? Hmmm... Livingstone had either presented himself, or had allowed himself to be presented, as a man on the run from dark forces--all because he had copies of the autopsy photos. He then hid that he'd received these copies from Robert Groden, by claiming he'd gotten them from some mysterious figure in the Pentagon. This allowed, as well, for Groden to serve as an additional source for the reporter. Well, this was pretty sneaky, no? And then there's the matter of Peters, who was not listed as one of Livingstone's interviewees, but nevertheless ended up getting called by Williams, only to shoot down the possibility the Parkland doctors' disagreement with the photos suggests a second shooter, by claiming single-assassin theorist Dr. John Lattimer had convinced him otherwise. Pretty wacky. And from there it only got wackier. By June of 1981, Livingstone had convinced Ben Bradlee, Jr. of the Boston Globe to pick up where he'd left off, and interview the Parkland witnesses for himself. Bradlee's summary of these interviews can be found in the Weisberg Archives. They reveal that Bradlee focused on the recollections of 16 witnesses, and that 8 of the 14 he interviewed for the story cast doubt on the authenticity of the photos, and 6 largely supported their authenticity. This was a journalist at work, and not a theorist. And he believed barely more than half the witnesses suggested the photos were at odds with the wounds. This was far from the ALL claimed by Livingstone. The witnesses Bradlee thought disagreed with the official description of the head wound were: Dr. Robert McClelland, who is reported to have claimed that the drawing he approved for book publication is still how he "vividly remembers" the wound appearing. Dr. Richard Dulany, who is reported to have "told the Globe that he recalled seeing a wound four to six inches in diameter squarely in the back of the head, in a location quite distinct from that depicted in the official autopsy report and photograph." Patricia Gustafson, who repeated what she'd earlier told Livingston, that the wound she'd observed was at the "back of the head." Doris M. Nelson, who "drew an illustration of the head wound that placed it high on the back, right side. The wound she drew was in the parietal area, but it extended well toward the rear of the head and appears to conflict with the autopsy photograph. Shown the tracing of that photo, Nelson immediately said: 'It isn't true.' Specifically, she objected to the photograph showing hair in the back of the head. 'There was no hair,' she said. 'There wasn't even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out.'" (Note: Bradlee was more specific than Livingstone regarding Nelson's recollections, and reveals that, while disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, she nevertheless felt the wound was at the top of Kennedy's head, and not on the far back of the head, where Livingstone and others placed the wound.) Margaret Hood, who "sketched a gaping hole in the occipital region which extended only slightly into the parietal area." Dr. Ronald Jones, who "refused to make a drawing of the wound on a plastic skull model, saying he never had an opportunity to define the wound's margins. With his finger, however, he outlined the wound as being in the very rear of the head. He said the official autopsy photograph of the back of the head did not square with his recollection, but that the McClelland drawing was 'close.'" (Well, this is interesting. Jones clearly saw where this was headed, and tried to make clear that his recollection wasn't worth all that much.) Dr. Paul Peters, who "made a drawing that appeared to place the head wound entirely in the parietal region, but he insisted that he meant for it to overlap into the occipital region as well. 'I think occipital–parietal describes it pretty well,' he remarked. He said he had a good opportunity to examine the head wound. Shown the official tracing of the autopsy photograph, Peters remarked: 'I don't think it's consistent with what I saw.' Of the McClelland drawing, Peters said: 'It's not too far off. It's a little bit (too far) down in the occipital area, is what I would say...But it's not too bad. It's a large wound, and that's what we saw at the time.'" (Well, this is also quite intriguing. Peters placed the wound in the parietal area, but, one can only presume, recalled Clark's description of it as occipito-parietal, and thought better of it. Note also that two of the witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos--Nelson and Peters--had disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing as well.) Diana H. Bowron: A British registered nurse. Bradlee couldn't find her but quoted her testimony before the Warren Commission. Dr. William Kemp Clark. Clark refused to be interviewed but Bradlee quoted his previous reports and testimony. Dr. Gene C. Akin, who "at first recalled that the head wound was 'more parietal than occipital'" but who equivocated after being shown the McClelland drawing, and said "Well, in my judgment at the time, what I saw was more parietal. But