Pat Speer

It's not about "winning." Is your ego that fragile"? Really? It's about establishing a probability. And you have relied upon men who have cherry-picked their witnesses to create a consensus...who have then taken what most would agree is a reasonable summary of the recollections of the cherry-picked witnesses--that they believed the wound was farther back than shown in the autopsy photos--and used that to sell the idea that the low back of the head was blown out and that the body or films were altered. You yourself have agreed with me on this point--that the statements of the cherry-picked witnesses suggest the top of the back of the head was blown out, and not the bottom of the back of the head (the back of the head at the level of the ears.) So why have I been singled-out as someone holding back the research community, or whatever, when it was not me but Lifton, Groden, Livingstone, Fetzer, Mantik etc who perpetuated this myth that the low back of the head was blown out--which even you agree is nonsense? Do I have a near-cult following? Have I sold millions of books? Have I been held up as a leading critic of the Warren Report, so I could then be shot down for pushing crazy theories that the public as a whole, and future historians, will never come to accept?

Yes, there's a hole there. And when I spent a few years tracking down books and articles on wound ballistics for the supposed assassination rifle it became clear that a hole of this size is inconsistent with this wound's being an exit for a bullet that had simply passed through brain, and that the testimony and articles claiming the temporary cavities created by bullets like the one fired can explode skulls in such a manner...are inaccurate, and probably dishonest. So for me the Z-film is crystal clear proof of a conspiracy. And this makes it hard for me to fathom why so many supposedly convinced there was a conspiracy continue to claim this and the corresponding autopsy photos are fake.

Let's not resurrect all this zombie stuff, Michael. The morticians saw the wound during and after reconstruction. The right side of the head was pulled apart during the autopsy. Stroble (who was never officially interviewed) reconstructed the head and is reported to have told friends the wound was on the top of the head. In any event, at the end of reconstruction there was an orange sized hole on the back of the head that could be hidden in a pillow. This is as expected. What is surprising though is that desperate desperate people have cherry-picked statements so they can pretend Robinson--who almost certainly arrived and sat with the others--saw an orange sized hole on the back of the head at the beginning of the autopsy while the others saw an orange-sized hole on the back of the head at the end of the reconstruction, during which three large bone fragments had been added back into the head. It's silly and sad. You need to apply that same critical eye you use when analyzing people's claims about Vietnam and Kennedy to the works of those pushing body alteration and photo alteration etc. if you do you will see that a lot of it is garbage. P.S. Did I read that right? Are you really saying O'Donnell, who claimed he'd had a sit-down with Jackie in which they viewed and edited the Zapruder film together, is a credible witness?

Oh my. O'Donnell had dementia and said lots of other nonsense no one takes seriously. Spencer was recalling stuff from eons before--heck even Horne thinks she was talking about photos taken after the reconstruction. Van Hoesen and Gawler were in fact talking about the wound as it appeared during reconstruction.

This would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Some inconvenient truths... 1. There were other witnesses with different impressions that you have left out of your analysis. 2. The Parkland witnesses themselves were not even close to unanimous in their impressions. 3. The recollections of the Parkland witnesses were not independent impressions, as nearly all of these impressions were recorded after the recollections of other witnesses had become known to them. 4. In fact, a number of the key witnesses said they'd been incorrect, once made aware of what others had said. 5. Many of these recollections were recorded after the impressions of others had been published, and had received a positive response by those interviewing the witnesses. 6. The autopsy photographs, when compared to one another, reveal that the top of the head area on the photos which many witnesses believed to be inconsistent with their recollections...was a bone flap being held up by one of the doctors, and that the large defect when viewed without this flap's being held up would have extended a few inches further to the rear. 7. As none of the Parkland witnesses were told this, their rejection of the photos is not even clear. It's perfectly reasonable, in fact, to assume that a large percentage of the Parkland witnesses would have said the photos were consistent with their recollections if they'd been told the top of the head in the photos was a flap that was opened up when they viewed the wound. 8. Even if the witnesses were consistent, your claiming that the odds of them being uniformly wrong is some gigantic number is flawed thinking at it s worst. It would be like saying twelve jurors can't possibly be wrong, when we know they are wrong all the time.

