Pat Speer

But Jim, why would the government fake a film suggesting that there was no impact on the back of Kennedy's head at frame 313? Is it your contention that the government tried to fake a film suggesting one shooter from behind, but, did a really bad job? Or do you, when watching the Zapruder film, honestly say to yourself, "Yep, that sure looks like the work of one man firing from behind?"

Let'em go, Jack! This is pure comedy gold! "Yes, sir" = "No" "about where the tie is" = "exactly where the tie is" "above" = "overlaying" And what's truly hilarious is a lone nutter citing how a shirt is properly fit. Hey Todd! A properly fit tucked in custom-made dress shirt tailored for a suit with a "suppressed waist" (JFK's prefered cut) only has THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH of available slack. Excess slack around JFK's midriff could have ruined the lines of his Updated American Silhouette cut jacket. Your SBT needs more than 3 inches, Todd. Pet-Theorist Pat Speer only requires 2 inches of non-existent slack. Don't bother these guys with the facts, Jack! I wasn't kidding, Cliff. I hadn't read much of this thread beyond the argument over the words. Are you really saying that the hole in the neck was higher than knot on the tie? If so, please show how this could be given the location of the wound shown on the autopsy photos. Or are you insisting they are all fake? You are aware, I take it, that the whole argument about the wound being above the tie was started by Weisberg at a time when no one in the research community had seen the photos... and that this argument is currently of little value given that the HSCA FPP has conceded that the back wound was lower than the throat wound...

Jack, a few years back you posted an image showing why you believed the bullet hole in the neck was at the level of the shirt collar. What's changed?

Bravo, Josiah. You are absolutely correct. If you'd proposed some wacky theories that were easily knocked down, discrediting the entire CT community in the process, it would be one thing. But most of what you wrote about in SSID had short strong legs, and embarrassed no one other than the WC and its lawyers. While one prone to suspicion might also argue that your book, even with its merits, was designed to distract from the research of others, no one attacking you on this forum has named one book or researcher whose work was ignored in favor of your own. Their basic argument--that your book was designed to prop up a bogus Z-film at the expense of other evidence--makes little sense. I mean, really, how can convincing people something shows a conspiracy be considered an effort to convince people there was NOT a conspiracy when the piece of evidence used to show a conspiracy is UNCHALLENGED by those holding there was no conspiracy??? Are we to believe your efforts were meant to fail, but that you were so good in your role as a double-agent that you accidentally succeeded? FWIW, I built upon your research of the witnesses and created a database quoting their descriptions of the shots in chronological order. (This can be found in chapters 5 thru 9 at patspeer.com). While I was able to come to conclusions not reached in SSID (It's quite clear from my analysis there was a shot after the head shot) I by no means suspect you'd deliberately deceived me by not coming to this same conclusion. I thought you might find that refreshing.

Why can't we all just get along? The Oswald didiots are virtually united in their affirmation of the single-bullet theory. This theory can be ripped to shreds. I'm sure if someone put together a book containing all the evidence the theory is bogus, it would both turn the tide of media acceptance of Posner and Bugliosi back on itself, and unite the CT community. How about it?

I'm not exactly sure what this argument about "Just about where your tie would be" is about, or if it's of any importance whatsoever, but I noticed that Todd was linking to a website in which the WC testimony has been re-typed, and I've found some of these transcripts to be in error. So I double-checked Carrico's testimony at the history matters site, where the WC's volumes have been scanned in and not re-typed, and have found that Carrico's recorded statement was indeed "Just about where your tie would be" and that Specter, on the next page says "you put your hand right above where your tie is", and Carrico says "Yes, sir, Just where the tie--". Well, fellas, this is a bit vague. While Weisberg and others have always assumed the "above" was a reference to the vertical relationship, Carrico's "just where the tie" only makes sense if he's referring to a location occupied by the tie. In that context, then, Specter's "above" would seem to mean "on the surface overlaying", and not "at a point more vertical than" the tie. While this might sound strange, we should recall that in our earliest years we were told to put our hand OVER heart during the pledge of allegiance, and that this meant to put our hands "on the surface overlaying" our hearts, and not "at a point more vertical than" our hearts. This interpretation of Specter's words is reinforced by Carrico's clear claim the hole was below the Adam's Apple. It's hard to see how a hole below the Adam's Apple would be more than a few mm above the tie.

Josiah, I, too am surprised by the continued attacks on your integrity. But I think I've identified part of the problem. Most of the researchers, here and elsewhere, prefer to believe our cumulative knowledge is growing, and the case for conspiracy is getting stronger. And you have failed to embrace any "discoveries" made in recent years, and appear to have actually backpedaled from some of your earlier discoveries. Now, I know you worked with Aguilar on CE 399 a few years back, and that this led to some interesting discoveries suggesting that the darned bullet was not even the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher. So I know you're not adverse to "new" developments... So I guess what I'm saying is that some of the doubts about you would dry up if you were to come forward with something that added to the case for conspiracy... Anything on the horizon? Please say yes. ***Upon closer review of Josiah's recent posts it's clear he subscribes to Don Thomas' claim Z-313 shows a jiggle response, and that this indicates the shot was fired from nearby, and not the TSBD. This answers my question, and ought to end any speculation about his turning into a LNer anytime soon.

