Pat Speer

Pardon my quoting my website, Tom, but I tried to remember something the other day off the top of my head, and didn't get it quite right, and was attacked by people who spew nonsense all day long. From chapter 16b: Some things are best defined by what they're missing. Accordingly, the evidence that ultimately convinced me the large head wound was tangential in nature was something that was missing: scalp. The autopsy protocol describes Kennedy’s large head wound as follows: “There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter.” And this wasn't a one-time claim. In his 3-16-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, Dr. Humes repeated his claim that scalp was missing. He testified that 1) the large "defect involved both the scalp and the underlying skull...;" 2) "there was a defect in the scalp and some scalp tissue was not available;" and 3) that the largest part of the bullet which broke up on impact "accounted for this very large defect, for the multiple fractures of the skull, and for the loss of brain and scalp tissue..." There can be no doubt then that Dr. Humes felt scalp was missing, and that Dr.s Boswell and Finck agreed. Or, at least agreed enough to sign the autopsy protocol in which it was described... But there's more to this missing scalp than one might suspect... Medicolegal Investigation of Death addresses missing scalp as follows: “A point frequently ignored, or forgotten, in comparing entrance and exit wounds is that approximation of the edges of an entrance wound usually retains a small central defect, a missing area of skin. On the other hand, approximation of the edges of the exit re-establishes the skin’s integrity.” The authors of Medicolegal Investigation of Death were Dr. Russell Fisher, of the Clark Panel, and Dr. Werner Spitz, of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. The pathology panel’s report was most likely accommodating Spitz, then, when it critiqued the autopsy report’s description as follows: “It is probably misleading in the sense that it describes “an actual absence of skin and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present, but torn and displaced…” Uhh, no... This last line, disturbingly, ignores that Dr. William Kemp Clark, the one Parkland doctor to closely inspect Kennedy’s head wound, shared the observations of the autopsists, and independently observed “There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue” in a summary of the reports written by the Parkland staff on the day of the shooting. (Wasn’t this required reading?) Still, Dr. Clark was but one doctor... Well, this line in the Panel's report (the one claiming JFK's scalp was "probably virtually all present") also ignores that Dr. Malcolm Perry, the doctor most intimately involved in the efforts to revive Kennedy at Parkland, similarly claimed that "both scalp and portions of skull were absent" when testifying before the Warren Commission on 3-30-64. And it also ignores that Dr. James Carrico, the first doctor to inspect Kennedy's wounds at Parkland, confirmed Clark's and Perry's accounts to the HSCA's investigators on 1-11-78. He told them that the large head wound "had blood and hair all around it." All around it, and not above it. And should one suppose Carrico thought the scalp attached to this hair could be pulled back over the wound, he clarified his position on this, once and for all, in an 8-2-97 oral history with the Sixth Floor Museum, when he described the right side of Kennedy's head as having "a big chunk of bone and scalp missing." And that's not even to mention the witnesses claiming to see this hairy scalp on bone left in the limousine... On 11-30-63, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." And Hill wasn't the only one to see this hairy fragment. Motorcycle Officer Bobby Joe Dale arrived upon the scene just as the President's body was rushed into the emergency room. He failed to get a look at the President. He did, however, get a look at the back seat of the limo. Here's what he told Larry Sneed, as published in No More Silence (1998): "Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline." And Dale wasn't the only motorcycle officer to make such a statement. When interviewed for the 2008 Discovery Channel program Inside the Target Car, H.B. McClain related: "When I raised her up (he means Mrs. Kennedy)...I could see it on the floor. That's pieces of skull with the hair on it." So what happened to this hairy fragment, you might ask? Well, it's tough to say. Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney retrieved a large skull fragment from the limousine as it was flown back from Dallas, but never described this fragment as being covered with hair. And there's this. When interviewed for No More Silence (1998), FBI agent Vincent Drain, who arrived at Parkland within a half hour or so of the shooting, told Larry Sneed: "It may have been the security officer or one of the other officers who gave me a portion of the skull which was about the size of a teacup, much larger than a silver dollar. Apparently the explosion had jerked it because the hair was still on it. I carried that back to Washington later that night and turned it over to the FBI laboratory." (Drain's account is curious,to say the least, as he arrived in Washington after the conclusion of the autopsy and there is no record whatsoever of a relatively large bone fragment arriving at the laboratory on the 23rd.) In any event... at least one skull fragment had hair on it. This fragment could not have come from the small entrance wound on the back of the head, and must have come from the large defect on the top of the head. This marked the large defect as an entrance, or more logically, a tangential wound of both entrance and exit.

