Pat Speer

It sounds like you're convinced that nothing actually traveled from back to front... How, then, do you explain... 1. The crack on the front windshield? 2. The bullet fragments found in the front section of the limo? 3. The bullet fragment striking the curb by Tague? 4. The skull fragment found on the floor of the limo? 5. The skull fragment shown flying skywards in the Z-film? Which appears to correlate with 6. The skull fragment found forward of the limo's location in the plaza?

Angel assumed (he probably was told) that the mystery photo showed the front of the head. So he took from the photo that the beveled exit (he called it a lecuna, or some such thing) was above the right eye. Of course this didn't fit with the panel's belief the exit was on the coronal suture. So they ignored it. But I think there's a world of difference between ignoring what a forensic anthropologist and expert on skull reconstruction concluded based upon what he was told about a photo, as opposed to ignoring what this expert concludes after studying the shape and details of a bone fragment. That was his forte after all. That was why they brought him in. While most anyone--the members of this forum, for example--can look at the mystery photo and have a different interpretation, forensic anthropology is a specialized field. And yet Dr. Baden--who had ZERO experience, let alone expertise, in forensic skull reconstruction--all by his lonesome created cut-outs of the bone fragments and fit them onto a skull (an exhibit that subsequently disappeared). And we know it was a joke because after doing so he claimed the Harper fragment was not from the back of the head, as originally believed, nor from the top of the head, as concluded by Angel and other experts, but from the side of the head, where the wing of bone can be seen on the photos. It was a total con, and yet no one really noticed it until John Hunt figured out what he was up to, and people like myself followed up. And yes, I think Angel had it right--the triangular fragment is frontal bone. And on this issue, amazingly, men like Livingstone and Mantik agree.

The GIF I created has been slowed down from the original film. I suppose I should have explained that in the other thread. I added 20 milliseconds between frames. So, if my math is correct, the fragment is traveling 36% faster than we see in the GIF. But you're right about the scalp slowing down the explosion somewhat.. When bone explodes from the skull it tears the scalp as it flies away from the skull. And this tear ends in a point. So the V-shaped tear is not proof of alteration, but strong evidence a fragment with scalp still attached had exploded from the skull on a forward tangent. P.S. I added the three red dots to the image above to show where the Pathology Panel had determined there was evidence for an exit. Their interpretation of the mystery photo was adjusted so that the red dot on the right matched up with the red dot in the middle. And to make room for this the central fragment had to be flipped over in place. And that left Dr.Baden to claim the Harper fragment matched up with this hole from below, and that the Harper fragment was actually on the side of the head. This allowed the Panel to pretend there was but one exit from the skull. So why the desperation? Well, apart from the fact there was no evidence on the x-rays for multiple bullet fragment trajectories through the brain, the panel had concluded that the large fractures at the top of the head must have come from a missile larger than the bullet fragments later recovered. IOW, they needed to claim the bullet exited while mostly intact, even though they claimed a piece of the bullet was imbedded on the skull by the entrance. So it fell upon Baden to make sense of all this (within the confines of the single-assassin conclusion) and he did so by claiming the bullet leaked a large fragment out of its base upon impact and then traveled through the brain intact only to break up upon impact with the windshield frame. It's a fairy tale.

The frontal bone is not the forehead. It is the forehead AND the first few inches in back of the forehead at the top of the head. Dr. Angel's placement of the bone is shown on the slide below. To be clear, moreover, Dr. Angel didn't say the triangular fragment was recovered from the floor of the limo. He may not have even known about it. But. Clint Hill said he saw a large fragment on the floor and Sam Kinney said he found a large fragment on the floor--and this is the fragment whose x-ray Angel studied, the so-called 10 cm fragment or triangular fragment. FWIW, moreover, most every prominent researcher, including those thinking the back of the head was blown out, agree with Angel that the triangular fragment was frontal bone. So, the Z-film only confirms what most everyone already believes. Now, as explained above, this fragment's being frontal bone destroys the conclusions of the Clark Panel and HSCA, just tears them to shreds. So why can't people rally around this point?