Bill, you might find the following story amusing. At one point I found a used copy of Specter's book in a NYC bookstore. It was autographed by Specter, with a personal note to Charles Robbins' parents. Well, heck, I felt like I had to buy it. The price was written on the inside cover: 20 bucks. By the time I got to the register, I had found two or three other books of interest. I added the total in my head. It was about 50 bucks. When they rang me up, however, my total was only about 30 bucks. I didn't complain, and figured they had an ongoing sale. When I got outside and looked at the tape, however, I realized they'd only charged me a buck for Specter's book. I then remembered that the sales clerk had scanned the bar code on the back of the book. Clearly, they had his book in their system as a cut-out worth only a buck, and hadn't changed it to account for the fact the only copy of the book in the store was autographed. I felt guilty for a second. But only a second. Somehow paying 20 bucks for an autographed copy of Specter's book felt like an obligation, while paying only a buck for this same book felt like a just reward. BTW, if you're ever in a sit down with someone with the ability to re-open the case, you might want to show them Part 2 of my video series, in which I use Specter's own statements to demonstrate the VERY STRONG likelihood---IMO, strong enough to convince a jury--that he engaged in a deliberate deception regarding JFK's back wound location, including suborning perjury, in order to sell the single-bullet theory to the Warren Commission. Boy, do I wish I'd been at the Wecht Conference in 2003 to confront him on this point... His head might have exploded...

I've received a number of complaints about this in the last few months, so Doug is not the only one currently on hold. I wrote John an email to ask him why this is. Pat

Yikes. The "Thorburn" reflex was a myth propagated by Dr. John Lattimer and Gerald Posner in an attempt to explain how Kennedy could have raised his hands to his throat within a split second after being hit by the single-bullet shot. It was debunked by Wallace Milam and Millicent Cranor years ago. Now, Kennedy may have reacted to his throat injury by raising his hands...but it was not the "Thorburn" reflex. From patspeer.com, chapter 12; Dr. Lattimer and his devotees, in an attempt to preserve the single-bullet theory, have tried to pretend that the HSCA Photographic Panel was full of beans and that there are no signs of Kennedy's being hit before frame 224 of the Zapruder film. While looking to Connally's movements to tell them the moment of a first shot miss circa frame 160, they willfully ignore Kennedy's far more significant movements between frames 190 and 210. Somehow they perceive the frantic movements apparent as he heads behind the sign as his calmly waving to the crowd. Heck, even the Warren Commission knew this wasn't true. To refresh, a 4-22-64 memo written by Warren Commission counsel Melvin Eisenberg revealed: * A screening was held of the Zapruder film and of slides prepared by LIFE from the film. Each slide corresponded with a separate frame of film, beginning with frame 171. The consensus of the meeting was as follows: * The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225,when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his throat. * The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position). So, how do Lattimer and his #1 devotee, Gerald Posner, the author of Case Closed, deal with this memo? They are, after all, defenders of the Warren Commission. They can't just ignore that the commission lawyers charged with studying the Zapruder film saw evidence suggesting that Kennedy was hit before the frame number eventually chosen as the moment of the first shot's impact. Wanna bet? In Case Closed, Posner presents "The latest enhancements show that before the President disappeared behind the sign at frame 200, he was waving to the crowd with his right hand. Even when the car and his body are obscured by the road sign, the top of his right hand can be seen waving." The "jerkiness" and "artificially high position" of Kennedy's right elbow had thereby been flushed down the memory hole. Even sillier (or devious--let's get real) is that Lattimer and his devotee Posner try to explain away what would have to be seen as an incredibly rapid reaction by Kennedy to the bullet striking him at 224 by asserting that the bullet nicked his spine and caused him to assume the “Thorburn’s Position.” an immediate locking of the arms. The reasons for this silliness were clearly demonstrated in the 1992 mock trial of Oswald put on by the American Bar Association, and televised by Court TV. During this trial, prosecution witness Dr. Robert Piziali, after studying President Kennedy's movements in the Zapruder film after frame 224, asserted that the same bullet struck Kennedy and Connally at frame 224, and that a "reflexive reaction" to this impact would take "approximately 200 ms, which is exactly the time from when the bullet passes through Governor Connally's lapel and we see the first motion of the President's elbow." Ouch. This was painfully incorrect. It was so incorrect that even the most ardent single-assassin theorists could see that it was incorrect. Beyond that the bullet did not pass through Connally's lapel, but at a lower point on his jacket, 200 ms is more than three-and-a-half frames of the Zapruder film. No one outside Dr. Piziali, of whom I am aware, has ever, after studying the Zapruder film, asserted that Kennedy's "reflexive reaction" doesn't start till frame 227 of the film. Equally suspicious, upon cross-examination, Dr. Piziali confirmed that yes, it was his expert opinion that Kennedy was bringing his hand down after a wave in frame 225. This ignored that Kennedy's hands began rising back up in frame 226, not 227, and that frame 226 was not three and a half frames after the impact on Connally first apparent at frame 224. Afterward, defense witness Dr. Roger McCarthy confirmed that a reflexive reaction on Kennedy's part would take about 200 ms, but disagreed with Piziali's conclusions. He asserted that Kennedy's hand movements in frames 225 and 226 were much too rapid to be reflective of his bringing his hand down after a wave, and that Kennedy was therefore most likely reacting to a shot at this time. He testified that, accordingly, Kennedy was most likely hit no later than frame 221, by a different bullet than the one hitting Connally at frame 224. This didn't jive with the single-assassin theory, of course, and had to be rejected. Thus, in 1993, the next year, writer Gerald Posner offered the single-assassin faithful the hope they'd been looking for, telling them on page 328 that a spinal injury to Kennedy's sixth cervical vertebra, as purported by Lattimer, would cause an "instantaneous reaction." On the next page he spelled out just how "instantaneous." He wrote: "Kennedy's Thorburn response, from spinal damage, at frames 226-227, came between one tenth to two tenths of a second after the bullet hit him, which translates to 1.8 to 3.66 Zapruder frames." By pretending that Kennedy's reaction could have started as late as frame 227, and that it could have taken as little as one-tenth of a second, Posner was, not surprisingly, covering his pet assassination theory. If people said Kennedy was hit by 227, he could say the reaction took two-tenths of a second. If they said he was hit by 226 he could say it took one tenth of a second. Posner failed to tell his readers that both the Warren Commission and HSCA concluded that Kennedy was clearly reacting to something before frame 226, and that both sides of the 1992 mock trial he cited throughout his book agreed that the reaction time would be at least two tenths of a second, and that the one tenth of a second reaction time he presented for his readers' consideration was something he just made up. The irony here is that I agree with Posner about the one-tenth of a second reaction time. Well, only sort of. It seems quite possible that Kennedy, at frame 226, is reacting to the same burst of gunfire hitting Connally at frame 224. You see, the flipping of Connally's lapel was most probably not caused by the bullet itself, but by the explosion of blood and rib from Connally's chest after the bullet made its exit. The bullet causing this reaction would most probably have hit Connally just after frame 223. Kennedy's hands lift in frame 226, which means they had reversed course either between frames 224 and 225 or 225 and 226, most logically the latter. This would indicate a reaction time of around 2 frames or just over the one-tenth second reaction time offered by Posner, provided both men were hit by the same bullet. If Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate shots fired from an automatic weapon, of course, the overly-rapid reaction by Kennedy in comparison to the impact on Connally is more readily explained. But that's neither here nor there. For now. What's important for now is that we realize that Lattimer and his devotee Posner, by pushing the "Thorburn theory," were simultaneously rejecting the conclusions of both the Warren Commission and HSCA that Kennedy was hit when he came out from behind the sign, and were instead pushing that Kennedy was not responding to a shot, but only waving, in frames 224 and 225 of the Zapruder film. And that's just plain silly. Actually, Posner and the single-assassin community's propping up of Lattimer and his "Thorburn theory" to help sell the single-bullet theory is worse than their simply being silly. Lattimer's "Thorburn theory," holding that Kennedy's arms immediately locked into place after being hit, was, and is, a hoax. A careful viewing of the Zapruder film shows that although Kennedy’s elbows remain slightly bent after frame 224 for the phenomenal length of five seconds, his arms themselves are far from locked and drop almost immediately. Even more damaging, as discovered by Millicent Cranor and reported by Wallace Milam, the position described by Thorburn in the 1800's was not an immediate locking of the arms, but a position assumed over a couple of days as the afflicted patient sunk into paralysis and death.

