Pat Speer

Denise: Which, of course, matches my scenario exactly (of a first/frontal head shot when the limousine had just finished its turn onto Elm, with the second head shot when the limousine was near the stairs, with the Moorman shot being the one that struck Connally). Pat: Am I reading that last paragraph correctly? Are you claiming JFK was shot from the front just after the limo turned onto Elm Street? It appears you place great weight on eyewitness recollections. Are there any witnesses to such a thing?

Some claim they've already discovered this. But their evidence is well... When I first noticed this, and reported back to people who would prefer not be harassed that others were describing an entrance on the front of the head--that went unobserved at Parkland and Bethesda--that connected to an exit on the left side of the back of the head--that went unobserved at Parkland and Bethesda--they wouldn't believe me. One prominent researcher even emailed me a number of times flipping out about this. He couldn't believe they were relying upon witnesses who never saw the body--and who were repeating what they claimed to remember being shown in photographs 30 years earlier. That is the sloppiest kind of research, essentially not research at all. Jeremy Gunn said his experience with the ARRB led him to distrust the recollections of witnesses from 30 years prior--and he cited in support that one of the Parkland doctors insisted Jackie was wearing white on the day of the shooting, and had blood stains on her white clothing. Well, if he'd asked around he probably could have found another witness to confirm she'd been wearing white, and voila! we'd have another a couple of books and a couple of thousand online posts about how "they" faked all the photos and films to show her wearing a pink outfit. Heck, give us a couple of years and someone will raise the ante by claiming there were FOUR headshots.

Ok, thanks. That's what I remembered. The article was based on the FBI's report in which the throat wound was attributed to a fragment from the bullet striking the head. True to the Sibert/O'Neill report, moreover, the bullet creating the back wound did not transit. You are correct, furthermore, in that this third-hand account makes it sound like the bullet creating the back wound was recovered during the autopsy.

A couple of questions. 1. You mention early news accounts of a bullet being recovered from the President's shoulder. I don't remember reading such an account. Can you post a link? FWIW, the December news accounts taken from leaked FBI reports which I do remember involved a fragment exit from the throat. 2. At the end you make note of a possible exit of such a fragment from the throat. But you indicate you believe this was a ricochet from a shot from the front. Well, where did this bullet enter? And how do you explain the EOP entrance? Or do you think that was just made up? It seems like we're on the same page with some of this but in different books on other. Which is fine. In fact, it's pretty much the purpose of this forum. (Or at least the original purpose of this forum.)

Thanks, Stu. I loved Dad humor long before I became a dad

You are speaking as a member of a "we" to which you don't really belong, Sandy. Lifton believed the interpretations of the autopsy doctors et al were correct--but that the body was altered to fool them. Then Groden and Livingstone countered with but no it wasn't the body that was altered but the photos showing no hole on the back of the head. And Groden said further that the Z-film does show a blow-out on the back of the head. And then Lifton and Fetzer et al said but no the Z-film does not show a blow-out on the back of the head, so it must also be fake. And then Horne came up and said yeah the body was altered but not to fool the doctors, as they were the ones actually altering the body. And then I said huh well no one is really talking about what the evidence shows, and spent years reading a hundred thousand or more pages of medical texts and forensics articles. And, guess what, the supposedly altered evidence was proof for conspiracy all the freakin' time.

