Pat Speer

Aha! The fog clears. Someone had said it was another nurse who'd said she saw a bullet. I'd remembered that nurse as saying she saw the bullet in the hall, not Trauma Room One. Now it turns out that further "corroboration" for Landis comes from Hall? Give me a break. Hall is perhaps the least credible "witness" to emerge in decades. By her own admission, she was not an ER nurse and had no business in the ER. She just sauntered in, saw stuff, and sauntered out, only to emerge right before the 50th and revel in all the attention. It's bs. I reported on all the books, articles, movies and TV shows regarding the 50th anniversary in a blog on my website entitled The Onslaught. Here are four sections in which Hall is mentioned. November 3: an article appears in The Telegraph, in which four witnesses of the events of 11-22-63 are interviewed. Two of these witnesses, James Tague and former Parkland nurse Phyllis Hall, admit they believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. What? Never heard of Hall? Here's her story: “Phyllis Hall, a nurse in the outpatient clinic who happened to be talking with a friend who worked on the triage desk in the emergency ward, was about to be swept up in the whirlwind of history. 'The supervisor said there had been a call to say there was an accident in the president’s motorcade,' she said. The words were hardly out of her mouth when the doors burst open. 'Among the first in was Lyndon Johnson, the vice president, who was very pale and sweating heavily. Then I heard the groans of someone calling out in grave pain. It was Governor John Connally, who was seriously injured in the attack. Then they carried in a second stretcher. I could just see a man from his waist down as there was a lady lying across his head and shoulders. A doctor told me: 'We need you here.’ We were whisked into the Trauma One room, where it was immediately clear that this was President Kennedy. I started to feel for his vital signs. I couldn’t find any, there was no pulse. His eyelids were half-closed, his pupils were fixed and dilated, and his skin was blueish-grey, indicating that no oxygen was circulating.' As the doctors worked frantically to resuscitate their patient, Mrs Kennedy stood next to her husband, her right hand on his left foot. 'We were desperately searching for any sign of life, but there was nothing,” said Hall. “The treatment the president received that day was outstanding but futile. I believe he was dead when he arrived at the hospital.' At 1 pm, Kemp Clark, a senior surgeon, pronounced the president dead. Mrs Kennedy did not flinch. 'There was no response,' said Hall. 'I have never seen anyone in such profound shock in my life. She had the same blank look on her face. She just looked down and stared blankly.'” November 10: the Daily Mail runs an article on Phyllis Hall, the woman claiming to have been one of Kennedy's nurses previously discussed in an article in The Telegraph. It begins: "A nurse who was part of desperate attempts to save the life of President John F Kennedy after he was assassinated has claimed he was shot by a 'mystery bullet'. Phyllis Hall, who was 28 at the time, says she was dragged into the operating room by a secret service agent as medics scrambled to help the president, who was fatally shot in Dallas, Texas on 22 November 1963. While cradling his head, which had been torn apart by gunshots fired from the famous 'grassy knoll', Mrs Hall says she spotted an unusual bullet, which was promptly removed and never seen again. She described the bullet in an interview with the Sunday Mirror which she said looked completely undamaged, and bore no resemblance whatsoever to bullets later shown as evidence in investigations into the President's murder. She said: 'I could see a bullet lodged between his ear and his shoulder. It was pointed at its tip and showed no signs of damage. There was no blunting of the bullet or scarring around the shell from where it had been fired. 'I’d had a great deal of experience working with gunshot wounds but I had never seen anything like this before. It was about one-and-a-half inches long – nothing like the bullets that were later produced. 