Pat Speer

What is your obsession with McClelland? He is but one of many back of the head witnesses. And he is the most unreliable of these seeing as his initial report described one wound, a wound of the left temple. I would apologize to McClellland's family if they felt I'd done him a disservice by questioning his memory. I can do that. No problem, I'm sorry I hurt your feelings. No big deal. But the hypocrisy of people like yourself is monumental, in that you go bananas when I question the accuracy of McClelland's recollections, but have no problem assuming men like Carrico, Perry, Jenkins, and Baxter, were flat-out XXXXX. Well, these were McClelland's friends. He would never have said that about them, and would not have wanted people defending his honor (or whatever you think you're defending) to attack them in such a manner. So, there, the tables are turned. I am now the one defending McClelland's honor.

Well, I guess I'm winning because you have stooped to just making stuff up. Of course, a photo could have been altered, but all of them? That's questionable. My point has long been that this body alteration/photo alteration, what have you, is unlikely...seeing as the supposedly altered evidence is 100% clear-cut evidence for more than one shooter... The alterationists are, in effect, conceding that the available evidence is clear-cut proof for a single-assassin. And this is not only bad strategy--I mean, why concede a point that hasn't been argued--it is flat-out wrong. Total nonsense. As far as newbies...I've met a number of them, online and in person, and they generally find my approach refreshing. As discussed in a prior post...the body alterationists are at odds with the photo alterationists and this proves quite confusing to those trying to make sense of it all. I know because I was once one of them. So I thought why not, by golly, see what this supposedly fake stuff actually shows? I spent years doing so. And then shared what l discovered with others. And then all hell broke loose...

So, the first people to see something are not to be trusted. And the last people to see something are not to be trusted. And the people viewing it in the middle are only to be trusted if they claim the films and photos of this thing are fake. This is not research, it's religion.

Now you realize there's a divide, right? If you conclude a large head wound on the back of the head was seen at Bethesda, then you are simultaneously saying the body wasn't altered, right? P.S. O'Connor said the wound stretched from front to back and was clearly describing the wound as observed after the scalp was peeled aside and skull fell to the table. P.P.S. I spoke to Jenkins on multiple occasions and he steadfastly insisted that the back of the head was shattered but intact beneath the scalp.

Well, what about the Newmans, and Zapruder? Are you with Lifton on this? Do you believe their recollections should be ignored because they weren't doctors? Because only doctors can tell the location of a hole on someone's head? Or should we ignore them because they only saw the wound for a few seconds? And, if so, shouldn't we then go through and throw out the recollections of the majority of the Parkland witnesses, who only saw the President's wounds for a few seconds? I mean, the Newmans and Zapruder made their statements within minutes of the shooting. Wouldn't they be more accurate than the decades-later recollections of people who'd been exposed to all sorts of theories, including that the back of the head was blown out by a shot from the front? I mean, much has been made of the possibility some changed their recollections to match the official theory. But what about the possibility some have changed their recollections to match the theory of those tracking them down decades later? Let's see... "Well, hello Mrs. blah blah.... I see that you were present in the emergency room on November 22, 1963. Do you remember the location of the President's large head wound? Because well, frankly, a lot of the other witnesses have told me the wound was on the ack of the head, basically all of the witnesses. Is that what you saw as well." "Yes, I suppose so. I remember that there was a lot of blood and even some brain tissue in his hair. It was a gruesome sight. And that his handsome face was intact. So, yeah, the wound was on the back of his head, and not his face. I hope that this helps."

FWIW, it has long seemed obvious that the flap of scalp by the ear was put back in place by Jackie, and held in place by gravity, when JFK was viewed at Parkland. So that would minimize the appearance of the wound in front of the ear shown in the Z-film. When the back of the head photos were morphed together, for what's worse, it became apparent that the top of the back of the head was shattered, and would flap open should JFK be lying on his back. Well, he was not only lying on his back, but placed into the Trendelenburg position, with his feet in the air. When this was done, it follows, whatever gobs of brain were loose inside he skull, would slide to the back, and slip from the skull. Well, geez, this very thing was described by McClelland. He thought it was cerebellum, but good word has it that macerated brain takes the appearance of cerebellum. So... It's not so mysterious after all...