Oh my! Keven and I agree on something! Yes, even an hours worth of reading about wound ballistics will show you that the scalp does not sag at exit, where it can be pulled back up to cover a large hole on the skull. Now, could scalp be torn at exit, and the flaps be replaced to conceal this exit? Yep. But that's not what happened here. Both Clark and the autopsists insisted the large defect was a defect of both scalp and skull. So, no, McClelland's and Boswell's latter-day claims scalp was pulled up to cover a large defect on the back of the head is just wrong. But they were on the right track. As shown in my last post, the skull defect in the back wound photo extends two inches or so further back than one would guess from looking at the back of the head photos in isolation. There was a flap at the top of the head, that was pulled up for the back of the head photos, and this gives the incorrect impression the skull was intact where the fingers are gripping the flap, when it was not.

You probably have more insight into this, but it is my understanding that men like Newman, Scott, and Blunt were intrigued by the possibility of Oswald's being impersonated, and supported the assembling of the material used by Armstrong, but were dismayed by the way Armstrong put the evidence together. So, to them, the work put into Harvey and Lee was not a joke. But they were not supporters of the finished product. Is this correct?

FWIW, Greg, I found a lighter version of the back wound photo in which the skull defect can be seen, and in which no one is pulling the flap forward. This shows that yessiree the defect stretched to the top of the back of the head. As this flap would have been open while JFK was on his back with his feet in the air at Parkland, moreover, it only makes sense that those viewing it would think it went further back than it did. But, as you can see, it still went back pretty far, and is consistent with what many of so-callled back of the head witnesses remembered.

Wait! Are you now claiming the HSCA pathology panel never analyzed the President's wounds? If so, well... Lordy...

Let's get to know each other, Keven. What is your background? I have been on this forum for 20 years, and have discovered many pieces to the puzzle. The vast majority of these pieces suggest that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy involving men at multiple locations, and that Oswald was not one of these men. I was invited to attend the 50th anniversary of the Warren Commission conference in Bethesda, Maryland, and speak on the single-bullet theory. Now, there was a person who wanted to prevent my presenting at this conference unless I signed off on his own unique version of the shooting, but Dr. Gary Aguilar intervened on my behalf. In any event, my presentation was well-received by those in attendance. Warren Commission Counsel Burt Griffin ran from the audience. And Gaeton Fonzi's wife Marie came up and gave me a hug and told me he would have been so proud. As far as myself and DVP, we have been hashing it out for almost 20 years. We agree on a few things, but argue like crazy over others--such as the single-bullet theory, and the value of Bugliosi's book. But we do agree on one important thing, and that is that we should present evidence for both sides on our websites. He has posted numerous television interviews on his website, which he knows damn well support the possibility of conspiracy. And I have sections of my website devoted to shenanigans within the CT community (such as Michael Kurtz inventing interviews for his book) as well as LN world (such as Bugliosi's serial misrepresentation of witnesses to support that the first shot missed.) So... Limited hangout? What gibberish!