It's not for "some reason", Sandy, it's for a large number of reasons, that I've explained in detail on this forum and on my website. While most anything could be true, the odds of any one thing being true are not the same as any other thing being true. P.S. I will agree with you and Keven in that we can't simply rely on the HSCA's panels. A lot of what their panels came up with was nonsense. Witness the bullet lead analysis supposedly supporting the single-bullet theory...the results may have been accurate, but the conclusions drawn from those results were nonsense. Witness the trajectory analysis performed by a NASA "expert", which supposedly demonstrated that the single-bullet theory made perfect sense...absolute nonsense Witness the dictabelt analysis... Not necessarily nonsense, but certainly incorrect, IMO, since McLain was not riding across the plaza when the analysis held him to be. (To be clear, if someone were to find a way to reconcile the acoustics analysis with the open mike's being in a car and not on Mclain's bike, well, that might sway my opinion...) And, finally, witness the HSCA's pathology panel, which claimed the entrance wound on the back of JFK's head was in the cowlick, despite no one's seeing it there, and the autopsy doctors' specifying that there was no wound in that location.

What the flip? I've already addressed the Hosty draft report a dozen times. It is not a smoking gun. 1. He could have misunderstood Oswald. 2. He could have remembered it incorrectly. 3. His words were not entirely clear as to when Oswald said he went outside to view the parade, or even what he meant by parade. 4. Hosty's subsequent statements and activities suggest it did not say what people assume it to say. 5. Oswald spoke to the press and to his family a number of times in the 48 hours after the assassination, and said nothing to the press or to his family about being outside when the shots were fired. 6. No one saw him outside at the time of the shooting. Conclusion: the frequent claim the report suggests or even proves that Oswald was actually outside at the time of the shooting is not supported by the evidence, all the evidence. Period. It is best to look at this kind of stuff from multiple angles, IMO. There is a report--not a draft of a report--in which Harry Holmes claims Oswald said he was upstairs at the time of the shooting. But we don't believe it. And we shouldn't believe it, because it is in conflict with the rest of the evidence. Well, the same is true of the Hosty draft... Even if we assume it says what people like to claim it says (that Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting), we shouldn't believe it because it is in conflict with the rest off the evidence.

