Pat Speer

Let the casual reader take notice... Whenever I post anything which runs counter to the nonsensical theories of David Mantik or Doug Horne, Keven Hofeling BURIES my comments beneath a mountain of text and fails to address my comments. Keven was a long-time lawyer. This is a classic lawyer trick. If you can't argue the facts you attack the witness. In this case, his posts prove me correct over and over again, but he frames the arguments so that I am on trial...for simply disagreeing with nonsense. To be clear, James Jenkins told William Law, and Keven agrees he told William Law, there was a hole at the top of the head when he first saw the body. This was what he told me as well. Now, what's strange about this is that Mantik/Horne insist Jenkins failed to see the body prior to its being altered, and the wound at the top of the head seen by Jenkins was created by Humes in post-mortem surgery. So they SHOULD have no problem with me or anyone saying Jenkins saw a wound at the top of the head when he first saw the body. But here's the problem... Here is what Jenkins told me and Matt Douthit and the whole world in his book: At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018): (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 the 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 perforrmed 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." SO... a straight-forward discussion of what James Jenkins did or did not see is a problem, a big problem, for Horne's theory. So how does a lawyer "lawyer" his way out of this? Obfuscate... and claim I, Pat Speer, owe James Jenkins an apology... Now, here's another tidbit. I have met Jenkins and really liked him but have been aware for ten years or so that his recollections are subject to change when under pressure from researchers. Now, here's the part the Kevens of this world would like to hide...that Jenkins' malleability was first exposed by David Lifton, not Pat Speer, and that Lifton interviewed Jenkins over 40 years ago and said that at that time Jenkins said the Ida Dox tracing of the back of the head photo was consistent with his recollections. So stop the theatrics, already... You can believe Jenkins' current claims, or not... But if you choose to believe his current claims, you CAN NOT say you believe his claims support Doug Horne's theory, when he insists they do not...

At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018): (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 the 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 perforrmed 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."

People are just exploiting inconsistencies in memories and pretending these people saw two different things. It would be like your mom's friend saying she thought her bridesmaid's dress was a different color than it is in your mom's wedding photos, and you concluding that your mom must have gotten married twice. To my understanding, Horne et al, claim 1) Brugioni saw the original unaltered Z-film, and 2) this film was altered to add a large wound to the top of the head. But if memory serves, Brugioni said the film he saw had an explosion from the top of the head. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpwldcYcAv4

I'm sorry about any confusion. As to your first example, I don't know what you're talking about. As to the second example, I have yessiree disparaged the whole Hawkeyeworks claim as it is made out of smoke. There is simply no evidence the NPIC ever had the original film. And there is no evidence the second generation film sent the NPIC had ever been to Hawkeyeworks. The alteration of the film is all conjecture. Smoke. With the presumed goal of adding a wound to the top of the head to indicate a shot from a different direction. But that's not how Brugioni remembered it, is it?

Yes, it's important that Keven prove me correct over and over again. .Jenkins points out a wound at the top of his head in the images he presents, exactly as I've claimed. He is not a supporter of Horne's and I suspect both of your theories, and you should stop pretending he is. Here is what he had to say on the matter, in a book written with the assistance of Michael Chasser. This is exactly what I have been saying he has told me, and here he put it into print so people like yourselves would know his stance on this issue. At the Cold Shoulder of History (2018): (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 the 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 perforrmed 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." Now, Why would he feel the need to write that, some may ask? Why single Horne out? Here's why. In his opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, Horne repeatedly misrepresents fact after fact but singles Jenkins out for special treatment. Researcher Matt Douthit pointed this out to me years ago and you can check it for yourself. We have seen how Jenkins insisted he never left the morgue and that no post-mortem surgery as described by Horne took place. Now note Horne's claims about Jenkins--deceptions Horne needs to pretend are true else his whole Humes as ghoul theory dissolves into nothing... “...James Jenkins...[is] dismissed...” (Page 1003) “...[Roy Kellerman] readmits...Jenkins...” (Page 1008) “If Jenkins was dismissed from the morgue...as I infer...” (Page 1036) “...Prior to 8:00 PM...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1039) “...Jenkins...[was] outside of the morgue.” (Page 1040) “...Prior to 8:00 PM...he [was] not present in the morgue...” (Page 1048) But where is Keven Hofeling's thread about Horne, who Jenkins himself has singled out as someone whose claims can not be trusted?

