Pat Speer

1. A large bone fragment was blasted off the skull and lay dangling on the side of the head, and was witnessed by a number of Parkland witnesses. Were they hallucinating? And, if not, was Horne correct to claim there was no parietal wounds at the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating such a wound? 2. And if your answer is yes--that Horne is correct--can you explain how this surgery was conducted without being observed by Jenkins--who has claimed since forever that no such surgery occurred at Bethesda? P.S. You have 1 of 3 doctors claiming something, and claiming it for the first time 14 years after the fact, and you take from this that ALL the doctors claimed this, when one said it wasn't so, and the third said he had no recollection of such a thing. That's not exactly rock solid, now is it? And when you add in that the FBI and others and Boswell himself (initially) said it was the exit defect that was matched up at the autopsy, well, it's clear your emperor has no clothes.

1. The autopsy "doctors" did not say such a thing. Humes specified that it did not happen. Finck said he recalled no such thing. And Boswell only said such a thing in passing when speaking to the HSCA. (I re-read his ARRB testimony and don't recall his saying as much to them, but wouldn't be surprise if he did.) As far as Finck, English was his second language, and it's hard to understand what he meant by curvature allowing him to claim the wound was an entrance. He may even have been confused, and was thinking of the curvature on the bone of the triangular fragment, which allowed him to claim the defect on this fragment was an exit. In any event, he never said anything about a piece of bone being brought in to complete the entrance defect. 2. You missed my point. Horne has no wounds on the head outside a small bullet entrance by the EOP (which did not exit, for which the bullet was never found) a small bullet wound by the temple (which was not seen at Parkland), a small entrance on the forehead (which was not seen at Parkland), a blowout from the temple bullet low on the middle the back of the head (which was only half seen at Parkland, and which left no beveling on the Harper fragment), and an exit from the left side of the back of the head (which was not seen at Parkland.) In short he has three entrances and two exits on Kennedy's skull--with but ONE HALF of one of the wounds being observed at Parkland. Now, Mantik has told you the frontal fragment was blasted from the head, and that a large skull defect on the top of the head did exist at Parkland, but went unobserved. So he has three entrances and three exits, of which but ONE HALF of one of the wounds (1/12th of the wounds) on the skull was noticed at Parkland. So, no, the claim there was no wound on the top right side of the head, because if there'd been one it would have been observed at Parkland, is complete and utter nonsense...according to the two main proponents of wound alteration--Horne and Mantik. 3. And that's not even to mention that witnesses such as Baxter, Perry and Salyer DID specify early on, before they could possibly know what was shown in the autopsy photos, that there was a bone flipped out on the side of the head--a wound that runs counter to Horne's claim there was no such damage prior to Humes' creating as much. 4. And that's not even to mention that Horne claims Ed Reed witnessed Humes performing this pre-autopsy surgery, when Reed specified that he saw Humes cutting on the frontal area AFTER the x-rays had been taken, and these x-rays show the defect on top of the head, and wing of bone on the side of the head...the wounds Horne claims were created by Humes. It's gibberish.

We are on the same page. Even if one were to throw the autopsy report and the statements of the autopsy doctors in the trash, Horne's position that there was NO gaping hole on the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating one is nonsense. There are witnesses such as Newman who saw the side of the head explode, and Parkland witnesses such as Baxter and Perry who noted a bone flap on the side of the head. The notion there were small holes on the forehead AND temple that went unnoticed at Parkland runs counter to the claim these were unassailable witnesses. And isn't that the basis for the body alteration theory--that the Parkland witnesses could not be wrong? Now here's a frontal shot theory that makes sense, IMO. It's not my theory, but it's one with which I could agree. 1. A low-velocity bullet from behind strikes JFK near the EOP and exits his throat. 2. A shot from the behind the fence enters near the temple and blasts the top of Kennedy's head off, with the far back of the right side of his skull still attached by the scalp. While not perfect this accounts for the sounds from the knoll and smoke observed on the knoll, and accounts for the Parkland witnesses thinking the wound was on the back of the head (as hair and scalp draped down to cover the front part of the skull defect, and as the rear flap opened up, when Kennedy was laying on his back.) Heck, you could even claim the EOP bullet damaged cerebellum and that it dripped out of the hole above it when JFK was placed in the Trendelenburg position, with his feet up in the air. But no, such a theory would never gain traction because people are hooked on the idea an evil "they" altered the body to conceal the truth of a conspiracy. (while writing autopsy reports and taking autopsy photos which unwittingly reveal a conspiracy.)

