Pat Speer

That's not true at all. A few are pointing to the top of the head. Most are pointing to a no-man's land between where the wound is shown on the autopsy photos and where it is depicted in the McClelland drawing. The point is and always has been that some very prominent CTs have engaged in a deliberate con. They have taken that many witnesses pointed to a location rearward of the wound in the autopsy photos to mean the wound was REALLY low on the back of the head, even though very few witnesses pointed there, and many of these same witnesses have publicly stated that the so-called McClelland drawing showing such a wound was inaccurate.

I've gone through them one by one on this forum, and on my website. First, look where they are pointing. Many have claimed they are all pointing to the same place. This is not true. Even worse, it has been claimed they are all pointing to the location depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing, at the level of ear and below on the far back of the head. This is total bs. Now, one by one. Bev Oliver. Many doubt she was even there, and if she was she wouldn't have received a good look at the location depicted. (She was standing to the left of the motorcade, not right.) Still, even so, she is pointing to the right side of the head above and behind the ear. She is not an occipital blow-out witness. Phil Willis. His testimony is clear. He did not see JFK at the time of the head shot. It follows then that he is depicting what he'd been told by his wife and daughters. He is not an occipital blow-out witness. Marilyn Willis. She is depicting a wound above the ear. She is not an occipital blow-out witness. Ed Hoffman. Many doubt he was where he said he was. If we believe him, he was far away from the shooting itself, and only got a look at the wound as the limo passed. He is pointing out a wound above and behind the ear. He is not an occipital blow-out witness. Robert McClelland. He is the first of these witnesses to have had a good look at the wound. And yet he said the wound was of the left temple in his first day report, and told reporter Richard Dudman, who was looking for evidence the shot came from the front, that there was NOTHING about this wound to suggest the bullet had come from the front. Now, months later, after he no doubt had come to realize he was out of step with his fellow physicians, he started saying the wound was on the back of head, etc. And yet, look where's he's pointing in the photo. Even with his "corrected" impression, he is not an occipital blow-out witness. Next row. Crenshaw. He stepped up 30 years after the shooting, after viewing drawings in books depicting an occipital blow-out, to say yessiree that's what I saw in the few seconds I saw Kennedy. 30 years ago. Ronald Jones: Another Parkland doctor. Jones has long stated that the head was a mess and that he couldn't really tell the extent of the wound. He has deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays. He is not an occipital blow-out witness. Carrico. The first doctor to begin work on Kennedy. He disavowed his earliest statements suggesting an occipital blow-out, in part because he realized he never lifted the head to even look at that area. He insisted from thereon that the wound was at the top of the head, where he points in the photo. He was an occipital blow-out witness, who abandoned that position decades later, and deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. That's half-way. I can finish if you like but it doesn't get any better. As it stands there are 8 witnesses, only one who credibly says the occipital area was blasted, and he didn't step up for 30 years after being exposed to depictions of such a wound in books and articles.

Yep. They are both of Kennedy at Bethesda. In standard autopsy fashion the first shows the head as it first appeared, and the second shows the head later in the autopsy, when they were trying to ascertain the number and extent of the wounds. Intriguingly, I've seen it argued by a prominent forensic pathologist that the first of these should not have been taken, as it was disrespectful to show the brain in the hair, and needlessly gory. I was a bit surprised by that because I thought the taking of such photos was SOP, and forensic journals are filled with such photos.

Yes, it seems clear to me that, as seen at Parkland, and on the back of the head with brain-soaked hair photo above, the temple flap was pretty much closed, and the top flap was spilled backward, which created the illusion the hole of missing scalp and bone was further back on the skull than later shown in the back of the head photo taken with the hair pulled to JFK's left. But that photo is also deceiving. Due to the red spot in the BOH photo with the hair draped to the left, which people incorrectly believe is at the crown of the head, some have claimed the photo shows the hole of missing scalp and bone to have been on the front of the head, when it is not. It is above the ear, on the posterior (or occipital) aspect of the head when viewed from above.