I recently started a thread on the downward/forward moving fragment apparent in the Z-film. I was hoping that people would just accept it for what it was and not try to bury it under a mountain of "it must be" fake nonsense. But they did. Here is what they don't want you to know... In 1977 the HSCA hired Dr. Lawrence Angel of the Smithsonian institute to study JFK's skull fragments, and figure out from where they originated. Angel was perhaps the premier Forensic Anthropologist in the world, IOW he was an expert, probably THE expert, when it came to reconstructing skulls from skull fragments. One of his key conclusions was that the large triangle -shaped fragment was frontal bone. Now, the frontal bone is kinda of like an L-shape in that it comprises both the forehead and the front part of the top of the head. In Angel's estimation, it had been dislodged from the front part of the top of the head, from just forward of the coronal suture. Well, this was most disturbing to the HSCA Pathology Panel. You see, there was a photo of JFK's skull after the scalp was peeled to the side and the brain removed. This photo had what appeared to be a beveled exit near the center of the photo. Now, the autopsy doctors viewed this photo in 1966 and said it showed the entrance on the skull low on the back of the head. But this proved to be a problem for the Justice Department. In Six Seconds in Dallas, Tink Thompson demonstrated that the bullet trajectory proposed at autopsy--from low to high--was at odds with the Zapruder film, which showed JFK leaning forward when struck, but not nearly far enough to support the low to high trajectory proposed by the autopsists. So they put together a secret panel which--voila!--concluded there was no low to high trajectory because the bullet didn't hit low, but high. And they claimed a red smudge in the photos was the entrance observed at autopsy, only inches away from where the doctors said they'd observed the bullet's entrance. But what to do with the photo of the back of the head with the scalp peeled aside--the one which the doctors said showed the entrance? Amazingly, this secret panel covered their butts by claiming this photo actually showed the front of JFK's head, and not the back of his head. (FWIW, this is the subject of my video series The Mysterious Death of Number 35.) So now we come to the HSCA Pathology Panel, made up of friends of the members of the Clark Panel. Well, they don't want to side with the autopsy doctors, because that would make their friends on the Clark Panel look bad, real bad. To say the problematic photo showed the back of the head would be to say there was an entrance low on the back of the head--which doesn't fit the single-assassin solution, and a beveled piece of bone near the crown of the head--which doesn't fit the single-assassin solution. So they took the lead of their friends on the Clark Panel and said yeah the photos shows the front of the head. And not only that, but that the beveled bone marked an exit on the coronal suture. So this brings us back to Angel. As the panel's orientation for the so-called mystery photo required that the frontal bone be intact, they needed Angel to tell them that the fragment was parietal bone, not frontal bone. But he did not. So what did they do? They simply ignored him. They had hired a top expert (Angel) as a consultant and then ignored his conclusions when they realized they couldn't get them to align with the single-assassin conclusion. (This is discussed in Chapter 14 at patspeer.com, in which I make use of material first developed by John Hunt So, thanks John.) But it gets weirder. As the triangular fragment was found on the floor of the limousine, the obvious conclusion should have been that the bullet exited at the top of the fragment and snapped it downwards. But they couldn't say that...now that they had abandoned both Dr. Angel's conclusions and common sense and had decided the fragment was parietal bone, to the rear of the bullet's exit. So Dr. Baden, to his everlasting shame, supervised the creation of F-66, which showed he triangular fragment's exploding upwards from the skull defect, even though he knew full well it was found on the floor of the limo. The forward/downward movement of the triangular fragment is thereby a smoking gun. It destroys the single-assassin solution. And the creation of F-66 proves the cover-up.

In 313 there is a blurry mass but in 314 the forward moving fragment becomes apparent. When I first got sucked into this rabbit hole some 20 years ago I spent a lot of time reading the web pages of LNers to balance against what I read on conspiracy web pages and the threads of this forum. One of these was the web page of Paul Seaton. I'm not sure when he first published it or when I first became aware of it but it would have to have been somewhere between 2004 and 2008 that I first came across a GIF on his website pouting out the fragment in 314. Since I came across this so long ago, I assumed most everyone knew about it, but realized the other day that not everyone did. In looking back at his GIF, moreover, I realized that it failed to point out that the fragment appears to bounce back up into frame around Z-323, which makes sense when you think about it. I mean, a bone fragment of that size would have a lot of momentum after exploding from a skull and wouldn't just go plop on the floor. So, in short, I'm crediting Seaton with the discovery it goes forward in 314, and myself for the realization it bounces back into frame a half sec later. But it would't surprise me at all if this was first discussed on the McAdams Forum 20 years ago, and if someone like Anthony Marsh or John Canal was the first to bring it up. FWIW, here's Seaton's GIF.