Ironically, Jim, Jack White told me years ago he agreed with me that the proposed bullet hole in F8 is indeed a bullet hole. Groden and Lifton have also told me they think this is a bullet hole. So the only question is if the hole I see on the BOH photo aligns with the hole visible in F8. I think it does. From patspeer.com, chapter13: When one inspects the back of the head photo and matches its neck lines with those apparent on what is presumed to be the neck in the open cranium photos, one finds a convincing alignment. Certainly these are not just random lines on a towel. Since the HSCA Authenticity Report stated “Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age, but their exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique to the individual” one would like to think they tested the lines to see if they matched, but there is no mention of this in their report. But there are other indications that this photo was taken of President Kennedy from behind. It should be remembered here that on their January 26, 1967 report on the photos, the doctors asserted, when discussing the color photo of the back of the head, that “due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site.” This indicates that before they pulled the scalp up, the entrance in the scalp was slightly lower and hidden in a skin fold, which would seem to match the lower position of the wound in the open cranium photograph. Moreover, this indicates that the position of the entrance wound before it was “lifted” approximated the teardrop of spinal fluid readily visible on the photographs with the scalp intact and repeatedly identified by the original autopsists as the entrance location. From this it seems logical that this mysterious fluid is no mystery at all, but is instead some macerated brain matter that leaked from the entrance wound during the long flight from Dallas. A close inspection of the wounds is especially revealing. While it is usually inferred from the Warren Report’s description of the “slicing” associated with the occipital entrance wound that the wound was vertical, and the Rydberg drawings portray it as such, Dr. Finck, the bullet wounds expert at the autopsy, informed his Army superiors in a report filed in January, 1965, that the wound was “transversal,” heading right to left. (While Humes’ misrepresentation of the wound may have been an honest mistake, it’s intriguing that, within a week of interviewing Humes, Arlen Specter asked Parkland witness Dr. Clark if his observations were consistent with the presence of a “lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. on the posterior scalp.” Did Specter know Humes’ testimony was incorrect? If so, how?) Anyhow, Finck’s description of the wound as transversal makes perfect sense when one remembers Boswell’s inclusion on the autopsy face sheet of an arrow heading both to the left and upwards from the bullet entrance, particularly when one considers that Boswell would have immediately connected in his mind the large exit high on the skull as the logical exit of the bullet making the small entrance below. One can deduce from this that the bullet came from the President’s right, or that it hit the President while his head was turned to its right, just enough so that the bullet grazed along the flesh on the outside of his skull before entering. The so-called military review of January 26, 1967, says as much, stating, when discussing the photo with the President’s scalp still intact “The scalp wound shown in the photographs appears to be a laceration and tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin (they must have meant “skull”) obscured by the top of the tunnel. From the photographs this is not recognizable as a penetrating wound because of the slanting direction of entry.” Dr. Finck’s description of the wound and assertion of a tunnel is, not coincidentally, completely at odds with the Clark Panel and HSCA purported in-shoot in the cowlick. The skull at the Clark Panel location had been removed before Dr. Finck had even arrived at the autopsy. Should one accept that the entrance described at the autopsy could be the transversal entrance proposed in the images above, but have a problem believing that this bullet entrance could 1) have gone unnoticed by the Parkland doctors, and 2) be so hard to spot in the scalp on the back of the head photos, one should read more wound ballistics literature, as it is filled with stories where the entrance wound proved equally elusive. In Crime Lab: Science Turns Detective, for example, a story first told by Dr. Le Moyne Snyder is re-told by author David Loth. Loth tells of a young man who'd been treated for a .22 caliber rifle wound in the shoulder but whose condition continued to worsen. Finally, the doctor decides to inspect the rest of the man's body. The story concludes: "Behind the right ear, hidden by hair, was a tiny round hole, with the faintest trace of blood. The damage of the second bullet had been internal, and extensive. The victim died a few minutes after this wound was located" (That a wound caused by a .22 rifle would be less severe than a wound caused by Oswald's rifle has not been overlooked, and should make one wonder if maybe, just maybe, the small initially-overlooked entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head was caused by a rifle other than Oswald's. Much, much, more on this to come.) While one might also wonder why there’s so little hair visible near the hairline in the open cranium photo, this, too, has an explanation. Dr. Finck told the HSCA: “I don’t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside…the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” Finck, by the way, never budged from his contention that this entry was on the occipital bone of the skull, inches away from the HSCA’s entry in the cowlick. Not surprisingly, Finck’s interview with the HSCA was kept secret until the ARRB forced its release. I do not recall EVER "AGREEING WITH PAT" concerning his interpretation of the "gaping hole" photo. I may have posted MY interpretation of the photo years ago. I have searched my computer files for it but cannot locate it. So right now I am rescanning the photo, which I believe is the correct interpretation. It will take about an hour to do, and I will post it. Jack Here is the correct analysis of the "gaping hole" photo. It shows TWO shots to head. 1. entry into right temple and exit in right occipital. 2. entry slightly above and slightly to the right of the external occipital protruberance. Because of the very narrow exposure range, extreme lightening of the dark area was needed to bring out the second hole and specimen jar. Jack Thanks, Jack. The area "C" is the entrance I was talking about, right where the autopsy doctors said it was, and right where the dark oval is on the BOH photo. (For some reason, you've got your darker photo turned the wrong way, with area C and the EOP on the left side, even though you acknowledge area C is on the right side in your caption.) Anyhow, my suspicion is the beveled bone "B" scared the heck out of the government upon review and led the Justice Department to have the photo re-interpreted in January 1967. This is the subject of my 4 part video series.