To be clear, Gary and I are not in lockstep. I believe he thinks the hole went further down on the back of the head than I do. But I know for fact he doesn't think the body was altered to hide the true nature of the wounds, nor that the films and photos showing a hole at the top of the head were faked. There are basically two schools of thought on this. One holds that the back of the head was blown-out--a hole in the middle of the back of the head from a bullet entering the front of the head, and that all the photos and films have been faked or some such thing, and all the witnesses describing a large defect near the ear were hallucinating. This is preposterous, IMO. The second school includes folks like Gary, Tink, Randy Robertson, and Dr. Doug DeSalles. These men think there was a hole at the top of the head which stretched to the top of the back of the head, and that the autopsy photos, x-rays and Z-film, while misleading in some aspects, are most likely authentic. I am a student at this second school. While I don't agree with these men on everything, we agree that the official medical evidence provides us all we need to demonstrate that the WC was a hoax, and the HSCA a perpetuation of this hoax. As far as the quote I provided from Gary...it was not supposed to be controversial. He was merely agreeing that the bone flaps apparent on the photos and x-rays may have opened up at Parkland, and given the impression that the wound was more rear-ward than as shown in the back of the head photos. This should not be a big deal. That so much fuss came as a result just goes to show what we're up against. The spirit of Lifton/Fetzer (essentially, the urge to prove conspiracy by claiming the evidence is fake--which is a de facto acknowledgement that the evidence suggests no conspiracy) lives on. And I refuse to submit to it. Perhaps we need to redefine what is meant by a conspiracy theorist. I am a conspiracy theorist because I firmly believe the official evidence suggests a conspiracy. But Lifton/Fetzer et al are conspiracy theorists because they believe the official evidence suggests no conspiracy, and that this evidence must thereby be fake. IOW, the whole alterationist school is built upon their fundamental belief that the WC and HSCA interpretations of the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Z-film are CORRECT. And in that regard, they have more in common with LNs than CTs like myself. And that is why they find me a threat, and have made me a target. Because they know if I am correct, and that the official evidence does in fact suggest a conspiracy, well, then, their belief everything was faked makes little sense. I am so sorry to have upset their apple cart. OK. OK, Not really...

There is a long-time member of the research community with whom I frequently discuss Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Although scientists are supposed to drop theories answering questions when a better theory comes along to answer these questions, they rarely do. In fact, Kuhn found that new theories, which represented what he called a "paradigm shift," are almost universally rejected for years and even decades after their first publication by those who had previously embraced the old theory, and sometimes fail to take hold until the proponents of the old theory have departed the scene. Needless to say, this happens with JFK research as well. Over the years I have uncovered and demonstrated that 1) Michael Baden testified with his exhibit upside down and spewed tons of nonsense in his subsequent books and statements about the case...and yet he is still cited by some as an authority. 2. Michael Kurtz invented numerous interviews for his final book The JFK Assassination Debates...and yet a number of prominent writers continue to recite his obviously fabricated quotes as evidence. 3. The vast majority of witnesses claiming they saw JFK at the time of the first shot said he reacted to this shot...and yet a sizable percentage of theorists and writers continue claiming the first shot missed, and that JFK continued calmly waving to the crowd after this shot. There's probably 50 more. And hundreds more including the work of others, such as yourself...

That just isn't true, Gerry. An intact bullet through the brain will leave both a permanent cavity (a tunnel) and a temporary cavity (a temporary expansion of the tunnel, which manifests itself as black tissue upon subsequent examination). This is what you will find in the wound ballistics literature, over and over again. Nobody is shooting cadaver brains. These are the brains of actual murder victims. Now, a shotgun wound to the head or such would create a disgusting mess, where no bullet could be tracked. But an M/C bullet at almost 90 yards would not be so explosive, and would leave an identifiable track through the brain, should it have traveled from low to high.

You're forgetting about the brain, Tom. One of the rarely discussed aspects of the case is that the Clark Panel moved the wound to the top of the head to get around the incredibly inconvenient fact that the brain showed no signs of transit of a bullet on a low to high trajectory. The photos should have showed something like the wound on the left. Note that the brain remained intact above the well-defined entrance of the bullet on the left. But instead the photos showed a groove along the top of the head starting inches above the EOP entrance. As a consequence I don't see any chance for a new panel's signing off on the EOP entrance absent that panel's simultaneously claiming there was more than one head shot.

