Pat Speer

Don, FWIW, when I created my database for the eyewitnesses a few years back, I noticed the confluence of Chaney stories, with the claim he sped up just after the shots, etc. The Nix film, however, shows both Chaney and Douglas Jackson slamming on their brakes at the time of the head shot. (This, in turn, led to other cars slamming on their brakes and quite possibly led to the perception the limo itself came to a stop.) Chaney and Jackson were supposed to be serving as BODYGUARDS and not just escorts. Thus, their slamming on their brakes to protect themselves at a time when the President needed their protection would almost certainly have been considered an embarrassment to the City of Dallas and the State of Texas, etc. We should recall here that the Attorney General of Texas made a side deal with Warren that he would not conduct his own investigation as long as the WC treated Texas fairly, which one can only interpret as ignoring the evidence of DPD incompetence and possible complicity. It should come as no surprise then to see that neither Chaney nor Jackson was interviewed by the FBI about what they saw and did during the motorcade, and were not called to testify by the WC. In this light, I suspect the "Chaney sped up" story was an orchestrated lie designed to hide that Dallas' finest cowered in terror when put to the ultimate test.

From my perspective as a layman not entirely familiar with the photographic issues, this thread seems to have run aground. Despite Jack's protests, Tink and Jerry's observation that the film studied by the Hollywood group is a fifth generation image undoubtedly undermines the group's observation that the back of the head appears painted in. When one watches Groden's assasination films DVD, one can see several different copies of the Z-film, copies of copies, or even copies of copies of copies. On several of these the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 looks like an orange blob. On his best copy, however, this blob is less orange and less blobbish. The MPI DVD, moreover, shows this "blob" not to be orange, and not to be a blob, but a spray of blood and brain in most every direction. This thread is also confusing in that Dr. Fetzer keeps bringing up activities he believes the Z-film should show, should it be authentic, that it doesn't show. This is a completely unrelated argument, as I understand it. While he is correct if he is trying to make the point that the clarity of the film is beside the point if what it shows never happened, he is incorrect if he thinks this supports that what the Hollywood group thought was an altered image was indeed an altered image, and not just an artifact created through what is in essence photographing a photograph. I mean, no one is suggesting that the film fails to show Chaney's drive for glory because it's just too blurry, are they?

Cliff, you've got it completely backwards. It is your desire to "crack the case" that leads you to claim the back wound is at T3. The HSCA FPP said it was at T1. The measurements created at the autopsy suggests they were correct. Having the wound at T1, moreover, is so problematic to the single-bullet theory that it led the HSCA's trajectory expert to move the wound back upwards. So why pretend the wound was at T3, when the only evidence placing it at T3 is a written approximation by one man, a man who never even studied the president's wounds? Why not just accept the approximation at T-1, and PUMMEL the LNT community with the FACT that THEIR version of the single-bullet theory is completely refuted by the government's top "experts"? http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg

No chance, pal. I brought hardcore political punk rock into Reno Nevada beginning in 1979: formed two hardcore political punk bands 7 Seconds and Section 8 and infused them with my political fervor; promoted Blag Flag twice in Reno in 1981 when they couldn't get a show anywhere on the West Coast due to the violence of their audiences...I could go on, but my innate modesty forbids it... OK, Cliff, you might have me on the whole punk rock thing, but I spent many an evening in the company of Eazy-E, Ice Cube, Ice-T, Snoop Dogg, etc as well as Bad Religion, Black Flag, X, Mudhoney, etc. I was an invited guest to Nine Inch Nails' and Smashing Pumpkins' first shows in L.A. (Smashing Pumpkins played a midnight show at a drag club in West Hollywood.) I hung out backstage with Einsturzende Neubaten. (Germans have some serious BO.) Prince flew me to Minneapolis to play me his new record. Rodney King drove out to Simi Valley to buy me lunch and pick my brain. (Yes, I actually got in the car with him.) So I've got Indie/alt cred to burn.

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world think he didn't exist. "Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..." Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match... http://originalsevenseconds.com/ I think I got you beat, Cliff. I was the indie buyer for a large music wholesaler with a 30 store chain of its own and had hundreds of meets, greets, and meals with members of N.W.A., Black Flag, Bad Religion, The Replacements, The Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc... not to mention folks like David Cassidy... Roadrunner Records considered me so helpful in breaking Slipknot they sent me a gold record plaque. But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now. That's the kind of job which will keep you young, Pat. To what does the "breaking Slipknot" comment relate? These guys, fresh from the cornfields of Iowa, have sold millions of records. I'm partly responsible.

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world think he didn't exist. "Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..." Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match... http://originalsevenseconds.com/ I think I got you beat, Cliff. I was the indie buyer for a large music wholesaler with a 30 store chain of its own and had hundreds of meets, greets, and meals with members of N.W.A., Black Flag, Bad Religion, The Replacements, The Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc... not to mention folks like David Cassidy... Roadrunner Records considered me so helpful in breaking Slipknot they sent me a gold record plaque. But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now.

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point. Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog. I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo. Pamela, not to defend Gary, whose recent television appearances have annoyed the heck out of me, but I believe he doesn't post here because of his job. In the eyes of many it might appear inappropriate. His sending emails to people when he wants to post has both its advantages and drawbacks. While it allows him the "privilege" of appearing above the fray, it also prevents him from adequately defending himself. Back in November, I posted an email from him regarding the program The Ruby Connection, in which he tried to defend himself. As with criticisms of his performance in Inside the Target car, however, his "defense" only got him in deeper. As a result, I can't help but think he'd fare better if he'd just get his feet wet and post his own comments. He certainly couldn't do any worse.