Pat: No back spatter can be seen at any point in Moorman, Nix or Muchmore either, correct? So one shot hit at Z313. It ENTERED (tangentially) above the ear and exploded. So far so good. Since apparently there is no back spatter visible in any film or photo to indicate a shot striking the BACK of the head, have you found anything else to indicate WHEN the other head shot struck, the one that supposedly left a small entrance in the hairline? Ray, my discussion of the possible timing and trajectory of the shot entering near the EOP is the backbone of chapter 17 of my webpage, here: Newer Views If you get a chance to look at it, I suspect you'll find it interesting.

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program. I have never read your review I liked it, good job If you liked that, you might also appreciate my analysis of Dale Myers' animation, here: Animania

Ironically, Jim, Jack White told me years ago he agreed with me that the proposed bullet hole in F8 is indeed a bullet hole. Groden and Lifton have also told me they think this is a bullet hole. So the only question is if the hole I see on the BOH photo aligns with the hole visible in F8. I think it does. From patspeer.com, chapter13: When one inspects the back of the head photo and matches its neck lines with those apparent on what is presumed to be the neck in the open cranium photos, one finds a convincing alignment. Certainly these are not just random lines on a towel. Since the HSCA Authenticity Report stated “Such lines develop in most individuals by middle age, but their exact arrangement forms a pattern that is virtually unique to the individual” one would like to think they tested the lines to see if they matched, but there is no mention of this in their report. But there are other indications that this photo was taken of President Kennedy from behind. It should be remembered here that on their January 26, 1967 report on the photos, the doctors asserted, when discussing the color photo of the back of the head, that “due to the fractures of the underlying bone and the elevation of the scalp by manual lifting (done to permit the wound to be photographed) the photographs show the wound to be slightly higher than its actually measured site.” This indicates that before they pulled the scalp up, the entrance in the scalp was slightly lower and hidden in a skin fold, which would seem to match the lower position of the wound in the open cranium photograph. Moreover, this indicates that the position of the entrance wound before it was “lifted” approximated the teardrop of spinal fluid readily visible on the photographs with the scalp intact and repeatedly identified by the original autopsists as the entrance location. From this it seems logical that this mysterious fluid is no mystery at all, but is instead some macerated brain matter that leaked from the entrance wound during the long flight from Dallas. A close inspection of the wounds is especially revealing. While it is usually inferred from the Warren Report’s description of the “slicing” associated with the occipital entrance wound that the wound was vertical, and the Rydberg drawings portray it as such, Dr. Finck, the bullet wounds expert at the autopsy, informed his Army superiors in a report filed in January, 1965, that the wound was “transversal,” heading right to left. (While Humes’ misrepresentation of the wound may have been an honest mistake, it’s intriguing that, within a week of interviewing Humes, Arlen Specter asked Parkland witness Dr. Clark if his observations were consistent with the presence of a “lateral wound measuring 15 by 6 cm. on the posterior scalp.” Did Specter know Humes’ testimony was incorrect? If so, how?) Anyhow, Finck’s description of the wound as transversal makes perfect sense when one remembers Boswell’s inclusion on the autopsy face sheet of an arrow heading both to the left and upwards from the bullet entrance, particularly when one considers that Boswell would have immediately connected in his mind the large exit high on the skull as the logical exit of the bullet making the small entrance below. One can deduce from this that the bullet came from the President’s right, or that it hit the President while his head was turned to its right, just enough so that the bullet grazed along the flesh on the outside of his skull before entering. The so-called military review of January 26, 1967, says as much, stating, when discussing the photo with the President’s scalp still intact “The scalp wound shown in the photographs appears to be a laceration and tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin (they must have meant “skull”) obscured by the top of the tunnel. From the photographs this is not recognizable as a penetrating wound because of the slanting direction of entry.” Dr. Finck’s description of the wound and assertion of a tunnel is, not coincidentally, completely at odds with the Clark Panel and HSCA purported in-shoot in the cowlick. The skull at the Clark Panel location had been removed before Dr. Finck had even arrived at the autopsy. Should one accept that the entrance described at the autopsy could be the transversal entrance proposed in the images above, but have a problem believing that this bullet entrance could 1) have gone unnoticed by the Parkland doctors, and 2) be so hard to spot in the scalp on the back of the head photos, one should read more wound ballistics literature, as it is filled with stories where the entrance wound proved equally elusive. In Crime Lab: Science Turns Detective, for example, a story first told by Dr. Le Moyne Snyder is re-told by author David Loth. Loth tells of a young man who'd been treated for a .22 caliber rifle wound in the shoulder but whose condition continued to worsen. Finally, the doctor decides to inspect the rest of the man's body. The story concludes: "Behind the right ear, hidden by hair, was a tiny round hole, with the faintest trace of blood. The damage of the second bullet had been internal, and extensive. The victim died a few minutes after this wound was located" (That a wound caused by a .22 rifle would be less severe than a wound caused by Oswald's rifle has not been overlooked, and should make one wonder if maybe, just maybe, the small initially-overlooked entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head was caused by a rifle other than Oswald's. Much, much, more on this to come.) While one might also wonder why there’s so little hair visible near the hairline in the open cranium photo, this, too, has an explanation. Dr. Finck told the HSCA: “I don’t remember the difficulty involved in separating the scalp from the skull but this was done in order to have a clear view of the outside…the scalp is adherent to the skull and it had to be separated from it in order to show in the back of the head the wound in the bone.” Finck, by the way, never budged from his contention that this entry was on the occipital bone of the skull, inches away from the HSCA’s entry in the cowlick. Not surprisingly, Finck’s interview with the HSCA was kept secret until the ARRB forced its release.