Ouch. My "ignorant self"? About the subject on which I have written the equivalent of ten books? On which I have been asked to present numerous slide presentations? At the top conferences? And even in the homes of famous researchers? It seems you've swallowed some of the hype floating around this punchbowl. While not everyone agrees with my conclusions, I am in fact widely respected, as I haven't just come up with new arguments, but have uncovered a number of pieces to the puzzle. 1. If you've heard that HSCA Pathology Panel spokesman Michael Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, or actually seen the footage, well, that was my discovery. 2. If you've heard that Oswald claimed to have been wearing a reddish shirt to work on the 22nd, and that no such shirt was supposedly found in his rooming house, but that someone paid the archives to photograph what was purported to be a light brown shirt recovered from his rooming house, and proved this to be in fact a reddish shirt, well, I was that someone. 3. If you've heard about or read Robert Studebaker's HSCA testimony, in which he admitted to making multiple copies of the evidence photos, and to attempting to sell them for a large sum of cash, well, I was the one who purchased it from the Archives, and gave it to the Mary Ferrell Foundation. 4. If you've seen GIFs of the two mystery photos, and realized that a supposed crack on Kennedy's skull is really the handle of an instrument sticking out of his skull, well, I was the one who put that together. 5. If you've seen photos from the first tests performed on Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, in which cadavers were fired upon, which depicted wounds on a near identical trajectory as was purported through Kennedy, but with wounds far far smaller, well, that was my discovery as well, as I was the first researcher to study this rare Romanian book, and publish the photos on the internet. 6. If you've seen an image from a textbook, in which HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel member Charles Petty declares that the entrances of shored wounds are smaller than their exits, at the same time he was signing off on the Panel's report, in which the throat wound was presented as being smaller than the back wound, well, that was my discovery as well. 7. If you've heard that the HSCA's trajectory analyst ended up claiming that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy leaning forward before being shot in the back, then sitting up, and then being shot in the head--the exact opposite of what is shown in the film--well, that was another one of my discoveries. I could go on and on, but I'm beginning to feel self-conscious. I mean, what a twit! Tooting his own horn! But the point is that I am far from ignorant, and have added many pieces to the monster puzzle we're working on, and that all the top researchers know this, and appreciate my contributions.

Why? So you can pretend Hill, if he ever did believe the far back of the head was blown out, continues to claim as much? When he has specified for the last 15 years that the wound was at the top of the head, above the ear? Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Fun and games. Fun and games. Let's pretend Hill is a member of the back of the head club...when he has been vilified for more than a decade for not being a member of the back of the head club. Fun and games. Fun and games. They're at no pretending with this one, Michael. Hill was not a back of the head witness...at least not in this century.

So, to be clear, you're claiming that the back wound photos...that show a wound incompatible with the single-bullet theory...are also fake??? The photos showing a wound in a location so problematic that Warren and his staff sought to cover it up? That led them to have the doctors' create schematic drawings of the President's wounds? And refuse to let the doctors compare these drawings with the photos? That led the Justice Department, years later, to pressure the doctors into saying, after reviewing the photos, that they confirmed the accuracy of the schematic drawings--drawings everyone now knows to be inaccurate? Those back wound photos? The ones so problematic that Senator Arlen Specter stopped claiming the wound was on the back, and began claiming it was on the back of the neck...after being shown photos proving it was on the back? That led him to put a chalk mark on the back of the stand-in at the May 24, 1964 re-enactment...that proved too low to support the single-bullet theory, and was consequently not shown the public in the only photo published demonstrating the single-bullet trajectory? Those photos? The back wound photos so problematic that Warren Commission defenders like Lattimer would come to claim the President was a hunchback? That the reason the President's back wound was inches above his neck wound was that his back had a giant hunch on it, whereby a bullet entering his back (at the level of his chin) could descend inches within his neck before exiting from his throat? That led the HSCA to hire a trajectory analyst, and give him permission to move the wounds for his trajectory? Which allowed him to present schematics with the wound back in the location depicted in the Warren Commission's exhibits, while at the same the HSCA's medical panel was testifying that the wound was actually two inches lower? Those photos??? Are fake??? Huh... As an American taxpayer, and the son of taxpayers, I sure hope whoever faked those photos--photos so problematic they tarnished the reputations of President Gerald Ford, Chief Justice Earl Warren and Senator Arlen Specter--was fired...or worse... I mean, having a corrupt government is bad enough, but a corrupt and grossly incompetent one??? Wow. P.S. And Connally wasn't hit till Z-302---Seconds after he'd yelled out "My God! They're going to kill us all!" Right.

You might find it interesting to know that Jack was a long-time member of this forum, and that even he had limits. He had a falling-out with Fetzer as I recall over Judyth Baker. Fetzer wanted to push her story but White (and Lifton) both said no dice. Not buying it.

