Pat Speer

Fuhrman's book on the assassination was not as bad as it could have been, and is unique among Oswald-did-it books in that it devotes a significant amount of time to debunking the single-bullet theory. While Fuhrman screwed up the case against O.J. by lying, it should be noted that the only lies that were proven were his lies about saying the N-word. Claiming he has no credibility because of that lie is like saying Bill Clinton has no credibility because he lied about Lewinsky, or Sarah Palin has no credibility because she lied about the bridge to nowhere. People are complicated, and sometimes they lie. Telling one such lie does not make one a sociopath.

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead". Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head! Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads." Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted. Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads." Actually! About the only "bonehead" is the one who fails to recognize that the photograph (#44), as stated, demonstrates the entrance in the posterior skull and the associated beveling of the interior table of the skull, as well as the fragment exit in the Parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull, with the scalp reflected. (The "little" hole v. the "Big" hole) And, since a photograph can not demonstrate the difference in sizes of two seperate holes, without also demonstrating/showing both of the holes, then even us swamp rats down here in the backwoods can figure that one out. Be sure and come back and visit when you have actually learned something Pat! Sorry, Tom, but it's clear from our exchange that we have conflicting theories, and that yours is based upon a willful ignorance of the bullet hole entrance near the EOP--which is apparent in the photo--and the preposterous presumption the image was reversed for no apparent reason. As a result, we're looking at two different photos. I'm looking at the photo as printed by the HSCA and as reproduced in the books on the assassination, and you're looking at it as you wish it to be.

Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? In event that he was under the completely misguided impression that photo#44 constituted a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head, then I would have to state that in my opinion, he was a "bonehead". Along with anyone else who is of the opinion that the photograph was taken from the rear of the head! Not funny. But interesting. So now you're calling Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, who, when asked simply to ID the photograph by the National Archives, claimed it was of an entrance on the posterior skull, "boneheads." Dr. Angel, of course, did not believe the photo was of the back of the head. He interpreted it as being the front of the head, in an entirely different orientation from yourself. As did the HSCA FPP. Your attempts to use them as support for your pet theory that the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, is therefore ridiculous. You can claim you are correct, naturally, but your argument from authority is refuted.

Spin, spin, spin, Tom. Why would someone reverse the image? Who reversed the image? When was the image reversed? And, finally... The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole entrance on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole? Now, since you seem to believe the orientation of this photo is so obvious, let's add another... The report of the Clark Panel, which you conveniently edit in your last post: "Due to lack of contrast of the structures portrayed and lack of clarity of detail in these photographs the only conclusion reached by the Panel from study of this series was that there was no exiting bullet defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull." The report of Lawrence Angel, the world's pre-eminent expert on skull reconstruction, hired by the HSCA to help them interpret the photographs: "The exit area through the right frontal bone above the boss can account for the small semi-circular notch 35 mm above the right orbit." 35 mm above the right orbit is indisputably the supra-orbital region of the skull. These two reports therefore contradict each other. Care to explain? Was Angel, in your opinion, a bonehead? Or was the Clark Panel, which failed to note the exit so obvious to others, including you, simply blind?

Tom, I regretfully inform you that neither the Clark Panel studied the photograph. They both recited a conclusion--contradictory conclusions at that--after LOOKING at the photograph. Neither group analyzed the proportions observed the photograph in order to determine if it was of the front or the back of the head. Neither group closely analyzed the features of the photograph. They certainly left no paper trail indicating as much. There is no evidence, furthermore, that the HSCA FPP interviewed Boswell and Humes with the knowledge that they'd previously stated the photo was of the back of the head. In fact, there is no evidence any of the HSCA FPP knew ANYTHING about the history of the photo, as they were given ACCESS to the primal documents for but a brief amount of time and were not required to read them. As a result, all we have is a few doctors, after almost certainly reading the report of their mentor Russell Fisher, which told them the photo is of the forehead, taking a quick look at the photos, and then jotting down their own thoughts. Neither group noted any of the interior features of the photograph. The report of the HSCA FPP does make a brief reference to a semi-circular entrance and a semi-circular exit visible, which IMO indicates their confusion. There is certainly no record, or testimony, discussing this semi-circular entrance elsewhere, nor is there a semi-circular entrance apparent in the interior of the photo. As Baden and Wecht were later to admit they couldn't make sense of the photo, it seems clear no true consensus was reached. If you can find one member of the HSCA FPP or Clark Panel to debate me about the proper orientation of the photo, you'll be my hero. But I assure you they won't. FWIW, the doctor who's studied this photo the most is Dr. David Mantik. He's been to the Archives 9 times, and has concluded that the photo was taken from behind.

