Pat Speer

You've been suckered. The fragment behind the eye s far more likely to be the 7 x 2 fragment than the forehead fragment. As far as my "emotional attachment"...hogwash. If you'd read my website, you'd know I've discovered and have pointed out numerous problems with the evidence.

Could the curtain rods story be a white lie? Of course. I always assumed it was before digging into the dirt. I'd assumed the Paines had checked to see if rods were missing after hearing of Oswald's story, and had found no rods missing. This turned out to be false. They didn't check for months and then were surprised to find only loose rods, not the packaged rods they'd thought they had. I'd assumed Oswald's room had no need for curtain rods. This turned out to be false. It needed new curtain rods, but his landlady assumed the rods were damaged by the DPD when inspecting the room. I'd assumed there was a clear record showing that the only rods provided the DPD or FBI were the rods obtained from Mrs. Paine's garage. But this was also false, as there is a DPD evidence slip for rods with a date preceding the discovery of the rods in Mrs. Paine's garage...that was altered before publication by the WC. This leads me to believe the rods story is true. As far as Fritz...I wish I could find the source, but I remember reading somewhere that the character Hank Quinlan in the classic film Touch of Evil was based on Fritz--a bachelor, with no life outside his job, who was a marginal detective with a great conviction record, due to his interrogation "skills", which quite often led to confessions, which were frequently helped along by falsified evidence. IOW, he would "magnify" the amount of evidence against a suspect he assumed was guilty in order to elicit a confession. Assuming as much, we can only assume his right-hand in this was Lt. Day.

While Groden may be prone to flights of fancy, he debunked all the crud about the shirt 30 years ago, in The Killing of a President. A dozen years ago or so, right here on this forum, a couple of characters tried to resurrect the shirt confusion so they could claim it was Oswald on the steps all along, and that Lovelady's face was super-imposed on Oswald's body by the CIA, which had a top secret photo alteration lab in the parking lot by the TSBD.

And I wonder what the odds are of 1. Both Frazier and his sister being wrong about the size of the bag, and saying it was the size of a bag of curtain rods. 2. The Paines' thinking there had been a package of curtain rods in their garage, and finding only loose rods later. 3. Some curtain rods being tested by the DPD before any were retrieved from Mrs. Paine's garage. 4. Someone changing the dates on the paperwork for these rods, as if to conceal the actual timing of their discovery. 5. The curtain rods being damaged at Oswald's room when first inspected by the DPD. 6. No follow-up being performed by the WC once this last fact came to light.

FWIW, Gus Rose was exposed as a dirty cop in The Thin Blue Line.

Thanks, Sean. I knew this pocket stuff had been exposed as nonsense long ago, and right here on this forum.

As I recall, the burglars were told a tall tale about what they were looking for. Nixon was afraid O'Brien had proof of his connections to Howard Hughes, and wanted to know what he had, but they knew that wouldn't inspire these men to risk their careers. So they were told to look for evidence damaging to the Dems--something tying McGovern to Castro, etc. It had to have something to do with Castro. So maybe they were told O'Brien--one of JFK's closest allies--had some dirt proving it was Castro. I would suspect, otherwise, however. If anything, they were told O'Brien had been in communication with Castro, and that Castro had shared with him evidence of anti-Castro involvement.