Nonsense, Sandy. I thought you'd read my website. In it, go through dozens of witnesses, and show how the claim they all said the same thing--that there was a gaping hole in the occipital region--is a con job. As the assassination literature correctly focuses on the doctors who spent the most time with Kennedy, and made the earliest statements, I present both their early statements and their subsequent statements so the reader can decide for themselves. Essentially, those most involved in Kennedy's care refused to say the autopsy report was incorrect and that the autopsy photos were fake. This left writers like Lifton, Fetzer and even Aguilar in a bind. So they decided to attack these men and claim they were gutless cowards or worse. I have a problem with that. Unlike Lifton (with whom I was friendly), Fetzer (with whom I was not friendly), and Aguilar (a friend), I consulted with cognitive psychologists and read dozens of books and articles on human cognition and memory, and it became incredibly clear to me that the frequent claim doctors couldn't be mistaken--and couldn't honestly disavow their mistakes--was nonsense. The world of medicine is a world of specialization. Doctors routinely defer to the expertise of others, and to the official record. Heck, even McClelland said he thought the photos were legit. Now, could they have been correct in their earliest reports? I concluded "probably not". The Plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses and evidence all suggest a wound centered above the ear. It makes no sense that the wound was moved backwards before reaching Parkland and then back again after leaving Parkland. As I continued reading, and digested dozens of books and articles about the wound ballistics of the Carcano and similar rifles, it became clear to me (and now others, as I'm told some of my findings will be mentioned at Duquesne) that the exact location of the large gaping hole on Kennedy's head is of little importance, and that it is the NATURE of this wound that is all important. Large gaping holes like the one on Kennedy's head are not symptomatic of Carcano ammunition fired at that range, UNLESS the bullet strikes at an angle, and leaves a wound of both entrance and exit. Now, amazingly, Clark said this was his initial impression of the wound. The top forensic pathologists, moreover, concur that a large gaping hole of scalp and bone represents an entrance, not exit. (Apparently, I was the first to read and fully comprehend the footnotes in the report of the HSCA Pathology Panel, in which they tried to skate around the implications of this forensic fact by saying they thought the autopsy doctors were mistaken about the missing scalp, and in which they concealed that Clark had previously and separately shared the doctors' conclusion.) In any event, the "smoking gun" is not that some doctors tasked with saving Kennedy's life originally claimed the wound was on the far back of his head (but then changed their minds), it is that the descriptions, photos, and x-rays of the wound, as observed and recorded at both Parkland and Bethesda, is 100% crystal clear evidence for a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And this, in turn, when taken with the EOP entrance observed and recorded at Bethesda, means there were TWO headshots. Now, that's my contribution to the case, not tracking down some old man or woman and trying to get them to point to a location on their skull at odds with the autopsy photos, nor searching blurry images for Rorschach assassins on the knoll. And I won't apologize for reading and learning, and presenting those with an interest with something more concrete than the paper-thin nonsense in the assassination literature.

Euins was almost certainly the source of both the Winchester 30-30 and the bald spot. Winchester 30-30's were probably the most famous automatic rifle in America, as a result of the TV show The Rifle Man, and most every teenage boy in America would associate a rapid volley of shots with that rifle. (11-22-63 signed statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H963, 19H474) “I saw the President turn the corner in front of me and I waived at him and he waived back. I watched the car on down the street and about the time the car got near the black and white sign I heard a shot. I started looking around and then I looked up in the red brick building. I saw a man in the window with a gun and I saw him shoot twice…I could tell the gun was a rifle and it sounded like an automatic rifle the way he was shooting. This was a white man, he did not have on a hat. I just saw this man for a few seconds. As far as I know, I had never seen this man before.” (12-14-63 FBI report, CD205 p12) "He said after the President's car started down the hill, he heard what he thought was a car backfire and he looked around and also glanced at the TSBD building, and on the fifth floor where he he had seen what he thought to be a metal rod, he noticed a rifle in the window and saw the second and third shots fired. He stated he saw a man's hand on what appeared to be the trigger housing and he could also see a bald spot on the man's head. He stated he did not see the face of this individual and could not identify him. He said he was sure this man was white, because his hand extended outside the window on the rifle. He stated he also heard what he believes was a fourth shot, and that the individual in the window, after firing the fourth shot, began looking around and he (EUINS) at this time hid behind a concrete partition.