I don't know if we know it. But there is no mention of Oswald's death, so it would have to be before 11-24. And it was found in a batch of footage from 11-22.

Finck said numerous times that when they reflected the scalp he saw a hole on the skull. He was very meticulous in his language. He would not have said he saw a hole if he meant to say he saw what he interpreted to be half a hole.

Thanks. The search continues. I've been told an effort is underway to get some medical professionals to take a look at this stuff, so maybe some progress is forthcoming.

Yes, the patch was larger than the hole, which was the size of a small orange.

Yes, that is what he said. But it wasn't what he said initially, and it it isn't consistent with the bone's being the Harper fragment.

Finck's saying there was "enough curvature" on the bone to identify it as an entrance does not mean half the entrance was missing, and found on a bone fragment delivered hours later. Nor does his stating he'd observed a portion of a crater. The bullet entered at an angle. It did not leave a nice round crater on the inside of the skull. Apparently it was half a crater and then a groove. Thus 15 by 6. And you don't need to take my word for it. In his WC testimony Finck said the defect was in an area of intact scalp, and that when they reflected the scalp away from the defect they found "a corresponding defect through both tables of the skull." in His FIRST letter to Blumberg, moreover, Finch specified that there was a "through and through wound of the occipital bone" "corresponding" to the 15 by 6 wound on the scalp. When later asked by the ARRB if the doctors put a skull fragment back in place that completed the entrance wound, he was totally perplexed, and replied "I don't remember that." (Gunn, stupidly, prefaced the question by saying Boswell had said they''d completed the hole with a fragment, which, of course, prevented Finck from saying such a thing was ludicrous, etc.) So that leaves Boswell, who said nothing about such a bone before telling Thompson it was the largest bone that was matched up. (Well it would appear from this that he'd simply misremembered the bone brought in with exit beveling that convinced them the large defects was an exit as a bone brought in that completed the entrance--something no one else remembered.) And then, of course, Boswell told the HSCA that it was the smallest bone that matched up. So, in short, there is weak evidence, at best, that a bone was brought in that matched up with the entrance, and no reason whatsoever to take from this that this bone was the Harper fragment, which was not discovered until the next day AND had exit beveling, not entrance beveling.

It was actually just one of the autopsists, Boswell. And he never said anything about this until years afterwards. And then he specified that it was the smallest of the three bone fragments brought in during the autopsy that completed the beveled entrance. Well, his recollection has been mis-represented by some to suggest the HARPER FRAGMENT!!!, which was not brought into the autopsy, or even discovered until the next day, and was far from small, AND had a lead smear at a beveled exit, was the fragment brought in that completed the entrance. And that's ridiculous. Now, Sandy is working on a theory where the Harper fragment was brought into the autopsy and then taken back to Dallas to be found, and the supposed beveled entrance was really an exit, and so on. But it's a really busy theory to no end, IMO. But at least he's trying to make the pieces fit, as opposed to those who have claimed, for years, that the Harper fragment, was the bone Boswell claimed matched up with a beveled entrance on the skull, while knowing full well that the beveling they claim matched up was exit beveling, not entrance beveling.

Well, appearances can be deceptive. The hole as first observed was greatly expanded when scalp was peeled aside and skull fell to the table. Few at Bethesda saw it in its original state. As the purpose of the reconstruction was to make JFK acceptable for a public viewing, moreover, Stroble reconstructed the skull with the missing scalp and skull at the back of the head.

I re-watched the video to copy down some quotes, and came away believing this interview was conducted on the 22nd. Why? There is no mention of Oswald's killing. As hard as it may be to believe NOW, on 11-24, Oswald's murder on 11-24 was bigger news than JFK's murder two days before. So why would a newsman interviewing a doctor at the hospital where Oswald was just pronounced dead, ask him questions about Kennedy--which was by then old news--and nothing about Oswald? The only answer is that Oswald was not dead...yet. Now the possibility exists that this interview was conducted bright and early Sunday morning...before Oswald was shot. Do we know when Cisco arrived in Dallas, Denis?

Wait. So when was this interview? Vince listed it as 11-22-63. Was it actually that Sunday, the 24th?

Thanks. And do we know where Harris found this interview? Was it in a vault somewhere?

Greetings, Denis. Any idea when the interview was conducted?