I think the confusion comes from the definition of left--which has changed throughout history. At the beginning of the sixties pro-civil rights supporters--no matter their political affiliation--were considered leftists. But people "soft on communism" were also considered leftists. These narrow definitions were inadequate, of course. To my understanding, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles would be considered leftists because of their view on civil rights, but Dulles was as anti-commie as it got. So he wasn't really a leftist... There has been an attempt in recent decades by right-wing "historians' and zealots to re-write history, and blame the left for the Vietnam War, the chaos of the sixties, and so on. But this isn't really true. And is akin to Southern sympathizers re-writing history to make the South more sympathetic after the civil war...which then led to the rebirth of the Klan and lynchings, etc. The fact is that LBJ KNEW he would need to appear tough on communism to get support on his civil rights agenda, and escalated the Vietnam War not to appease the left, but the right.

I think you're exaggerating the commercial success of Levinson. While he has had some success in TV, he hasn't had a hit at the box office in decades. As for Mamet, his track record in recent years is also weak. Now, I would agree that the odds of a critical success went down with the move from Mamet to Levinson to Joffe, but financial success? It's a craps-shoot no matter who is involved. I'm guessing this will go straight to streaming. And be pretty much ignored.

Have the actors all been ditched as well?

Thanks, Denis. Is the Hargis/Penn Jones interview available online? Regards, Pat

He studied the bullet fragments for the HSCA. He had previously performed the controls on the cheek test. The story behind it all and his results are presented in Chapter 4f at the link provided below.

Geez, Denise. I received the documents sent Weisberg 15 years ago or so, and deciphered them, and reported on them on Chapter 4f on my website.