on the basis of this sketch, if this is what Bob McClelland saw, then it's more occipital.'" (Holy smokes. This confirms that at least one back of the head witness deferred to the accuracy of McClelland's drawing, without realizing the drawing had not been made by McClelland, and without the foresight to realize McClelland himself would come to dispute its accuracy. There's also this. Of the 8 witnesses disputing the accuracy of the autopsy photos, three--Nelson, Peters, and Akin--also initially disputed the accuracy of the McClelland drawing.) This, then brings us to the six witnesses Bradlee spoke to who "tended to agree with the official description of the head wound that emerged from the autopsy and Warren Report." Dr. Charles Baxter, who, despite his earlier statements and testimony, drew "a large wound in the parietal region" on a model skull, and "said the official autopsy photo of the back of the head did not conflict with his memory." Dr. Adolph Giesecke, who "placed the head wound in the right parietal region, saying it extended about three or four centimeters into the occiput. Though this would appear to make the wound visible in a rear-view photo, Giesecke said the official autopsy photograph was nonetheless 'very compatible' with what he remembered. He explained this by saying that in the photograph it appeared to him that a flap of scalp blown loose by a billet was being held in such a way as to cover the rear-most portion of the skull wound. Giesecke said the McClelland drawing did not reflect what he remembered of the wound." (So Giesecke was being reasonable; the photo didn't reflect exactly what he remembered but it was close enough for him to assume it was legitimate. Meanwhile, he totally dismissed the McClelland drawing.) Dr. Charles Carrico, who was not interviewed, but answered questions by letter, and said in his first letter "that the official autopsy photograph showed 'nothing incompatible' with what he remembered of the back of the head. But he conceded that 'we never saw, and did not look for, any posterior wound.' In his second letter, Carrico said he agreed with the size of the wound shown in the McClelland drawing, but not its location, since '...we were able to see the majority. if not all of this wound, with the patient laying on his back in a hospital gurney.'" Dr. Malcolm Perry, who, like Carrico, declined to be interviewed, but responded by letter. "In the first letter. Perry said that while he gave only a 'cursory glance at the head wound...not sufficient for accurate descriptions,' the autopsy photograph 'seems to be consistent with what I saw.' In his second letter, Perry simply-reiterated that he had not made a careful examination of the head wound. and that in his opinion, the only person qualified to give a good description of the wound was Dr. Clark." Dr. Marion T. Jenkins, whose earlier claims he'd observed cerebellum had been widely quoted "told The Globe he had been mistaken in his statements on this. 'I thought it was cerebellum, but I didn't examine it,' he said. Jenkins refused to draw a picture of the head wound on a plastic skull model, insisting instead that a reporter play the part of the supine Kennedy so he could demonstrate what he saw and did. Asked to locate the large head wound, Jenkins pointed to the parietal area above the right ear. He said he had never looked at the back of the head." Dr. Robert G. Grossman, who "said he took up a position next to Dr. Clark at the right of Kennedy's head. In contrast to Jenkins, Grossman said the president's head was picked up by Clark. 'It was clear to me that the right parietal bone had been lifted up by a bullet which had exited,' Grossman said. Besides this large parietal wound, Grossman went on to say that he had noted another separate wound. measuring about one—and—a-quarter inches in diameter, located squarely in the occiput. Grossman was the only doctor interviewed who made such a reference to two distinct wounds. Though no occipital wound such as he described is apparent in the official autopsy photograph, Grossman nevertheless said 'it seems consistent' with what he remembered. He said the large wound depicted in the McClelland drawing 'is in the wrong place.'" Let's reflect. Ben Bradlee and the Boston Globe interviewed 14 Parkland witnesses in 1981. Of these 14, 8 strongly questioned or rejected the accuracy of the autopsy photo showing the back of Kennedy's head, and 6 supported or failed to question the accuracy of the photo. This is indeed interesting. But what's just as interesting, and just as telling in the long run, is that NINE of these 14 rejected the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, which those focusing on this issue nevertheless propped up as a depiction of the one true wound. Feel free to scream. And let's reflect that when ultimately reporting on these interviews, in his 1989 best seller High Treason, Livingstone and his co-author Robert Groden claimed that the "McClelland" drawing "was verified by every doctor, nurse, and eyewitness as accurate." So, I ask again, were we conned?