Good find. I will add some of the quotes to my website. But I think I saw some responses in which people are acting as though there is anything new here. There is not. Perry said from the first and to the last that the throat wound appeared to be an entrance wound. That in itself means almost nothing. It is not the job of a surgeon to make that determination. That is the job of a pathologist or coroner. In fact, studies have shown that the opinions of emergency room personnel as to entrance or exit on cases of multiple gunshot wounds are as good as a guess. What is significant is that he says the throat wound was small--unlikely for the exit of a high-velocity missile--and that they thought the large head wound may have been a tangential wound--meaning both that they saw no entrance anywhere else on the skull, and that the wound was larger in surface area than they would have expected. This is discussed in chapter 16b of my website and forms the foundation for my conclusion the wound was yes indeed a tangential wound...and that the entrance wound found at Bethesda represents a second shot to the head.

1. The FBI wasn't there when the skull was reconstructed, so how would they know what happened to the fragments after they left? And why would the morticians fail to avail themselves of fragments the FBI claims were present at the beginning of the reconstruction that could help them complete the skull? 2. I believe you've claimed there was legitimate beveling on the Harper fragment but no beveling on the triangular fragment. If the Harper fragment was broken off the triangular fragment, where did the beveling come from? 3. And the morticians said small orange. Robinson told this to the HSCA and Van Hoesen told this to the ARRB.

To my recollection he didn't run tests with any delay beyond 2 1/2 hours to determine how long one could expect a positive result. He decided to test at 2 1/2 hours, and received a positive result. From chapter 4f... (Note: a subsequent study by Vincent Guinn would come to demonstrate that, under laboratory conditions, gunshot residue could be found on suspects as long as 24 hours after a shooting. A similar study by S.S. Krishnan published in 1974 would similarly claim "residue can remain for up to 17h during normal activity, but can be quickly removed by vigorous scrubbing with soap and water." A second study by Krishnan published in 1977 would support this, moreover, by listing a homicide where gunshot residue was found on the hands of a suspect 24 hours after the shooting. While Oswald's odyssey after the shooting was far from what one would expect to find in a laboratory, it was also far less taxing than 17h of normal activity. As a consequence there is nothing in his saga to make one think the residue on his hands, face, and clothes that would be apparent should he have fired a rifle, would have vanished. From May 31 to June 3, 2005, the FBI crime lab held a symposium on gunshot residue analysis. One of the issues discussed was time limits, a time after which the various crime labs present at the symposium would refuse to conduct a test for gunshot residue. According to a summary of this symposium, found on the FBI's website, "Many participants stated that an acceptable cutoff time is 4 to 6 hours after the shooting event, whereas some felt that up to 8 hours was appropriate. Still others were comfortable accepting lifts taken more than 12 hours after the shooting." It was also noted that the FBI's cut-off was 5 hours. A 2006 article on Scienceevidence.com similarly notes that in Saunders v the State of Texas, Aug. 12 2006, "The State’s expert...testified that the time guideline for gunshot residue tests is four hours because of the diminished likelihood of finding the elements necessary for a positive result. The expert testified that it was possible, however, for the test to produce a positive finding even after six or eight hours, but such findings are described as inconclusive. They are not referred to as 'unreliable,' however, because the problem is the likelihood of the evidence disappearing, not the presence of a false positive." Also The acceptance of gunshot residue tests of the face has, in fact, in some ways, surpassed even that of gunshot residue tests of the hands. The Elsevier Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, published 2000, notes: "In the case of a living shooter, the gunshot residue may be removed by washing the hands; it may also be rubbed off the hands onto clothing. Because of the possibility that gunshot residue may be deliberately removed or inadvertently lost from a shooter's hands other sources of gunshot residue should be considered. Gunshot residue may be deposited on the face and hair of the shooter or on his clothing. Gunshot residue deposited in these areas will generally be retained longer than gunshot residue of the hands." This, of course, feeds back into the question of why, 8 hours after the shooting, there was plentiful residue on Oswald's hands, but so little residue on his cheek?