Only... we know damn well Tom Robinson sat on the left side of JFK during the autopsy and did not see the head wound until the reconstruction was performed by Ed Stroble...and we know Stroble told his friend the wound was on the top of the head. And we know Robinson said this wound was in the middle of the back of the head, and the size of a small orange, the same description given by his fellow mortician John Van Hoesen. And yet, even so, Horne pretended Robinson was describing the wound at the beginning of the autopsy and Van Hoesen was describing the wound at the end of the reconstruction, which is really bizarre considering a large piece of frontal bone was added back into the skull during the reconstruction. And we know Robinson thought the head wound was an entrance wound, that connected with the throat wound. Now that is an interesting observation that is potentially important. But it somehow gets ignored in the rush to pretend he is a witness to a large exit on the back of the head. Hmmm...see how that works? Those misrepresenting Robinson's statements to "prove" conspiracy are doing the opposite, and are actually using his statements to conceal evidence for a conspiracy. It goes on and on. It seems very few are willing to look at all the statements and put them together, as opposed to cherry-picking the statements supporting the back of the head was blown-out, and ignoring the rest. Bowron is another good example, Jim. She told Livingstone "When we prepared the body, I washed as much blood as I could from the hair; while doing this, I did not see any other wound either in the temples or in other parts of the head." And yet those citing her recollection of the head wound location ignore that she is a much better witness for there being no bullet hole in the forehead or temple. And why is that?

Spare me, will ya? Yeah, Pat Speer, the guy who spent 15,000-20,000 hours writing articles for a free website, and refused to allow ads on the site to avoid dweebs claiming he was in it for the money, is after the big bucks. Yeah, that makes sense. P.S. Did you look into this McClelland thing, and figure out why so many nearly identical drawings were available online? If you've read what I've written, in between wiping the froth from your mouth, you'd know I met McClelland, and thought him to be a sincere guy, a gentle soul. But it wouldn't surprise me if people nagged the heck out of him, and asked him to make them a drawing, and that he obliged. And that he started charging for the drawings at a certain point.

So you think the point of all this is that the autopsy photos are fake? After we've been through this a dozen times? The point we've been arguing about is not whether or not they are fake. Book after book after book says we know the autopsy materials are fake because they oughta show a blow-out wound low on the back of the head, and claim the witnesses overwhelmingly support such a wound. When, as I've shown, this is a hoax, as corrosive to the truth as the single-bullet theory. Follow the steps. 1. The Dealey Plaza witnesses taken as a whole described a large wound on the top of the head by the temple, which is consistent with the autopsy photos. 2, The first Parkland witnesses taken as whole described a large wound low on the back of the head, in the occipital area. 3. The Bethesda witnesses taken as a whole, with most viewing the skull after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, described a massive wound from front to back, incorporating both areas of the skull described by the previous witnesses. 4. The autopsy photos taken at the beginning of the autopsy, before the scalp was peeled to the left and skull fell to the table, show the wound described by the Dealey Plaza witnesses. 5. Years later, an excitable researcher got it in his head the wound had been altered between Parkland and Bethesda. 6. Other researchers followed suit, and claimed instead that the photos had been faked or altered. 7. Along the way, new witnesses were introduced, with the words of these witnesses being used by some to indicate the body had been altered, and used by others to indicate the body was not altered but the photos are fakes. 8. And this is where I came in. While attempting to figure out who was correct--the body was altered crowd or the photos were faked crowd--I came to doubt both sides. I then realized that most of the witnesses who'd been asked to point out the location of the wound they saw had pointed to a location well above where the researchers had claimed it had been, and that some of these witnesses had actually described a much larger wound in a video, and had had one frame pulled out to deceive the public as to where they saw the wound. 9. When trying to discuss this with body alteration theorists, I brought up that the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses were consistent with the autopsy photos, and was told that these witnesses didn't count. 10. When trying to discuss this with body alteration theorists, I brought up that most of the key witnesses at Parkland, save one, had retracted the parts of their recollections that were at odds with the autopsy photos, and had thereby signed off on the authenticity of the photos, and was told these men were all XXXXX. The original excitable researcher even went so far as to tell me that two (or was it three) of these doctors were in on the plot to kill Kennedy, and were supposed to alter his wounds before he reached Parkland. 11. And that's where it's stands. True believer after true believer has lined up to attack me while proclaiming that the witnesses (many of whom they choose to ignore, or proudly proclaim to be XXXXX) are proof the body was altered or that the photos are fake. Many see me as a heretic, and fail to even recognize that there were originally two camps--the body alteration camp and the photos are fake camp--and that their fanatical belief the body was altered AND the photos are fake is completely bananas. 12. In any event, I performed a years-long study of the medical evidence, y'know, just to see what the supposedly fake evidence shows, and found that it is clear-cut proof for two head wounds, and therefore two shooters. But. let's not kid ourselves, nobody really cares about that. It's just much more fun to think some ghouls butchered the body, and that some evil "they" manipulated the evidence, than it is to accept that political pressure and sleazy lawyers led to doctors and experts misrepresenting the evidence. Boring. Ho-hum. Not enough intrigue. I mean no secret CIA lab? No body switcheroo on the tarmac? Sacrilege.