'It was taken away but never have I seen it presented in evidence or heard what happened to it. It remains a mystery.' Mrs Hall, who had six years of nursing experience at the time, says she was caught up in the effort to save the President by accident, as she had been visiting a friend who worked on another ward. She described the chaos as Mr Kennedy's entourage burst through the doors, and recalled clearly the vacant expression of First Lady Jackie Kennedy. Mrs Kennedy reportedly gripped the President's right foot as surgeons wages a losing battle to save him. Mrs Hall, now 78, says she offered her condolences after a neurosurgeon pronounced Mr Kennedy dead after a 43-minute struggle by as many as 20 staff. However, she says the shocked First Lady simply stared into the distance. As her shift didn't finish until the evening, Mrs Hall continued working for hours after the President was declared dead, and didn't even tell her husband what she had witnessed. However, in recent interviews she revealed that she is 'a big believer in the conspiracy theories' surrounding the Mr Kennedy's death." Well, this is the kind of stuff the lone-nuts love to complain about. There is no support offered in the Warren Commission's files indicating that Phyllis Hall was ever in Trauma Room One. There is no support offered from anyone known to have been working at Parkland in 1963 that she was anywhere near the emergency room. And yet, she gets quoted in a prominent paper/news website, and tells a crazy story that has no support whatsoever from anyone known to have been at Parkland. That she's lying is supported, moreover, by her claiming she was visiting someone on another ward, and didn't tell her husband what she'd witnessed. In the words of the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live: "Now, ain't that convenient!" It's also intriguing that Ms. Hall is totally unknown in the States, but is suddenly a celebrity in England. November 17: The Los Angeles Times runs an article on three witnesses to the events of 11-22-63. Tina Towner says nothing of substance as to conspiracy or no conspiracy. Pierce Allman says he feels guilt because if he'd looked up and saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window he could have stopped Oswald at the doorway and stopped him from killing Tippit. And then there's Phyllis Hall, who I feel fairly certain is a fake. Her story this time around: "Suddenly, Hall saw a man carrying a long gun approach. FBI, police and Secret Service agents were everywhere, and many were armed. "He put his hand on my back and said, 'We need you back here,' and directed her to Trauma Room No. 1, she said. The small room was filled with so many doctors, nurses and others that at one point Hall was forced against a wall. Kennedy's face was deep blue around the eyes, and she could see a bullet hole near his Adam's apple. Hall checked for a pulse but didn't feel one. She watched as doctors performed a tracheotomy through the president's neck wound. Hall saw Jackie Kennedy standing nearby, her pink Chanel suit spattered with her husband's brain matter. A doctor lifted the president's hair to reveal the gaping wound. 'Jackie just stood at the foot of the carriage with her hand on his foot,' Hall said. 'She was in such deep shock, she was just staring at his face. At some point the supervisor came in and asked if she would like a chair out in the hallway and she said no, she was going to stay with him. We all wanted to do whatever we could, but there was nothing we could do.' Dr. William Kemp Clark, who to Hall looked like an old schoolmaster with beady eyes behind small glasses, pronounced Kennedy dead at 1 p.m. 'Call it,' the doctor said and then strode out past Jackie Kennedy, barely stopping as he said, 'Madam, your husband is dead.' Hall approached the first lady and said, "I am so sorry for your loss," but Kennedy just stared straight ahead and didn't seem to hear." Well, my God! This woman's story is so obviously false. There is no record of her being in the room. And here she is changing her story from being asked into the room by a doctor to being forced into the room at gunpoint. She says she took the vitals. She says she spoke to Mrs. Kennedy afterward. Horse feathers! More telling than that, though, is the L.A. Times' leaving out a key feature of Hall's story--the wound's being on the back of Kennedy's head! November 17: The Smithsonian Channel follows up Kennedy's Suicide Bomber with The Day Kennedy Died. While I miss its first showing, I check to see if it's up on youtube, and find some promo videos for the program. One of them races around an animated Dealey Plaza pointing out various conspiracy theories and the snipers and smoke supposedly seen in the Plaza. After awhile, it runs out of easy targets and starts throwing out facts that aren't theories at all, such as Kennedy's brain being missing, or the hole on his clothes being too low to support the single-bullet theory. It then zooms in on the sniper's nest and has three shots fired in six seconds. The net effect is an insult to the research community. The description of this video, furthermore, reads: "Conspiracies surrounding the assassination of JFK have proliferated in the 50 years since his death, but in the end, only one lone gunman fired the shots that