An observation by Dr. William Kemp Clark contained in Warren Commission Exhibit 392 becomes relevant at this point. When describing Kennedy's appearance upon treatment at Parkland Hospital, he noted: "His eyes were divergent, being deviated outward; a skew deviation from the horizontal was present." Well, it seems more than a coincidence then that numerous scientific articles cite a correlation between damage to the flocculus and downbeat nystagmus, in which the eyes drift slowly upward, before returning to their target. Neurological Differential Diagnosis, 2005, goes even further, moreover, and notes both that the "flocculo-occulomotor tract" has "the only direct cerebellar connection with the eye muscle nuclei" and that "clinical lesions and stimulation experiments" of the cerebellum may "result in a divergence of the eyes." Well, let's put it together. Damage to the flocculus can cause a divergence of the eyes. Well, then what about damage to the cerebellum in general, as opposed to damage specific to the flocculus? According to multiple sources, including Dr. Gordon Holmes in the December 1917 issue of Brain, the symptoms of cerebellar damage include a weakness to the side of the body suffering the damage (ipsilateral hypotonia), a tendency to not stop a movement at its proper point (dysmetria), an inability to grasp objects (ataxia), an abnormal head attitude, and disturbances in speech, eye movement, and equilibrium. Between Zapruder frame 224, when the President seems to suffer a wound on his throat, and 313, when he is obviously hit in the head, the President reached in the direction of his throat without grabbing anything, lifted his arms past his throat, slumped to his left (perhaps as over-compensation for the sudden weakness on his right), and stared down without letting out so much as a scream.Ironically, a November 24, 1963 article in the New York Times by Dr. Howard Rusk described this very phenomenon. Mistakenly believing the theory proposed by the Dallas doctors on the afternoon of the 22nd, that one shot hit Kennedy in the throat and exploded out the back of his head, Dr. Rusk explained brain injuries as follows: “If the injury is in the posterior portion of the brain, where the bullet that killed the President made its exit, the cerebellum is damaged. Then the individual is left with ataxia, evidenced by severe intention type of tremors that occur when one tries to perform a basic act or grasp an object. Damage to the cerebellum is also usually accompanied by a loss of equilibrium." Should one not be entirely satisfied with the explanation that Kennedy's strange movements were brought about by damage to his cerebellum, however, there is an additional explanation for his movements that can be added into the mix. This explanation, moreover, is equally suggestive he was struck in the skull before frame 313 of the Zapruder film. Since Brock’s Injuries of the Brain and Spinal Cord (1974) made note that “Posterior basilar fractures tend to gravitate towards the large foramina”, I decided to see if there were any behavioral symptoms for a fracture in this area. And I found something which again dropped my jaw. (My jaw has been dropped so many times during this investigation that it's a wonder it hasn't been broken.) Jugular Foramen Syndrome is described by Blakiston’s Pocket Medical Dictionary as “Paralysis of the ipsilateral glossopharyngeal, vagus, and spinal accessory nerves, caused by a lesion involving the jugular foramen, usually a basilar skull fracture.” According to the online article Craniofacial and Skull Base Trauma by Dr. Harry Shahinian and the Skull Base Institute the paralysis of the vagus nerve would manifest itself through a paralysis of the vocal cords, and a paralysis of the spinal accessory nerves would manifest itself through a paralysis of the neck muscle that flexes the head (the sternocleidomastoid) as well as a weakness of the trapezius muscle, which rotates it. The result is a “weakness in contralateral head rotation and shoulder elevation.” Contralateral, of course, means affecting the opposite side of the body. As we know all too well, Kennedy turned toward his left and dipped his left shoulder in his final silent moments.

It's really not that difficult, Cliff. I compared Bennett's statements against what lone-nutters claim his statements support, not what you claim. Millions believe Bennett supports a first shot at 160, an SBT shot at 224 and a head shot at 313. We agree that this is nonsense.

I have spent more time than probably any human on Earth dismantling the SBT. Bennett's placement of the back wound is a problem for the SBT. The same people who rally around his suggestion of a first shot miss avoid like the plague he placed the wound too low to support the SBT. And yes, I agree, the films and photos suggest he would not have seen an impact on the back at 190, or 224. So the question for us--you and I, who agree on the above points--is whether or not Bennett saw a bullet impact just before 313, or saw a bloody mark on the jacket at this time. His early statements are unclear, and his latter statements suggest the latter. But you can believe whatever you want. Just don't pretend a singular and possibly confused statement from a quite possibly hungover witness is the Rosetta Stone upon which all other evidence should be interpreted.