Let's be clear. Do you mean by "gaslighting" that I'm trying to get people to moderate their belief in a conspiracy, so that they can then be pushed into the next box and be a lone-nutter? Is that what's provoking all this vitriol? Because it's just nonsense. I have been writing and lecturing about the Kennedy assassination for 20 years now. And I call it like I see it. I think (and I believe I've proved) that the single-bullet theory was a hoax, and that an honest assessment of the facts around the shooting should lead one (and all) to believe Oswald was not a shooter, and that more than one person was involved. I think (and I believe I've proved) that a cover-up of this fact was performed by the government, for various reasons, mostly because LBJ wanted it that way. And I think (and I believe I've proved) that the HSCA investigation was a fluster-cluck in which people with divergent agendas submitted pieces to a puzzle that did not fit together. I think the case--as to who was responsible--remains unsolved. But the case--as to whether little old Oswald did it all by himself--is clear: he did not. And I think my research has demonstrated this...many times over. I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain the single-bullet theory is a hoax. I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain JFK's head wounds are incompatible with the single-assassin theory. I've written the equivalent of a book, and have made presentations...demonstrating why I feel certain Oswald wasn't the assassin. So why have I had to put up with so much crud...from my fellow CT's? It goes back 15 years or so. I sided with Tink Thompson against Fetzer on the Zapruder film, and this led Fetzer to start rumors I was secretly working with the CIA, or some such thing. These attacks continued, moreover, after I argued against Fetzer's batpoop theory Oswald was on the steps and not Lovelady, and that a secret CIA lab had changed the Altgens photo within minutes of the shooting, etc, and implanted Lovelady's face on Oswald's body. Now, Fetzer eventually left the forum, but he continued embracing every wild theory to come his way, so much so that he lost credibility with almost everyone. But his presence still lingers over this forum, and the research community in general. Instead of combing through textbooks, the reports and documents available on the Mary Ferrell site, and oral histories, etc, and adding to the facts we can draw upon, much of the "community" is obsessed with recycling arguments from books they'd read decades ago arguing that the evidence is fake. The Zapruder film shows a reaction by JFK that is inconsistent with the single assassin scenario...but that's not enough. It doesn't show what people want it to show--so they search for reasons to believe it is fake. The statements of witnesses viewing Oswald in the moments before and after the shooting suggest his innocence...but that's not enough. They didn't say what people wish they had said--so they search for reasons to believe they were lying. The autopsy photos, x-rays and medical evidence in general are absolutely positively at odds with the single-assassin solution. The back wound was not connected to the throat wound. The throat wound was out of alignment with the back wound. The head wounds suggested there were two head wounds, not one. And Connally's wounds suggested he'd been struck by a bullet traveling at a much lower velocity than proposed by the Commission. But they don't show evidence for what people want them to show--that there were shots from the front--so they argue endlessly and often illogically that the medical evidence--which absolutely positively proves conspiracy-- must be fake. It's a circular firing squad, all this talk of this being fake or that being fake. Why not discuss what it shows? A few years back I finally gained access to a book most had never heard of--a book on the wound ballistics of the assassination rifle written within a few years of its development. This book had images of a cadaver shot in the head from a similar distance as JFK, on a similar trajectory. And yet the wounds were nowhere near as large as Kennedy's, like not even 1/10 as large. And I showed this to some of the most prominent researchers on the case, and they got excited and asked me to send them the images I'd acquired. And I did so. And I assumed they'd incorporate these in their subsequent presentations. But they did not. Now, to be clear, these images completely destroy the testimony and statements of the WC and HSCA's wound ballistics experts--that the damage to JFK's skull was consistent with a Carcano bullet's making a small entrance on the back of his head, and exiting from the top of his head. So why would no one in a position to bring this forth on the 60th--those interviewed by the media--those healthy enough to appear at presentations--show anyone this image? It's not me who's holding us back...

Nope. I am not averse to suggesting anything. What I am against is looking at a blurry image and then picking this or that statement and then claiming you've proved something that doesn't make a lot of sense. Could Oswald have stepped outside? Sure. Could Oswald have stepped outside without anyone's noticing him? Doubtful. Does the Prayer Man image show Oswald? Doubtful. Have those claiming the image shows Prayer Man successfully identified every person on the steps, and demonstrated that the figure is likely to have been Oswald? Nope. It should also be noted that your comparison is apples and oranges. We know Oswald left the building at some time. He is purported to have claimed he'd encountered a person (later identified as a journalist) near the front entrance. He is purported to have claimed he'd left by the front entrance. So it is not unreasonable to believe he left by the front entrance. We don't know if Oswald went outside during his lunch hour. He may have. He may have not. He is purported to have claimed he was on the first floor at the time of the shooting, however. And he was given plenty of opportunity to proclaim his innocence to his family and the public and tell them he was in fact outside at the time of the shooting, but did not. And when asked by reporters where he was at the time of the shooting, his own words suggested he was yessiree inside the building. So it is on the surface unlikely he was outside at the time of the shooting. Now, is there anything beneath the surface that could change this? Of course. There were a number of people on those steps who could have seen Oswald. Any number of them could have left diaries in which they said they saw Oswald outside. Or perhaps Bill Shelley taped an interview to be released 50 years after his death in which he claimed he really did talk to Oswald within seconds of the shooting, or some such thing. Or perhaps Buell Frazier will say he'd been talking to Oswald on steps, and had been threatened, etc. There's a number of things that could tip the scales over to Oswald's being outside at the time of the shooting. History is written in pencil, after all.

Well, there you go. Burkley was 61 years old at the time of the assassination. His specialty as a doctor was cardiology. It had been 35 years or so since he'd last studied anatomy, and for all we know it could have been his worst subject.