Tom: "And, just in event that you have not caught on, the photo does show the "POSTERIOR SKULL AFTER REFLECTION OF THE SCALP". The scalp is reflected from the parietal/parietal frontal lobe of the skull and the photo is taken looking down into the cranium, thusly demonstrating the INTERIOR TABLE of the POSTERIOR of the skull, and the associated bullet entrance wound in the EOP." Tom, this is the same fantastic nonsense propped up by Zimmerman and Bugliosi! Utterly ridiculous! When given the chance to say that, when describing the photo as a photo of the "missile wound of entrance on posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" they meant to convey that it was a photo of the "INTERIOR aspect of a missile wound of entrance on posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp ON THE FOREHEAD", neither Humes or Boswell said as much. Instead they said the photo was too confusing for them to properly interpret. Even more telling, in NONE of their early statements or reports on the assassination did they EVER note taking a picture of an EXIT on the skull, which is only obvious, if this photo was actually of the front of the head. Your re-interpretation of their words is therefore totally bogus. BTW, 4 of my closest family members are long-time nurses and Bio-med technicians. When I read them the 1966 description of the photo and asked them if they felt a doctor could possibly use those words to describe a photo taken from the front, they said, without hesitation, "NO." They then clarified that only an incredibly incompetent doctor would use those words. When I then explained that these words were on a report signed by two doctors, a radiologist, and a photographer, they retreated to their original "NO, NO WAY!" Common sense tells us they're right. It simply makes no sense for anyone, let alone a doctor tasked with being precise, to identify a wound on the inside of the skull as being on the posterior skull, and to modifying "posterior skull" with "following reflection of the scalp," when the scalp is actually reflected from the anterior skull. First you insist some unnamed person for unknown reasons reversed this photo. Now you insist that Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer, had no grasp of the English language. To what other depths will you dive?

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues. (Pat Speer) The "issues" is quite simple. 1. Pat Speer (along with a few others who own crystal balls and Ouiji boards) says that photo#44 is a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head which shows the scalp reflected from the rear of the skull, and a bullet hole in the rear of the skull. Whereas: 2. Everyone else from the Clark Panel; to the HSCA FPP Panel, to include the atuopsy surgeons, says that that photograph$44 is a photograph which was taken from the front of the head and shows the scalp in the front of the head reflected downwards over the face, as well as demonstrating a semi-circular area of the skull which exhibits beveling on the exterior surface and thusly demonstrates a point of EXIT out the parietal/parietal frontal vicinity of the skull. ========================== I do believe that I will stick with #2. above. Although I have little or no qualms in regards to intentionally appearing stupid, I do have qualms in regards to unintentionally looking stupid. After all: "Stupid is as Stupid Does". Therefore, if one in intentionally looking "stupid", then quite apparantly it was done for some reason. Now I agree that they were both incorrect, (Pat Speer) Save your agreements for the mouse in your pocket! When you (provided that you ever do) come to recognize that Photo#44 represents a photographs which was taken from the front of the skull; demonstrates the scalp reflected down over the face as well as to the left hemisphere of the skull; demonstrates the front of the skull in the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull along with a large portion of the bone of the right hemisphere as well as extending into the right rear hemisphere (occipital area) of the skull as being absent, then perhaps as they one used to say: "You will have learned". Until such time, you continue to remain completely lost! Do you offer refunds to anyone who knows so little that they may have actually paid something for the "mis-knowledge" contained in your video? Tom, you're still running away from the issues. The fact is that I have studied the photograph and analyzed it, and concluded that Boswell, Humes, Ebersole, and Stringer were correct when they initially catalogued the photos as photos of a wound on the posterior skull after the reflection of the scalp. No one else of whom I am aware has studied this photo beyond looking at it and going "Gee, it looks like a forehead to me!" If you're aware of any such study, please bring it to my attention. As far as your other evasion...the fact is we agree that the official interpretation of the photo is wrong. Your conclusions that the photo has been reversed, that it was taken after the largest fragment of bone had been re-inserted into the skull, and that it shows a defect near the middle of the skull, are your conclusions, and yours alone. None of the doctors or panels to glimpse at the photo have said as much. If two people look at a photo and one says it's a photo of the Taj Mahal, and one turns the photo sideways and says it's the Roman Colisseum, you can't say they're in agreement just because they both said it was a building. BTW, Why would someone reverse the image? Who reversed the image? When was the image reversed? And, finally... The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues. If, as you seem to believe, the Clark Panel and HSCA shared your impression of the photo, then why did the HSCA depict the beveled exit inches away from the exit in your interpretation? And why did Dr. Angel, who was only the world's foremost authority on skull reconstruction, interpret the photo as being a straight-on shot of the front of the skull, with the scalp reflected over the eyes? Now I agree that they were both incorrect, but your pretending that they agreed with YOUR interpretation, and that the photo was reversed, is completely bizarre, and without foundation. Now answer the questions, please. Why would someone reverse the image? Who reversed the image? When was the image reversed? And, finally... The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Tom: The Clark Panel, with no input from the autopsy surgeons, determined that photo#44 was taken from the front and primarily depicted the frontal area of the skull. REALITY: The Clark Panel was convened by the Justice Department, which changed the description of this photo, which had previously been identified as a photo of the entrance on the posterior skull, to being a photo of an exit defect in January 67. Even so, the Clark Panel made no mention of this supposed exit defect so obvious to others. They said the only thing they could say for sure was that there was "no exiting defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull." Tom: The HSCA FPP Panel, in conjunction with clarification discussion with Dr. Humes & Dr. Boswell, determined and all fully agreed that photo#44 was taken from the front and depicted primarily the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull. REALITY: The HSCA's consultant on skulls, Dr. Angel, said the exit defect in this photo was in the supra-orbital region of the skull, exactly the opposite of the Clark Panel's conclusion. Dr. Baden, as the head of the panel, not only testified with the photo upside down in relation to his own panel's interpretation of the photo, but later admitted he had problems orienting the photo. Dr. Wecht, in Trauma Room One, said the same thing. In short, no tests were ever performed on this photo, or comparison photos taken, in order to interpret the actual orientation of this photo. They just guessed, and guessed wrong. Tom: And then, along comes Pat Speer.com to let us know that none of these persons knew what they were speaking of, and that photo#44 is a photograph which primarily depicts the rear of the skull, due primarily to an inability to recognize "reverse image" photography. REALITY: I was the first person to note that Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, and I am the only person of whom I am aware to test the orientation of this photo in multiple ways, all of which indicate this photo was taken from behind. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Tom, find some doctors to debate me on this issue, so I can prove them wrong and close the case. As far as your "reverse" theory, neither the Clark Panel nor HSCA FPP believed this photo was reversed and you know it. We're still waiting for you to explain who, when, and why, this photo was reversed. We're also waiting for you to explain the apparent bullet entrance, which in your orientation, is on the forehead.