Yes, of course, it is "witness bashing" to point out problems and inconsistencies with a witness' statements. It's clearly much much smurter to cherry-pick one line from one statement and interpret it in a manner that feeds into one's pet theory. Bennett is not a problem for my theories, Cliff. He was consistent on a few points we can take to the bank, namely, that the bullet creating the back wound impacted before the bullet creating the head wound, and impacted at a location too low to support the single-bullet theory. As to the number and spacing of the shots, he was not so reliable. But if you insist on believing the back wound was inflicted a spilt second before head wound, as it appears, then how do you explain JFK's reaction circa Z-224. Oh, I remember...an ice bullet. I get it. Much as Lifton with his response to "surgery to the head" you had an aha moment when you read Bennett's statement suggesting the possibility the back wound was inflicted after JFK first reacted. Except he didn't say that, did he?

Bennett, ahh yes, Bennett. From Chapter 5b: Glen Bennett sat on the right side of the rear seat of the back-up car. (notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder. A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head. I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." (11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder. A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head. I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.” (Signed statement in the 5-5-64Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H682) "I arrived at the Press Club about 12:30 A.M. and joined agents at a table...I had two beers, thanked the hostess for the club's hospitality and departed about 1:30 A.M....I arrived at The Cellar about 1:40 A.M. and had two grape fruit drinks. I departed The Cellar at approximately 3:00 A.M. and went directly to the hotel." (Note: Bennett reported for duty at 7:20 A.M.) (1-30-78 interview with HSCA investigator, file # 180-10082-10452) “He remembers hearing what he hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back…he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.” Analysis: due to Bennett's suggestion, in his 11-23 report, that the President was hit in the back by the second shot, Bennett is a star witness for LPM theorists. He is not deserving of this star status, however. One problem is that he said the bullet struck Kennedy 4 inches below his shoulder—too low to support the single-bullet theory. He also said the limo was heading down a grade when the first shot rang out, and that the crowd was very sparse--a description far more in line with a shot at 190-224 than at 160. He also said the third shot immediately followed the second. While Bennett was later to tell the HSCA that there was more space between the second and third than between the first and second, there is reason to believe this was simply his adjusting his memory to fit the single-assassin scenario. After all, if he’d really witnessed the second bullet striking Kennedy at Z-224 but didn’t yell “he’s hit!” until after the President was shot in the head five seconds later, he would have to have been the worst Secret Service agent in history. There’s also the problem that the Willis photo at Z-202 shows Bennett still staring to his right. If there’d been a shot at Z-160 and had Bennett immediately turned to his left, as pushed by those claiming Bennett's statement the Rosetta Stone, he should already be looking at Kennedy in the Willis photo. This suggests instead that Bennett heard a shot at 190, not 160. Another problem, as pointed out by researcher Robert Harris, is that the Altgens photo shows Bennett still looking to his right at Z-255. This might make one suspect he heard an early shot, turned to face the President after Z-255, and heard two more shots ring out, associating the first shot with the "nick" in the president's back he first noticed at this time, and the second with the bullet striking Kennedy in the head. This possibility is further supported by the fact that Bennett--in opposition to most every other witness to the president's first being struck--failed to note his subsequent lurch to the left or lean forward. It is also supported by the fact that when speaking to the HSCA's investigator, Bennett backtracked from claiming he saw the bullet hit Kennedy and said instead that he'd noticed a nick in the back of the President's coat. There's another possibility, however. In Bennett's original notes he does not say that he saw the second shot hit the president, or that he heard a shot when he looked at the President and noticed his back wound. He says he saw "a shot that hit the boss". He then writes that "A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head". This suggests the possibility that when Bennett looked at the President he saw "that a shot had hit the boss" and that he then saw a second shot hit Kennedy in the head. This would mean that he'd heard but two shots, which would put his words in line with fellow Secret Service agents Clint Hill and Paul Landis. Should one doubt that Bennett would change his impressions overnight, and go from hearing two shots to the by-then politically-correct three shots, or that someone else would write his 11-23 report and correct his impression, one should consider that in his original notes, Bennett asserted that he'd yelled to Hickey to get the AR-15 rifle, and that only a day later he reported that he tried to get the rifle himself, but Hickey beat him to it. The notes written before Bennett knew the official story also reflect that he turned to his left after hearing the shots, while the typed up report the next day leaves this out. These changes then reflect either Bennett's confusion or his desire to bring his story in alignment with what he'd been told. Maybe someone typed-up Bennett's 11-23 report based on his notes, and made a few changes. No matter what, however, we just can't be sure what he saw.