Geez, Michael, I have been over this dozens of times. Don't swallow the vomit. Read the transcripts. Stringer said he took the back of the head photos and that they reflect what he saw on the night of the shooting. He had a problem with the brain photos, however, in that he felt they were taken with a different kind of film than he was using at the time. That's it. He was 78, and didn't remember using that kind of film. That's it. While people have pretended he said the photos were faked, and were of a different brain than Kennedy's, he never said that. It wasn't the condition of the brain that bothered him. It was the type of film. Stringer was, and is, a strong witness for there being NO blowout on the back of the head, and untrustworthy people have tried to twist him into being a strong witness for a blowout wound low on the back of the head. It's a con. He authenticated the back of the head photos numerous times. But no one on this side of the fence mentions that.

Wait. You know what those saying "back of the head" mean even when they point it out in a location other than where you want them to point? Like Clint Hill? Who continues to say back of the head to this day while pointing out an area above and slightly behind his ear? Despite your wanting it so, the expression "back of the head" DOES NOT mean the far back of the head. It depends who is using the term, but it can mean the rear half of the head, or pretty much anywhere back of the face. I was mugged once. I was hit repeatedly on the back of my head. The mugger was wearing a ring. The scabs and scars were above and behind my ear. But none of them were on the far back of the head. And yet my description of the attack was, and remains, that he struck me on the back of the head. And this only makes sense. if someone runs up behind you and hits you with a 2 by 4, and knocks you out. Do you say he ran up from behind me and struck me at the top of my head slightly forward of the far back of the head so you know mostly on the side of the head, or do you say the bastard hit me on the back of the head? Most would say the latter.

I spent years reading dozens of forensic articles and textbooks, and you are almost right. Entrance holes are usually smaller than exit holes. That is why the autopsy doctors had no problem claiming the small wound they saw was an entrance and the large wound they saw was an exit. Only they failed to track these wounds. And the brain photos prove these wounds were not connected.