Since John prefers to make ridiculous statements--such as implying I'm a LNer or that he has studied the eyewitness statements more than I have--I thought maybe I should remind him that there is a simple question he's avoided. So let's be clear: Were Bill and Gayle Newman telling a fib when they went on TV within minutes of the assassination and said Kennedy was shot as he passed them? And, if so, why did Bill Newman tell the nation he thought the shot came from behind him? I mean, if he was put on TV to mislead the nation--why would he mislead them into thinking the fatal shot was fired from west of the depository? John's response appreciated.

What the hell! You can believe the film is a failure in that it fails to present accurate information. And you can believe the film is a failure in that it has failed to bring in massive dollars. But saying a film is a failure because the mainstream media isn't reviewing it is just bizarre, and indicative that the film has not been a failure in at least one of its objectives: stirring things up. The fact that Litwin and others such as yourself seem obsessed with pointing out every exaggeration or misleading statement in the film--when you would never have done as much to a minor film from a minor film-maker--is proof it isn't a flop. The film Parkland--now, that was a flop. Such a flop that few people inclined to tear it to pieces--such as myself--spent more than a few hours doing so. It came out--no one cared--and it was gone. But this film is clearly a different story. I mean, Case Closed and Reclaiming History were flops, financially speaking, but one can't rightly call them flops in that they made an impact in certain circles and pissed a lot of people off. Say what you will about the film, but it isn't. a flop.

I discuss all those witnesses and drawings in chapters 18c and 18d. If you read it you will see that many of those witnesses did not say what we were told they said, and that some of those who've written on this subject were unwell, dishonest, or both. Perhaps we should discuss this on another thread.

The Russians will, of course, lie about it. My Ukrainian friend was in Ukraine when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down by a Russian missile. The Russians made out that they had nothing to do with it, leaving some to assume it was an over-zealous pro-Russian rebel who'd been given access a Russian weapons system, who was responsible. But my friend--a Ukrainian-speaking Lt. Col. in U.S Special Forces who'd been working with the Ukrainian military for years--assured me that he knew for a fact that the Russians didn't trust the rebels with their weapons systems, and that it was a Russian soldier who'd fired the missile. I just looked up the history of the case on wikipedia, and it appears he was right. The Dutch have brought a lawsuit against Russia over the incident.

My response in bold.

Since John continues pretending Jean Hill thought she'd been standing near the corner of Houston and Elm, across from the Depository entrance, perhaps we should consult with someone who would really know: Jean Hill. (3:30 PM 11-22-63 KRLD radio interview, as transcribed by David Lifton, and posted on the Education Forum, 6-30-11) (When asked if she was 10-15 feet from the limousine, as described by Mary Moorman moments before) “Not anymore than that at all…we were looking right at the President. We were looking at his face. As Mary took the picture, I was looking at him. And he grabbed his hands cross his ch--when two shots rang out. He grabbed his hands across his chest. I have never seen anyone killed, or in pain before like that but there was this odd look came across his face, and he pitched forward onto Jackie’s lap. And, uh, she immediately, we were close enough to even hear her, and everything, and she fell across him and says, “My God, he’s been shot”… (When asked if she'd noticed the people around her) "There was no one around us on our side of the street. We had planned it that way; we wanted to be to be down [there] by ourselves. That’s the reason we had gotten almost to the Underpass, so we’d be completely in the clear." (When asked the response in the motorcade) "The motorcade was stunned after the first two shots, and it came to a momentary halt, and about that time 4 more uh, 3 to 4 more shots again rang out, and I guess it just didn’t register with me. Mary was, huh, had gotten down on the ground and was pulling at my leg, saying “Get, get down, they’re shooting, get down, they’re shooting, and I didn’t even realize it. And I just kept sitting there looking. And just about that time, well, of course, some of the motorcycles pulled away. And some of them pulled over to the side and started running up the bank. There’s a hill on the other side… And the shots came from there... After they were momentarily stopped—after the first two shots... then they sped away real quickly.”