No one disputes that Knudsen developed the photos. That's the official story. What is in contention is whether or not he took photos during the autopsy, of the body. And that's just nonsense. Autopsy photography is a specialized field. The odds of his being corralled into taking autopsy photos is slim to begin with, and of his doing so without anyone in attendance noticing is a million to one. It's BS. And if he told this to his family, well, then, he was lying. So, that said, this quote from Atkins does raise the possibility Knudsen showed the photos he'd developed to others, which would help explain the Joe O'Donnell mystery. O'Donnell claimed Knudsen showed him photos, but his descriptions of these photos to the ARRB were pretty wild, and it turned out he'd had dementia, along with an obsession with the Kennedy family.So it was hard to take him seriously. And no, this isn't me being mean. As you probably know, towards the end of his life, he was selling photos of the Kennedys taken by others and claiming that he took them. And, heck, his dementia was on display even when speaking to Horne--as he spilled out some story about screening the Z-film for Jackie and the two of them editing it together.

Well I tried to raise your objection for you so you wouldn't have to jump in, but as long as you're here... I honestly don't remember...From where do you think Burkley got T-3? It seems obvious to me he just took a glimpse at the body or face sheet and pulled T-3 from the air. But perhaps you think otherwise. Do you? Do you think he actually bent himself over and lined up the wound with a T-square or some such thing, and then counted the bumps on the spine, or some such thing? And, if so, why?

The bunching nonsense was invented so they could pretend the wound was where it is in the Rydberg drawings. The back wound location in the autopsy photos is not incompatible with the holes in the clothing, however. (although Cliff Varnell will claim otherwise) An entrance at T-1 as pushed by the HSCA is however lethal to the SBT, as it places the wound right over the first rib. Now the medical panel tried to avoid this problem by asserting that Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when shot, and they assumed this must have happened when JFK was behind the sign in the Z-film. But the photography panel and acoustics panel had separately concluded he was hit BEFORE he went behind the sign in the film. So this put Blakey in a corner. How could he confirm the SBT when this medical panel wouldn't sign off on it at the time his other panels were claiming the shot was fired? He ended up handing it off to someone more controllable, Thomas Canning from NASA. Canning was given the authority to move the wounds as he saw fit, and he took advantage of this when creating his exhibits. Problem solved. But not really.

I rest my case. Mantik was desperate for support, and he found some with Chesser, a nice guy, but not an expert in the field. So Chesser is of course then propped up as an expert. We see this all the time. Fetzer, as you know, pushed that David's background qualified him as an expert on all things sciencey, including the Zapruder film, when trying to dismiss the Zapruder film. His efforts largely failed, in part because David ended up pushing stuff like Moorman was really in the street, etc. If you read about junk science, moreover, you'll see that having experts or relative experts in one field function as experts in an only tangentially related field is a common sign of junk science. Pretty much a Stop sign. Now, to be clear, I'm not claiming the use of OD to study x-rays is junk science, but using it in the manner David did sure looks like it. He failed to use x-rays of similar wounds performed on similar machines as a control, for instance. And there's even a question of how many controls he studied. Now, I know David wanted Fitzpatrick, a forensic radiologist, to confirm his views, but he refused. Which, believe it or not, I don't think means all that much. Kuhns' book on scientific revolutions proved that experts rarely embrace new claims until they become old claims. So maybe it will come to pass that the use of OD by forensic radiologists does become the standard. But, even then, his conclusions are unlikely to stand. Why? Because his claim the Harper fragment is occipital bone is ludicrous. In doing so he places the wound he believes was on the back of the head in the middle of the back of the head, where few witnesses recalled a wound, and at the level of the ear, where few witnesses recalled a wound. But that's only a minor problem. The key problem is that it bears little resemblance to the occipital bone. The only experts on this kind of stuff to study the bone--Angel for the HSCA and Joe Riley years later, agreed it was parietal bone. And it's readily apparent to anyone looking at an anatomy book. The Harper fragment does not look like occipital bone. And in his last books, David acknowledged this, but offered up that he thought well, maybe, JFK's Addison's disease deformed his bones so that the ridges on his occipital bone were no longer readily apparent. It was a desperate play from the book of Lattimer, who tried to make a bullet path coming down the neck on the x-rays fit with an entrance wound in the back, and came up with a fantasy in which JFK was a hunch back, with the top of his back above his chin. So...if you're pushing Mantik, you're pushing that JFK's Addison's disease deformed his skull bones. Well, does that make sense to you? Or does the thought occur that well, maybe David is flailing a bit?