That first line is laughable. Gary never schooled me on anything. If anything the reverse is true. He has routinely used material from my website, or material I've shared with him or provided him. And I've been fine with it because we are friends, and even glad for it because I learned a lot from his articles, and thought the best way to repay him for that was by showing him stuff that will help us in our mutual desire to stop the lone-nut parade. From glancing through the rest of your nonsense, I see you are citing Peters. I hope you understand that Peters was not a low on the back of the head witness, and insisted to the end that the wound he saw was near the crown, and that he saw cerebellum by looking down into the skull from above, and not from behind. if you were as diligent about learning about this stuff as you are in repeating nonsense in an attempt to smear me, you would know, moreover, that I have gone through all the purported back of the head witnesses over and over and over again and shown that they are NOT low on the back of the head witnesses, but chiefly high on the back of the head witnesses. Since this is so, for that matter, you and millions of other devotees, should wonder why the heck Lifton, Livingstone, Groden, Mantik et al, have been using these witnesses to push an agenda--that the area low on the back of the head incorporating the occipital bone--was blown out of JFK's head, when these witnesses actually maintained the exact opposite, that there was no hole low on the back of the head. I mean, just ask McClelland...that is, the 1988 McClelland, the one who placed the wound above his ear.

If anyone owes anyone an apology it is you. To me. The GIF above proves my point. McClelland pointed out a location on the right side of the head...above the ear. This is not where it is depicted in the drawing he came to take credit for, nor where it is claimed to have been by the best selling CTs. As far as the McClelland drawings actually drawn by him... I don't know for a fact he was selling them... but I found dozens of them for sale online when I first became aware of them... by people asking large sums of money. My assumption at the time was that he'd made these drawings and sold them at lectures, for a nominal fee, maybe as low as 20 or 30 bucks, but that scumbags were taking advantage of the situation and putting them up online and selling them for far more than that. If you know better, then, well let us know. It certainly doesn't make sense that he would create dozens of nearly identical drawings and then give them away free of charge to strangers.

So...they swapped out photos proving a shot came from the front for photos proving there were two shooters? That's a really weird way of proving there weren't two shooters...

While I've read theories in which two caskets were brought in the back, I don't think these theories hold that both caskets held JFK's body. So I think you've got a fresh idea. (With apologies to Doug Horne if he came up with this first.) Like all fresh ideas, it needs to pass a few hurdles, however. If the body was indeed brought in in one casket and then another, then it would have to have been taken out in between. Well, any witnesses to this removal? Any idea as to who performed this removal? And similarly, are there any witnesses to the transfer of JFK's body from one casket to the other? Any idea as to who performed this transfer? Any idea as to why this transfer was performed? It appears on the surface that you have resolved conflicting recollections by claiming they both happened, and that some mysterious "they" orchestrated it so that those involved had no idea they were living in alternate realities. The ARRB's Jeremy Gunn stepped aside from the research community after interviewing the medical witnesses, and realizing their memories just weren't reliable. He cited one doctor's insistence Jackie was wearing white on the day of the assassination as an example. So, why should we believe inconsistent recollections among humans of events 30, 40, 50, 60 years before, is abnormal? Why create a "they" when it is more probably "us"?

While it's true some witnesses tried to avoid public attention, for fear of their safety or careers, it's also true that many witnesses sought and seek anonymity to avoid contact with buggy-eyed theorists. I can draw an example from my own life. After attending a book signing by Bugliosi at a local library, and identifying myself and chatting with him afterwards, someone in line recognized my name, and followed my wife and I out to the parking lot. I thought I'd be nice and talk with him a bit but he just wouldn't stop talking, and all he wanted to talk about was chem-trails. So my wife got in the car, and turned on the engine, and I tried to join her, but the fellow jumped between the open door and the car as I sat down. And kept talking, on and on, about chem-trails. I gave him numerous hints, like "Alright, well we must be going" but he wouldn't budge. He had us trapped, and he knew it. Well, finally, I was able to get him to move aside, so I could shut the door. But that wasn't enough. He ran along the side of the car along my window as we drove through the lot, still babbling about chem-trails, and actually followed us out onto a busy street. In any event, the point is this. After that, my wife has refused to attend any book reading, conference or movie involving the JFK Assassination. It's not so much she's uninterested, or is embarrassed by me, as she is uncomfortable with zealots, of all stripes. I suspect many witnesses feel the same. P.S. I met Goldstrich and Salyer and neither one said anything they should have been fearful about. They both said the neck wound was small and gave the appearance of an entrance wound. Everyone viewing this wound said the same. And neither one saw a blow-out wound on the back of the head, or that they felt certain shots came from the front. So why would anyone care? Now, fearful of conspiracy theorists? Maybe. I've said it many times now but it bears repeating that there were grumblings within the crowd during their Lancer appearance, due to some attendees feeling ripped off when all three doctors in attendance failed to claim the back of the head was missing. This came as a shock to some, who had been fooled into believing all the doctors said the back of the head was missing by best-selling authors such as Lifton, Livingstone, and Groden.