Ha! What made you check the index? I'm guessing you were reading along and going "Why does this guy keep mentioning Pat?" Well, the truth is I met Bob some years ago at one of Gary Aguilar's get-togethers and have stayed in touch with him ever since. But by that I mean like every three months or so, not every week or so. I knew he was working on a book but had no idea it was coming out anytime soon nor that he would make so many references to my work. So this comes as a pleasant surprise. I think. For those not in the know, this is Wagner's second book. While suspecting Oswald acted alone, he finds many CT arguments compelling, and rejects the single-bullet theory, last I checked. He is also quite a nice guy. In fact, I think you met him, Vince. if memory serves I was supposed to accompany Matt Douthit to Dealey Plaza and meet up with you, but I ran late after having lunch with Wagner. I think he came with me to the knoll, afterwards, where I caught up with you, but can't recall for sure. (Those nasty cancer meds!) In any event, I suspect many CTs could learn a few things from Bob's book, and know many LNs could learn a lot from both his book and example. I mean, Bob is an Oswald-probably-did-it person, but he understands that many of the points made by CTs are legitimate, and not paranoid ramblings. So he's a different kind of Lone-Nutter, much as you and I are a different kind of Conspiracy Theorist.

As you know, I discuss a lot of stuff on my website, including the Jet Effect. it's amazing that it ever got any traction. Amazing and sad, IMO. A jet is created when a highly-pressurized substance is emitted through a small hole. Heck, Alvarez knew this was a problem, and taped up his melons to assure the hole spewing melon goo was a small one. Only then did he get the Jet Effect to work. Only then did he get his melons to fly backwards after being struck. The large skull defect is proof this did not happen.

Since not everyone knows that a bone fragment explodes downward in the Z-film, I thought I'd post a GIF I created last night showing just where this fragment can be seen in the film. Note: this is not a thread on the nature of the head wounds, or the authenticity of the Z-film, etc. It is merely pointing out a fact, that may or may not be relevant. That is, the forward explosion of this fragment may be suggestive of the authenticity of the film, or the fakery of the film. But that's not what this post is about. It's about simply noticing what has been before us for decades.

It's not a matter of Seaton being correct. It's in the film, and always has been. A shape explodes forward from the skull that could very well be the large fragment found in the limo. None of the doctors frequently cited on this forum as support for the "back of the head blow-out" dispute that the large triangular fragment was frontal bone. And none that I'm aware of dispute that this fragment was found in the limo. To my understanding, they all agree it was. So how do they explain no one's seeing a giant hole on the front of the top of the head at Parkland? Well, they guess that the same people they claim could not be wrong about the head wound location failed to notice the gaping hole because well, maybe it wasn't gaping. And that's ludicrous. The triangular fragment is a large fragment, far bigger than the Harper fragment. There's no way it could be missing from the skull and no one notice. From Chapter 19A: In Killing Kennedy (1995), Harrison Livingstone acknowledged that the "large 10 cm piece of parietal bone" found in the limo accounted for a large percentage of the missing bone described in the autopsy report, but then sought to make this fit the recollections of the Parkland witnesses by claiming "this area of missing bone was covered with scalp or hair and not seen." Oh, really? A 10 cm long piece of bone, comprising roughly 65 sq cm, is missing from the high forehead of a man's skull, and NONE of the dozen or so doctors claiming to have gotten a look at the wound on his head--which they recalled as being on the back of his head even though he was lying on his back--noticed it was missing? Seriously? The top of the forehead looked normal even though there was no underlying skull, or brain, for that matter, to support it? Livingstone must have been kidding, right? Sadly, no. He wasn't kidding. Nor was Dr. Gary Aguilar kidding five years later when he wrote "It is not hard to imagine the possibility that during the time it took the Presidential limousine to get to Parkland Hospital, clot had formed gluing a portion of disrupted scalp down making JFK's skull defect appear smaller to treating surgeons than it later would to autopsy surgeons” (Murder in Dealey Plaza, 2000). And nor was Doug Horne kidding when he suggested something similar in the documentary film A Coup in Camelot (2016). (Although the words to follow were actually spoken by narrator Peter Coyote, they were spoken in a section on Horne's findings, and undoubtedly represent Horne's views, which tend to mirror Dr. Mantik's.) Here, then, are the words: "In the Zapruder film, a flap of skull can be seen opening up after the head strike. During the frantic ride to Parkland Hospital, the flap had been folded back into place where the blood acted like glue and sealed the wound. That wound was not spotted at Parkland, as it was obscured within the hairline." Eegads! Will someone please tell me why it's less logical to believe a number of medical professionals incorrectly recalled the exact location of a large gaping head wound in the middle of bloody hair than that they completely failed to notice a similar-sized hole on the skull at the top of the head, due to the overlying scalp's being folded back into place, and the blood along the edges of this scalp's acting like glue? I mean, from a medical perspective, it's far better for them to have incorrectly recalled the location of a fatal wound, than to have missed one altogether. So why has my defense of their competence become so controversial? Because I'd really like to know...