From chapter 18d at patspeer.com: Let's start with Father Oscar Huber, the priest who gave Kennedy his last rites. The November 24th, 1963, Philadelphia Sunday Bulletin ran an article datelined Dallas, Nov. 23rd, 1963. Father Huber was interviewed for this article. It reported: “The President was lying on a rubber-tired table when I came in,” Father Huber said. He was standing at his head. Father Huber said the President was covered by a white sheet which hid his face, but not his feet. “His feet were bare,” said Father Huber... He said he wet his right thumb with holy oil and anointed a Cross over the President’s forehead, noticing as he did, a “terrible wound” over his left eye." A "terrible" wound over his left eye! No such wound was noticed by the Parkland doctors. It seems possible then that Father Huber had confused Kennedy's left for his right, and that Huber had in fact noticed the wound depicted in the autopsy photos while at Parkland. Or not. A year later, on November 22, 1964, researcher Shirley Martin spoke to Huber. She then reported on this discussion in an 11-24-64 letter written to fellow researcher Vincent Salandria. This letter was then quoted in Praise From a Future Generation, by John Kelin (2007). She wrote: "Saw Father Huber on Sunday...He says when he entered Emergency Room #1, he pulled the sheet just to the edge of the President's nose and then he saw what he assumed to be a bullet entry hole above the President's left eye...The next day, Father Huber says he learned that the assassin had stood behind the President, therefore negating the possibility that what he saw had been an entry bullet wound. At once, Father Huber realized that what he had seen was only a 'blood clot.'" A year and a half later, while interviewing Father Huber for his movie Rush to Judgment, Mark Lane followed up on Martin's questions, and received a similar response. (The transcript to this interview was made available by the Wisconsin Historical Society.) Huber told Lane "Well, his face was covered with blood and there was a blotch of blood on the left forehead, which I, at the time, thought possibly could be a bullet wound, but I learned later that it was not, that I was entirely mistaken, because he had been shot in the back of the head. I did not see really any wounds on him, because I only uncovered his face to the tip of his nose. I learned later that the bullet came out, perhaps at the jaw, I don't know." And that wasn't the last time Father Huber spoke on the matter. In late 1966, Lawrence Schiller followed up with many of those who'd been interviewed by Lane. In his book The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report, Schiller quoted Huber as follows: "I saw the President lying on an emergency room table...I noticed that his extremities were extremely white, and the thought came to me: 'There's no blood in this man...' I removed the sheet down to the tip of his nose and anointed him with holy oils...And [then I] put the sheet back over his face. I did not know where he had been shot, where the bullets had struck him and I had no thought of looking for anything like that. His face was covered in blood, but I saw no wounds." Huber was so worried about his actions being misrepresented, for that matter, that he wrote a response to William Manchester's 1967 book The Death of a President. This response insisted "I removed, to the tip of his nose, the sheet that covered the President's head and immediately began administering the last rites of Catholic Church..." When he sent this response to researcher Stephen Davenport on 8-18-70, moreover, he included a few more details, which Davenport subsequently shared with the HSCA. In this letter, Huber claimed that when he saw Kennedy: "I saw no sign of life in him. His forehead was covered with blood--his eyes were closed as if he were asleep--I did not see any bullet holes in his face or in his forehead--as far as I could see." So, okay, Father Huber was confusing and/or confused. But it's intriguing nonetheless that his statements, when taken as a whole, suggest there was lots of blood on Kennedy's face, but no missing bone, or readily identifiable bullet hole, on his face or forehead.

1. The FBI left BEFORE the reconstruction was performed. Your claim the fragment arrived too late to be put back in during reconstruction is not supported by the evidence. 2. The Harper fragment was a roughly 2 1/2 in triangle. You agree this was not put back in the head. The triangular fragment was a 10 by 6 1/2 cm triangle, or roughly 4 by 2 1/2 in. You can't have both of these missing from the back of the head and still have a back of the head. (If you think isn't so, please demonstrate.) 3. The doctors said that with the addition of the Harper fragment, the missing skull at the time of the reconstruction was accounted for. This confirms what Van Hoesen and Robinson recalled--that the hole on the back of the head they saw was the size of a "small orange".

1. There is no other z-film. Decades later people came forward with vague claims they saw a film that was slightly different, etc. This is as expected after their viewing something once or twice and then trying to remember what they saw decades later. 2. Moorman and Hill failed to notice the first shot that struck the President, which was observed by literally dozens of witnesses, and thought the first shot was the one striking Kennedy in the head. 3. The prime proponents of Z-film alteration hold that the back of the head was painted in, and that a limo stop was edited out. Those presuming these alterations presume as much because there are witnesses whose statements can support that the back of the head was blown out and that the limo stopped. No one of any repute believes the film was edited to hide that the head shot was fired when Kennedy had just turned the corner, and that's because no credible witnesses said as much. In fact, all the witnesses noting Kennedy's reaction to the shots said that Kennedy reacted to the first shot, and was struck in the head by a subsequent shot.