Just as the lifting of the flap in the back of the head photos made the wound appear to be more forward than its actual location, the laying of the body on its side, and the subsequent upward lift of the the shoulder, made the wound in the back wound photo appear higher than its actual location. The doctors stood by the autopsy measurements, in which the wound was presented as equidistant between the bottom part of the head and the shoulder tip. This places it around T-1, and perhaps a little lower. This is too low to support the single-bullet theory. As far as Burkley's approximation of the wound at T-3, it was just that: an approximation. There is no evidence whatsoever supporting that Burkley took his own measurements. I mean, when would he have done this? At the autopsy? Then why did no one see this? The most logical assumption then is that he guessed T-3 after viewing the face sheet, which had a distorted outline of a body...that would serve to make a wound at T-1 appear to be a wound at T-3.

Many researchers have the whole back of the head controversy on the brain, and interpret every statement through the prism of "If someone says back or rear, someone must mean the far back of the head." But not everyone thinks that way. Hill has said the "right rear" or the "right rear quadrant" dozens of times in public while pointing out a location above his right ear and behind. A number of these demonstrations are on Youtube. In these demonstrations he places his hand an inch or so to the rear of where the wound appears in the autopsy photos. As he has long disputed the single-bullet theory, and has described the injury to the brain in a manner inconsistent with the Oswald did it scenario, we have no reason to believe he is lying. His placement of the wound, after all, matches up quite well with the placement of the wound by the Dealey Plaza witnesses, and is largely corroborated by the films and photos. After thinking about the Hill mystery--why he continued saying "right rear" or "right rear quadrant"--while pointing to a location above his ear and back, moreover, I came to realize that it was really not a mystery. When viewed from above, the front of the ear is roughly half-way between the front of one's face and the back of the head. So yessiree Hill is right and a wound above the ear and back is on the right rear quadrant of the skull.