To be clear, Chapter 16b is about the history of wound ballistics and how it relates to the autopsy protocol and autopsy evidence, i.e. the autopsy photos and x-rays. It demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that this evidence suggests a second shooter. It is not a discussion of the Parkland witnesses. They are discussed in Chapters 18c and 18d. Now, that said, I'm assuming when you write "how the Parkland staff described the wound" you are thinking of one narrow aspect of what some of them said--its supposed location. My key finding--the finding that is 100% supported by the autopsy protocol, autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film--is that the large head wound was a tangential wound, a wound of both entrance and exit. This didn't come to me out of the blue. It came from Dr. William Kemp Clark. It was, almost certainly, his main observation.on the day of the shooting. It led me to sift through dozens of forensics journals and textbooks and learn all I could about tangential wounds. And it's 100% conclusive the large head wound was a tangential wound. Now, when I first started writing about this stuff, none of the supposed experts on the JFK medical evidence shared this opinion. But by 2013, many if not most of those writing on the assassination medical evidence were making this same claim. I know where they got it, even if they won't admit it. So the point is that the books and programs built around the recollections of the Parkland witnesses overlooked the most important observation made at Parkland, the observation that will ultimately re-open this case, IMO. They were so focused on pretending the Parkland witnesses said stuff they didn't say that they missed out on what Dr. Clark had said from the beginning.

That's what it looks like. But the direction of the bullet striking the top of the head is not 100%, and not really all that important. It is 100% that the large wound on the right side/top of the head was a tangential wound. This means the small wound found near the EOP was a second head shot. I followed this chapter up with a chapter on the brain injuries. This confirmed my analysis. What's distressing, moreover, is that a lot of the information about head wounds and brain injuries came from the likes of Spitz, Fisher, and Lindenberg, members of the Clark Panel and Rockefeller Panel. From reading their articles it seems likely these men knew Kennedy was hit by more than one bullet, and that their reports and testimony were "doctored" to support the lone nut conclusion. I've spoken to Dr. Wecht about this, and he agrees that the conclusions of these men re Kennedy were in contradiction to the conclusions they shared in their articles. But he thinks they were simply blinded by confirmation bias.

I assume by "faked" you mean not the original evidence, i.e. grossly altered evidence, and not just that some of the Warren Commission exhibits and testimony were sculpted to conceal, or mislead (which I would agree with). Well, assuming as much, I need to ask--Are you saying that the evidence in the 26 volumes, and the subsequent reports, suggests Oswald acted alone, and that it's only through realizing that much of this evidence was faked that one can conclude Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy? Because, if so, you're a lot closer to a LNer than most on this forum, including myself. Let's take, for example, the witness statements. Do you really think they suggest a lone assassin firing from behind the limousine? Or, as yet another example, the Zapruder film... Do you really think it suggests a bullet entering low on the back of JFK's skull and exploding from the top of his head? I have studied both these aspects and have recorded what I discovered on my website, and it's 100% clear that two loud sounds were heard quite close together around the time of the head shot, and that the fatal shot impacted at the top of Kennedy's head, leaving the small entrance wound discovered at autopsy unaccounted for, and evidence for a second bullet to the head and a second shooter.

Since this thread has drifted off into discussing wound ballistics, I'd like those with an interest to know that a few years back I added a substantial chapter to my website in which I discuss the history of wound ballistics, and the wound ballistics of the 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano in particular. It's Chapter 16b: Digging in the Dirt. To be completely modest, it's probably the best thing ever written about Kennedy's large head wound.