From chapter 20: The Low Down on the Short Shot A problem has been raised with this scenario that deserves some discussion. It has been pointed out that an undercharged bullet would take longer to reach its target than a normal round, and that a bullet so undercharged it would barely penetrate Kennedy's back would have to have been aimed well above and beyond Kennedy to hit him in that location. Now, this is indeed difficult to work out. But not impossible, IMO. If the assassin used the scope on the first shot, the misalignment of the scope would lead him to fire 14 inches high or more at only 53 yards, the distance of the limo from the sniper's nest around frame 190 of the Zapruder film. As the bullet struck Kennedy on his back, and not his head, moreover, it follows that the bullet struck Kennedy a good 10 inches below where it was originally aimed (assuming, of course, that the bullet was aimed at his head.) This suggests, then, that the bullet struck Kennedy about 24 inches below where it was originally headed. So now let's consider that the presumed target, Kennedy, was moving at the time. Robert Frazier's testimony before the Warren Commission reflects that someone firing the rifle found in the building would need to lead Kennedy by 6 inches or so to strike him at 90 yards. We can extrapolate from this, then, that one might need to lead Kennedy by 4 inches or so at 53 yards. Well, if the bullet was traveling but one sixth its normal velocity, as is suggested by the shallow wound on Kennedy's back, the sniper firing this bullet would have to have led Kennedy by 24 inches or so. Let's check the math. 1. The rifle, when using the scope and standard ammo, fires 14 inches high. 2. The target moves 24 inches higher in the time it takes the bullet to reach the target. 3. The bullet lands about 10 inches below the center of the target. Well, this suggests the bullet landed pretty much where we would expect it to land. So what's the problem? Bullet drop. Ballistics calculators suggest that a bullet traveling but 350 fps (the fastest one can presume it was traveling and still have the bullet barely make a hole on Kennedy's back) would drop about 36 inches over the distance to Kennedy. Well, this suggests that the shot landed about 36 inches higher than it should have, and that the sniper was therefore aiming about 36 inches above Kennedy at the time of the first shot. Hmmm... While I'm not so sure we can trust these numbers, there is reason to believe that, even if accurate, this three feet of bullet drop is not lethal to the proposition Kennedy was hit with a short shot. So, how's that? Since the short shot occurred, we can only presume, due to the sniper's improperly hand-loading the bullet, and since we have separately come to conclude subsonic ammunition was used in the assassination, we can assume the sniper knew full well that this bullet was not gonna travel at its usual velocity, and to have compensated for this by firing 11 inches or so higher than normal. This puts the original target about 25 inches higher than one would expect. Or less. A Marine Corps sniper book in my possession recommends that right-handed shooters tracking a target from left to right double their lead, as there is a "natural hesitation in follow through when swinging against the shooting shoulder." So, yikes, this suggests the original target may have been as little as 14 inches higher than one would expect And that's not the only bit of subtraction in order. The bullet, if fired from the sniper's nest, was fired from about 21 degrees above Kennedy at frame 190 of the Zapruder film. Well, this cuts the presumed bullet drop down from 3 feet to as little as 27 inches or so. And this puts the original target around 5 inches higher than one would otherwise expect. Now, this is all guesswork, of course, but I think we can agree that there are just too many variables to dismiss that an undercharged bullet hit Kennedy--and to say this proves the bullet striking Kennedy in the back actually went into his chest, etc. I mean, that goes too far.