Tom: "Live with it Pat! You do not know what you are talking about; you have gone off and stuck your foot in your mouth as a result of not knowning what you were talking about; and now you have to either "eat foot" or remain in egotistical "denial". Sorry, Tom, the sad fact is I do know what I'm talking about. You are spouting utter nonsense and expecting us all to accept it, as usual. Unfortunately I have studied this stupid photo more than anyone else I know of, and researched its history more than anyone else I know of, and KNOW that you're completely making crap up. E.G. You keep citing HSCA reports as support for your pet theory, when you know darn well the FPP interpreted the photo as being taken from the front with scalp reflected over the eyes, and with the beveled exit along the coronal suture. You also know, if you've studied this at all, that Dr. Angel interpreted this photo the same way, but with the exit shifted several inches towards the front, so that it no longer resided on the coronal suture, and was just above Kennedy's right eye. NEITHER of these two interpretations of the photo have the scalp of the forehead reflected to the left, as you claim. You also keep bringing up that Kennedy's head was re-constructed, something disputed by no one. What does that have to do with anything? It by no means suggests that they took photos as the head was re-constructed, or that the mystery photo was taken after a piece of bone had been re-inserted into the skull. Let's look at your favorite quote more closely... "A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I'm talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn't have sufficient bone to totally close the defect." This quote suggests, if anything, that the bone fragments found by the SS were re-inserted into the skull AFTER the bones removed from the skull to pull out the brain had been re-inserted. For how else could they note there was still a defect after re-inserting the bones brought in by the SS, if the bones they'd removed themselves were still on the table? The mystery photo, even in your orientation, reveals quite a large defect. The re-insertion of bones described in the quote would have to have come sometime later. So let's get back to the issues, shall we? You claim the photo as seen in books and on the internet, and as presented to Congress by Dr. Baden in his testimony, was reversed. Question: by whom? Follow-up question: Why? In the photo, in YOUR orientation, there is what appears to be a bullet entrance on the forehead. This entrance matches the size of the entrance observed at autopsy. When the photo is properly interpreted, moreover, it is just to the right of the EOP, the location of the entrance described at autopsy. Now, you know I'm a conspiracy theorist... So why would I lie to myself and convince myself the doctors told the truth about the location of the wound observed at autopsy, unless I actually see what I believe to be that wound? (David Lifton, Robert Groden, and Jack White, BTW, have told me they agree with me, and that they also believe what I believe to be a bullet wound is a bullet wound by the EOP.) Now, if you don't think what we believe to be a bullet hole is in fact a bullet hole, then what is it? FWIW, I agree with you that the small entrance observed by the EOP was not received at frame 313.