would change history." My God! Could they be more insulting? I mean, who was behind this show? Credible researchers? Some punk kids? Certainly not anyone who knows anything more than what they've read in Posner or Bugliosi... I later read a review of this program in The Telegraph, in which it mentions both that the "the documentary sensibly navigated us away from conspiracy theories" and that its use of witnesses Buell Frazier, Clint Hill, and Robert McClelland was a "coup." This makes me a bit sick. This implies that these witnesses were once again used as window-dressing to push something none of them believe. Frazier, after all, insists Oswald didn't bring the rifle with him to work that morning. Hill, after all, disputes the single-bullet theory. McClelland, after all, claims he saw a big hole on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the fatal shot came from the front. Do the creators of these programs have no shame? I finally get to see the program on December 15, and discover it's not as bad as I feared. Not as bad, but still pretty bad. As but one example of its subtle but ever-present badness, the program repeats what has now become the standard trick, and has Buell Frazier describe Oswald bringing a package of curtain rods into the building on the morning of the shooting. It never lets on that Frazier has always insisted that the package was far too small to hold the assassination rifle. No, Oswald's guilt is not to be doubted. Not in this program. At another point, the narrator, Kevin Spacey, describes Oswald shooting Officer Tippit, (as opposed to someone shooting Tippit, whom witnesses would later identify as Oswald). The program is not without its surprises, however. It doesn't show Oswald firing the shots. It doesn't say that Oswald was a complete nut who woke up one day and decided to kill the President, nor that Jack Ruby so loved Mrs. Kennedy he couldn't help but kill Oswald, or any similar nonsense. No, it tells its story mostly through witnesses. It has Ruth Paine relate how horrified she was when she saw an empty blanket in her garage that had at one point held Oswald's rifle. She relates that she knew then that Oswald had killed the President. It later has Detective Jim Leavelle, who'd interrogated Oswald in connection to the Tippit murder, admit that Oswald was actually a "pleasant individual." Of course, he then turns around and says Oswald enjoyed all the attention he received at the police station, seeing as "he wanted to make a name for himself and he knew he was making it." Leavelle then repeats the untrue fact that when Oswald held up his handcuffs for the press to see he'd been arrested, he was making an "iron-fisted salute for Russia" with a "pleased expression on his face." (The footage and photos, of course, show no such pleased expression, but a look of wordless protest, as if to say "I can't believe this is happening.") A bit later, Buell Frazier is brought on to talk about his own problems with the Dallas Police, who suspected him of being a co-conspirator with Oswald. There is no mention, of course, that Frazier told the Dallas Police the bag he saw Oswald carry towards the building that morning was too small to hold the rifle found in the building, and that he passed a lie detector test when he said so. While discussing Oswald's time at the police station, moreover, Kevin Spacey tells us that Oswald's palm print was found on the rifle. Uhhh...this is misleading. The Dallas Crime Lab never conducted a thorough comparison of the lift supposedly taken from the rifle with Oswald's prints until asked to do so by the Warren Commission, months later. Spacey then discusses the autopsy, and says "the autopsy concludes that two bullets struck the president; one passed through his back and exited through his throat; the fatal shot hit the back of his skull, and exploded his brain." Uhhh...this is also misleading. We don't really know what the autopsy concluded, because Dr. Humes changed his conclusion the next day after discovering that the tracheotomy incision had obscured a bullet wound. And notice how the program's creators play it safe, and fail to let Spacey tell the viewers WHERE the bullet hit Kennedy in the back of the head? Well, it seems more than a coincidence that this allowed them to avoid the strange circumstance that the bullet entrance observed and described at autopsy was subsequently "moved" four inches by a secret government panel. This would not make for nice, safe, Oswald-did-it-and-we-can-now-go-back-to-sleep, entertainment, after all. The program then concludes with Ruth Paine, Clint Hill, Buell Frazier, and PHYLLIS HALL (yes, here she is again) talking about the traumatic effect the assassination had on their lives.