Once again, do the research. When asked, on 1-12-77, by HSCA counsel Andy Purdy if he could tell what percentage of the large hole on the back of Kennedy's head he'd observed had been caused by bullets, as opposed to the doctors, he responded: “Not really. Well, I guess I can because a good bit of the bone had been blown away. There was nothing there to piece together, so I would say probably about [the size of] a small orange.” Now, that's pretty vague, right? We know Robinson saw the skull at the end of the autopsy. And yet he has to "guess" how the wound was different at the end of the autopsy than how it was at the beginning of the autopsy? Now, one might "guess" from this that he really didn't get a good look at the head wound prior to the morticians' coming over to the body and, among other things, re-constructing Kennedy's skull. And one would be right if one did "guess" such a thing. Consider the summary of Robinson's 1996 interview with the ARRB, written by Doug Horne. It reveals: "Robinson said he had a '50 yard line seat' at the autopsy...He said the President's head was to his right, which means that he was on the anatomical left of the president during the autopsy. He said that most of the pathologists and their assistants were opposite him, on the anatomical right of the president during the autopsy." Well, it's clear, then, that Robinson didn't get a good look at the President's head wound during the autopsy. And this means that Robinson's recollection of a wound the size of a small orange on the back of Kennedy's head was based upon what he saw towards the end of its re-construction. Well, jeez. Robinson didn't even factor in that three large bone fragments had been retrieved by the Secret Service and added back into the skull during its re-construction. He also assumed the reconstruction was accurate. Morticians are not forensic anthropologists. They are not trained to piece shattered skulls back together. They are cosmeticians. They stretch and sew torn scalp together to hide head wounds. They use packing material and rubber to reconstruct skulls, not super glue. In this case, moreover, they were hired to make the body presentable at a State Funeral. So, OF COURSE the hole left over at the end of the initial phases of reconstruction -- which Robinson did not even perform, nor pay much attention to--was on the back of the head (where it could be hidden in a pillow should the President have been given an open-casket funeral), and not the right top side of the head, from whence the Harper fragment almost certainly derived.

That has been my point all along. That, yes, the doctors, when taken in combination, described the wound as further back than in the autopsy photos. If you want to take from that that the photos are fake, well, fine. Have fun. But people should stop pretending the doctors, when taken in combination, described a wound low on the back of the head, when they did not. For decades now certain researchers have taken that the doctors when taken in combination did not support the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and have then turned around and claimed that therefore the wound was low on the back of the head. It's a switcheroo. A con. And this con was pulled once again in the new Parkland doctors movie, when Jenkins says he thought he saw evidence of a wound by the temple and points it out, by his temple, and the director then cuts to Doug Horne, saying the wound he described was here, while pointing to his forehead, precisely where his pal Mike Chesser now claims there's a wound on the x-rays. It's a bait and switch. They exploit the witnesses' failure to endorse the accuracy of the autopsy photos to sell that what the witnesses saw was something the vast majority of them claimed they did not see. It's like. Aha! They said the shooter was wearing blue, when the man arrested was wearing green...so the shooter must have been wearing red.

Yeah, I noticed the other day that Styles said the elevator cables were moving or some such thing. And here Adams says nope. I don't have the energy to re-listen to her interview on Sahl right now, but I am thinking Adams said something about it there as well.