TOM: "When in fact, it has been known and written about long ago that the photograph is in fact taken from the front of the head, demonstrates the parietal/parietal-frontal portion of the head with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head." My response: "This is utter hogwash! You are the only one who "knows" or even thinks the photograph was taken from the front with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head. This is your pet theory and yours alone. In an autopsy, the scalp is normally reflected down over the face. As a result, many of the medical people to look at this photo have assumed this photo was taken from the front, with the scalp reflected down over the eyes. As demonstrated in Part 1 of my video series, both the forensic pathology panel and its consultant on skulls, Dr. Lawrence Angel, concluded as much. They just differed on what part of the skull it showed, with Angel concluding the beveled bone believed to represent an exit was two inches further forward on the skull, just above Kennedy's eye. In short, the HSCA FPP disregarded the advice of their own consultant on the matter. Dr. Baden then got up before congress and testified with the photo upside down in comparison to the interpretation of his OWN PANEL. (He would later admit to researchers that he could never quite understand the photo. But he wasn't alone on the panel. In his chapter in Trauma Room One, Dr. Cyril Wecht admitted that he, too, could never make sense of the photo.) All this indicates to me that they never quite understood the photo, and were guessing. Which is why it's been called, long before me, the "mystery photo." So what of the autopsy doctors, you might ask? Certainly they know what this photo represents. As demonstrated in Part 1 of my video series, all three of them begged off on this issue when shown the photo by the ARRB, and claimed they just couldn't tell. Well, why would they do this? Now maybe they just couldn't tell. In Part 3 of my video series, and in chapter 14 of patspeer.com, however, I show how the doctors had NO PROBLEM saying this photo was of the back of the head in November, 1966, but then signed a statement saying this photo was of the front of the head in January 1967, after CBS asked the Johnson Administration to allow Dr. Humes to appear on their upcoming show, and state he'd reviewed the photos and found them to confirm his autopsy report. Well, who wrote this January 1967 statement in which the doctors changed their interpretation, you might ask? When interviewed by the ARRB, neither Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell would take credit for writing the report. Dr. Boswell thought maybe it was Dr. Finck who convinced them to change their interpretation. Finck, on the other hand, would take credit for no such thing. Which leaves us with the contemporaneous evidence. In Dr. Finck's notes on the 67 review of the autopsy photos, he writes that the Justice Department prepared the statement and the doctors signed the statement. Ramsey Clark's phone calls to LBJ during this period, moreover, reflect that the Justice Department had been having great trouble getting the doctors to sign the statement, because they were too "reticent". In Part 3 of my video series, which Tom has clearly never viewed, I show all this documentation and play these tapes, and conclude that the doctors were forced to change their interpretation of the photo, and hide that there was a bone with exit beveling on the back of the head. Now the reader is free to disagree. But to conclude, as Tom, that everyone has known all along that this photo has been printed in reverse, and that everyone knows this photo shows the front of the head, is just plain wacky. I mean, let's get real, here. The photo on the internet, in its supposedly "reversed" orientation, came courtesy the Secret Service agent who developed the photos within a week of the assassination. A number of researchers, including Mark Crouch, David Lifton and Walt Brown, have handled his copies. None of them have ever said anything about Fox's photo being reversed when printed in books. Are you claiming then that James Fox himself "reversed" the photo, and that it just so happens the HSCA also printed this photo in its "reversed" orientation, even though they had no idea Fox even had the photo? While you, no doubt, would like to believe this photo was taken from the front, and then reversed, there's just no reason to believe this happened, outside your desire.

I can't believe the backwards thinking of these Homeland Security guys. Clearly brainwashed by the McCloy/Dulles school of investigation, which holds that conspiracies only occur in banana republics, they refuse to take the threats of a group of drug addicts with high-powered weapons seriously. If ONLY Cat Stevens had been in the meth-heads' CD player, then they might have investigated a possible C-word (C*nspiracy).

Tom, your disinfo is really getting offensive. YOU are the one claiming the photo has been reversed. You also keep insinuating that its reversal is some sort of conspiracy theorist conspiracy to misrepresent the evidence. Care to explain then why Michael Baden testified before congress with it in this orientation? Was the HSCA, which only printed parts of the photo, part of some conspiracy to fool me into thinking the photo is of the back of the head? If so, then why did they say it was a photo of the FRONT of the head? You also keep talking about the x-rays when I ask you about the autopsy photo. Once and for all, just where do you think the bullet hole in the photo below was located? To me it looks like it's near the EOP. In your orientation it appears to be on the forehead.