Pardon my quoting my website, Tom, but I tried to remember something the other day off the top of my head, and didn't get it quite right, and was attacked by people who spew nonsense all day long. From chapter 16b: Some things are best defined by what they're missing. Accordingly, the evidence that ultimately convinced me the large head wound was tangential in nature was something that was missing: scalp. The autopsy protocol describes Kennedy’s large head wound as follows: “There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter.” And this wasn't a one-time claim. In his 3-16-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, Dr. Humes repeated his claim that scalp was missing. He testified that 1) the large "defect involved both the scalp and the underlying skull...;" 2) "there was a defect in the scalp and some scalp tissue was not available;" and 3) that the largest part of the bullet which broke up on impact "accounted for this very large defect, for the multiple fractures of the skull, and for the loss of brain and scalp tissue..." There can be no doubt then that Dr. Humes felt scalp was missing, and that Dr.s Boswell and Finck agreed. Or, at least agreed enough to sign the autopsy protocol in which it was described... But there's more to this missing scalp than one might suspect... Medicolegal Investigation of Death addresses missing scalp as follows: “A point frequently ignored, or forgotten, in comparing entrance and exit wounds is that approximation of the edges of an entrance wound usually retains a small central defect, a missing area of skin. On the other hand, approximation of the edges of the exit re-establishes the skin’s integrity.” The authors of Medicolegal Investigation of Death were Dr. Russell Fisher, of the Clark Panel, and Dr. Werner Spitz, of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. The pathology panel’s report was most likely accommodating Spitz, then, when it critiqued the autopsy report’s description as follows: “It is probably misleading in the sense that it describes “an actual absence of skin and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present, but torn and displaced…” Uhh, no... This last line, disturbingly, ignores that Dr. William Kemp Clark, the one Parkland doctor to closely inspect Kennedy’s head wound, shared the observations of the autopsists, and independently observed “There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue” in a summary of the reports written by the Parkland staff on the day of the shooting. (Wasn’t this required reading?) Still, Dr. Clark was but one doctor... Well, this line in the Panel's report (the one claiming JFK's scalp was "probably virtually all present") also ignores that Dr. Malcolm Perry, the doctor most intimately involved in the efforts to revive Kennedy at Parkland, similarly claimed that "both scalp and portions of skull were absent" when testifying before the Warren Commission on 3-30-64. And it also ignores that Dr. James Carrico, the first doctor to inspect Kennedy's wounds at Parkland, confirmed Clark's and Perry's accounts to the HSCA's investigators on 1-11-78. He told them that the large head wound "had blood and hair all around it." All around it, and not above it. And should one suppose Carrico thought the scalp attached to this hair could be pulled back over the wound, he clarified his position on this, once and for all, in an 8-2-97 oral history with the Sixth Floor Museum, when he described the right side of Kennedy's head as having "a big chunk of bone and scalp missing." And that's not even to mention the witnesses claiming to see this hairy scalp on bone left in the limousine... On 11-30-63, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." And Hill wasn't the only one to see this hairy fragment. Motorcycle Officer Bobby Joe Dale arrived upon the scene just as the President's body was rushed into the emergency room. He failed to get a look at the President. He did, however, get a look at the back seat of the limo. Here's what he told Larry Sneed, as published in No More Silence (1998): "Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline." And Dale wasn't the only motorcycle officer to make such a statement. When interviewed for the 2008 Discovery Channel program Inside the Target Car, H.B. McClain related: "When I raised her up (he means Mrs. Kennedy)...I could see it on the floor. That's pieces of skull with the hair on it." So what happened to this hairy fragment, you might ask? Well, it's tough to say. Secret Service Agent Sam Kinney retrieved a large skull fragment from the limousine as it was flown back from Dallas, but never described this fragment as being covered with hair. And there's this. When interviewed for No More Silence (1998), FBI agent Vincent Drain, who arrived at Parkland within a half hour or so of the shooting, told Larry Sneed: "It may have been the security officer or one of the other officers who gave me a portion of the skull which was about the size of a teacup, much larger than a silver dollar. Apparently the explosion had jerked it because the hair was still on it. I carried that back to Washington later that night and turned it over to the FBI laboratory." (Drain's account is curious,to say the least, as he arrived in Washington after the conclusion of the autopsy and there is no record whatsoever of a relatively large bone fragment arriving at the laboratory on the 23rd.) In any event... at least one skull fragment had hair on it. This fragment could not have come from the small entrance wound on the back of the head, and must have come from the large defect on the top of the head. This marked the large defect as an entrance, or more logically, a tangential wound of both entrance and exit.

Oh my! Keven and I agree on something! Yes, even an hours worth of reading about wound ballistics will show you that the scalp does not sag at exit, where it can be pulled back up to cover a large hole on the skull. Now, could scalp be torn at exit, and the flaps be replaced to conceal this exit? Yep. But that's not what happened here. Both Clark and the autopsists insisted the large defect was a defect of both scalp and skull. So, no, McClelland's and Boswell's latter-day claims scalp was pulled up to cover a large defect on the back of the head is just wrong. But they were on the right track. As shown in my last post, the skull defect in the back wound photo extends two inches or so further back than one would guess from looking at the back of the head photos in isolation. There was a flap at the top of the head, that was pulled up for the back of the head photos, and this gives the incorrect impression the skull was intact where the fingers are gripping the flap, when it was not.

You probably have more insight into this, but it is my understanding that men like Newman, Scott, and Blunt were intrigued by the possibility of Oswald's being impersonated, and supported the assembling of the material used by Armstrong, but were dismayed by the way Armstrong put the evidence together. So, to them, the work put into Harvey and Lee was not a joke. But they were not supporters of the finished product. Is this correct?

FWIW, Greg, I found a lighter version of the back wound photo in which the skull defect can be seen, and in which no one is pulling the flap forward. This shows that yessiree the defect stretched to the top of the back of the head. As this flap would have been open while JFK was on his back with his feet in the air at Parkland, moreover, it only makes sense that those viewing it would think it went further back than it did. But, as you can see, it still went back pretty far, and is consistent with what many of so-callled back of the head witnesses remembered.