You're actually in good company. I was told the other day that some of the top speakers at Duquesne next month are gonna review some of my findings and try to add them into a presentation pushing two headshots around 313. I hope they do so. My belief the EOP shot came earlier comes from a couple of observations that are hard for me to reconcile with a later impact. 1. Kennedy's arms begin flailing as he comes out from behind the sign. This reaction matches up perfectly with the reaction of someone suffering a cerebellar injury. It's hard for me to reconcile his reaction at this point with a bullet's creating a shallow back wound. I have had a lot of injuries and medical procedures over the past few years, and I doubt a shallow stab in the back would cause the reactions we see. 2. It seems probable to me that Connally is hit around 224, and is hit by a subsonic bullet. This makes it easy to assume JFK was hit by the same bullet. But it probably makes more sense to assume he was hit by a bullet from the same burst. The trajectory from the EOP to the throat makes far more sense if one allows that it could have been a subsonic bullet. Witnesses heard two loud sounds around the time of the head shot, not one. So having an EOP shot running down the neck at this time is a problem. Tink, of course, has the bullet creating the EOP entrance exit through the hole left by the 313 bullet. But my study of brain injuries leads me to believe this bullet went down the neck, and not out the top of the head. Now these are just impressions. If the back wound did cause an unexpected amount of distress, and the Connally hit was a separate blast, then the EOP entrance could have been created after the time of the head shot at 313.

I have been battling cancer for a few years, and finally got the ok to travel a few weeks back. So of course I went out last week and tripped on the sidewalk and fractured my humerus. So, no, I won't be traveling to Duquesne, or Dallas. As far as Tink's final conclusions, you and I are actually in the same boat. I fail to see evidence for two headshots, one from the front and one from the back, within a split second of Z-313. I have talked to Doug DeSalles (who worked with Tink on his book) about this recently, and he thinks this new presentation will be more convincing. But I suspect that I, and many others, will remain unconvinced. Your post does raise an important point about human nature--I think. Tink sees something in the z-film others fail to see, and this feeds into his belief it wasn't faked. While at the same time others fail to see things in the film they assume should be in the film, and this leads them to believe it was faked. Having met and chatted with the likes of William Newman and Mary Moorman, who will tell you the film isn't exactly what they remember, but that they feel sure it wasn't faked, and having had photos emerge of concerts in which I'd been in the crowd, which show me to have been 15 feet or more away from where I distinctly remember being, I put little faith in the recollections of humans when the recollections are at odds with the photographic record. In my case, I performed a detailed study the eyewitness evidence, photographic evidence, and medical evidence, which led me to believe there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza, and that Oswald was not among them. While some are horrified that the experts and authorities were "fooled" by fake evidence, my horror is greater, as I have come to believe the experts and authorities incapable of separating fact from fiction, once the "proper" conclusion has been determined.

I know the gentlemen involved, and can assure you they will spend little to no time discussing the alteration of the Zapruder film.

I would agree that Marrs' book is the best when it comes to sucking in newbies. It sure worked on me. So I guess it depends on the audience. For a young person or newbie not sure where they stand: Marrs. For someone like your mom who loves to read but is drawn more to personal stories: Fonzi. For an educated person who likes CSI-type stuff: Thompson.

All of these issues are addressed on the website you claim to have read, but clearly fail to understand. I will address one point. The descriptions of the brain in the autopsy report and supplemental report strongly suggest two headshots. They mention a trail of fragments on the x-rays in the initial report, but present no evidence for it after studying the brain. It seems clear then that Humes had fooled himself into thinking he saw such a trail on the x-rays a few days later when writing the report, or was flat-out fibbing. In any event, the conclusions of the doctors are at odds with their own observations. You keep missing this. The observations are the key, not the conclusions. People stating they do not see a fragment on the back of the head on the lateral x-ray are not simultaneously saying it is on the back of the head on the A-P x-ray. One can not determine depth from an x-ray--this is why they take two views when trying to determine location. As for those stating they could not see a partner or whatever, they were responding to questions written and asked under the presumption the fragment on the A-P was on the back of the head. Their answer was they could not see it. If you can show me one such exchange where they were told beforehand that the largest fragment removed at autopsy was removed from behind the eye, and then asked if the fragment behind the eye had a partner on the lateral, well, that would be something. But that never happened. Heck, Morgan was never allowed to meet with H and B before claiming the fragment was on the back of the head. He was told to find evidence proving the shot was from behind, and popped up with a non-existent fragment on the back wall by a non-existent hole. You don't believe there was such a hole, right? So why would you believe there was such a fragment?