That's a different test. That was the traditional test then being performed. It was abandoned shortly thereafter. It was a test for nitrates--not specific to barium and antimony. A chemical was poured on the paraffin and purple specks would appear to indicate the presence of nitrates. The neutron activation of the paraffin was more specific and could isolate barium and antimony. This test could still be performed today, but is not, because it involves a nuclear reactor and is quite costly. A cheaper easier alternative is available, and that is what they use today. As to the possibility the FBI lied...it is in fact possible. One of the things I noticed awhile back is that the sketchiest test results were often reported in a Hoover letter--and had no FBI lab report for support. The FBI's examination of the palm print lift, and Hoover's claim it matched up with the rifle, for example, hasn't the slightest scintilla of support within the FBI's files. There's no report, no sworn testimony, nothing. Just a letter from Hoover, saying it matched on five points, when the normal standard was that it would have to match on 12 points. P.S. I just took a look at the date of that letter and realized that these tests were performed MONTHS after the FBI had performed an NAA test using the assassination rifle, and MONTHS after Guinn had reported back to the FBI on his controls. So the FBI well-knew the rifle leaked gsr onto the cheek, but were answering Eisenberg's queries about the diphenylbenzidine tests as a way of shutting down the public speculation caused by Mark Lane, and his frequent claims the cheek cast test was negative. Here is the pertinent part of my website on the lead-up to this letter. On 3-16, Melvin Eisenberg from the Commission meets with the FBI’s Gallagher, in order to learn more about neutron activation analysis. The Jevons to Conrad memo on this meeting reflects "As you were previously advised, it was not possible to distinguish the powder residues of the rifle cartridges from the powder residues of the revolver cartridges." Once again, there is no mention of the residue levels found on Oswald's cheek cast, and whether this is pertinent to the question of his having fired a rifle. On 3-18 Hoover sends the Commission a memo answering some of Eisenberg’s questions. On 3-23, Agent Gallagher receives a phone call from Louise Campbell of Science Magazine. She asks if NAA is being used in the "Oswald case." She is told "there would be no comment on this subject." On 3-27, Roy Jevons sends another memo to Conrad, this one discussing the FBI Lab's contacts with Eisenberg. The memo notes that on 3-16 Eisenberg brought up Aebersold's letter from 12-11, and its suggestion that NAA could be used to demonstrate that Oswald had fired a rifle, and was told by agent Gallagher that "no elements were found during (the FBI's recent) tests to distinguish between rifle and revolver deposits" and that "nothing has come to our attention and to our knowledge nothing has been done subsequent to these examinations which would assist further in the interpretation of the data obtained." As Aebersold had suggested that, in addition to the possibility one could differentiate between revolver residue and rifle residue, the distribution of antimony and barium on the body of a suspect might also indicate whether or not Oswald had fired a rifle, the answer purportedly given to Eisenberg is non-responsive. Is Jevons hiding that tests have been performed along these lines, and that they can be used to suggest Oswald's innocence? It appears so. There is no mention of Guinn's phone call to Gallagher in the memo. Guinn, we should reflect, told Gallagher that tests "indicate that powder residues are deposited on both cheeks of the shooter after the rifle is fired either one time or three times." So how can Gallagher, or his boss Jevons, claim "nothing has come to our attention and to our knowledge nothing has been done subsequent to the (FBI's recent) examinations which would assist further in the interpretation of the data obtained." That's just lying. Speak No Evil A 3-30 Jevons to Conrad memo reveals that Eisenberg has just conducted a pre-testimony conference with the FBI's Cortlandt Cunningham, and has asked him to perform some quick tests using Oswald's rifle, paraffin, and diphenylbenzidine. A 3-31 Jevons to Conrad memo reveals that these tests had been performed, and that they "once again confirmed the unreliability of the paraffin test." This is ironic. There was no mention of this "unreliability" in the FBI's 12-9 summary report given to President Johnson, when they used these tests to suggest Oswald's guilt. On 4-1 FBI ballistics expert Cortlandt Cunningham testifies before the Warren Commission. Eisenberg takes his testimony. Even though the Commission initially intended to use the paraffin tests to demonstrate Oswald’s guilt, they have now decided to trash the evidentiary value of these tests. Cunningham states: “We were interested in running a control to find out just what the possibility was of getting a positive reaction after a person has thoroughly washed their hands. Mr. Killion used green soap and washed his hands, and we ran a control, both of the right cheek and of both hands. We got many reactions on both the right hand and the left hand, and he had not fired a gun that day….That was before firing the rifle. We got no reaction on the cheek…We fired the rifle. Mr. Killion fired it three times rapidly, using similar ammunition to that used in the assassination. We reran the tests both on the cheek and both hands. This time we got a negative reaction on all casts…there were none on the hands. We cleaned off the rifle again with dilute HCl. I loaded it for him. He held it in one of the cleaned areas and I pushed the clip in so he would not have to get his hands near the chamber--in other words, so