Ask Dr. Mantik, who believes the large triangular fragment is frontal bone. For the life of me I don't remember how he explains how such an enormous hole on the top of the head went unnoticed at Parkland. So if he gives you an answer, maybe you can share it with us.

I came across this on the website of Paul Seaton approximately 15 years ago. It shows the flight of the two largest bone fragments. Although I am quite convinced JFK was killed by a conspiracy, I have learned much from reading books and articles written by those with opposing viewpoints, such as Seaton.

FWIW, a large skull fragment can be seen exploding downward in the Z-film, and, sure enough, a large skull fragment was found on the floor of the limo. As it exploded forward, while still attached to the scalp, it could very well have torn the scalp in the direction it traveled. Unfortunately, they failed to take photos of this fragment. But a number of witnesses viewing a large fragment claimed it had hair on it. From chapter 16b: 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.

In chapters 5 through 8 of my website I run through the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and ID them in photos when possible. While reading through the statements of Hank Farmer, it occurred to me that he could be the man with the apron. Here are his statements: (11-22-63 FBI memo from Joe Pearce to Dallas Special Agent-in-Charge J. Gordon Shanklin. This memo was never forwarded to FBI headquarters, but was discovered by researcher Harold Weisberg in the Dallas FBI office's files, which he'd gained access to as a result of a FOIA lawsuit.) "Today at 5:36 PM, HANK Farmer, 2862 Toronto, telephone Melrose 7-1637, Dallas, Texas; telephonically contacted the Dallas FBI Office, and advised he was standing on the southeast corner of Elm and Houston Streets at the time when President KENNEDY was shot. He stated he saw KENNEDY hit by the bullet and felt that bullet entered KENNEDY's face. He stated he then saw Governor CONNALLY shot and this shot entered CONNALLY's back. FARMER stated therefore, it is his opinion that the two shots were fired by two individuals from opposite directions. FARMER stated he wishes to speak to an agent with this Bureau and states he will not talk to the Dallas PD." (A handwritten note at the bottom of this memo says "This man interviewed at Dal PD 11/22/63 by buagent and PD detective." This note is signed "C. Brown". Intriguingly, no record of such an interview exists in the FBI or DPD files.) (12-14-63 FBI report on a 12-12 interview, CD205 p.34) "Mr. Hank Farmer...advised he is a service station attendant at the Brock Station...on November 22, 1963, at approximately 12:15 P.M., he arrived at the Dallas County Courthouse to pay taxes. He was unaware that there was to be a presidential motorcade passing by. He waited in the park at the corner of Houston and Elm Streets and watched the motorcade come west off Main Street on to Houston Street and then west on Elm. He stated he saw President Kennedy appear to fall over in the car and then he saw Governor Connally also appear to fall over. He did not hear any shots fired and did not know what happened. There was confusion with many people running in all directions, and then the President's car drove off at a high rate of speed. Farmer stated that he did not know what happened but thought that both men had been shot; however, he did not hear any shots."