The book used to be about Oswald, but it appears that challenges and alterations to Lifton's body alteration theory have led him to double down. So now the book is gonna be Best Evidence 2, and not a revealing look at Oswald. I, for one, am disappointed. I think we need a book on Oswald based on research and interviews with Marina more than we do a book on the medical evidence, rehashing much of what we already know. If that sounds cynical I'm sorry. I'm a grumpy old man these days.

An analogy is in order to better illuminate the situation. A bully terrorizes the kids in his neighborhood. A number of them unite with a bully from another neighborhood for protection. The bully--thinking like a bully--sees this as a threat. Whereby he takes the skinny kid next door who's only been talking to these other kids into the back alley and breaks his arms. In his stupid bully mind, he thinks this will send a message to any of the other neighbor kids thinking of "teaming up on him". But in reality he's gonna make the other kids flee him whenever he walks down the street, and secretly pray for his comeuppance. It's coming. A knife in the back. Or a bullet in the head. It's coming. Or so we would like to think. It is unfortunate, however, that Stalin was able to murder millions, and not have to pay a price. Putin clearly thinks he can do the same. But I wouldn't bet on it. I suspect he's overplayed his hand. I suspect most Russians could give a hoot about the Soviet Union. I suspect they will not back his foreign excursions at the expense of their economy. If he loots Ukraine, after all, it seems certain his cronies will benefit, but not the Russian people.

Yes, that's Mark. RIP. There used to be a video of him on YouTube in which he ran through the Fox set one by one in which he made a lot more sense than most people when they talk about the photos. Mark got the photos from Fox. It is my recollection Fox was a WWII-buff, and Crouch traded him some rare WWII material to Fox in exchange for the photos. It is also my understanding that Lifton did not buy the photos from Crouch, but that Crouch made Lifton copies--photos of the original photos. He later made other sets and sold them to other researchers. I am fairly certain the original Fox set was ultimately sold to Walt Brown, who, in the long tradition of JFK researchers, decided to tuck them away in his personal treasure chest. He published some of them in one of his books, but in low resolution and with captions on the photos. To my understanding, he has never had these superior images digitized, and I'm pretty sure he's never even been pressured to do so by the likes of Wecht or Aguilar. It makes no sense to me. As a result most researchers have been forced to work with scans from Lifton's and Groden's books, some of which have been cropped. it took me several years to realize there was a drainage hole in F8, and that that was the key to orienting that photo, and that's because the drainage hole was cropped off most of the published photos. And then of course there's the other F8, which Crouch had long recognized as the other half of a matched pair with F8, but which I'd stupidly thought was the same photo, only developed differently. Until I created a Gif of these two photos and put it on my website, most didn't even realize we had the other F8, even though it had been in the Crouch set sold to dozens of researchers. Secrecy, hoarding, hoping to get rich... It's pretty standard JFK "researcher" behavior. Which is why those who dedicated themselves to sharing information--Mary Ferrell, Harold Weisberg--remain heroes.

Virtually everything published in the 26 volumes was originally classified as Top Secret.

Not good, John. First, you claim this was classified top secret until the ARRB. Where do you get this stuff? This was published in the WC's volumes 20H158. Second, you make out this was a drawing made by Hill, and that she placed the building across from herself. She did not. The basic drawing was made by Specter. When one looks at the full drawing, it's clear he made the TSBD stretch halfway to the overpass. Hill merely marked her location in regards the plaza, about halfway down to the overpass. Now, she did indicate she was across from the building in her testimony. But 1) she said this while looking at Specter's placement of the building, and 2) she actually was across from the loading dock on the side of the building. Now, even if she thought the building was directly across from her in the distance, she most certainly didn't believe it was directly across the street from her. To demonstrate this point, the line she drew across from her position marked the path she took when she ran across the street and climbed the steps. There are no steps across the street from where you would like us to believe she was "really" standing. Jean Hill and Mary Moorman went back to Dealey Plaza on numerous occasions and gave interviews from where they'd been standing. They always stood right near where they are shown in the films and photos. They never once stood or suggested they'd been standing down where you claim they were standing. In fact there is not one piece of evidence suggesting they were standing where you claim they were beyond your gross misinterpretation of this drawing. In short, then, you have taken a crappy drawing by Specter published in 1964 and blown it up into being a long-suppressed key to where Jean Hill and Mary Moorman were "really" standing. The forum deserves better.