he wouldn't pick up residues, from it, or from the action, or from the receiver. When we ran the casts, we got no reaction on either hand or on his cheek. On the controls, when he hadn't fired a gun all day, we got numerous reactions.” Cunningham fails to state that these tests were performed just a day before, and at Eisenberg's request. When asked if residues would normally be found on a man’s cheek after firing a rifle, Cunningham offers his personal analysis: “No, sir; I personally wouldn't expect to find any residues on a person's right cheek after firing a rifle due to the fact that by the very principles and the manufacture and the action, the cartridge itself is sealed into the chamber by the bolt being closed behind it, and upon firing the case, the cartridge case expands into the chamber filling it up and sealing it off from the gases, so none will come back in your face, and so by its very nature, I would not expect to find residue on the right cheek of a shooter…" He then discussed revolvers: "You can see when you close the cylinder, and each chamber lines up, there is a few thousandths space between. When the bullet is fired, the bullet jumps across this space and enters the ramp and then into the rifling. The gases always escape through this small space. The loss is negligible, but the gases are escaping on every shot. After you fire this revolver, you can see residues, smoke deposits and other residues around the entrance to the rear portion of the barrel which is next to the cylinder, as well as on the cylinder itself...So you would expect to find gunpowder residues on a person's hands after he fired a revolver.” He then discusses a test he performed confirming this analysis, and supports the possible relevance of the test on Oswald’s hands: “The tests were run on me. I was the one who washed my hands thoroughly. I did not use a brush, I just washed them with green soap and rinsed them in distilled water…To remove possible dirt from my hands. I washed my hands. The gun was then wiped off with dilute HCl to get rid of any deposits already on the gun, and I fired it in our bullet- recovery room, four times--and then after firing I opened it up and ejected the cartridge cases into my hand, as I showed you earlier today. The amount of residue that you pick up on your hands from ejection of the cartridge cases was in my hand at the time. I then, under ideal conditions naturally, went back and had paraffin casts made of my hands and these were treated with a solution of diphenylbenzidine. The results of this examination were that we got a positive result on both casts, front and back. Many reactions in this area where I had ejected the cartridge cases in my hand were noted.” Eisenberg then steers Cunningham back on course—the goal is to trash the test, not hold up revolver tests while trashing rifle tests. Eisenberg reminds Cunningham “By the way, you testified this morning that many common substances will produce a positive reaction to the nitrate test, so-called paraffin test. Will the handling of an unclean weapon also produce a positive reaction?” Cunningham responds: “Just as much as firing it will. That is what makes this test so unreliable. Handling a recently-fired weapon that is covered with residues--you would get just as many oxidizing agents in the form of nitrates and nitrites on your hands as you would from firing it and in some cases more especially up here and around here you would.” When asked if the FBI tests revealed any false negatives after someone had fired a revolver, Cunningham admits: “None of those were negative results, but they were not run under the same conditions…The only negative results were on the 20 people who were run as a control and who had never fired a gun, and even for those people they all got positive reactions at least on one hand.” When asked why the FBI continues to perform paraffin tests if they have so many false positives, Cunningham confides: “Many local law-enforcement agencies do conduct these tests, and at their request the FBI will process them. They take the cast and we will process them. However, in reporting, we give them qualified results, since we frequently will get some reaction. Numerous reactions or a few reactions will be found on the casts. However, in no way does this indicate that a person has recently fired a weapon. Then we list a few of the oxidizing agents, the common ones, such as in urine and tobacco and cosmetics and a few other things that one may come in contact with. Even Clorox would give you a positive reaction….There may be some law-enforcement agencies which use the test for psychological reasons Yes, sir; what they do is they ask, say, 'We are going to run a paraffin test on you, you might as well confess now,' and they will.” The irony of this last statement is apparently lost on Cunningham. While he claims the tests are used to pressure suspects, and have little scientific value, he has apparently forgotten that both the Dallas Police Department and the FBI, in the hours and days after Oswald’s death, presented the nitrate tests on Oswald’s hands as compelling evidence he’d fired a rifle and killed the President. A dead man can't be pressured to confess. On 4-2, Hoover sends J. Lee Rankin a memo regarding the standard paraffin tests for nitrates. He reports that, as Cunningham has just testified, an FBI agent was tested after washing his hands and received positive results, and that this agent then fired Oswald's rifle three times, and received negative results. Hoover notes that "In prior experiments conducted at the FBI Laboratory, it has been found that the paraffin test is unreliable as to whether a person recently fired a weapon." It's funny how Hoover and his FBI said nothing about this in their 12-9-63 Summary Report, which presented the tests on Oswald's hands as evidence of his guilt.