I'm sorry, but I'm not the one who's silly. Clint Hill has always placed the wound above and behind his ear when asked. He's done this numerous times. When I first brought this to the attention of this forum, and the research community in general, the response was outrage. Not with me. But with Hill. People like Fetzer and Lifton thought his placing the wound in this location was a betrayal--a sell-out. It seems that no one quite remembers how things were, but when I first started discussing this stuff people were insistent that the large wound was primarily occipital bone, and was not on the side of the head or top of the head above the ear. They saw any witness claiming otherwise as a threat, for some dumb reason. In any event, Hill has long pointed out a wound from above the ear and back, which is consistent with his earliest statements, and reasonably consistent with the wound seen in the autopsy photos. P.S. The image presented above does not support Michael's contention Hill is pointing out a location behind his right ear, let alone one inches behind his right ear. Hill's thumb is directly behind his ear and his pinky is above the ear, not inches behind.

You might be onto something. Was it Greg Burnham who shot the footage after receiving the film from Della Rosa? For some reason that rings a bell. Does that make any sense?

Something like this was done at one point, and the film was shared on this forum. it was not the limo or anything like that, but a researcher using the exact model camera stood on the pedestal and filmed a car driving by at roughly the same speed as the limo. The results were consistent with Zapruder's film, as I recall. Hopefully, someone else will have the details.

Thanks, Michael. If 70% of my research is valid and worthwhile, I'm way ahead of the pack.

Not exactly. Mantik says they are JFK's x-rays, but says further that in his analysis they have been altered. But not in the way you'd expect. He says the far back of the head on the x-rays, which everyone else to study them thinks proves the back of the head to be intact, actually show a massive hole, that only he has been able to discover. Now, a number of prominent researchers accept Mantik's findings about the OD ratings being too high for the white patch, or too high for the supposed 6-5 mm fragment, but I'm not aware of anyone with any credibility buying into his claim the back of the head is missing on the x-rays. Are you?

Holy moly! Let's get this straight! Yes, I may have overstated what Custer said about the cassette. He may or may not have said he wouldn't put the brain down on the cassette. I don't have all the interviews with him handy, so I can't say for sure. But that's immaterial. Are you really unable to see that? Custer specified in his ARRB testimony that the back of the head was NOT blown out. He created a drawing for them showing that it was NOT blown out. And he said he took the x-rays which you and I agree do NOT depict a blow out wound on the back of the head. And yet, Keven is telling both of us--actually everyone who reads this website--that Custer was lying when he said the back of the head was NOT blown out, and that, furthermore, the x-rays taken by him DO show the back of the head to be missing...only neither Custer nor the rest of us can see it. Now I know that sounds like nonsense...and it is... But it's not my nonsense. Sprinkled amidst his attacks on me, Keven has indicated that he is a devotee of David Mantik's. Well, Mantik says the far back of the head on the x-rays show missing bone that can only be detected by one using his special device, and that the numerous doctors and x-ray techs, including Custer, who dispute this, are just wrong, seeing as they never used his special device. (IOW, junk science in a nut-shell.) And Custer is of special interest to Mantik because Mantik once showed him a cropped and computer-enhanced x-ray published by the HSCA, and Custer disavowed this x-ray. Ooh...Exciting... Years later, after being shown the originals by the ARRB, however, Custer said he recognized these x-rays as x-rays he'd taken, and vouched for their authenticity. Well, that must have stung Mantik a bit. Perhaps more than a bit. Because Mantik continued (and maybe even continues) telling his audience that Custer had disavowed the x-rays, without telling them that Oh yeah Custer embraced the x-rays as x-rays he'd taken once shown the originals. .

I'm not sure if you were trying to link to it, but one of my "discoveries" if you will, involved the so-called mystery photo. When I created a morph of the two photos it became clear that what people had assumed to be a crack was actually a handle of some sort sticking out from the skull, and that there was a similar handle within the skull. https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/WuPiz5q8uAei5_uLo6q_CZ9ulGxswYYjeMVrvKIlnCQ9x94qB5axRwBwMcEwyqxKT9uiIRBNiwu4KRLDKJPegyQX16fg1V42RdkUrHDQaRsQObPS=w1280

It's become clear to me that whenever I counter anything written by our friend from Utah, he immediately tries to bury it with an extremely long post filled with lots of images. In this case, his spasm has fooled Sandy into thinking that I have been misrepresenting Custer's statements. So here they are again, Sandy. Maybe read them this time.