Wait! Are you now claiming the HSCA pathology panel never analyzed the President's wounds? If so, well... Lordy...

Let's get to know each other, Keven. What is your background? I have been on this forum for 20 years, and have discovered many pieces to the puzzle. The vast majority of these pieces suggest that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy involving men at multiple locations, and that Oswald was not one of these men. I was invited to attend the 50th anniversary of the Warren Commission conference in Bethesda, Maryland, and speak on the single-bullet theory. Now, there was a person who wanted to prevent my presenting at this conference unless I signed off on his own unique version of the shooting, but Dr. Gary Aguilar intervened on my behalf. In any event, my presentation was well-received by those in attendance. Warren Commission Counsel Burt Griffin ran from the audience. And Gaeton Fonzi's wife Marie came up and gave me a hug and told me he would have been so proud. As far as myself and DVP, we have been hashing it out for almost 20 years. We agree on a few things, but argue like crazy over others--such as the single-bullet theory, and the value of Bugliosi's book. But we do agree on one important thing, and that is that we should present evidence for both sides on our websites. He has posted numerous television interviews on his website, which he knows damn well support the possibility of conspiracy. And I have sections of my website devoted to shenanigans within the CT community (such as Michael Kurtz inventing interviews for his book) as well as LN world (such as Bugliosi's serial misrepresentation of witnesses to support that the first shot missed.) So... Limited hangout? What gibberish!

Ouch. My "ignorant self"? About the subject on which I have written the equivalent of ten books? On which I have been asked to present numerous slide presentations? At the top conferences? And even in the homes of famous researchers? It seems you've swallowed some of the hype floating around this punchbowl. While not everyone agrees with my conclusions, I am in fact widely respected, as I haven't just come up with new arguments, but have uncovered a number of pieces to the puzzle. 1. If you've heard that HSCA Pathology Panel spokesman Michael Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, or actually seen the footage, well, that was my discovery. 2. If you've heard that Oswald claimed to have been wearing a reddish shirt to work on the 22nd, and that no such shirt was supposedly found in his rooming house, but that someone paid the archives to photograph what was purported to be a light brown shirt recovered from his rooming house, and proved this to be in fact a reddish shirt, well, I was that someone. 3. If you've heard about or read Robert Studebaker's HSCA testimony, in which he admitted to making multiple copies of the evidence photos, and to attempting to sell them for a large sum of cash, well, I was the one who purchased it from the Archives, and gave it to the Mary Ferrell Foundation. 4. If you've seen GIFs of the two mystery photos, and realized that a supposed crack on Kennedy's skull is really the handle of an instrument sticking out of his skull, well, I was the one who put that together. 5. If you've seen photos from the first tests performed on Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition, in which cadavers were fired upon, which depicted wounds on a near identical trajectory as was purported through Kennedy, but with wounds far far smaller, well, that was my discovery as well, as I was the first researcher to study this rare Romanian book, and publish the photos on the internet. 6. If you've seen an image from a textbook, in which HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel member Charles Petty declares that the entrances of shored wounds are smaller than their exits, at the same time he was signing off on the Panel's report, in which the throat wound was presented as being smaller than the back wound, well, that was my discovery as well. 7. If you've heard that the HSCA's trajectory analyst ended up claiming that the Zapruder film shows Kennedy leaning forward before being shot in the back, then sitting up, and then being shot in the head--the exact opposite of what is shown in the film--well, that was another one of my discoveries. I could go on and on, but I'm beginning to feel self-conscious. I mean, what a twit! Tooting his own horn! But the point is that I am far from ignorant, and have added many pieces to the monster puzzle we're working on, and that all the top researchers know this, and appreciate my contributions.

Why? So you can pretend Hill, if he ever did believe the far back of the head was blown out, continues to claim as much? When he has specified for the last 15 years that the wound was at the top of the head, above the ear? Ignorance is bliss, I guess.

Fun and games. Fun and games. Let's pretend Hill is a member of the back of the head club...when he has been vilified for more than a decade for not being a member of the back of the head club. Fun and games. Fun and games. They're at no pretending with this one, Michael. Hill was not a back of the head witness...at least not in this century.