Killion worked with Cunningham and Frazier, and signed an affidavit saying he reached the same conclusions as Cunningham and Frazier about the rifle, but I am not aware of his testifying about the cheek tests. So I assume you are thinking of Cunningham's testimony, in which he said he wouldn't expect to find gsr on a cheek after someone had fired a rifle. I wrote what amounts to a book on this very question. FBI experts ALWAYS testify as a representative of the FBI, and not as an individual expert. But Cunningham testified that he "personally" wouldn't expect to find gsr on the face of someone who'd fired a rifle. This served to conceal that 1) Guinn had performed some controls for the FBI and found that gsr was always detected on paraffin cheek casts when his subjects fired M/C rifles, AND 2) that the cheek of an FBI shooter using the assassination rifle (RF=Robert Frazier) was tested at Oak Ridge and found to contain gsr.

There was a test--the Griess test--that could be performed on clothing. But there is no record of the FBI testing the white jacket or Oswald's clothes when arrested. Now this is mighty curious. Because they DID test the blue jacket found in the depository. So I would bet all the clothes were tested, and that the results were all negative, and that this info was then hidden away.

Chesser referenced the 2000 Journal of Forensic Science (Figure 1) to illustrate a keyhole fracture. Figure 1—Keyhole fracture resulting from an oblique shot In Figure 2, Dr. Chesser identified the keyhole entry wound fracture in the right lateral JFK autopsy skull X-ray (the left image is the X-ray as seen in the archives, and the right image is the enhanced X-ray produced by the House Select Committee on Assassinations). Figure 2—Keyhole bullet entry wound; temporal bone, JFK lateral X-ray film According to the analysis of both Drs. Mantik and Chesser, Zapruder frame Z-313 shows the shot from the rear that hit JFK in the back of the head at the External Occipital Protuberance (EOP, the knob at the back of the head). This shot exited at the right front of JFK’s head, sending a stream of brain matter, bone, and blood up and to the front of JFK (Figure 3). Figure 3—Zapruder frame Z-313, headshot moment of impact, shot from the rear at a low angle The shot at Z-313 pushes JFK’s head and body forward. A few frames later, at Z-330, we see JFK stabilized, with the “head flap” from the shot to the rear hanging from JFK’s scalp, not blown away. In Figure 4, we notice that JFK’s body has rocked slightly back from the impact of the shot from the rear and is still nearly upright but leaning left. Figure 4—Zapruder frame Z-330, JFK’s “head flap” in the aftermath of the rear headshot Zapruder Frame Z-331 is the frame the CIA would wish us to ignore. In Figure 5, you can see that at Z-331, JFK’s right temporal bone explodes from the impact of the bullet that hit JFK’s head obliquely, entering just above his right ear at the temporal bone. Zapruder Frame Z-331 occurs less than two seconds after the shot from the rear at Z-313. Figure 5—Zapruder frame Z-331, headshot from right front explodes JFK’s right temporal bone Magnifying Z-331, the critical frame in the Zapruder film that makes clearer the explosion of JFK’s temporal bone is a shot from the right front that happened after the shot to the back of his head seen in Z-313. Forensic and visual evidence of a second head shot, especially one from the right front, is sufficient evidence to dismiss the Warren Commission’s findings as a proven coverup. Figure 6—Zapruder frame Z-331, magnified image of JFK’s temporal bone explosion caused by the headshot from the right front. The frontal headshot at Z-331 is what pushes JFK’s body violently back and to the left. We can see JFK’s body lying to the left on the limousine’s rear seat as Mrs. Kennedy goes out onto the trunk to retrieve a piece of JFK’s brain matter from the right left of the limousine’s trunk (Figure 7). Figure 7—Zapruder frame Z-381, Mrs. Kennedy retrieving a piece of JFK’s brain matter from the left rear trunk of the limousine At a book signing, Clint Hill described his run from the follow-up car to the limousine: Clint Hill had to know the shot that hit JFK in the temporal bone by the right ear must have come from the grassy knoll—as made clear both by JFK’s body being thrown violently back and to the left from the impact, and from the backward-to-the-left outflow of brain matter from the wound. Dr. Corsi’s most recent book is his second book on the JFK assassination: David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. and Jerome R. Corsi, Ph.D. The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: The Final Analysis: Forensic Analysis of the JFK Autopsy X-Rays Proves Two Headshots from the Front and One from the Rear. Since 2004, Jerome R. Corsi has published over 30 books on economics, history, and politics, including two #1 New York Times bestsellers. In 1972, he received his Ph.D. from the Department of Government at Harvard University. His book, Volume I, in his Great Awakening Trilogy, The Truth About Energy, Global Warming, and Climate Change: Exposing Climate Lies in an Age of Disinformation, received highly positive reviews from prominent climate scientists and professional meteorologists. Volume II, The Truth About Neo-Marxism, Cultural Maoism, and Anarchy: Exposing Woke Insanity in an Age of Disinformation, was published in August 2023. Dr. Corsi has resumed podcasting on his new website TheTruthCentral.com. WOW!!!! I hope the Mantik-lovers on the forum realize that the scenario pushed by Corsi/Mantik is not only at odds with what Horne has been claiming for twenty years, but what Mantik was saying just a few years ago. It's bizarre. For this scenario, the EOP entrance/high exit trajectory has been brought back from the dead. I recently came to realize Mantik believed this, but don't think I ever saw it spelled out before. And I'm almost certain he'd claimed the film had been faked and that the explosive head shot--the one we see at Z-313--happened when the limo was further down the street from where it is shown in the film. And the keyhole? The keyhole shape they propose on the x-ray has the round part on the left and the fan shape on the right. If this is correct, the shape suggests a shot from the rear, and not a shot from the front. And where does Corsi present evidence for the second head shot from the front--the one Mantik claimed entered above the right eye? At one point, Corsi says there were three shots and that the third and final one impacted at the temple. He'd previously mentioned the shot at 313. But what's the third on? We would have to presume the second frontal shot mentioned at the beginning of the article, right? Well, heck, did Corsi forget that Mantik claims a bullet struck the back that did not enter, and that yet another bullet created the throat wound, and that there were FIVE shots, not three? Oh, wait. Six shots, right? Connally. We mustn't forget Connally.