Tom, by editing Hudson's words in that way, are you attempting to confuse people into thinking Hudson's recollections support your theory that Kennedy was hit in the head after the head shot at 313? if so, shame on you. Hudson said no such thing, and you know it! Mr. LIEBELER - And after you saw him hit in the head, did you hear another shot? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you see that shot hit anything - the third shot? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir. I'll tell you - this young fellow that was sitting there with me - standing there with me at the present time, he says, "lay down, Mister, somebody is shooting the President." He says, "Lay down, lay down." and he kept repeating, "Lay down." so he was already laying down one way on the sidewalk, so I just laid down over on the ground and resting my arm on the ground and when that third shot rung out and when I was close to the ground - you could tell the shot was coming from above and kind of behind. Mr. LIEBELER - How could you tell that? Mr. HUDSON - Well, just the sound of it. Mr. LIEBELER - You heard it come from sort of behind the motorcade and then above? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I don't know if you have ever laid down close to the ground, you know, when you heard the reports coming, but it's a whole lot plainer than it is when you are standing up in the air. Mr. LIEBELER - You were standing down here where we put the "X"? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - You say when the President was hit in the head he was up here by the first lamppost on the right-hand side of the post that shows in the picture? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; right along in here. Mr. LIEBELER - That's when he got hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I think so. Mr. LIEBELER - Are you sure about that? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir; I am. Mr. LIEBELER - So you had to look up Elm Street? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I was looking up this way, you see. You see [indicating on photograph], that's the motorcade car right there isn't it? Mr. LIEBELER - Yes; the picture that we are looking at here is a picture of a re-enactment of the scene. Mr. HUDSON - Yes; so right along about even with these steps, pretty close to even with this here, the last shot was fired - somewhere right along in there. Mr. LIEBELER - You think the last shot was fired and the car was about where it actually is in that picture when the third shot was fired? Mr. HUDSON - Pretty close to it; yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - But you think the President had already been hit in the head by the time the third shot was fired? Mr. HUDSON - He had been hit twice, so Parkland Hospital said. He was hit in the neck one time and in the head one time. Mr. LIEBELER - When the first shot was fired, were you looking at the presidential car then; could you see it then? Mr. HUDSON - Yes; it was coming around - it had just got around the corner,you see, from off of Houston Street, making that corner there, come off of Houston onto Elm. Mr. LIEBELER - Did it look to you like the President was hit by the first shot? Mr. HUDSON - No, sir; I don't think so - I sure don't. Mr. LIEBELER - You don't think he got hit by the first shot? Mr. HUDSON - No. Mr. LIEBELER - You say it was the second shot that hit him in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - What happened after the President got hit in the head, did you see what he did, what happened in the car? Mr. HUDSON - He slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy, she climbs over in the seat with him and pulls him over. Mr. LIEBELER - Pulled him down in the seat? Mr. HUDSON - Pulled him over in her lap like. Mr. LIEBELER - If you don't think the President got hit by the first shot and you say he got hit in the head with the second shot - Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - And if we assume that he was shot twice, you would have to say that he was hit by the third shot; isn't that right? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - He was hit again after he got hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Do you think that could have been possible when Mrs. Kennedy pulled him over, do you think he could have got hit in the neck after he had been hit in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes sir; I do Mr. LIEBELER - He was still sitting far enough up in the car he could have been hit? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - Did you watch the President after he got hit in the head like that? Mr. HUDSON - Well as soon as everybody realized what had happened, you know, everybody went to going up the hill so we did too. Mr. LIEBELER - So you only saw the President hit once; is that right, sir? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir; I just saw him hit once. Mr. LIEBELER - That was in the head? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - And you aren't able to say from your own observation when he was hit in the neck? Mr. HUDSON - Yes. Mr. LIEBELER - If he was hit in the neck.