Yes, really. The word within days of the shooting was that a bullet was found on a gurney in the hospital. Over the years, people started saying they saw that bullet, etc. That's to be expected. That's the way we work. I did a few years' worth of research on human cognition and memory when I first fell down this rabbit hole. It shocks me that so few have ever followed up on this. Latter-day witnesses just aren't reliable. Period. In this case, Landis has some back-up, in that he said he saw a fragment on the seat 40 years ago, and continued to say it till 10 years ago or so. So it seems probable he saw something. But his latest story? Of waltzing into the emergency room and putting a bullet on JFK's stretcher? With a bunch of doctors gathered around him? And saying nothing to nobody? And keeping this a secret for 60 years? Not likely. Sadly, it reminds me of Audrey Bell, who even Lifton came to conclude was full of beans. Thirty years on, she coughed up this story about her parading up to Perry in Trauma Room One, and him lifting JFK's head to show her the head wound. Absolute garbage. Total nonsense. Nurses not involved in the treatment of a patient don't walk up to doctors treating the patient and ask about the patient. And doctors most certainly don't move patients around to show off their wounds to looky-loo nurses.

I don't recall that he destroyed the file. My recollection is that he destroyed the note left for him by Oswald telling him to leave Marina alone.

As I recall, that nurse said she saw JFK outside in the hallway, and not in trauma room one. Is that correct? If so, her story hardly backs up Landis.

Yes, because of the grooves on its outside, which were a good match for the grooves made by the rifle.

Bullets are rarely if ever fingerprinted. The bullet would be in its shell when handled by the shooter, and whatever smears may be on the top would presumably be burned off. Now, in this case, it seems they probably should have fingerprinted CE 399 to help with the chain of custody. But think about it. By the time it reached the crime lab it had been handled by multiple men, so whatever smears had been from the "finder" of the bullet would be smudged. And besides, fingerprints are only rarely found on intact shells. TV makes out that the crime scene people pick up the shell with a pencil and never touch it in an effort to preserve prints. But prints are rarely found--to the extent that many crime scene investigators don't even bother looking for them.

There's no reason to believe that he studied the wound. As a consequence, he is almost certainly remembering where he saw it depicted afterwards. He could be thinking of the wound in CE 388. But he's admitted reading Thompson's book in 2014 or so. So he's probably thinking of the wound in the so-called McClelland drawing.

No surprise there. Most of the witnesses recall its being on the top back of the head ABOVE the ear. What sucked me down the rabbit hole was that so many took their stating it was on the far back of the head as "proof" it was really on the back of the head AT THE LEVEL of the ear. Hubba-wha? I don't know what that is but it most certainly isn't rational, IMO.

Oy vey. The assumption has always been that the bullet wasn't fired at full velocity. According to Humes it did not enter the back, it essentially made a divot--which is totally consistent with the bullet's being found on the rear seat.

I think we are in alignment on this. He may very well have put it on a gurney in the hallway, thinking it was JFK's gurney. His current claim he put it on the gurney in Trauma Room One while JFK was surrounded by medical people doesn't pass muster, IMO.

Unless it never made its way inside the shirt... Some like to twist Humes' statements into his saying the bullet penetrated an inch or so. His testimony is clear, however, that it barely broke the skin. if so, this would 1) indicate that the bullet was under-charged, and 2) be in keeping with Landis' current recollection of seeing an intact bullet in the rear compartment.