I can't even read you anymore, Michael. When I present you with facts, such as Mantik's falsely claiming the fragment on the forehead is the fragment removed from behind the eye, or his failing to realize that the fragment in the archives had been butchered during testing and is not the fragment as it originally appeared, you double-down and try to make it appear that I am the sloppy researcher. Are you willing to learn, or not? And if you think you have nothing to earn from me, because you read one or two books by one author and have decided he's the bee's knee's, why are you trolling me? To save the forum from sloppy research? Really? When you refuse to see or can not see that your chosen emperor has no clothes? I used to write on the John McAdams newsgroup. There was someone there who thought John Lattimer was all that, and was on the constant attack. I would show him the obvious--that in his blithering defense of the single-bullet theory Lattimer had claimed JFK was a hunchback, and grossly distorted his body shape in drawings, and so on. His response was always the same "HE'S A DOCTOR!!! Who knows way more than you!!!" It was pointless to talk to him. These exchanges with you have become equally pointless.

If you look through the archives of this site you will find that Tink joined up to argue with Fetzer on this very point. Tink thinks the Z-film is proof of conspiracy, and thinks those arguing it's been altered are out to lunch or worse. At the time, three of the most popular arguments for the alteration of the film were 1) the cherry-picked statements indicating the limo stopped when no such stop is shown in the film, 2) the cherry-picked statements of Mary Moorman indicating she was in the street when she took her famous photo when the film shows her on the grass, and 3) the cherry-picked statements indicating James Chaney rode up to Jesse Curry's car before reaching the overpass, when this is not shown in the film. These three arguments, and many others, were destroyed right here on this forum, mostly by Tink, but with some help from others. Well, this led Fetzer to start a rumor Tink was a secret LN, and would come out on the 50th announcing he'd changed his mind. He was wrong, of course. Tink came out on the 50th to announce he was writing a new conspiracy book. And Fetzer??? He kept upping the ante and making crazier and crazier claims, until finally he was sued for saying a young murdered boy never existed, and his parents were just actors hired by Da EVIL Guvment to scare us into believing school shootings were real.

You are correct in that not every aspect of the case is clear. It seems clear, however, that a bullet entering near the EOP and descending the neck would almost certainly be a subsonic bullet. The tests performed for the WC, furthermore, show that a bullet striking Connally and creating all his wounds would also be a subsonic bullet. At times I have wondered if they could be the same bullet. But I ultimately came to suspect they were two separate rounds fired in a burst from an automatic rifle. I even found a specially-designed assassination rifle that would do the trick. I would agree, however, that speculation about a particular weapon is inherently risky, and that CT world has had a terrible track record when it comes to speculation about top secret weapons and ammo.

Although a few tiny snippets were published by the HSCA, none of the autopsy photos have been officially published. Only drawings, and tracings of the drawings. Heck, the HSCA refused to publish JFK's x-rays unless the jaw was removed. Thought it would look too much like him. The photos on the internet were all obtained illicitly. The black and whites came from an SS agent who never saw the brain photos, which were taken the next week. And the color photos came from Groden, who apparently thought the brain photos not worth copying, or too disgusting. So no, hiding away the photos is not the least bit suspicious.