Everything Keven has posted has been addressed on this forum over the years, and on my website. His repeating it over and over again serves no purpose beyond harassment. Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense over and over again would be like my asking you over and over again about those pesky rings of Saturn...that you claim you once saw with your naked eyes.

I'm sorry, Keven, but your posts are insulting, not just to me, but to anyone who's studied the case. No matter what you would like to believe about McClelland, he was erratic as heck. Now, did he consistently claim post-1963 that the wound he saw was on the back of the head? Yes. And did he subsequently claim the wound in the autopsy photos was lower than he recalled? Yes, no one disputes that. But was he consistent in where he placed the wound, as to above the ear or at the level of the ear? No, not at all. In most of his demonstrations, including the one in TMWKK, he placed the wound above the ear--which would be inconsistent with the wound's overlaying cerebellum. But...did the Parkland doctors thinking they saw cerebellum actually believe the wound overlay the cerebellum? That's a tricky one. As Clark and presumably others floated the idea that the throat wound was an entrance for a bullet exiting the back of the head, they could very well have believed the cerebellum was damaged as the bullet exploded upwards, and that it exited above the cerebellum. (If I recall Peters actually said something like this.) In any event, McClelland did NOT draw the so-called McClelland drawing, nor assist in its creation. In fact, he actually claimed it was inaccurate, and not just once, but on multiple occasions. SO...if you really believe McClelland, you should acknowledge that the drawing was inaccurate, and quit presenting it in your "gallery." As far as Jenkins...whoa. Now I owe Jim Jenkins an apology? For what? I was in the room with Jenkins alongside Thompson, Aguilar, and Mantik...when he stated under repeat questioning that the back of the head was damaged beneath the scalp, and that the hole was at the top of the head. It wasn't me that turned around and misrepresented what he said as supporting that the back of the head was blown out. That was Doug Horne, after being briefed by Mantik. And it wasn't me that coerced him into flipping it around and claiming the hole was on the back of the head and the damaged skull was at the top of the head. That was Mike Chesser. So do the research, and cool it with the hate