Thank you, Jim, for finally seeing what I've been trying to push for the last 5 years---that we can combat the Oswald-didiots with a two-pronged approach, one claiming evidence has been faked, and one claiming that, even if it wasn't faked, it doesn't show what we've been told it shows. Here is another slide in which I match up the entrance wound location on the BOH photo with the strangely ignored entrance wound location visible in F8. And here is another comparison in which I demonstrate that the entrance on the back of the head in F8 was observed and reported by the doctors in their 1966 inventory, and that this photo was then re-interpreted to be a photo taken from the front, with the completely bogus claim it shows a semi-circle entrance on the back of the head near the cowlick. But Tink has a valid point, Jack, in that there are errors like this in a number of Fetzer's books. In this thread he has repeatedly accused me of not having read Aguilar's and Mantik's chapters in Murder in Dealey Plaza. If he had a clue what he was talking about, he would have known that I wrote about one of the MISTAKES they made in this book a few years back, and actually defended this mistake in a backhanded kind of way. From patspeer.com, chapter 13: When I compare the photos of the back of Kennedy's head, I find it remarkable that what appears to be a small hole appears in each photo slightly above and to the right of the gray matter, Even more remarkable is that this hole is in the exact same spot in each photo, and precisely where the doctors said there was a bullet hole. To me, this is clearly the wound described at autopsy. But that's just me. Now years after I first came forward to promote this round shape as the long-lost entrance on the back of Kennedy's head, I've found few theorists of any stripe willing to abandon their pre-conceptions. But the wound is there, nevertheless, plain as day. It really makes me wonder if truth, much as beauty, is purely in the eye of the beholder. When I compare the cowlick entrance in the photos, I find something else to shake my head about. For here, it seems equally clear that the purported hole in the cowlick is much fainter on the black and white photo, and almost certainly not a bullet entrance. I'm not the first to notice this. Dr. Humes noticed this as well, and pointed this out in his discussion with the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. He explained that he rejected the mark in the cowlick as an entrance because: “despite the fact that this upper point that has been the source of some discussion here this afternoon is excessively obvious in the color photograph, I almost defy you to find it in that magnification in the black and white.” That the mark seen on the black and white photo is so clearly not a bullet hole, unfortunately, has led some conspiracy writers to place this photo next to the Ida Dox drawing of the entrance in the cowlick and create the illusion that the entrance wound on the drawing was completely fabricated. This is undoubtedly deceiving, and is yet another reminder that conspiracy theorists are every bit as capable of deception as single-assassin theorists. Incredibly, in two separate articles in the collection Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr.s Gary Aguilar and David Mantik place the Ida Dox drawing by the black and white photo for comparison. Dr. Aguilar’s caption reads: “…The small spot towards the top of the skull, which appears red in color photographs, was said to be an entrance location…The wound described is not evident in the actual photo.” By his use of the phrase “actual photo,” Aguilar had implied that the color photo was but a color version of the black and white. This was not true. Fortunately, he tried to correct this mistake. In September 2006, when challenged online by an irate single-assassin theorist about this caption, Dr. Aguilar readily admitted his error, stating “it appears that I did indeed use the wrong image of the back of JFK's head. The only one I had was from a high quality black and white, 8x10 set that I'd gotten from Tink Thompson and used for this image. My error was in not realizing that there was a tiny change in perspective in the correct image vs. the one I showed.” Dr. Aguilar has in fact used the color photo in subsequent comparisons. He has also disavowed his use of the term “actual photo”. He related “I never noticed that phrasing before and I don't think I'd write it that way today, if I actually wrote it originally, as opposed to the editor's having written it. I simply don't now recall.” Intriguingly, this last statement suggests that the misleading caption was written by the editor of Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr. James Fetzer. If true, this might help explain why a nearly identical mistake was made in Dr. Mantik’s article in the same book. Dr. Mantik’s caption reads: “Ida Dox inexplicably enhanced the red spot in her drawing. The actual entry is not visible; no other photograph shows it either." This, of course, is also not true. But whenever one points out the mistakes of earnest researchers such as Aguilar, Mantik, and Fetzer, one should also inject some perspective, and note that, while their mistakes may mislead a few unsuspecting readers, they positively pale in comparison to the mistakes made by the mainstream media most every time they write a bout the assassination. In a May 20, 1992, AP article reporting on a press conference held by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, for example, the AP printed drawings of an entrance wound on the back of a head and beveling of the skull. Hundreds of thousands of readers were fooled into thinking these drawings supported the statements of the doctors, who, in an effort to combat some of the assertions in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, had asserted “The second, fatal shot entered the back of this head and exploded the right side of the skull.” The problem was that the drawing provided by the AP depicted the bullet entering near the top of Kennedy’s skull, in the HSCA entrance, when the doctors were describing the wound as measured at autopsy, 4 inches below this entrance. This “mistake” by the mainstream press hid from the public that the doctors were not only arguing against Oliver Stone, but also EVERY government panel to look at the assassination since 1968. Apparently, the AP didn't consider that news worth reporting.