You are just messing with me, right? 1. If you connect an entry by the EOP to the wound in the throat you will find that the trajectory leads across the underside of the cerebellum, precisely where Humes noted damage. I suppose you think that's a coincidence. And, oh yeah, the Clark Panel and HSCA saw a path from above and exiting at the throat wound on the x-rays. The Clark Panel pretended this path started at the back wound, which they pretended was well above the throat wound. The HSCA Panel knew this was nonsense, but were frightened by the implications of the trail, and so conjured up a line of bs so transparent you might find it convincing. They said JFK's tie blocked his throat wound and forced the air leaking from his windpipe to back up into his neck. Because, y'know, that happens 2. Most of the doctors you claim to believe in, including Mantik, have come to believe there was an entrance hole by the EOP. Assuming you believe they are correct, just where do you think the bullet exited? 3. The brain photos are fake blah blah is built on Stringer's ARRB interview. It uses his belief the photos were not photos taken by him to push that the photos were faked to hide a huge hole on the back of the brain. And it does this without admitting Stringer also told the ARRB the photos showing an intact back of the head were taken by him, and that there was no hole on the back of the head. It's cherry-picking at its worst. 4. Actually, the brain photos are fake blah blah is worse than bad cherry-picking. It conceals from impressionable parties what they need to know: that the photos match up with the autopsy protocol and supplemental report, and that this, the official evidence regarding the shooting of Kennedy, is clear-cut proof for two head shots, and thus, a conspiracy. There's no need to fake evidence when you can just mis-interpret it, or lie about it.

While the U.S. owes the Iranian people an apology for its actions in 1953 it does not owe the current regime anything. Heck, if it weren't for our stupidity, they would not be in power. I mean, really the U.S. helped drive Mossadegh from power. If he were to emerge from a time capsule and try to assume power the current regime would have him murdered within the day.

I believe you are correct, David. From Chapter 1b on my website: on 12-18, the FBI's Alex Rosen, who was charged with investigating the physical facts of the assassination, wrote a memo in which he insisted the FBI's delay in seeking the autopsy report was because "the family of the President had requested the report from the U.S. Naval Hospital at Bethesda be kept as confidential as possible." This assertion is suspicious at best, as FBI Director Hoover was such a sensitive guy that when he called Robert Kennedy to tell him of his brother's death, he is reported to have blurted "the President's dead" and hung up. Hoover's hatred for Robert Kennedy was so great, in fact, that when Robert Kennedy was himself assassinated the FBI deliberately minimized the news coverage of his funeral by delaying the announcement of the arrest of Martin Luther King assassination suspect James Earl Ray for two whole days, and then announcing it during Kennedy's funeral. This assertion, by the way, comes courtesy Hoover's boss at the time, former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. More to the point, this "oh, the Kennedys wouldn't let us" excuse presented by Rosen, which would be repeated by Warren Commissioner John McCloy and Junior Counsel Arlen Specter in the months and years to come, was ultimately rejected by Hoover himself. In June 1966, when Edward Epstein's book Inquest brought considerable attention to the FBI's failure to read the autopsy report, and embrace its findings, Rosen at first responded by denying there was a problem. He insisted that the FBI's initial reports were based upon the statements of the doctors during the autopsy, and that the 1-13-64 Supplemental report in which these early statements were repeated, weeks after the FBI had been supplied the autopsy report, was also not in error. Yes, incredibly, although the FBI had ignored in its Supplemental Report the official autopsy report then in its possession, and had offered up its own explanation for the throat wound (that it represented the exit of a fragment from the head shot), Rosen claimed, in a June 2, 1966 memo to Hoover's leaker-in-chief Cartha DeLoach, that the inaccurate statements in the Supplemental Report had been included to "point out the apparent conflict between the information originally furnished by medical authorities on 11/22/63 and the results of our Laboratory's examination of the President's clothing, which indicated a bullet had exited his body." Well, of course. One always points out inconsistent information by leading the reader to an inaccurate conclusion, and then failing to quote from additional reports in which this inconsistent information has been clarified... In any event, an October 7, 1966 memo from Rosen to DeLoach in which the increasingly desperate Rosen now acknowledged there had been some confusion about the president's wounds, but blamed this on the Kennedy family, received a terse response from Hoover, who obviously knew better. On the last page of the memo, Hoover scribbled: "The confusion... would never have occurred if we had obtained the autopsy report originally. The Kennedys never asked us to withhold it and if they had we should have disregarded it." (Hoover is absolutely right on this point. Many of the conspiracy theories he so despised would not have reared up if the government as a whole had not been so strangely secretive about the autopsy in the first place.)