Denis, if there were dozens of different set-ups taken during the autopsy, to record it as an historical event, it seems possible some would have been taken during reconstruction. However, there were only seven or eight different poses. This makes it absolutely unthinkable that a close-up photograph of the back of the head and bullet entrance (the mystery photo as testified to by the doctors, and as catalogued for the National Archives) would be skipped over in favor of a photo of the forehead after a piece of bone (a piece of bone not even known to the doctors during the initial dissection) was re-inserted into the skull. Absolutely unthinkable. As for you, Tom, I'm sorry to upset your apple-cart, but mentioning a photo to a doctor means diddley! If you had signed-statements from these doctors asserting that they have STUDIED the case and agree with your interpretation that would be one thing. But you do not. Even worse, the one doctor you cite ad nauseum -- Dr. Boswell--DID NOT agree with your interpretation, and completely rejected that there was any entrance in the cowlick, as you purport. Here is his discussion of the mystery photo with the ARRB. Gunn. To me as a lay person, it appears as if in November of 1966, View 7 is being described as an entrance wound, and in January of 1967, two months later, it's being described as an exit wound. First, do you have any reason for thinking that my understanding is inaccurate? Is there a switch in how those two photographs are described? Boswell. Yes, I agree, and I have no explanation for that. I think they were both wrong, and I think the reason is that it's just such a terrible photograph. As you can see, Boswell had a chance to say the photo was taken from the front, with the bone re-inserted into the skull, but failed to do so. His rejection of the photo as it was described in November 1966, moreover, comes from the assumption of Gunn and himself that the wound described as an entrance was the beveled piece of bone in the center of the photo, and not the bullet entrance in the margins, and on the forehead in your interpretation. That entrance remains unnoticed. (As the photographs on the internet come from SS photographs made within a week of the assassination, it seems possible that the bullet wound in the photograph has been removed from the photos in the Archives. It seems more likely, however, that it has been over-looked by those studying the photograph, due to the shared but incorrect assumption that the beveled bone in the center of the photo is the focus of the photo.) FWIW, in his ARRB deposition, Boswell distinctly remembered a photo being taken of the back of the head showing "tunneling". This is clearly the "tunneling" visible in the photo, the "tunneling" which, in your interpretation, is on the FOREHEAD. He also discounted that any photos were missing. This indicates that he, at least on some level, knew full well that the mystery photo was a photo of the back of the head, displaying "tunneling". Gunn. There are additional descriptions of photographs showing--described as showing the entrance wound in the skull from both the exterior and the interior with the scalp reflected. Do you remember any photographs with the scalp reflected showing the wound of entrance in the skull? Boswell. Well, I seem to remember a couple of photographs. That might be one, and particularly one showing the beveling of that same wound--or not beveling, but the tunneling. But I can't imagine that there are any photographs missing. Numerical- wise, are they all here? Amazingly, Humes and Finck shared his assessment! Both agreed there'd been a photo of the back of the head, and refused to commit to whether or not the mystery photo was that photo. They also remembered taking a photo of the inside of the skull, which seems to be missing. Unfortunately for your pet theory, however, none of them EVER described the taking of a photo of the front of the head, with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull, showing the beveled exit.

I joined this forum before biographies were required. Here's my original greeting: Hi, I'm Pat Speer. When I was three years old an old gentleman named Mr. Ellis handed me a Kennedy half-dollar and told me to never forget our former President, who he said was a great man. After deciding to leave the record business, in 2003, I decided it was time I figured out who killed this great man. Since that time, I have created for myself a small library of over a thousand books, mostly on American politics post ww2. While reading through these books, I discovered that there were a lot of details which remain a mystery, particularly about the JFK assassination and Watergate. I think the answers to these questions are important, especially since the current administration seems strangely connected to these not-so-ancient ancient mysteries. (Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney, Rove, and Bush 1 all have Nixon ties.) I'm working on a book on the JFK assassination and hope to write on other topics as well. I've also written a screenplay about the record business. Wish me luck.

Tom, you should look into becoming a Republican Party spokesman. My how you love to spin! What I claimed was not "done" was photographing the skull with pieces of bone re-inserted. Autopsy photographs are taken at various stages of dissection, not re-construction. Your attempt to make it look like I was claiming skulls were not reconstructed by morticians is silly and not particularly appreciated. You still haven't explained the apparent bullet hole on the forehead in your interpretation of the photo. You still haven't compared the x-ray of the large fragment containing the only beveled exit observed at the autopsy with the photo which you claim shows this exit after the bone was re-inserted into the skull. If you did you'd see that they are not the same exit. Note here that in his WC testimony Humes discusses the pieces of bone brought into the autopsy, and the discovery of an exit on one of the pieces of bone. Note that he says they x-rayed this piece of bone. Note that he says NOTHING about reinserting this piece of bone into the skull and taking pictures of it in place. Commander HUMES - I mentioned previously that there was a large bony defect. Some time later on that evening or very early the next morning while we were all still engaged in continuing our examination, I was presented with three portions of bone which had been brought to Washington from Dallas by the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. These were-- Mr. SPECTER - Might that have been by a Secret Service agent? Commander HUMES - It could be, sir; these things. Mr. SPECTER - At any rate, someone presented thee three pieces of bone to you? Commander HUMES - Someone presented these three pieces of bone to me, I do not recall specifically their statement as to where they had been recovered. It seems to me they felt it had been recovered either in the street or in the automobile, I don't recall specifically. We were most interested in these fragments of bone, and found that the three pieces could be roughly put together to account for a portion of this defect. Mr. SPECTER - How much remained unaccounted for, Dr. Humes? Commander HUMES - I would estimate that approximately one-quarter of that defect was unaccounted for by adding these three fragments together and seeing what was left. This is somewhat difficult, because as back to when we were actually looking for the fragments of metal, as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table, and so forth, so it was difficult to put that exact figure into words. However, the thing which we considered of importance about these three fragments of bone was that at the margins of one of them which was roughly pyramidal in shape, there was a portion of the circumference of what we interpreted as a missile wound. We thus interpreted it this because there was, the size was, sufficiently large for us, for it to have the curve of the skull still evident. At the point of this defect, and I will draw both tables of the bone in this defect, at the area which we interpreted as the margin of a missile wound, there was a shelving of the margin. This would, to us, mean that a missile had made this wound from within the skull to the exterior. To confirm that this was a missile wound, X-rays were made of that fragment of bone, which showed radio-opaque material consistent and similar in character to the particles seen within the skull to be deposited in the margins of this defect, in this portion of the bone.