I discuss this on my website, in my Pinning the Tale on the Oswald chapter. They were both five flights up, above the noise of the street, and they both heard a loud sound well after others heard a loud sound. I conclude this sound was Baker and Truly slamming the hatch door to the roof, as they came back down. The key bit of testimony is actually Truly's. He said he saw Dougherty working on the fifth floor as they came down. So Dougherty comes out of the break room (or bathroom, let's be realistic) AFTER the shots were fired, and AFTER Baker and Truly have run upstairs, and goes back to work on the sixth, then down to the fifth (now vacant as Norman, Jarman, and Williams have already ran down to the fourth) and hears a loud sound from above--essentially the elevator shaft as opposed to the open window in the corner. He continues working as Baker and Truly descend in the east elevator, but then realizes from the noises outside that something is going on. Whereupon he descends in the west elevator and runs into Eddie Piper, who tells him Kennedy has been shot. This scenario answers numerous questions but was dismissed, if even pondered, by the WC lawyers because...it has Dougherty taking the west elevator up a few minutes after the shooting, when Baker and Truly said it was on a high floor just minutes before. IOW, if one puts together the pieces (Dougherty claiming he went upstairs after 12:30, his failure to see or hear N, W, and J on the fifth floor, their simultaneous failure to see him, his hearing a sound from above and not from the SE window, and Truly's seeing him on the fifth floor as he came down) in a manner that makes sense, it becomes obvious that some unidentified person took the west elevator down as Baker and Truly ran up. And that Oswald (as a result of his being seen on the second floor by Baker and Truly) wasn't that person.

Mr. BELIN. Then at 12:40, there is a bunch of calls at 12:40, with the next call number at 12:43, so you assume sometime 12:40 and 12:43 you, as No. 9, called in, is that correct? Mr. SAWYER. That's correct. Mr. BELIN. Would you read what it says that you said there? Mr. SAWYER. "We need more manpower down here at the Texas Book Depository; there should be a bunch on Main if somebody can pick them up and bring them down here." Mr. BELIN. Was that said before or after you came down from the elevator? Mr. SAWYER. That was after. Mr. BELIN. Was that before or after you told the men there to guard the front door and not let anyone in or out? Mr. SAWYER. That was after. Mr. BELIN. Now the next time that No. 9 appears is at what time? Mr. SAWYER. Immediately after 12:43 and before 12:45. Mr. BELIN. What did you say then? Mr. SAWYER. "The wanted person in this is a slender white male about 30, 5 feet 10, 165, carrying what looks to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester." Mr. BELIN. Then the statement is made from the home office, "It was a rifle?" Mr. SAWYER. I answered, "Yes, a rifle." Mr. BELIN. Then the reply to you, "Any clothing description?" Mr. SAWYER. "Current witness can't remember that." The apparent solution is that the description sent out was a combo of what Brennan and Euins had told Sawyer. Brennan described the shooter and Euins--the current witness who couldn't ID the clothing--described it as a Winchester. Sawyer never said anything about anyone seeing someone run out of the building with the rifle. Batchelor, however, took Sawyer's broadcast to mean a witness had seen someone run out with the rifle. And an excited Euins somehow mis-remembered Brennan--the construction worker--as saying as much. My guess would be that Brennan told Sawyer he saw the man and Sawyer asked if he'd seen him leave the building, and Brennan said no. But Euins mis-heard him. But it's also possible that by the time he testified he'd heard about Richard Randolph Carr--a construction worker who said he saw someone on the sixth floor who he later saw walking down the street--and conflated his story with Brennan's. In any event, no one ran out of the building while carrying a rifle. Nobody said such a thing at the time or after. There were hundreds of people in the area. No one saw such a thing. And it makes no sense to begin with. There are very few parking spaces in the area that could be reached without passing by dozens of witnesses, and carrying a rifle while in flight in a crowd makes little sense. As anyone who's played Fortnite can tell you, a handgun is much more useful in his circumstance. And it has the added benefit of concealment.

No. The clothing evidence is central to all of it. The clothing evidence, the autopsy measurements, and photos all confirm one another, and all destroy the SBT and the single-assassin conclusion.

Don't believe me. Do your own research. If you do, you will find that macerated cerebrum, basically smashed cerebrum, has a similar appearance to cerebellum. And you will also find that most of those saying they saw cerebellum later retracted their statements, with some even saying it couldn't have been cerebellum because the wound was well above the cerebellum. One of those who stood by his seeing cerebellum, moreover, was Peters, who insisted he saw cerebellum...while looking down through a hole from the crown. As it stands, then, there is very little evidence the back of the head was missing at the level of the cerebellum. It is largely a myth. While there is indeed eyewitness evidence suggesting the large head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the photos, a GIF morphing the photos demonstrates that the crown of the head was a movable flap, which in turn suggests that the wound as seen at Parkland, with JFK's head tilted back for the tracheotomy and his feet up in the air, would have been an inch or two further back than shown in the photos. Which is to say a mere inch or two away from where most placed the wound.