Yikes, Jean Hill said they were across from the TSBD. OMG! That means the Moorman photo is a fake! Only, not... Here is an overhead view of the plaza in 1963. The depository included a loading dock and storage room to the west that would subsequently be destroyed. Look from the west edge of this on a straight line out into the plaza, and voila! you come within a few yards of Hill's location in the z-film, and the location from which the Moorman photo was shot. OK, now we know someone's gonna insist that she meant the 7 story building part of the TSBD. But even if she meant that, her placement of herself at the far west end of the 7 story building still puts her a good 20 yards or so to the west of where John thinks he sees her in the Dorman film.

If you read the historical record, John, you'll see that the railroad men made numerous references to their being on the bridge and watching the motorcade pass beneath them. William Greer has even said that's why he hesitated in the plaza. He saw these men up on the bridge and was afraid he was driving into an ambush. Your claim Foster wouldn't have allowed them to be up there was 100% wrong. Here are Foster's words: Mr. BALL - Now, you had instructions to keep all unauthorized personnel off of that overpass? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Did you do that? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Did you permit some people to be there? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. Mr. BALL - Who? Mr. FOSTER - People that were working for the railroad there. Mr. BALL - Were there many people? Mr. FOSTER - About 10 or 11. Mr. BALL - Where were they standing? Mr. FOSTER - They were standing along the east banister. Mr. BALL - The east banister? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir; in front of me. Mr. BALL - In front of you. Will you mark there and show the general area where they were standing? Mr. FOSTER - They were standing along this area here [indicating]. Mr. BALL - You have marked a series of X's to show where about 10 people were standing? Mr. FOSTER - Yes, sir. So, yes, there were people on the railroad bridge. And no, they didn't lie when they subsequently claimed they were up on the bridge as opposed to the side of the bridge or wherever you choose to believe they were "really" standing.

The "Chaney caught the lead car in the plaza" argument was debunked on this forum back when Fetzer was citing it as the number one proof for alteration. I believe it was Gary Mack--say what you will but Gary was an expert on the photographic and eyewitness evidence--who offered up to someone that there was significant evidence Chaney caught up with and spoke to the lead car at the freeway onramp. I think he even found an image of this in the background of a photo, but I can't remember which one. As far as Costella's frames, they are clearly from photos of the original frames. (I'm not sure where he got this but Groden is a safe bet. Thompson, I believe, also had access to the original and also made a frame by frame copy.) They show the images by the sprocket holes so they could not be photos of a copy. The copies do not show the images by the sprocket holes. (If you look at Costella's frame 209 you can see what I mean--this is a frame Life cut out of the original and is only available on early copies of the film like the one Groden claims came from the Secret Service.) It turned out, of course, that there was some useful info by the sprocket holes. Few remember it now, but one of the longest running CT theories was that the motorcyclist at the far right of the limo (Douglas Jackson) was missing from the Z-film, and that maybe just maybe he'd raced up to the depository, or was knocked down when the limo turned on Elm, whatever. But no, he was right there all along, by the sprocket holes, unseen in the film as viewed by most everyone prior to the 90's, if I recall, when Groden made the the sprocket hole version available on his video, and then DVD.

Add the railroad men to John Butler's ever-growing list of witnesses who suggested conspiracy, but were nevertheless part of a plot to conceal the alteration of the photo evidence. Priceless. As far as Linda, yes, I wasn't paying close enough attention to the interview. After it was pointed out that she said she saw it through the arcade, I remembered that this was something discussed on this forum eons ago. I'm getting old in my old age.