Tom, you still haven't explained what appears to be a bullet hole, which is on the forehead in your interpretation. As far as your assertion that the statements of the doctors support your pet theory that the photo was taken after a piece of bone was re-inserted into the skull, spare me! No one EVER said this photo was taken with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull. If you educate yourself on autopsy procedure, you'll see that such things just are not done. The supposed exit on bone in your interpretation is on the frontal bone. So what did Dr. Humes say when discussing this photo with the HSCA? Dr. Humes: “This is not frontal bone where that semi-circle is—it’s either temporal or parietal bone, Dr. Angel.” The temporal bone is on the side of the head; this proves that Dr. Humes did not share your interpretation. If Dr. Humes had placed the bone back into the skull before the empty cranium photo was taken, as you insist, he would certainly have remembered this in 1966, when he wrote that the photo showed the EOP entrance on the posterior skull, as I've proposed. Neither he nor Boswell nor Finck nor Stringer (the photographer) ever mentioned their taking a photo with a piece of bone re-inserted into the skull. When they spoke to the ARRB, moreover, neither Humes nor Boswell nor Finck could say for sure whether this photo was of the back of the head or the forehead. (See part 1 of my video series). This was quite interesting seeing as the HSCA medical panel, taking their cue from the Clark Panel, which in turn took its cue from the Justice Department, which wrote the 1967 review of the photo which changed its orientation from being a photo of the back of the head to being a photo of the front of the head, had claimed that this was of the front of the head, and showed a bullet exit. (FWIW, the HSCA wound ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan now asserts that the beveled bone in the photo is NOT an exit.) So your assertion that this photo was taken late in the autopsy, after a late-arriving piece of bone was re-inserted into the skull, is completely without foundation. You can believe what you want, but your claim that the historical record supports your belief is a false one.

I believe the lady is telling a big fib. She wouldn't be the first. Any "witness" claiming they were on the knoll by the "stockyard fence" and that people were packed like "sardines" in that area can be dismissed out of hand, IMO.

Come on, Tom, all this flattery is making me blush. It seems clear to me that you have no intention of actually dealing with the issues. My interpretation: the photo is of the back of the head. Reasons: the autopsy doctors listed it as such in 1966; the entrance described at autopsy is featured in the photo; the drainage hole in the photo indicates the photo was taken from a specific angle. I re-created this angle and found it to match a photo taken from behind. Your interpretation: the photo is of the front of the head, only reversed, and with a bone re-inserted. Reasons: You feel like it--there are no statements from anyone to have studied the evidence claiming that the photo was reversed, nor are there any statements from anyone claiming a bone was re-inserted before the photograph was taken. As I understand it, you also are claiming the v-shaped notch apparent in the photo--which you claim to represent a bullet's exit on the front of the skull--is on a piece of bone re-inserted in the skull late in the autopsy. Did you forget that this bone was x-rayed? Please show us how this bone fits on the forehead, and where the v-shaped notch in the photo is on the piece of bone that was x-rayed... http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca..._Vol7_0066a.htm BTW, don't think I didn't notice your obfuscation. I asked about the bullet hole in the photo in my last post, which you place on the forehead, and you tried to discuss the bullet fragments on the x-rays. Come on, Tom, we're waiting. What is that bullet hole, if it's not a bullet hole? P.S. Tom, I have a chapter on the x-rays which was reviewed by numerous radiologists. None of them had a problem with my findings; they just thought the published x-rays were of poor quality, and difficult to fully orient or understand, and were unwilling to have their names associated with ANY interpretation of the x-rays.. Your acting as though I've failed to do my homework and that my understanding of the x-rays is silly or without foundation is not appreciated and clearly reflective of your own lack of expertise. If you actually do some reading you'll find that a large black area on an x-ray does not necessarily indicate missing bone. Believe it or not, the frontal bone on the bottom x-ray in the slide below was intact.