LOL. One question. 1. The measurements in the autopsy protocol place the wound at T-!, maybe even lower. Can you show us how a wound that low supports the single-bullet theory, and, assuming that you can not, offer us an explanation as to why "they" would fake a photo so damaging to the proposition the back wound connected to the throat wound?

This is disgusting . Few, if any, have spent more time on this issue than myself, and my website presents the earliest statements of the witnesses which suggested the wound was on the back of the head. . I see, moreover, that you claim there were "twenty witnesses who early on said the gaping wound was on the back of the head." This is nonsense. I think you had previously claimed that "20 doctors"had said as much. That was also nonsense, that you backtracked on by admitting very few of them ever said they thought the photos were fakes. Much is made on this website of the admissibility of evidence. IF a defense attorney thought it was a good idea to argue the autopsy photos were fake (which would be blitheringly stupid considering they prove there was more than one shooter), just who do you think he would call? Clark? Nope. He steered clear of the back of the head crowd, and denounced them in the press, and worked with Lattimer on his Oswald did it book. Perry? Nope. He said he didn't really get a good look, and refused to denounce the photos. Carrico? Nope. The same. McClelland? Not likely. Not only did he initially claim the wound was "of the left temple" and gave no sign of being fired from the front, he also made such easily discredited claims as his creating the so-called McClelland drawing. He would be no help at all. Well, then, how about Crenshaw? Yes, that's exactly what you need to convince a jury...a witness who admitted he only saw the wounds for a few seconds and who then failed to say anything for decades after, and who was subsequently denounced by his fellow doctors, including McClelland. The Parkland doctors all said blah blah blah is a hoax that was easily dismantled by McAdams, of all people. A better guide is the statements of the first witnesses. Bill Newman, Gayle Newman. Abraham Zapruder and Malcolm Kilduff, quoting Burkley, all said the wound was by the temple before the Parkland doctors held their press conference, and before the Parkland doctors wrote their reports. And no, they weren't talking about the forward extension of a massive wound stretching from low on the occipital bone to the temple. That's a straight-up con perpetrated by Groden, etc. The witnesses were relatively consistent on the size of the hole, and the hole they described was nowhere near that size. And no, it's not a matter of flaps being closed to conceal this part of the wound, etc. Clark, and later Humes, said there was a large hole absent of scalp and bone. Now, did you hear it? THAT is the smoking gun right there, NOT that some people said they thought the wound was further back on the skull than shown in the photos, and then changed their minds. No one ever changed their minds about the nature of the wound. It turns out, huh, when one ACTUALLY researches this stuff as opposed to cutting and pasting cherry-picked lists, that the missing scalp designates the wound as an ENTRANCE wound, which lends credence to Clark's early conjecture the wound was a tangential wound. Well, this, when added to the discovery of a small wound by the EOP, means there were TWO head wounds, a scientific FACT further demonstrated by the lack of a passage from low to high through the brain. So, yes, I'm a bit snippy. This attempt to prove the back of the head was missing, while ignoring the first witnesses, and rejecting the majority of statements by the Parkland doctors best in position to view the wound, has been a SMELLY RED HERRING, that has prevented the case from moving forward for decades.

Why pretend this is credible? This is Batchelor talking, not Sawyer, trying to remember what he'd heard a month before. No one saw anyone running out of the building with a gun. The 30-30/Winchester bit almost certainly came from the statements of Brennan and Euins. One of the top shows at the time was The Rifleman, in which Chuck Connors as Lucas McCain fired a Winchester rifle...a model that could be rapid fired. By telling the DPD he thought it was a Winchester, Euins was saying two of the shots rang out within a second or so of each other, and not the 3 seconds or so one would expect if it had been a bolt-action rifle. So the problem with the timing of the shots--that two of the shots were fired too close together to have come from the M/C rifle--was there from the beginning, in the very first witness statements.