Posner may be relying on Sturdivan and Rahn, who claimed (falsely) to have resuscitated Guinn's findings. Or maybe he's just full of it, replaying the nonsense he's used to playing. If so, well, he's not alone. There are plenty of CT's doing this very thing, whether it be claiming Oswald is in Altgens or that Greer shot JFK, etc. I think that K and K or some other website should create a tally board, with a list of 20 or so issues, along with the current feelings of the most prominent researchers on these issues. This would be of help to the media in cases like this one. While the media will almost certainly depict Landis' story as a CT/LN issue, it could very well turn out that some LNs think there's something to it, and that many CTs find it unreliable. Such a tally board would also be helpful to TV producers tasked with deciding what is credible vs incredible. It seems probable that if such a list were in existence at the time. nonsensical shows like The Lost Bullet and The Smoking Gun would not have been made.

I just went back and re-read the Vanity Fair and NY Times articles, and they present a different story. Both tell Landis' story second-hand. The facts in the story conflict. In one the bullet is found on the seat. in the other it is found at the top of the back of the seat. While this conflict could be because the journalists couldn't understand exactly what he was saying--at least 20-30% of articles in the assassination make such a mistake--it might also be taken as an indication he's erratic--which would not come as a surprise due to his age and the time involved. I think I'll wait to see what he says in his book and the interviews to come before coming to a conclusion as to his reliability.

From patspeer.com, Chapter 11: "And should one still have any doubts, and still cling to the notion that the bullet hitting Connally must have remained on his person or in the limousine, and could not possibly have been cleaned-up, stolen, lost or overlooked, there is this: there is at least one fragment that disappeared after the shooting. Yes, in 2010, with the release of The Kennedy Detail, Secret Service Agent Paul Landis related that after Kennedy and his wife were pulled from the limousine, he noticed a bullet fragment sitting on the back of the car by the headrest. He claimed he then put it on the seat. Well, you guessed it, no fragment was found on this seat. This, then, suggests this fragment was "cleaned up" in some manner, for one reason or another." Unfortunately, I am not positive where I saw his 2010 comments about the bullet, but it may have been in the TV program The Kennedy Detail, which was first broadcast 12-2-10. Note that Landis now says he brought it into Trauma Room One, when he originally said he put it on the seat. This is quite interesting, IMO. Perhaps then he is covering for Kinney. He put it on the seat and Kinney took it in.

I think the implication is that someone put it there, and not that it landed there on its own.

I think he said he found the bullet on top of the seat. This isn't actually news. He's been saying this for a decade. What is new is that he now says he took the bullet inside and put it on JFK's stretcher. There are problems with this. But you never know. Perhaps Jackie saw the bullet laying on the floor of the limo and put it on top of the seat as Clint Hill was climbing out of the limo. Perhaps Landis then brought it inside Trauma Room One, only to have someone else (perhaps even a nurse) take it outside and put it on what this person thought had been Connally's stretcher. Perhaps this person was worried Jackie would go insane if she saw the bullet there in the room. Or perhaps this person thought of keeping it as a souvenir but then thought better of it. Who knows?

A couple of points. 1. Yes, Connally was corrupt. He was exposed as such in the 70's, when a former LBJ assistant turned lobbyist (Jake Jacobsen) testified as to his taking bribes from milk producers. 2. Perhaps "Nick" was simply "Frank". Memories slide over the years. A one syllable name with a k sound at the end could easily be interchanged.

Oh my. That's nonsense. As you can see, Mantik has placed the Harper fragment, which everyone agrees was missing at the autopsy, in the center of the back of the head. Well, how many witnesses--Parkland or Bethesda--said they saw a gaping wound directly in the middle like that, stretching well onto the left side of the occipital bone? This problem becomes more apparent when Mantik tries to match it up with the mystery photo. In order to have the large defect stretch to the left side, he has the presumed bullet hole on the left side. Hogwash.

I recently had my laptop--a top of the line Apple product--make a short sizzling sound and go black. My wife--a tekkie--is convinced my hard-drive died and that it's toast. Fortunately, I had a back-up drive from a few months back. So I only lost the last few months of downloads and documents. But if I hadn't had that back-up drive, and much of my stuff online or on the cloud, it would have been gone forever. It happens.