This is hilarious coming from someone who, after speaking to Boswell, still claims that Boswell and Humes not only failed to notice an entrance on the back of the head in the cowlick region, but lied when they catalogued the "mystery photo" as a photo of the back of the head. Care to relate where Boswell (or anyone at the autopsy) said they placed bones back into the skull BEFORE they took the autopsy photos and/or x-rays? Claiming that this was done while simultaneously claiming that your talking to Boswell gives you any credibility is incredibly hypocritical, unless you are claiming that your speaking to him convinced you he was a xxxx. Standard Operating Procedure dictates that the x-rays were taken before the beginning of the autopsy. When Finck arrived, he ordered a few more. But there were none taken during the skull's reconstruction. No autopsy photos were taken at this time either. If you search the medical books you'll find that NO ONE takes photographs during reconstruction. It serves no purpose. Photographs are taken to help the doctors remember and accurately describe the wounds observed. There is no other reason for their existence. The funeral home has no need for photographs; consequently, none are taken during reconstruction. BTW, Tom, you still haven't explained the bullet hole, which on your interpretation, was on Kennedy's forehead.

Hi Christy, I know your question was directed at Pat and I don't want to step on his toes, but I seem to remember that Gerald Lester Murphy was connected to a man named Horace Schmahl who in turn was an associate of Robert Maheu. I also seem to remember that future Watergate figure Tony Ulasewicz was the investigator for the NYPD at the time and concluded quickly that the CIA had nothing to do with it. Interesting associations for sure especially when you throw Trujillo's goons Arturo Espaillat and Felix Bernardino into the mix. FWIW. James I believe Maheu was seen with Trujillo's intelligence chief Espaillat just before the abduction, and the plane in which Galindez was transported to Florida was leased using a Maheu and Associates credit card...or something like that... If I recall, I first read about his involvement in Jim Hougan's book Spooks. I have some FBI files on Howard Hughes. I'll check to see if there's any mention of Maheu and the Galindez incident in those files.

The idea that Deborah is making money off Lancer is probably a false one. I would suspect that, until the re-issue of Larry Hancock's book, Someone Would Have Talked, which sold fairly well, Lancer was in the red. Maybe it still is.

Actually, Tom, in chapter 14 I measure the proportions of the drainage hole on the table, and show how this PROVES the photo was taken from behind. Please debunk my proof by simulating a photo taken from the front that accurately re-creates the proportions of the drainage hole. As far as your claim that people reversed this image to fake people into thinking this photo was taken form behind, that is utter malarkey. If you watch Part 1 of my video series you'll see that Dr. Baden presented this photo to congress in what you claim is the "reversed" orientation. He also claimed, as you, that this photo was taken from the front. In short, you are the only one in the world who shares your interpretation of this photo. That doesn't mean you're wrong, of course. It is pretty wild, however, that your interpretation is reliant upon someone re-inserting a piece of bone into the skull for a photograph--an event which would serve no forensic purpose, and which is unsupported by any eyewitness account. If you have a private correspondence from Stringer where he claims he stayed after the autopsy and took pictures of the reconstruction, now would be a good time to cough it up. BTW, in your orientation you leave what I propose to be the EOP entrance unexplained. Even worse, you place it on the forehead. I've shown this image to a number of hunters who know nothing about the Kennedy assassination, and they all readily agreed it was the entrance of a bullet on bone. Are you now suggesting Kennedy was shot from the front? If not, what is an entrance doing on his forehead?

Tom, Finck, the wound ballistics expert at the autopsy, said the EOP entrance was transversal, wider than long, which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. which matches exactly the wound found on the back of the head in the so-called "mystery" photo, when properly interpreted. Oh, that hurt! The laughter that is! http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html You do not even know enough about the subject matter to recognize a "reverse image" photograph, even though I long ago explained it and also posted the testimonies related to the HSCA & Humes discussion of it. Might want to attempt to give Dr. Boswell a call and see if you could possibly learn a thing or two. "Mystery Photo"--------My A*S Classic, Tom. It's an inverted photo. Explains everything. Only in your interpretation, there was a beveled exit in the parietal area. Humes testified there was no such thing. You also have the scalp being reflected to the left ON THE FOREHEAD, which makes little sense. And you have an incredible amount of gall citing Boswell as a defense for your nonsense, when you claim there was an entrance in the cowlick--something he insisted did not exist.