Well, thanks Stu. I think. A couple of points. 1. Yes, Sturdivan and a few others were swayed by Canal, who was indeed an interesting hybrid of a researcher. Not only did he think Oswald was killed as part of a conspiracy. But he also had come to conclude that the Clark Panel was a deliberate cover-up. 2. While I have recently come under fire for not believing witnesses who'd claimed the back of the head was blown out--which is something contradicted by other witnesses--I am similarly treated as an outlier and pariah for claiming the large fragment found at autopsy was found behind the right eye--on which I am in agreement with ALL the witnesses, AND for which there is confirmation on the x-rays. So, really, I don't feel the slightest need for "expert" verification on this issue. I have pointed out something that is logical, and obviously factual. Every witness at the autopsy noting the removal of a large fragment said it was removed from behind the right eye. And there is a fragment on the x-rays behind the right eye. Now, some have mused that this fragment is not a metal fragment, but a bone fragment. But NONE of the HSCA or ARRB's experts" to view the x-rays were sufficiently familiar with the case to know that a metal fragment was found behind the right eye, and none were asked if there was yes indeed a fragment behind the right eye. But if they had been you can bet the farm they'd have said yeah there it is right where the doctors said they'd found it, and right where they depicted it in the Rydberg drawings. As far as Mantik et al, they maintain that the fragment everyone said was found behind the right eye was actually found in the middle of the forehead, even though they acknowledge there is a fragment of some sort behind the right eye, and even though they acknowledge the fragment in the archives bears no resemblance to the fragment in the middle of the forehead (the fragment first noted by Lattimer). So, no, no expert opinion is necessary. That the fragment was behind the right eye is a fact. Let's make an analogy. A grounds crew at a stadium say they found a fluffy toy poodle sleeping on the fifty-yard line and took it to the pound. But then someone else comes along and says I have looked at photos of the stadium and what they said was a fluffy toy poodle was really a big fluffy cat. And says further that the grounds crew must have been thinking of a tiny chihuahua seen running through the end zone in one of the photos. And then admits the dog in the pound is not a chihuahua, but doubts it is the poodle described by the grounds crew, because the dog in the pound is not fluffy. And then it turns out that with the slightest bit of research he'd have discovered that the poodle was shaved upon arrival at the pound. But will this guy admit he was wrong? No, of course not.

Agreed. There are two facts about the head wound that upset me to my core. The first is that they moved the location of the head wound to fit the single-assassin scenario, and the media failed to notice. And the second is that they changed the interpretation of the mystery photo from its depicting an entrance on the back of the head to its depicting an exit on the front of the head. This is absolute bs of the highest order. And yet the media has never explained this to the pubic. Maybe they think it's too complicated. Maybe they think it's too gory. But my suspicion has long been that the AMA is every bit as powerful as the CIA when it comes to domestic matters, and that no major media outlet wants to call the competence and integrity of the nation's doctors into question.

Unlike you, Cliff, I did my homework. The back is not just the underlying bones but the overlying musculature. And the wound in the photo is inches down from the top of the shoulder muscles. Besides...I think you've acknowledged many times now that a wound at T-1 is inconsistent with the SBT. So WHY THE HECK would "they" move the wound there? Because they thought it would be funny to make Specter et al on down scramble to come up with some bs reason to believe the bullet exited the neck through the throat wound? They did it for giggles? And they did it within hours of the photos being taken? Or are you gonna tell us from your comfy chaise that James Fox was in on it, too? That he leaked faked photos to Crouch to fool us into thinking the SBT didn't work...because...because...you have deemed it so? "Their" faking photos to show a conspiracy makes no freakin' sense...

Yes, Cliff. 1. T-1 is not at the top of the back but two inches or so below it--exactly where it is shown to be in the photos. 2. The wound's being in this location corresponds to the autopsy measurements, as it places the wound equidistant from the shoulder tip and bottom of the head. 3. The wound's being in this location was a HUGE problem for the WC--which encouraged the doctors to create a drawing in which the wound was moved upwards two inches...so that the single-bullet theory could be supported, 4. The wound's being in this location was also a HUGE problem for the Clark Panel--which made out that a wound 14 cm below the bottom of the head would still be inches above the throat wound--a supposition that made JFK's head out to be twice the size of its actual size 5. The wound's being in this location was also a HUGE problem for the HSCA--whose medical panel corrected the WC and Clark Panel's nonsense...and claimed that well, maybe JFK was hit while leaned over behind the sign in the Z-film and then sat back up again. Now, this of course would never pass muster with the public. And, besides, the HSCA's acoustics and photography panels had suggested JFK was hit BEFORE going behind the sign in the film. So how did the HSCA's staff get around this? Well, Blakey hired a trajectory "expert" to figure out the bullet's path through JFK BEFORE he went behind the sign in the film, and gave him permission to move the wounds to make everything align. And he did so. He moved the T-1 wound back up to the base of the neck--essentially where the WC placed it. And this even though the medical panel had claimed this was incorrect. And he did so because the single-bullet theory absolutely positively does not work with the wound at T-1. So, no, Cliff, the T-1 wound is not a WC creation or a LN creation of any kind. It is clear-cut proof of more than one shooter and the fact so many went to such great lengths to conceal this is clear-cut proof of a cover-up. So...why are you in such denial? Because your pet theory--that the photos were faked to conceal that a wound was in a location suggesting more than one shooter--is made silly by the photos themselves--which show a wound in a location suggesting more than one shooter? Quit wasting everyone's time.