To be clear, I don't think Horne was pulling a con. Just desperately flailing. He was not in attendance at the conference, nor at the break-away session with 20 or so of us in a room. His source was Mantik. As I recall, Jenkins said he wasn't sure the photos were legit, and Mantik told this to Horne, who turned around and rushed out an article/blog post claiming Jenkins's statements supported his own theories. Well, this was nonsense seeing as Jenkins had specified that the back of the head was not blown out and that the body was not altered at Bethesda.

FWIW, I saw Jenkins speak at a couple of conferences, and spoke to him in person on two occasions. He was consistent from day one that NO body alteration occurred prior to the start of the autopsy. He was clear that this did not happen, and when I offered that maybe it had been done in another room he corrected me and pointed out that there was no other room in which it could have occurred. He said the ONLY way it could have occurred was if it occurred prior to the body's arrival at Bethesda, and by someone other than Humes. Well, this sinks Horne's boat. I was surprised for that matter when Horne wrote an article making out that Jenkins' statements supported that the back of the head was blown out and that Humes performed surgery to the head before the beginning of the autopsy. This was bizarre. Jenkins had told myself and others, including the source for Horne's article, the exact opposite of what Horne claimed he'd said. .

That's the point I've been trying to make for what seems like forever. There was no bullet track from the EOP entrance to the presumed exit. There was missing brain along the top of the right cerebrum, and there was massive tears in the lower brain. This is proof--scientific proof---that the bullet creating this wound impacted at the top of the head. But it's worse than that. When I did a deep dive into brain injuries I realized that a number of the articles about impact wounds to the top of the head were written by Fisher and Lindenburg. So it would appear that members of the Clark Panel and Rocky panel were well aware that the evidence pointed to an impact at the top of the head. It seems probable, moreover, that this was one of the reasons why Fisher moved the entrance up towards the top of the head. It just made no sense for a bullet to enter where the autopsy doctors saw an entrance wound and exit where the autopsy doctors saw a large wound which they took to be an exit, (but which Dr. Clark in Dallas thought was a tangential wound). The trajectory made no sense and the brain injuries made no sense. So Fisher had to make a choice...tell Ramsey Clark that Thompson and the CTs were right about there having been two headshots OR conclude the autopsy doctors and participants were wrong about their having seen a bullet entrance low on the back of the head. Being the suck-up that he was he did the latter.