Nonsense. If you were a truth-teller, or even interested in the truth, you would have done your own research, and realized that Gary cherry-picked the statements of the primary doctors and framed them to suggest that their earliest reports--when they were essentially deferring to Clark--were accurate, and that most everything post-HSCA was them lying to appease the authorities. Men like Carrico, Perry, Baxter, Jenkins, Jones and even Salyer--who cumulatively spent more time working on the President than the rest of the personnel combined--have long disavowed any of their early statements which could suggest the autopsy photos were faked. You've read my website. You should have recognized the truth. A lot of this nonsense was drummed up by Harrison Livingstone and Groden--who claimed and continue to claim--that the vast majority of the Parkland staff claimed the so-called McClelland drawing (which was not drawn or supervised by McClelland--despite his latter-day claims--and which in turn demonstrates his lack of credibility) was accurate, when, in fact, the majority of them, including McCleland, said it was not accurate. As far as being ashamed of myself...for what? I have long defended the integrity of the doctors named above--and said they are allowed to correct themselves. The HYPOCRISY of the prevalent CT position, including my friend Gary's, is made crystal clear when it comes to Robert McClelland. They hold that HIS earliest statements--when he said the wound was of the left temple and gave no indication of being an exit from a shot from in front of the President--can be ignored because he later--months later, after no doubt realizing his report was at odds with his colleagues'--began describing an occipital wound. Well, why does he get a re-boot, but not the doctors mentioned above--who ultimately admitted JFK's head was a bloody mess and they couldn't be sure about the extent of the wound? That men like Fetzer--on this very Forum--have asserted that these men were lying, but that men like McClelland and Johnny-come-lately's like Crenshaw and Bell are credible--is an embarrassment, IMO. It has a similar pattern to what Lifton once proclaimed--also on this very forum--moreover. He asserted with a presumably straight face that the earliest interviews of eyewitnesses like the Newmans and Zapruder--where they said they saw a wound by Kennedy's temple--can be ignored and tossed out because they weren't medical personnel. This is among the stupidest things ever written on this forum. If he had spent even one day researching cognitive psychology he'd have realized that the immediate recollections of these witnesses were far more reliable as to the location of the wound than the Parkland witnesses--who'd viewed JFK while he was laying on his back with his feet up in the air, and who'd most certainly chatted about what they saw afterwards.

Yes, but he said similar things at other times. I have watched probably ten interviews of McClelland, and have seen him speak in person at two conferences. And he was very cautious. He said he thought the photos were legit but that scalp was lifted to conceal the extent of the wound on the back of the head. (Which makes little sense considering Clark said from the first the large wound was missing scalp and bone.) But he would go further. Much to the chagrin of David Lifton and others, who were desperate to believe the tracheotomy incision was far too large, and somehow mysterious, he would say the incision in the photos was as he remembered it looking at Parkland.

Since you keep regurgitating Gary's list, riddle me this. Does Gary think the autopsy photos were faked?

No I haven't seen it yet. Who are the witnesses? I've seen numerous interviews with Jones, and have talked to Salyer myself. And both were adamant in defending the autopsy photos and x-rays. That puts them in good company. Carrico, Perry, Baxter, and Jenkins also dismissed conspiracy theories re the evidence, and were particularly dismissive of Lifton's theory. The fact is, emergency room doctors are not expected to get it "right" afterwards, Their job is to live in the moment, and try to save a life. When that is over, their work is done. It then falls to the pathologist to figure out what happened. And yes, I know what I'm talking about. I have had serious health issues these past few years, and have read probably 50 reports on my "visits" to both hospitals and clinics. And they almost all contain errors. The doctor or nurse practitioner takes no notes, but then goes back to a computer and jots down what supposedly transpired. And they are quite often incorrect.

Please name these "20 doctors". And please present their quotes where they say the autopsy photos must be fakes because they got a very good look and they are absolutely certain blah blah blah. Most of the primary doctors deferred to the authenticity of the autopsy photos. And most deferred to the expertise of men like Lattimer. Very few bought into the back of the head blow-out pushed by Lifton, Livingstone, Groden, Mantik, etc. The one exception among the primary doctors was McClelland. And he claimed the wound was of the left temple in his earliest report, and later said he thought the autopsy photos were legit, but deceptive. And no, he wasn't describing a small entrance wound in that first report. Read a textbook. Doctors DO NOT mention wounds they did not see in their reports while leaving out wounds they would later insist they'd studied. That's not supposed to happen. So where does that leave us? If you wanna crawl in bed with the Liftons and Fetzers of the world, you can claim the earliest statements of some of the witnesses, and the subsequent statements of some of the other witnesses (after prodding by a wide-eyed "researcher") are a slam dunk, and that the multitude of times these doctors said they deferred to the autopsy report or the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and encouraged the likes of Lattimer, are an aberration, as a result of their being scared or some such. But then you're not a supporter of the Parkland witnesses, are you? You are a zealot who thinks you can peer into their souls and discern what they really saw and who they really are. Not men who know they could be mistaken, and know autopsies are conducted for a reason. But scared little rabbits.