What??? I have answered that question a hundred times, and people have tried to have me burned on the cross for it.

OMG. Custer changed his story for money? Or did he, like ALL the supposed back of the head witnesses, tell people largely what they wanted to hear at the time? In Custer's case, he was shown the computer-enhanced and cropped x-rays--which do not look like the original x-rays--and this led him to think something was up. When shown the actual x-rays, however, he recognized his marker and said they were legit. As far as the head wound location... He told Groden that skull was missing from front to back and pointed this out with this hand. (He was obviously describing the size of the wound once the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table.) In any event, Groden took a still from this video of him with Custer's hand at the back of his head, and made out that Custer was describing a blow-out wound low on the back of the head apparent at the beginning of the autopsy. It was a scam. And he made money off of it. So the question you should be asking yourself is not if Custer was changing his story for money, but if Groden and numerous others were misrepresenting his story for money... P.S. I just watched the video of Livingstone and Wilson with Custer. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN. So you are correct about this--Wilson should not have been allowed anywhere near an actual witness, as he was trying to tell them the "truth" as opposed to listening to what they had to say. In any event, it sure looks like Custer is not too impressed with Wilson.

Here is what Bennett wrote on the day of the shooting. (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." Note that he says he saw "a shot that hit", and not that he saw the actual impact of the shot. As one cannot actually see "a shot," the possibly exists he meant to say "THAT a shot had hit." This is supported, moreover, by his next sentence, in which he describes the shot hitting the President in the head as the "second shoot." Note also that he loves the word immediately and uses it repeatedly. This is not an articulate person. And here is what someone--(probably a secretary)--typed up the next day. (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head. I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.” Note that here--after word had gotten out that there were three shots, not two--Bennett is supposedly specifying that he heard a second shot and saw it hit the President. Now, did he actually write this--or was this something typed up by a secretary from his notes and approved by one of his superiors? And here is what he had to admit to the Warren Commission. (Signed statement in the 5-5-64Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H682) "I arrived at the Press Club about 12:30 A.M. and joined agents at a table...I had two beers, thanked the hostess for the club's hospitality and departed about 1:30 A.M....I arrived at The Cellar about 1:40 A.M. and had two grape fruit drinks. I departed The Cellar at approximately 3:00 A.M. and went directly to the hotel." (Note: Bennett reported for duty at 7:20 A.M.) And here is what he is purported to have told the FBI. (1-30-78 interview with HSCA investigator, file # 180-10082-10452) “He remembers hearing what he hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back…he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.” So here, according to the FBI, in a report no one was to see or even know about for some time after, Bennett claimed he did not see the shot itself, which only makes sense, but looked up and noticed a hole in the President's coat. This leaves open that this hole was created by the first bullet. He is not a star witness for any theory, IMO, and most certainly not for the debunked LN theory the first shot missed.

This is not true. In fact, I have recently posted that the argument for the throat wound's being too small is far greater than the argument for the head wound's being in the wrong place, and I would agree that the argument that the back wound was too low is also a much stronger argument. Statements that something "looked like an entrance" after all, are meaningless. What is important is why they thought it looked like an entrance and that is that it was extremely small, and, according to the HSCA, smaller even than the small back wound. Now, that's telling. Because the HSCA's Charles Petty wrote a textbook claiming that a wound of such small size should be considered an entrance wound. Now, there are exceptions to this in that a low velocity projectile will often barely escape the skin and leave an extremely small exit wound. But that only supports the importance of this wound. Whether or not the throat wound was an exit for a slow moving projectile or the entrance of one, is not that important, as both destroy the single-bullet theory and both lead us to the conclusion there was more than one shooter. So yes the throat wound is a "smoking gun" per se, as is the low location of the back wound. In both instances, after all, there are no witnesses or photographs claiming or proving otherwise. But here's the thing: the autopsy doctors were pressured into misleading the public about the back wound's location. And the Clark Panel perpetuated that deception, And the HSCA FPP tried to have it both ways by saying yeah the back wound was low but JFK was leaning over while behind the sign and never mind that other panels claim he was shot before that time. But it's right there in the record. The back wound was too low to support the SBT and the "experts" from Specter on down all knew it, and bent over backwards to avoid it, and even flat-out lied about it. So, yes, that's a second smoking gun in the medical evidence. Now let's circle back to the head wound. The EOP entrance was too low to support a shot from above and an exit at the top of the head. And the damage to the brain proved this didn't occur. So the Clark Panel conjured up a higher entrance on the head, to try and explain these inconvenient facts. But the autopsy doctors--to their credit--refused to play along. So...we are left with an entrance low on the head and a large wound on top of the head--that are not connected via a path through the brain. So, yes, the head wounds are yet another smoking gun in the medical evidence. Now, that's three smoking guns. None of them reliant upon a super secret someone's faking photos in a super-secret photo lab or whatever, and none of them reliant upon some ghouls altering the body to make it look like there was more than one shooter. But do people care about this? No. They've developed a taste for red herring, and can't bear to alter their diet. No matter how unhealthy.