That's what I thought too. But since we have reason to believe it was Stinson, it could be that he got out of the car for a few seconds and then got back in, without actually running around. I made a quick search to see if he ever discussed the shooting itself, and didn't have any luck. (He is mentioned in numerous articles for his connection to the assassination--as he was the one to first discuss Kennedy's wounds--but I am yet to find his account of the shooting.) Note: Stinson gave an oral history to the sixth floor museum 1993, but it appears it's not online.

Completely separate from the question of whether or not someone ran out the back of the building is your claim Sawyer knew Brennan by name. WHY do you believe such a thing? Sawyer was not a homicide investigator. As far as he knew, Brennan was an early witness who failed to ID Oswald. Ding ding ding. Filed in the circular filing cabinet. Brennan was resurrected as a witness by the FBI. He was their witness. The DPD didn't embrace him as a witness. Heck, we have reason to suspect that by early 64 men like Fritz Curry and Wade had forgotten he even existed.

Yeah, God forbid someone should look at a photo to try to understand what's in it, as opposed to looking for reasons to think it was fake... FWIW, that photo has been altered...by me. This version is on my website in a section in which I detail Haygood's run for the railroad tracks. I cropped the photo and blew it back up so readers could make him out. (He can be seen under the Fort Worth sign just after he dumped his bike.)

Yeah, I thought about that. But I couldn't figure out who it would be. Atkins and Wiegman jumped back into Camera Car #1. And Cancellare, Darnell, Jackson and McNeil all stayed in the plaza for some time after. It would have to have been someone from the national press corps, IMO. Two generals were sitting in the front seat. I don't see them letting some random reporter into their car. It had to have been someone they knew. P.S. I think I got it. In Pictures of the Pain, Trask notes that Phil Willis thought it was Connally aide Bill Stinson getting out of the car, and not someone getting in. This makes some sense, as Stinson was undoubtedly in the motorcade, and I don't have him listed in any other vehicle. This also makes sense in that Todd Wayne Vaughan lists Connally aide Julian Read as being the third person in the car. (Which Read disproved by doing interviews in which he claimed he was in the press bus.) So...Vaughan had the wrong Connally aide in the car. Problem solved?

I've seen it spelled both ways, but it's spelled Gray in Bowles' book, so I'll go with that. Thanks.

Thanks, Steve. Lumpkin was in part the inspiration behind my recent interest in Grey. In re-reading the quotes I attribute to Lumpkin on my website, I realized that my conclusion he was erratic was based in large part on my assumption Lumpkin was Officer B in Bowles' book. But what if this was Grey? I don't have Bowles' book handy. (It was published as an appendix to First Day Evidence.) Is there anything in Bowles' book to suggest Officer B was Lumpkin, and not Grey? Was Grey even alive in the 80's? P.S. I just re-read Officer B's statements and it's clear he's Lumpkin, as he was photographed by Mary Moorman.

Thanks, Gary. In looking for anything on Grey, I did find a Jim Murray photo of him on the right of the shooting, talking with Jim Chaney. But that's about it.

In looking back through my website I suddenly realized something about Willis 6: there is an unidentified man getting into a station wagon. At the time I'd added the photo I had probably assumed this person was either Julian Read, Connally's Press Secretary (who is listed as an occupant of the vehicle in Todd Wayne Vaughan's book) or Lem Johns, who had jumped from LBJ's back-up car and looked around and then jumped back into a car in the motorcade. But from reading Read's subsequent statements, I realized that he was actually riding in the press bus. And Johns? Well, it appears he jumped into one of the Camera cars, presumably Camera Car #1. So who the heck was riding in the back seat of the station wagon holding Gen.s McHugh and Clifton? And, if no one, well, then, who jumped into the station wagon while it was across from the knoll? Any ideas?

When you watch the film you see the head jerk. So the headshot is on the film. Now, whether you match that frame up with 313 or 314 whatever, it really doesn't matter. The fact is that Hickey is not standing up at the time of the head shot.

In reviewing my materials on the lead car, I realized that I have no quotes whatsoever from Leon E. Grey, one of the three motorcyclists out in front of the lead car, along with Stavis Ellis and William Lumpkin. Does anyone know anything about him? Was he ever interviewed? While he was pretty far away, and probably didn't see anything, I find it surprising that I can find no quotes from him. Any help appreciated.

Is or is not the head shot visible in Bronson?