LOL.Why waste my time? You know damn well that people who've staked out a position--no matter how ill-informed--always double down on that position. If you had any desire to learn about me or what I've uncovered, you would have read a significant portion of my website before coming here in attack mode. So to me you're nothing but a waste of time, until proven otherwise. As far as Custer.... Here's what you would have known if you'd done the research... From chapter 18c: While radiology tech Jerrol Custer made many statements over the years indicating that he thought the autopsy photos and X-rays were faked, he actually told the ARRB, after having finally been shown the original X-rays, that they were indeed the ones he took on 11-22-63, and that he had been in error. He even specified that the x-rays showed an absence of bone in the parietal region and the temporal region behind the right eye, but a presence of bone in the occipital region. Now, some will say "But of course he caved, he was scared to death" but they really haven't done their homework. Custer told the ARRB a number of things which defied the official story of the assassination. He just didn't tell them what so many conspiracy theorists wanted him to say. And it's not as if he changed his statements for the ARRB. Custer was interviewed by Tom Wilson in 1995. As quoted in Donald Phillips' book on Wilson's research, A Deeper, Darker Truth (2009), Custer told Wilson there was a "King-sized hole" in the top right region of Kennedy's head, and that Kennedy's skull was like "somebody took a hardboiled egg and just rolled it around until it was thoroughly cracked...Part of the head would bulge out, another part would sink in. The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose." It should come as no surprise, then, that Custer pretty much repeated this in his 1997 testimony before the ARRB. He recalled: "The head was so unstable, due to the fractures. The fractures were extremely numerous. It was like somebody took a hardboiled egg, and just rolled it in their hand. And that's exactly what the head was like...This part of the head would come out. This part of the head would be in...The only thing that held it together was the skin. And even that was loose." He then described "a gaping hole in the right parietal region" and specified that "none" of the "missing" bone was occipital bone. Don't believe me? When testifying before the ARRB, Custer added lines to an anatomy drawing of the rear view of the skull. The slanted lines represented the area of the skull that was unstable but extant beneath the scalp when he first viewed the body. Here it is: The occipital bone was intact beneath the skin. To wit, when asked by Jeremy Gunn if the wound on the back of the head stretched into the occipital bone (where Gunn's assistant Doug Horne and Horne's close associate David Mantik, among others, place the wound), Custer replied "The hole doesn't" and then clarified that the occipital region from the lambdoid suture to the occipital protuberance (basically the upper half of the occipital bone which Horne and Dr. Mantik claim was missing) "was all unstable material. I mean, completely." "Unstable" isn't "missing." And this wasn't just a short-lived thing--a quick retreat before, and during questioning, by the government. In 1998, Custer was interviewed by William Law for his book In The Eye of History. When asked about the supposed wound on the back of the head, Custer corrected: "Here's where a lot of researchers screw up. Not the back of the head. Here's the back of the head (Custer then pointed to the area of the head in contact with the head holder in the left lateral autopsy photo). The occipital region. The defect was in the frontal-temporal region. Now, when you have the body lying like that, everybody points to it and says, 'That’s the back of the head.' No! That’s not the back of the head." He then pointed to the top of the head on the left lateral autopsy photo: "That’s the top of the head!" Law then asked Custer how, if the wound was where researchers claim it was, the head could have rested on the head holder used in the autopsy. Custer then specified: "Because the back of the head wasn’t blown out. This was still intact." (As he said this, he pointed to the lower portion of the back of the head in the left lateral autopsy photo). He continued: "It may not have been perfectly intact, there were fractures in there of course with all the destruction. If the back of the head was gone, there would be nothing there to hold the head up...The (head holder) would have been all inside." Now this, of course, was years after the publication of Groden's book. Even so, when one watches Groden's video, JFK: The Case For Conspiracy, one can see that Custer was never really a "back of the head" witness, as he does not point out a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, as suggested by the frame used in Groden's book, but drags his hand across the entire top of his head while claiming the wound he saw stretched "From the top of the head almost to the base of the skull..." He was thereby describing the wound's appearance after the scalp was reflected, and the brain was removed. (In support of this proposition, it should be noted that he'd also claimed there was no brain in the skull that he could remember.) Now I know this comes as a shock to many readers. Custer is a hero to those claiming the back of Kennedy's head was missing. Even though he is actually one of the strongest witnesses supporting that it was not missing. Just think of it. When preparing to take the A-P x-ray, Custer lifted Kennedy's head up to place it on the cassette holding the x-ray film. IF the back of Kennedy's head was missing, Kennedy's brain would have rested directly on this cassette. Custer would undoubtedly have noticed such a thing, and almost certainly have remembered such a thing. And yet Custer not only never mentioned such a thing, he actively disputed that such a thing occurred.

Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about. "The foundation of my entire project?" What a laugh!

To me it's like watching a replay of a baseball game over and over. The replay shows the game winning home run to have been a foul ball. A little research proves the umpire was actually getting paid by the winning team. The whole thing stinks. But instead of dealing with that, those equally pissed off keep yelling that the replay is obviously a fake, because the color isn't right, or the game winning home run was hit to right field when some witnesses hours, months, and years later said it was left field, etc. I'm like "IT WAS A FOUL BALL!" But those equally pissed off just ignore this--what I see as the most important fact--and repeat "But what about that ball boy who said the homer flew out into left field?" To which I say "Look at the replay! It was right field!" To which they respond "Exactly! So we know the footage is fake! It's all a GIANT conspiracy!" To which I respond "Yes, it was a conspiracy, but it wasn't remotely necessary to fake the footage. All they needed to do was have some umpires and some replay officials who were in the bag for the winning team! Look at the replay!" To which they respond "The replay is a fake!! There was a secret CIA lab in the parking lot that altered the footage within minutes and gave it back to the network for broadcast to the country!"

Yes, this was the condition of the head after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table.