Greetings, Aaron. Unfortunately, the head wound evidence is not as clear-cut as you remember. You write "a few score medical professionals saw—first hand and on the first day—a hole in the back of JFK's head and have repeatedly and consistently said so for decades." This is an exaggeration. Only a handful of Parkland witnesses recorded their impressions that day, and the majority of them corrected their impressions once shown the autopsy photos. You write further: "Respect to Dr. Aguilar, who wasn't there, but Dr. McClelland saw the cerebellum leaking out, and one of the autopsy attendants was able to put his fist inside it, and the mortician filled it in with a piece of rubber. And yet we have a photo of a neat and clean and intact back of the head. Another screaming fireball." This is misleading. Dr. McClelland failed to mention cerebellum in his 11-22 report, which was to be his only official statement on the case. He was then offered a chance to correct his report before publication in a medical journal, and changed his claim the wound was "of the left temple" to "of the right side of the head" and still made no mention of cerebellum. In fact, he only started mentioning cerebellum months later, after becoming aware of what others had claimed. Now, this doesn't prove he didn't see cerebellum, of course, but it cuts into his credibility. As far as autopsy attendants being able to put their fist inside the wound, well, yeah, once the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, there was a gaping hole on the right side of the skull through which the brain could be removed. And this supports what was observed by the morticians as well. The right side of the skull was largely missing at the end of the autopsy, and it fell upon Stroble to reconstruct the skull so the President would be acceptable for public viewing, so he pieced the scalp and skull together with the hole on the back of the head, where it could be buried in a pillow. As far as the autopsy reports... the discussion of the nature of the President's head wound and the subsequent discussion of the President's brain injuries in the reports proves he was not shot by a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet entering low on the back of head. IOW, the proof of conspiracy is in the reports and has been all along.

I suspect Jim will get around to answering this himself, but I believe he's said on multiple occasions that they wanted to update JFK with subsequently released information and analysis, mostly over-looked stuff uncovered via the ARRB.

A few months back, a November, 1967 Bell-penned article was discussed on this forum. In this article, first published in the AORN Journal, a nursing journal, Bell--not the FBI--claimed she gave a "fragment" to "the Department of Public Safety" (the Highway Patrol). So Bell's subsequent claims have been debunked by Bell herself.

As one member to another, Robert, I feel I should remind you that you spent a lot of time in hot water on this forum the last time around, for posts like this. You can mention a rumor without giving the details, for crying out loud. When people come to this forum they expect to discuss or God forbid learn about history, not rumors and speculation about famous people's sex lives. You should take that stuff elsewhere, IMO. P.S. For those not in the know, in his last run on this forum, Robert routinely repeated rumors as fact and attacked people of all stripes--JFK, LBJ, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Rick Perry, and I believe Donald Trump. These people were all degenerates in Robert's eyes, and he took every opportunity to provide every detail he could about what sex acts they engaged in. I had hoped this time around he would control himself. Sadly, it appears he can not.