Uhh, no. As presented above, this fragment is an upside down triangle. The width along the base at the top is about 35% wider than the height of the fragment, from the base to the apex, at bottom. It is thereby a perfect fit for 10 by 6.5. Secondly, the FBI agents left before the skull was reconstructed and were apparently unaware what became of the fragments. These fragments were most certainly never seen again, and Humes and Boswell later specified that they were buried with the President. And you don't have to take my word on this. Just use common sense. The hole at the back of the skull at the end of reconstruction was roughly the size of the Harper fragment, which even you agree was not added back into the skull. If the large fragment or any other large fragment was not re-inserted at that time the hole at the end of reconstruction would have been much much bigger, and would have encapsulated the entire back of the head.

There were a number of witnesses describing an explosion of blood and brain from the front or side of the head, and there were a number of witnesses viewing the left and back of JFK's head who said the explosion occurred on the other side, or that from where they were standing they just saw his hair fly up. There are, on the other had, no credible close-up witnesses claiming they were looking at the back of JFK's head and saw the back of it blown clear from his skull. I run through the closest witnesses in chapter 18c. This list of witnesses is so convincing that back of the head blow out aficionados like Lifton and Fetzer claimed those witnessing the shooting were not competent to describe the wound. Now, I know some like to pretend that those claiming JFK was shot from the front or that it hit him in the temple were claiming they saw an entrance there and just so happened to forget adding that this bullet blew out the back JFK's head. This is quite embarrassing, IMO. I mean, really, there was an explosion of blood from the front of the head that was readily visible to witnesses dozens of yards away, but the hole from which this blood exploded was not apparent to the doctors studying Kennedy's body--the doctors who immediately noticed blood spurting from his neck and the back of his head? I mean, seriously, did Jackie wipe away the blood from this hole, and fill it with chewing gum? As far as Newman...the quotes below all come from Newman, or are quotes on FBI reports on Newman... He saw an explosion from the right side of the head...obviously. We didn't realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet hit him. we seen him get shot in the side of the head. I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head. At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head. (When asked about a drawing in which he depicted the fatal bullet's striking Kennedy by his ear) "That's what I saw. The way he was hit, it looked like he had just been hit with a baseball pitch, just like a block of wood fell over his... (When it was pointed out to him that he was moving his head backwards and to the left, and his drawing had depicted a wound by the ear) "In my opinion the ear went." (When asked again if his impression was that the bullet entered the side of the head) "Right. Right. My thoughts were that the shot entered there and apparently the thoughts of the Warren Commission were that the shot came out that side.” that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off… I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car I can remember seeing the side of the President’s ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and red and just bits and pieces of flesh exploding from the President’s head. he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. I remember seeing the side of his head come off. I could see the white and then all of a sudden the red... (When asked if it hit him in the temple) "It appeared yes right in this area here (as he motions to his right temple) on the side of his head" I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The only basis I had for that was what I visually saw: the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off. I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off." It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off I knew most definitely that was a gunshot and the side of his head blew off, you could see the white matter and the red and he fell across the seat I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. I could see a mass of white and then the blood and fragments. I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head fly off, Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off Seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the president go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction, it gave me the sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind me the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off. P.S. He was wearing his watch on his left wrist on 11-22-63, and he pointed out the wound with his left hand when he was holding his kid, and right arm when he was not holding his kid. He also claimed he thought the shots came from directly behind him, and he was standing to the right of Kennedy. So it's incredibly obvious the side of the head he saw explode was the right side, and not the left side. .

Governor Connally viewed the Zapruder film multiple times and placed the first shot around Z-190, when the limo was far from the corner. He later marked the location of the limo at the time of the first shot on an overhead photo, and marked it where the limo was around Z-224. He also insisted he heard but two shots, with the first shot being the one that, according to his wife, led Kennedy to reach for his neck, and the second one (which he did not hear) hitting himself, and a third one striking Kennedy in the head and showering the car with blood and brain matter. His statements are of no support for your theory Kennedy was hit in the head just as he turned the corner, and are actually strong evidence against it.

If you read Humes and Boswell's interview with the HSCA, you will find that they claimed they did not see the Harper fragment on the night of the autopsy, and that they were looking at a number of photos and x-rays including the x-ray of the three fragments when Boswell said that the smaller fragment completed the entrance hole. As Humes had said, shortly before that, that the entrance wound on the skull was just below the small entrance wound on the scalp, moreover, it's clear he did not believe they needed a second fragment to complete the entrance hole, and most certainly did not believe half the hole was missing and present on a fragment they did not see that evening.