You are correct, Jack, in that my words implied you felt the film was worthless, when your position, as I understand it, is that what's depicted in the film is worthless, as it is ALL a fabrication, and that its only value is that it provides an avenue through which researchers such as yourself can prove alteration. Which brings me back to the key question... If the Hollywood 8 come forth and claim in a report that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted in in certain frames, doesn't that suggest that the other frames in which nothing has been painted in are actual frames from the assassination, and are of some value? Or do you really expect people to believe that the creators of the film screwed up and depicted a wound on the back of JFK's head, and then went back and painted it in on their FAKE film?

Jim, I withdraw my "defense" of Bill Kelley. While I had assumed by his support for Horne that he was all aboard the alteration express, some of the posts you cited suggest that perhaps he is not so sure. Now for some simple questions... You keep saying that some Hollywood film "experts" agree that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted out on the film. You present this as proof the film is a forgery. Jack White has similarly said that the film has been altered and is of no evidentiary value. Isn't this a contradiction? If the back of the head has been "altered", and this alteration can be detected, doesn't it suggest that 1) the other frames are not altered, and 2) that the unaltered frames, including the much earlier frames proving that Kennedy was not leaning far enough forward to support the single-bullet theory, are actually of value? If not, WHY not? Do you really expect us to believe: 1) that "they" created a fake film, and THEN decided to paint in the back of the head on the fake film? and 2) that arguing the Z-film is fake has a better chance of succeeding in discrediting the LN crowd than arguing that the single-bullet theory is a fraud, and using the evidence already accepted by the vast majority of the public--the Z-film--to do it? Have you even studied the HSCA? Do you realize that: 1) their medical "experts" believed the single-bullet theory only possible if Kennedy was hit behind the sign in the Z-film; 2) their photo experts concluded he was hit almost a second before he was behind the sign in the Z-film, and 3) the trajectory expert hired to show Kennedy to have been leaning far enough forward before he was behind the sign was so brazenly dishonest he claimed the Z-film showed Kennedy to be leaning further forward before being hit in the back than in the frames just before the fatal impact at frame 313...a conclusion entirely out of sync with the Z-film? So...the Z-film debunks the single-bullet theory. And the LNs know it. Which is why program after program arguing against a conspiracy has relied on cartoons and "simulations" in order to misrepresent what is shown in the Z-film... So...should we really then push that the Z-film is a "forgery" and of "no value" when it single-handedly destroys the single-bullet theory, and thus the single-assassin conclusion? If so, why? I swear sometimes it appears to me that you'd rather have 20 to 30% of the people believe the government killed Kennedy and pulled off this incredibly convoluted cover-up than have 70 to 80% of the people believe some unnamed group killed Kennedy and the government covered it up. Am I wrong? Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to a few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

Classic, Jim. In your zeal to shut down all debate about the obviously debatable question of whether or not the film is a forgery, you have attacked Bill Kelly, one of the biggest supporters of Horne's work, and someone who apparently believes the film is a forgery. By pointing out that the Sixth Floor's history of the film leaves out Hawkeye Works etc, he was calling the Sixth Floor's history into question, not that the film went to Hawkeye Works. Am I wrong, Bill?

Very interesting, Doug. But I think, to nail this down, you're gonna have to have more than Merritt's say-so. Some questions which, if addressed in the upcoming book, could prove most helpful. 1. Are there any government documents proving Shoffler worked for military intelligence? 2. Does Merritt have any files or notes on the men he was told to have sex with, and are there indications in the files on these men that they were ever persons of interest? Are any of these men, outside of yourself, alive today and willing to acknowledge he had sex with them? 3. Does Merritt have any photos or diary entries or witnesses or anything to prove his long-time personal relationship with Shoffler? Is there any evidence, outside of Merritt's say-so, that Shoffler was even gay? 4. Is there any evidence, outside Merritt's say-so, that Sirica was under the influence of Williams? Williams, as I suspect you are well aware, not only represented the DNC during Watergate, but Connally. He later represented Helms. He was Gerry Ford's first choice as DCI, before Bush. He was lifelong friends with Robert Maheu. His proximity to Sirica would almost certainly have led Nixon--who on the White House tapes complains about the IRS' investigation of Billy Graham, and asks that they investigate Williams instead--to have pushed for a different judge. I don't recall; is there any evidence Nixon did so? Or was his close association with Williams a secret? 5. Outside of his ill-treatment of you, Sirica pretty much played ball with Nixon's justice department, and was perfectly happy letting the whole affair get swept under the rug, until McCord sent him his letter announcing the burglars were under orders from above. (At least that's how I remember it.) If Sirica was part of some CIA/Williams/DNC plot to destroy Nixon, as I think you are suggesting, wouldn't he have made sure the McCord letter was written BEFORE the 1972 election? Or was there an agreement from almost the beginning to put Ford in office, as claimed by your old nemesis Ashton Gray? Just looking for some clarification as to how all these pieces fit together...

I have never thought that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm. Can anyone tell me what I am missing? What you're missing is that the Z-film shows a gaping hole above and in front of Kennedy's ear, and the Parkland witnesses thought this hole was a few inches further back on Kennedy's head. From this, those holding the body was changed between Parkland and Bethesda have had to expand their theory to incorporate that the film proving the Parkland doctors to be incorrect was a fraud. They have also had to attack the credibility of witnesses like Newman and Zapruder, who depicted the large head wound in the exact location it is in the Zapruder film on television before half the country even knew Kennedy had been shot.

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