LOL. I was speaking on the actions of others, not myself. The Oswald-did-it all by hisself solution to the Kennedy assassination didn't pass many a person's smell test. So they went looking for proof of conspiracy. Aha! Some witnesses rant to the knoll! Aha! Some people saw smoke on the knoll! Aha! Some of the Parkland witnesses thought the large head wound was on the back of the head! This then led to an ongoing effort to prove a shot came from the knoll. I saw both the problems with the evidence and the problems with this approach (which had led to all too-many CTs denouncing the witnesses upon whom their claims had been built). I spent years full-time reading and studying the statements and testimony regarding the shooting scenario and medical evidence related to the JFK assassination, as others had done, but added into this mix dozens of forensics books and hundreds of forensics articles. And I came away with a number of realizations--many if not most unexpected and previously unexplored. The witness statements regarding the shooting strongly suggest... 1. The last two shots were fired closely together around the time of the head shot. (This is something many, including members of the Warren Commission, had noticed.) 2. The first shot hit Kennedy. While this was the scenario pushed in the aftermath of the shooting, it had fallen out of favor over the years with both LNs and CTs. LNs wanted the first shot to miss so they could pretend a single-assassin had more time to fire his shots, while CTs wanted the first shot to miss so they could claim there were more shots than could be fired by a single-assassin, seeing as there were two shots fired around the time of the head shot, and separate shots hit Kennedy and Connally. (This conclusion was largely expected, as I'd read articles by Barb Junk and Doug DeSalles showing this to be likely.) 3. The last shot missed. By following Tink Thompson's lead and sorting the witness statements by their location at the time of the shooting, it became clear that a large proportion of the closest witnesses to JFK at the time of the head shot, heard a shot after the fatal shot. (This conclusion was not widely held at the time and was totally unexpected.) As far as the medical evidence, my study of statements and textbooks led me to conclude... 1. The single-bullet theory is highly unlikely. (This conclusion had been reached by many others, but I thought I would find more wiggle room where it was slightly possible. Going in I thought it was let's say 10% possible, but coming out I concluded it was less than 1% possible, which is to say highly unlikely.) 2. A bullet entered the back of JFK's head by his EOP, as claimed in the autopsy protocol. (While this conclusion was not unexpected on my part, it was a minority opinion at the time. LNs clung to the cowlick entrance because they wanted to be in alignment with the HSCA FPP, being so official and all, and CTs gravitated to it because it felt right to side with a civilian panel and dump on the military doctors who'd performed the autopsy. Since that time, 20 years now, the work of myself and a number of others, including the LN John Canal, has led to a reversal of attitude on this subject, whereby most with an interest in the case, LN and CT alike, have come to believe the autopsy doctors were right and the Clark Panel wrong, regarding the location of this wound.) 3. The large exit was at the top of JFK's head, above his right ear. (I went into my study with an open-mind on this issue, but came away quite convinced of the authenticity of the x-rays and photos. Strangely, my concluding as much has led to some claiming I refused to follow the evidence by following the evidence. This has been discussed on many threads and has become quite boring, IMO. In any event, I came away convinced the photos are legit.) 4. I concluded, furthermore, that the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. This conclusion, in turn, supported my conclusion re the authenticity of the photos, x-rays and Z-film. They depict, after all, a separate impact from the impact at the EOP, and suggest more than one shooter. So why would a government intent on convincing the public there was but one shooter, fake evidence that demonstrates the opposite? (This conclusion was totally unexpected. After coming to this conclusion, I expected a large backlash, but instead found wide acceptance among well-known writers on the subject. I suppose this was because it didn't negate what they had already come to believe. They simply ignored the evidence leading me to suspect the bullet came from behind and incorporated the tangential nature of the wound into their own theories of a bullet fired from the knoll. I'm actually fine with this. I believe the realization the evidence accepted by the mainstream is actually clear-cut evidence--forensic proof--for a second head shot and will someday lead some mainstream doctor to write an article on it that will get covered in the press and maybe on TV and maybe even lead to a realignment in the mainstream media, whereby it is acknowledged that the medical evidence was misinterpreted, and that it's possible if not likely there was a second shooter.) In any event, I continued researching the case against Oswald and so on, but the bulk of my research came in a 5-6 year period and led me to a number of unexpected conclusions. So, no, I didn't go looking for proof of conspiracy. I started out by double-checking most of what I'd read, and discovered that much of it--material written by both CTs and LNs--was weak sauce, wishful thinking, and total bs. I then put it back together using textbooks as a guide. This trip dow the rabbit hole led me to conclude there was more than one shooter, and that Oswald was not one of them.

To what end? Stringer denied that the back of the head was blown off. The autopsy protocol, supplemental report, x-rays, photos, and Z-film combine to make an extremely strong case for more than one shooter, and thus, a conspiracy. Focusing on Stringer's latter-day recollections of the film used at the supplemental exam does little to prove conspiracy--seeing as Stringer said nothing about having a problem with these photos when shown them over the years before being asked about them by Gunn, and stood by the back of the head photos showing NO blow-out wound on the back of the head. And it distracts from the far bigger problem--that the "official" evidence fails to support the scenarios pushed by the government's investigations.

Thanks, Tom. I have been reluctant to read research papers these days but this one proved no problem. In any event, this almost entirely supported my arguments. Kennedy's large head wound was described as an absence of scalp and bone. This article describes and depicts soft tissue wounds in which the skin split at exit, where the exit wounds (the wounds apparent when the skin flaps were opened) were of varying size, depending on the position of the temporary cavity within the subject. Note conclusion number 3.