The CIA Chief in Vietnam, Richardson, was also against the coup, and was forced out as a result by the likes of Lodge and Harriman. In an incredible irony, for that matter, both the Schlesinger pre-assassination article claiming the CIA was running their own foreign policy in Vietnam and the Truman post-assassination article in which he complained about the CIA were written as a response to the struggle between the State Dept., which wanted the coup, and the CIA, which thought Diem was better than the alternatives. The CIA wasn't always the bad guy.

I went back and put it in the post. I think you'll agree that the wound is quite similar to JFK's wound. Now, here is what was presented in the first ballistics study for the rifle as a typical head wound for a bullet entering and exiting the calvarium without hitting anything in between at the approximate distance as JFK was struck. IOW, this is what the Parkland doctors should have saw, if the shooting was as purported... (Note this is one of the images I was told would be in the 2023 presentation, but was cut at the last minute.)

You may be interested to know that, as detailed in Chapter 16b of my website, I studied the wound ballistics literature for years before coming to the realization the large head wound was a tangential wound. I then went through each part of the bullet's journey, from scalp to skull, to dura to brain and so on, and found that the wounds described were far more suggestive of a tangential wound than a through and through wound, with a separate entrance and exit. After coming to this conclusion, moreover, I got in touch with Dr. Wecht and he agreed with me that the large head wound was most probably a tangential wound. Around that time, I began sharing this info with some of those working with Tink Thompson on his most recent book, and was led to believe much of my research would be incorporated into a 2023 presentation at the Wecht Conference. But alas, those involved were too busy and too comfortable to learn anything new, so the new material was s-canned at the last minute. Now, to be clear, I proposed this tangential wound came from behind, and those with whom I was working were gonna propose it came from the front. But to me that was of little import, seeing as the large head wound's being a tangential wound made an orphan of the EOP entrance and proved there'd been two head shots, and thus a conspiracy. In any event, here is the photo of a tangential wound I'd discovered which I shared with Dr. Wecht, that led him to agree JFK's wound was quite similar. (I was just gonna post a link because it's horribly gruesome, but I couldn't get that to work. So here it is. SKIP AHEAD if you have a weak stomach.)

I have made the joke several times over the past week that when it came to casting an actor to play Wecht in Concussion, the only person they could find to capture his charm and charisma was Albert Einstein (Albert Brooks' childhood name).

While creating my on-line database of witness statements I came to realize that there were two "slumps", in that some people described Kennedy's lean to the left after he was first hit as a slump and some people described Kennedy's falling over in the seat after the head shot as a slump.That's why I presented the shot descriptions in context. When one reads the descriptions in context, including the location of the witness in relation to the limo at the time of the shot, the shooting scenario is not nearly as confusing as some like to make out (so they can bs people into believing whatever they want them to believe). In fact, it's one of the best arguments for conspiracy, seeing as so many witnesses heard the last two shots bang-bang.

Greg Burnham's site is AssassinationofJFK.net. I believe it is still active and that you can contact him there. I don't think you've mentioned Pamela McElwain-Brown, a still-active member of this of forum. She has long-insisted she saw an alternate version of the film in the 60's at a movie theater. Now, you can probably tell from my previous post that I am a bit skeptical of the "other film." This is in part because to my recollection those claiming to have seen it have given vastly different descriptions of what it contains. But the thought occurs that this may be because some people viewing the current film may have mis-remembered what they saw and that those people have been lumped in with people who yessiree saw a different film entirely. So it might prove worthwhile for someone to go though all these claims and separate them out by the different descriptions along with the timing and circumstance of the descriptions. Some, like Dan Rather, and William Manchester, have been arbitrarily thrown in with those claiming they saw a different film, simply because their descriptions of the film they saw was bit different than one might assume they would have claimed, should they have been shown the current film. But they never said the current film was not what they saw, and the circumstances of their viewing the film indicate that they did in fact view the current film. So maybe someone should try to remove those shall we say "reluctant" witnesses, and make an accounting of only those witnesses claiming what they saw was absolutely positively not the current film, and see what can be made of it.