Sarah Stanton said she took the elevator to the second floor after the shooting. This was a short trip and would not have delayed the elevator's arrival on the fourth floor for more than a few seconds. P.S. Some of the elevators of that era had something on the outside telling you which floor the elevator was on, and which direction it was heading. The front elevator was working in the minutes after the shooting. If Adams and Styles wanted to go down in that elevator, they may have had a short wait if, say, the elevator was on the third floor heading down. But I'm fairly certain no one headed down in the minutes after the shooting. Still, perhaps then they were impatient to get outside, ran over to the elevator, and ran back after they saw they might have to wait a few minutes. Or perhaps Styles was just confused. The freight elevator, after all, was not running when they arrived at the back. Maybe she'd come to believe the front elevator was stopped as well.

While searching for elevator on my website, I came across this: (2-17-64 statement to the Dallas Police Department, box 3 folder 19 file 3 of the Dallas JFK Archive) "When the President got in front of us I heard someone call him and he turned. That is when I heard the first shot. I thought it was a firecracker. Then the second shot I saw the Secret Service man run to the back of the President's car. After the third shot I went out the back door. I said, 'I think someone has been shot.' The elevator was not running and there was no one on the stairs. I went down to the first floor. I saw Mr. Shelly and another employee named Bill. The freight elevator had not moved, and I still did not see anyone on the stairs.") Well, hell if the freight elevator was not running, this gives us yet another reason to believe Adams ran down before Baker and Truly ran up. As the west elevator came down as Baker and Truly ran up to the fifth floor, it should have been available to Adams if she had in fact arrived at the back of the fourth floor after they had ran past. Or at least be on the first floor when she got there. That it was not supports her claim.

Yes, piecing this stuff together is a pain, which is why I went back at one point and read all the statements and testimony fresh and free of spin. It was only then that it began falling into place. I mean, who was the girl Lovelady saw taking to Shelley when they came back in the building, if not Adams? No other "girl" was in the area. And who were the two white men Baker saw at the back of the building, if not Lovelady and Shelley? No other white men were in the area. Piece after piece. While the puzzle is nowhere complete, it's not the steaming pile of confusion some would have us believe.

The power outage noted by Adams occurred roughly 8-10 minutes after the shooting. After she'd spent some time out front and had decided to come back inside. Presumably, someone turned off the power to cut into the possibility someone on an upper floor would try to get past the cops combing the upper floors, but I don't believe it has ever been fully explained. The passenger elevator by the front was functioning in the first minutes after the shooting, as Shelley took Sawyer upstairs via that elevator. As to why Adams and Styles didn't take that elevator... Within seconds of the shooting, people began rushing to the grassy knoll area. Some within the building, such as the three men on the fifth floor, rushed over to the west windows to see what was going on. As Adams' office had no such window, she and Styles presumably ran to the west-facing windows at the back of the fourth floor, but then decided what the heck let's just go down there and see it all up close. That's just a guess, but it makes sense.

It was my discovery. From chapter 4: On 7-5-78, Billy Lovelady was interviewed by an HSCA investigator, accompanied by an HSCA photo analyst (Robert Groden). While the tapes of this interview were not transcribed, copies of the tapes were eventually acquired by researcher Richard Gilbride and placed on Youtube. Towards the end of Tape 1, Lovelady is asked "What did you see inside the building?" after he and Shelley returned to the building. He says he saw some co-workers, but does not name them. He is then asked to describe what the police did as they ran into the building. His response is blurred as the tape runs out. At the beginning of Tape 2, however, he repeats for posterity what he was describing as the tape ran out. He repeats: "One policeman (and) Mr. Truly had run up the steps...I guess they went up the steps when they couldn't get the freight elevator to go upstairs." Lovelady is then asked "What else did you see that went on at that time after the police came in?" He responds "At that time, after Mr. Truly and (the) officer ran up, there were more Secret Service and FBI, I guess it was, that came in."