My God I think he's serious. This reminds me of the mysterious deaths claim from years past. Someone claimed he'd proved there was a. conspiracy by calculating the odds of so many people connected to the assassination's dying of unnatural causes. But his whole approach was folly. For one, he estimated the odds of any one person's dying and then multiplied that by how many people died, while his numbers failed to reflect how many people did not die. You can't pick ten M & M s from a bag of M& M s and say "My God, all M & Ms are green! And I've proved it" Particularly when you have knowingly excluded the non-green M & Ms from your study. In this case, we have numerous Dealey Plaza and Bethesda witnesses claiming the wound was not on the far back of the head. In this case, we have several Parkland witnesses claiming the wound was not on the back of the head. In this case, our ability to know what witnesses saw or did not see is limited by the fact we are receiving these claims second-hand, from people with an agenda. This works both ways. Some witnesses were known to change their minds after viewing the autopsy photos. This taints the data. And, similarly, some witnesses who'd never gone on record for decades only made their observations public after reading books telling them what they should have seen and being tracked down by people with an agenda, who may or may not have culled some of their statements to reflect what they wanted the public to believe this person saw. And then there are the semantic issues. Many of the so-called back of the head witnesses said "right rear" or "posterior" which those with an agenda insist means the far back of the head. Well, a less-biased analysis would include that those viewing the wound and claiming it was "right rear" may have been claiming it included the right rear of the head when viewed from above, which would be three or four inches away from where people have taken to claiming they were claiming--on the far back of the head at and below the level of the ear. And this doesn't even get into the scalp flap issues, and position of the body issues, which would undoubtedly have effected people's recollections of the wound's location... Here is our friend Dr. Aguilar in an email to me last week (and yes, he said I could quote him): "Re the 'back of the head blowout' controversy, I think you put your finger on it, Pat: Jack's scalp flaps fell backward as he lay on the gurney, face up, at Parkland. (And at Bethesda, too.) It was likely NOT a blown-out exit wound; the Z film wasn't altered, etc." So... If you really think you've proved the back of the head was blown out and everything is fake, you have quite a hill to climb. You have to include all the witnesses and then prove your witness pool was untainted by those reporting on their statements and then prove they weren't misled by things like scalp flaps and body rotation. Good luck.

Greetings. Aaron. I beg to differ on your initial statement. Even if one is to conclude the back of the head was blown out, it makes little sense to elevate the evidence for this fact above a number of other items of evidence. There is some dispute about the nature of JFK's head wound, to put it mildly. There is however little dispute that the the throat wound was unusually small, which suggests it was either an entrance or the exit of a low velocity projectile, neither of which fits the single-assassin scenario. There is also little dispute that Oswald was not practiced with the rifle, and that the WC scenario of his putting the rifle together with a dime and then hitting two of three shots in 6 seconds or so, is highly unlikely--like a hundred to one, or less. There is also strong evidence for at least one sound's coming from the knoll, and for smoke being seen in the area. Whether this signifies a shot or a diversionary device is of little matter, as the net result is the same: this smoke did not come from Oswald. Speaking of which, there is also strong evidence for Oswald's not being on the back stairs in the minute after the shooting, and not being in the elevator that came down a few minutes after that. IOW, there is strong evidence for his not being the shooter. And there is also, of course, strong reason to doubt he brought the rifle in that morning in a paper bag. The only witnesses who saw Oswald with a bag that morning refused to ID it, and no one saw him make the bag the day before, or smuggle it home. Now, all these points of evidence suggest a conspiracy and/or Oswald's innocence. And the arguments against them rely on weak sauce and circular reasoning, as exemplified by Liebeler's assertion that although Oswald was not of the skill needed to pull off the shooting...he must have got lucky. Now contrast this with the head wound evidence, in which the recollections of some people can be countered with the recollections of some other people, along with the autopsy report, photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film. The case for conspiracy is strong even without the head wound evidence. Maybe even stronger. But a case for conspiracy that embraces the head wound evidence--and points out that the wounds depicted in the photos and Z-film are inconsistent with the WC's shooting scenario, and strongly suggestive--proof really--of two heads wounds, and thus two shooters, is a sure winner, IMO.

I thought little of Brennan until a few years back when I went back and read everything he said and noticed a few things. For one, he insisted the shooter was not wearing the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested--y'know the shirt with the fibers magically found on the rifle. This is one of the most overlooked aspects of the case--that the supposed star witness for Oswald's guilt is also a star witness for a frame-up. For another, I think it's significant that Brennan admitted he only came forward after being tracked down and hounded by a government agent, and that the WC made no effort to identify this agent. This reflects poorly on the FBI and WC, but not so much on Brennan, IMO. I mean, if the WC had been anything but a white wash, they would have performed an investigation as to how and why no record of the line-up where Brennan refused to ID Oswald was forwarded to the commission, and how and why an FBI agent just so happened to go out and visit Brennan at his home and convince him to ID Oswald.