If one searches the archives of this forum one will no doubt find numerous threads in which the "other film" has been discussed. The evidence for the other film comes down to people remembering the film in a manner different than what is shown in the current film. This is not a surprise. Humans are not recording devices. We create impressions and these impressions are subject to change. Bill Newman, for example, said he'd heard but two shots in his earliest interviews. Within a short period, after most everyone--including his wife--had claimed they'd heard three shots, he started claiming he heard three shots, and could even tell you exactly how they sounded. Now I've talked with him about this and he shook his head and said something like I know I told people I heard two shots but for the life of me I don't know why I did that, as it's now quite clear to me I heard three shots. Impressions are subject to change. This has been studied thousands of times in thousands of ways. And it all comes down to that. Now, if someone had taken detailed notes on a second film that could not possibly be aligned with the current film (e.g. Roy Kellerman jumped into the back seat) that would be one thing. And if people claimed they saw a previously unknown film taken by an unknown or possibly unseen witness that would be another. But the witnesses for the "other film" of whom I am aware all claimed to have seen THE Zapruder film years before it was widely available, and remembered it a bit differently than it is in the current version, which of course matches the version whose frames were published in Life Magazine shortly after the assassination, and whose frames were published by the Warren Commission. So, as it stands, it's really hard to give claims of a second film much merit...any more than you would someone's remembering some other detail from 10, 20, 30 years before in a manner inconsistent with the historical record. I mean, my Mom always told me I was born on a Friday. She had a clear recollection of that. But then as an adult I looked at a calendar for the year of my birth and realized I was born on a Thursday. So what should we make of that--that I was born twice? Of course not.

The doctors asked an artist to sketch a trajectory connecting the wounds for a shot fired from above. They weren't reviewing the Z-film at the time. When shown a still from the Z-film in his testimony, moreover, Humes said the trajectory was close enough or some such thing. But no one really believed it. Researchers like Thompson seized upon this as a problem for the single-assassin solution, and the government agreed. And convened a secret panel of doctors to solve the problem. Well, they solved it alright. They concluded the brain wasn't damaged on a low to high trajectory and that the only way to preserve the single-assassin solution was to insist the autopsy doctors were in error, and that the bullet actually entered inches higher on the skull--where no one at the autopsy saw an entrance wound.

That is probably a high quality scan of the HSCA's exhibit. But the thought occurs that they could have got it from the company that created the computer-enhanced images for the committee. Aerospace Corporation, if memory serves... P.S. While I have you, Micah. I'm hoping you can answer something which occurred to me the other day that has been bugging me ever since. To your knowledge, did any of the researchers who showed the Parkland witnesses the back of the head photo, show them the top-of-the-head photo? And if so, is there a record of their responses? The closest I've come to answering this is from TKOAP, in which Groden, after claiming the BOH photo is fake, says the TOH photo is legit. So I've gotta believed he showed this to people. But is there any record of what people actually had to say? My curiosity was spurred on by realizing that both Sibert, in an interview with Law, and Knudsen, in his HSCA testimony, immediately recognized the TOP photo as what they remembered. Well, did anyone else have this same response?

That would be my guess. He was THE guy when it came to the medical evidence. 1. It was Baden who told Dox to make the red spot in the cowlick look more like a bullet wound on her "tracing." 2. It was Baden, most probably, who "disappeared" the last ten minutes of the Finck transcript, in which he and I think it was Weston repeatedly badgered Finck to change his impression of the entrance wound location, and failed. 3. It was also Baden, in my estimation, who realized Angel's identification of the large fragment as frontal bone meant Fisher's ID of the mystery photo as showing forehead was wrong, and who then flipped this bone over the coronal suture and said it was actually parietal bone 4. And finally it was Baden who realized this placement of the large fragment didn't leave enough room in the defect at the top of the head for the Harper fragment, who then moved the Harper fragment from Angel's orientation at the top of the head to the side of the head... which, in turn, led him to claim he used paper-cut outs of the bone fragments and put them together on a skull, and that this supported this placement of the Harper fragment on the side of the head. (John Hunt, of course, looked for this skull, or even photos of this skull, in the archives but never found it, and the archivists said they'd never seen such a thing. IOW, Baden made the whole thing up so he could lie about the orientation of the fragment, and photo.) Now all these actions were designed to sell the cowlick entry and conceal evidence of the EOP entry. While part of me suspects Russell Fisher was orchestrating all this from afar, the reality is Baden was the leader of the panel. Most of the Panel members worked a total of maybe five days. Loquvam and Weston did much of the writing and probably worked a couple of weeks. But Baden was running the panel from beginning to end, an investment of almost two years.