Yes, I have a bias. I tend to accept witnesses when their statements ring true. In the case of Sawyer, he was one of the first cops on the scene, and yet his statements don't preclude that someone walked out of the building before he got there or after he went upstairs. I suppose I'm just a better criminal than most researchers, as I know what kind of lies work best. IF Sawyer said he got there in less than a minute, blocked off all the entrances and exits--including the western loading dock--within another minute or two, and then went straight up to the sniper's nest and verified the crime scene, he might deservedly arouse our suspicion. But he coughed up a sloppy story about going to the wrong floor, and forgetting the names of the people he spoke to, etc. This was the murder of a President. The one thing a cop doesn't want to do--especially a Dallas cop--is admit he was overwhelmed and not up to the challenge. And yet he basically admitted as much. It's like a teenager admitting he crapped his pants while watching a scary movie. It's not something someone wants others to know about. Sawyer could have made out that he was super-brave and on the ball. That he did not suggests his truthfulness.

Sawyer said he ran into the building and quickly came back out. He never named the officers who ran in with him. He was spotted furthermore by Baker as he came down from the roof. This was well before Hill and Valentine arrived on the scene. I don't understand why people are so gung ho to dismantle every bit of evidence, and call everyone a xxxx, when the "official" evidence suggests someone other than Oswald fired the fatal shots, and has always suggested as much. It's like the WC said the earth was flat when the evidence said it was a sphere, and the CT community responded not by saying "Look again, it's a sphere" but by saying "Well all the evidence must be fake then!" The WC was a magic show. The vast majority of witnesses told the truth. The vast majority of evidence was real. The spin-doctors (aka WC lawyers) just twisted it all into a pretzel, and sold it at the state fair.

If you stopped swallowing Fetzer-juice and dared to read a textbook, you would realize this is nonsense.

I think it was Sawyer who was told about the window. He then stormed into the building, only to be taken to the top floor in the FRONT elevator by Shelley, which was the fourth floor, where they talked with some people.. I don't recall off-hand but it could be that Sawyer thought he'd visited the floor pointed out by Brennan and Euins. In any event, by the time they made it to the back elevator, where they could have went up to the sixth floor, they encountered Baker and Truly coming down from the roof, and were presumably told nobody was up there. So Sawyer came back down.That was ten minutes lost right there.

It's not really all that difficult. They ran into the building looking for a gunman. They didn't find a gunman. So then and only then they started combing through the boxes, looking for a crime scene. I would agree, however, that it could have and should have been handled better. Although those on the ground knew a sniper had been spotted on the sixth floor, there's no evidence indicating this was relayed to those searching the building. Also problematic, Mooney found the shells around 1:00, and yelled down to Fritz, but Fritz and his team either didn't hear him or ignored him, and didn't show up at the sniper's nest till 1:15. It's clear the boys were excited and thought they were gonna find the shooter in the building, and only got down to the business of collecting evidence after the excitement had subsided.

So what's the point, Vince? They are clearly pointing to the location of the wound as depicted by the autopsy doctors, and not to the location claimed by the likes of Lifton, Groden, and Mantik. Can we take from this then that Lifton, Groden, and Mantik are full of it?

I am in poor health and probably can't withstand another bs siop job on the medical evidence. I am assuming this is the Parkland doctors footage, only re-cut to be more sexy. I have mentioned this before, but I was at a Lancer conference where three of those interviewed in this film spoke, along with James Jenkins and William Newman. NOT ONE of them said the far back of the head was blown out or that the autopsy photos are fakes. In fact the four who said they got look at the wound ALL said the wound was by the ear, where it is shown in the photos. (Correction:. Jenkins did express some disagreement with the photos but nevertheless insisted that the back of the skull, while shattered, remained beneath the scalp.) And yet certain people--pretending to stand in support of the Parkland witnesses--continue to push that the back of the head was missing. It's a red herring, folks. IF people had spent as much time READING and LEARNING as they had pestering old people into confirming their pet theory, the case would have been re-opened decades ago. But we instead ended up in this divide where people sift through the evidence without actually seeing, and claim the very evidence PROVING more than three shots were fired must be fake...because because because...