Jim, I don't know where you get the idea I have rejected all claims of film or photo alteration. Unlike some, who prefer to defer to "experts" on things they don't understand, I decided to read medical textbooks and forensics journals before coming to any conclusions on the medical evidence. This study convinced me both that the "official" story is bunkum, and that most CTs studying the medical evidence don't know what the real issues are. This study also convinced me that I should not rely too much on the research of other CTs. As a result, I am withholding judgment on Z-film alteration until I have time to study it for myself. In the meantime, I try to get those high on the belief everything is fake to look at the evidence and see it as it is, and not as they've been led to believe it is. The evidence, for example, is quite clear that the bullet striking Kennedy at frame 313 struck him at the supposed exit... Which brings me back to the question you keep hiding from. Are you ready to admit Mantik was wrong when he insisted in Murder in Dealey Plaza that alteration was the end-all be-all because ""If the evidence in the JFK case is merely accepted at face value, then the conclusions are rather trivial. The rookie Scotland Yard inspector can easily solve this case--it was Oswald alone"?

But Tink has a valid point, Jack, in that there are errors like this in a number of Fetzer's books. In this thread he has repeatedly accused me of not having read Aguilar's and Mantik's chapters in Murder in Dealey Plaza. If he had a clue what he was talking about, he would have known that I wrote about one of the MISTAKES they made in this book a few years back, and actually defended this mistake in a backhanded kind of way. From patspeer.com, chapter 13: When I compare the photos of the back of Kennedy's head, I find it remarkable that what appears to be a small hole appears in each photo slightly above and to the right of the gray matter, Even more remarkable is that this hole is in the exact same spot in each photo, and precisely where the doctors said there was a bullet hole. To me, this is clearly the wound described at autopsy. But that's just me. Now years after I first came forward to promote this round shape as the long-lost entrance on the back of Kennedy's head, I've found few theorists of any stripe willing to abandon their pre-conceptions. But the wound is there, nevertheless, plain as day. It really makes me wonder if truth, much as beauty, is purely in the eye of the beholder. When I compare the cowlick entrance in the photos, I find something else to shake my head about. For here, it seems equally clear that the purported hole in the cowlick is much fainter on the black and white photo, and almost certainly not a bullet entrance. I'm not the first to notice this. Dr. Humes noticed this as well, and pointed this out in his discussion with the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. He explained that he rejected the mark in the cowlick as an entrance because: “despite the fact that this upper point that has been the source of some discussion here this afternoon is excessively obvious in the color photograph, I almost defy you to find it in that magnification in the black and white.” That the mark seen on the black and white photo is so clearly not a bullet hole, unfortunately, has led some conspiracy writers to place this photo next to the Ida Dox drawing of the entrance in the cowlick and create the illusion that the entrance wound on the drawing was completely fabricated. This is undoubtedly deceiving, and is yet another reminder that conspiracy theorists are every bit as capable of deception as single-assassin theorists. Incredibly, in two separate articles in the collection Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr.s Gary Aguilar and David Mantik place the Ida Dox drawing by the black and white photo for comparison. Dr. Aguilar’s caption reads: “…The small spot towards the top of the skull, which appears red in color photographs, was said to be an entrance location…The wound described is not evident in the actual photo.” By his use of the phrase “actual photo,” Aguilar had implied that the color photo was but a color version of the black and white. This was not true. Fortunately, he tried to correct this mistake. In September 2006, when challenged online by an irate single-assassin theorist about this caption, Dr. Aguilar readily admitted his error, stating “it appears that I did indeed use the wrong image of the back of JFK's head. The only one I had was from a high quality black and white, 8x10 set that I'd gotten from Tink Thompson and used for this image. My error was in not realizing that there was a tiny change in perspective in the correct image vs. the one I showed.” Dr. Aguilar has in fact used the color photo in subsequent comparisons. He has also disavowed his use of the term “actual photo”. He related “I never noticed that phrasing before and I don't think I'd write it that way today, if I actually wrote it originally, as opposed to the editor's having written it. I simply don't now recall.” Intriguingly, this last statement suggests that the misleading caption was written by the editor of Murder in Dealey Plaza, Dr. James Fetzer. If true, this might help explain why a nearly identical mistake was made in Dr. Mantik’s article in the same book. Dr. Mantik’s caption reads: “Ida Dox inexplicably enhanced the red spot in her drawing. The actual entry is not visible; no other photograph shows it either." This, of course, is also not true. But whenever one points out the mistakes of earnest researchers such as Aguilar, Mantik, and Fetzer, one should also inject some perspective, and note that, while their mistakes may mislead a few unsuspecting readers, they positively pale in comparison to the mistakes made by the mainstream media most every time they write a bout the assassination. In a May 20, 1992, AP article reporting on a press conference held by Dr. Humes and Dr. Boswell, for example, the AP printed drawings of an entrance wound on the back of a head and beveling of the skull. Hundreds of thousands of readers were fooled into thinking these drawings supported the statements of the doctors, who, in an effort to combat some of the assertions in Oliver Stone’s film JFK, had asserted “The second, fatal shot entered the back of this head and exploded the right side of the skull.” The problem was that the drawing provided by the AP depicted the bullet entering near the top of Kennedy’s skull, in the HSCA entrance, when the doctors were describing the wound as measured at autopsy, 4 inches below this entrance. This “mistake” by the mainstream press hid from the public that the doctors were not only arguing against Oliver Stone, but also EVERY government panel to look at the assassination since 1968. Apparently, the AP didn't consider that news worth reporting.

Happy New Years to you as well. I used Newman and Zapruder because they are the only close-by witnesses I could find who demonstrated their impression of the wound location on 11-22. Another close-by witness, James Chaney, told a TV interviewer JFK was hit in the face. It is undoubtedly intriguing that none of these men, who saw Kennedy while he was still upright, thought the large head wound was on the back of JFK's head. As far as the Willis family, none of them were quoted till many months later, and they were some distance away. From their perspective, it would have been incredibly hard--probably impossible--to differentiate between an explosion of blood from the top of JFK's head while he was moving away from an explosion of blood from the back of his head. Even so, the FBI report on Marilyn Willis, the most consistent of the family, reported that she saw a "red halo" erupt from the top of Kennedy's head, not the back of his head. Phil Willis, moreover, not only testified that he did not see the impact of the final shot (which he apparently believed was the head shot) he testified that "The minute the third shot was fired, I screamed, hoping a policeman would hear me, to ring that building because it had to come from there." Pat check these out..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmfqDOnZu_Q FRANK O'NEILL RIGHT REAR Interviews - Phil Willis & Family video'sfrom gil jesus http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2-_UhD3Qgk witnesses The back of his head blew off http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVhZdryIs_A http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh0-2Sthn9A the large back of the head wound.. the Doctor's JFK's head wound http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhWJowvbtxs http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8P29j9PFZBM wound was in the back of his head to the right... b.. Exactly my point, Bernice. In light of their original statements, the 25 year removed statements of the Willis family are not exactly credible. If you can find records of them describing the shooting and talking about a wound on the back of the head prior to this time, however, I will add them to my database. hi pat ; well we differ again but as usual not nastily...of course if anything comes up i would be delighted to see that you get a copy...meanwhile we all carry on...i certainly hope that you have never recalled any information somewhat with a difference 25 years back...as if so you would now be called not credible...crap on the witnesses time seems to come around so very often in the these threads on the forum...they are always in error and those that say so were not there... In my impression, the arrow above points to the hair and scalp overlying the broken bones on the back of Kennedy's skull, and not an actual blow-out where bullet brain and blood exited the skull. As far as eyewitnesses...I agree with you that many refuse to take them seriously, and that if they did they would see that more than one shooter was likely. In chapters 5 thru 9 I go through the eyewitnesses and list their statements in chronological order. This makes it painfully obvious that the closest witnesses, almost to a man, thought the president was hit by the first shot they heard, and hit in the head by one of the two bullets fired bang-bang five or six seconds later. This is extremely damaging to the "official" story. Thus the WC made the conscious decision to ignore the closest witnesses.

Reading that you use Inside the Target Car to prove a point just threw everything else out the window To clarify, Dean, I was probably the first person to review Inside the Target Car and rip it to shreds. This review is available, here: Inside the Target Car One of my main complaints about the program was, and continues to be, that they missed the HSCA entrance wound location in their first simulated shot from the TSBD, and hit the skull closer to the supposed exit, and failed to show the results of this shot in the program. A review of this outtake, not coincidentally, revealed the result to be far more similar to the explosion of skull seen on the Z-film than the explosion shown in the program.

So, Jim, am I correct in assuming you are now admitting Mantik was wrong when he claimed "If the evidence in the JFK case is merely accepted at face value, then the conclusions are rather trivial. The rookie Scotland Yard detective can easily solve this case--it was Oswald alone", and that one need not believe evidence was altered in order to rationally conclude Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter? Or are you still on the side of Bugliosi and McAdams, and of the belief the only way to prove conspiracy is to prove evidence was altered? And...a refresher...I didn't join in this discussion to refute your Zapruder film studies. I joined in to refute your silly speculation that Thompson--the first CT to battle the "experts" on their own turf--wrote SSID to obfuscate and confuse people about the Zapruder film. Have you seen just how silly this is? Because if I were to follow your line of thought, I would have to consider you an obstructionist, or obfuscationist, or some sort of "ist" beginning with an O.

Oh thats great Pat! In the meantime; nothing you say has any validity. Nothing that Pat says is valid? Can you tell me why that is Peter? While I don't agree with Pat on some things I think his research is solid It is not a matter of "some things." It is this; "Still, I found something recently that also supports the possibility the fatal shot came from the front. As a result, I remain open, if only slightly, to that possibility." I find these comments from someone who “believes in conspiracy” indescribable. Anyone who denies Secret Service involvement and the frontal shot may just as well root for the other team. I see Peter, I was sure that Pat believed in a front head shot, I did not read that quote of his closly enough So Pat you dont believe in a frontal head shot but are open to it? Why are you just open to it? Have you ever believed in a front head shot? If so when did you start to doubt it? Dean The slides included in my last post were meant to show why I suspect the fatal head shot came from behind. (This is discussed in detail in chapters 16 and 17 at patspeer.com). In summary 1) the fractures on JFK's skull suggest the bullet striking the top of his skull struck before there were any fractures on the back of his head. 2) the bullet fragments on the x-rays are mostly in JFK's scalp by the large defect, and not in his brain as widely presumed. This suggests the bullet exploded at this location. 3) a bullet fired from the sniper's nest at this location would strike the skull nearly on edge and have an explosive effect. No back spatter would be observed flying from the back Of JFK's head. It has long been observed, but never explained, that in Z-313 no back spatter can be seen flying from the supposed entrance on the back of JFK's head. 4) the "missed" shot from Inside the Target Car hit their simulated skull very near this location, and almost exactly recreated both the explosion of Kennedy's skull and the damage to his skull. 5) one of the fragments found in the front seat of the limo was demonstrated to have been fired by the rifle found in the TSBD. 6) human skin was found on this fragment. Skin is normally missing at entrance but not at exit, and is rarely found on bullets. This has to be considered strong evidence the bullet impacted at the large defect from behind and went on to strike the windshield. 7) the Harper fragment, as placed on the skull by Dr. Lawrence Angel, gives the appearance of the top margin of a keyhole defect. A keyhole defect is one of both entrance and exit. One side of the defect indicates entrance, and the other exit. The entrance side is above Kennedy's ear, and the exit closer to his face. Thus, the bullet came from behind. 8) a hard slap at the supposed exit location from behind when one's head is tilted as JFK's was at Z-312 leads one's head to bounced forward and then back, precisely as JFK's bounces in the film. Neither a similarly hard slap on the back of the head from behind nor a slap from the front recreates this movement. As you can see, pretty much all the evidence related to the Z-film, large defect and bullet fragments, suggests the fatal head shot came from behind, and impacted at the supposed exit. It all adds up. And it all suggests that the small entrance in JFK's hairline came from a second bullet. Which suggests Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. So, I'm not exactly clutching at straws... or defending the "official" story...

More comments in bold. Fantasies of sticking forks in opponents now? Let's hope Dr. Fetzer doesn't get his hands on a gun.

Josiah, while I remain open to the possibility the bleeps on the dictabelt represent shots, there is a real problem with the acoustics evidence as presented by the HSCA's experts and Don Thomas. McClain wasn't where they said he was when they said he was. His mike was almost certainly not the one stuck open. I met McClain at a Lancer conference. He says he suspects Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. But he also insists his mike was NOT stuck open on 11-22-63. I discuss this briefly in chapter 6 at patspeer.com. The slide below demonstrates that McClain was near Houston and Main at frame 160 of the Z-film. So how could he be near Houston and Elm at frame 190, less than 2 seconds later? He was traveling at most 12 mph. Even if possible, why would he have sped up to 80 mph for a few seconds PRIOR to the sound of the first shot? There are other problems as well. From chapter 6 at patspeer.com: "As officer Courson said he passed a downed motorcycle and saw an officer crawling up the grass, and as this officer could only be Officer Haygood, Courson clearly turned onto Elm after Officer Haygood. As Malcolm Couch was in camera car #3, and as he began filming from the intersection of Houston and Elm, and as he then panned back to the street as Officer Haygood cut around the car, and as this revealed another officer just ahead of Haygood by camera car #1, we can conclude then that the officer ahead of Haygood was not Officer Courson but Officer McClain, the only officer in the area not behind Haygood. McClain’s presence in this image creates a huge problem for supporters of the dictabelt evidence. If the microphone purported to be McClain's was by the Cabell car, two cars ahead of camera car # 1, when the shots rang out, and then traveled at a constant speed through the plaza, as purported by those defending the dictabelt evidence, why was McClain riding by camera car #1, which had slowed down to a near-stop when the shots rang out, 20 or 30 seconds later?"

My comments added in bold: Fantasies of sticking forks in opponents now? Let's hope Dr. Fetzer doesn't get his hands on a gun.

David, while I could go through your post, point by point, and show you why there are other ways to interpret the medical evidence, I'll focus on this one for now. You either miss, or ignore, that Humes acknowledged that the wound changed between the time Carrico saw it at Parkland and the time he measured it at Bethesda. He consistently testified that as he reflected the scalp large chunks of bone fell to the table. He testified as well that he pulled out a few other bits of bone before removing the brain. So...Carrico's impression of the wound size was most certainly the large hole in the scalp and bone described by Clark etc. And Humes' impression of the wound was most certainly the much larger wound on the skull after the scalp had been peeled back. So, of course it was much larger. Now, you could argue that Humes and Boswell measured the wound at the beginning of the autopsy when the tangled scalp and bloody hair were obscuring the size of the skull defect. but that would be silly. They were inexperienced in such things, but approximating the size of an explosive wound before reflecting the scalp is not something one would expect from even an intern. As far as Humes and Boswell's slightly different measurements...it seems quite likely Humes approximated the size of the wound before he pulled off chunks of skull to remove the brain, and that Boswell's measurements reflect the size of the skull wound after the brain had been removed. It is entirely illogical, after all, to assume Humes removed chunks of skull after Boswell made his measurements. Boswell's measurements suggest a wound involving most of the right side of the skull.