Pat Speer

The answer is who gives a crud. The sovereignty of this state or that state hasn't meant much since WWII, if in fact it ever did. The reality is that Kennedy was tasked with keeping the U.S. safe, and the U.S. would have been less safe with nukes in Cuba. Castro, if I recall, said he had every intent of using them. A rough equivalent today would be Iran putting nukes up in Haiti. Would that be a good thing for anyone? Would an American president stand for that? I don't see how. Now, I know some would like to conflate JFK's attack on poor Cuba's sovereignty by denying them nukes with Putin's invasion of Ukraine. But it's apples and oranges. Ukraine used to have nukes. But dismantled them. And there was no plan to replace them.

Let me be clear because you seem to be having difficulty comprehending what I've been saying. There was NO anterior cranial entry wound on the forehead. None was observed at Parkland. None was observed at Bethesda. None has been observed on the A-P x-ray. Michael Chesser--who is not a forensic radiologist or pathologist--thinks he found one on the lateral x-ray taken from the side. He claimed he found a hole in this location, moreover, after being told a bullet entered at this location by Dr. Mantik, who had taken to claiming a bullet entered at this location while misrepresenting the statements of Tom Robinson. Now...James Jenkins said he remembered Finck noticing some gray on the bone by the ear that he believed marked the entry of a bullet. There may be some truth to this. There are fractures in the area, and the area would have been concealed in the hair and not readily visible at Parkland. But you seem convinced you see a bullet hole on the forehead in the right lateral photo, when no one seeing the body at Parkland or Bethesda said they saw such a thing.

A couple of points. The two bullet frags found in the front section of the limo were the tail and nose of the bullet. There was a large section missing from the middle. These two frags presumably corresponded with the two impacts on the windshield and windshield strut. As the HSCA claimed a slice from this bullet had embedded itself on the back of the head, this would strongly suggest the bullet broke in three pieces or more upon impact. So it makes no sense for the FPP to turn around and claim the bullet exited largely intact. As far as the autopsy photos showing a large head wound that is nowhere near the face...that is exactly my point. I read dozens of books and looked at hundreds of autopsy photos and FMJ bullets don't go in small and go out huge...unless they are tangential wounds. I found a photo of a wound like Kennedy's in textbook once and shared it with Dr. Wecht and he agreed that yessiree JFK's head wound appeared to be a tangential wound. It's disgusting, but can be viewed here:

Oh my. Large wounds are not necessarily exit wounds. In fact, large wounds of skull AND scalp are presumed to be wounds of both entrance and exit. I wrote what amounts to a book on this in chapter 16b. A sample: Some things are best defined by what they're missing. Accordingly, the evidence that ultimately convinced me the large head wound was tangential in nature was something that was missing: scalp. The autopsy protocol describes Kennedy’s large head wound as follows: “There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm in greatest diameter.” And this wasn't a one-time claim. In his 3-16-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, Dr. Humes repeated his claim that scalp was missing. He testified that 1) the large "defect involved both the scalp and the underlying skull...;" 2) "there was a defect in the scalp and some scalp tissue was not available;" and 3) that the largest part of the bullet which broke up on impact "accounted for this very large defect, for the multiple fractures of the skull, and for the loss of brain and scalp tissue..." There can be no doubt then that Dr. Humes felt scalp was missing, and that Dr.s Boswell and Finck agreed. Or, at least agreed enough to sign the autopsy protocol in which it was described... And there can be no doubt that Humes never waivered on this, as he told the ARRB there was missing scalp, and when asked how much, replied: "it would be a rough guess. Maybe four or five centi--three or four centimeters, something like that. Probably, because it was all torn, you see, with serrated-- and there were--it wasn't like a punch that was punched out. It was torn apart, you know. So I have a hard time estimating that." So a section of scalp was missing. Big deal, you might think. But there's more to this missing scalp than most suspect... Medicolegal Investigation of Death addresses missing scalp as follows: “A point frequently ignored, or forgotten, in comparing entrance and exit wounds is that approximation of the edges of an entrance wound usually retains a small central defect, a missing area of skin. On the other hand, approximation of the edges of the exit re-establishes the skin’s integrity.” Now, the authors of Medicolegal Investigation of Death were Dr. Russell Fisher, of the Clark Panel, and Dr. Werner Spitz, of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel. And it follows from this that the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel was accommodating Spitz when it critiqued the autopsy report’s assertion scalp was missing as follows: “It is probably misleading in the sense that it describes “an actual absence of skin and bone. The scalp was probably virtually all present, but torn and displaced…” Uhh, no... This last line, disturbingly, ignores that Dr. William Kemp Clark, the one Parkland doctor to closely inspect Kennedy’s head wound, shared the observations of the autopsists, and independently observed “There was considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue” in a summary of the reports written by the Parkland staff on the day of the shooting. (Wasn’t this required reading?) Still, Dr. Clark was but one doctor... Well, this line in the Panel's report (the one claiming JFK's scalp was "probably virtually all present") also ignores that Dr. Malcolm Perry, the doctor most intimately involved in the efforts to revive Kennedy at Parkland, similarly claimed that "both scalp and portions of skull were absent" when testifying before the Warren Commission on 3-30-64. And it also ignores that Dr. James Carrico, the first doctor to inspect Kennedy's wounds at Parkland, confirmed Clark's and Perry's accounts to the HSCA's investigators on 1-11-78. He told them that the large head wound "had blood and hair all around it." All around it, and not above it. And should one suppose Carrico thought the scalp attached to this hair could be pulled back over the wound, he clarified his position on this, once and for all, in an 8-2-97 oral history with the Sixth Floor Museum, when he described the right side of Kennedy's head as having "a big chunk of bone and scalp missing." And that's not even to mention the witnesses claiming to see this hairy scalp on bone left in the limousine... On 11-30-63, Secret Service Agent Clint Hill, who'd climbed onto the back of Kennedy's limo just after the fatal shot was fired, wrote a report that included an often-overlooked detail. He wrote: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." And Hill wasn't the only one to see this hairy fragment. Motorcycle Officer Bobby Joe Dale arrived upon the scene just as the President's body was rushed into the emergency room. He failed to get a look at the President. He did, however, get a look at the back seat of the limo. Here's what he told Larry Sneed, as published in No More Silence (1998): "Blood and matter was everywhere inside the car including a bone fragment which was oblong shaped, probably an inch to an inch and a half long by three-quarters of an inch wide. As I turned it over and looked at it, I determined that it came from some part of the forehead because there was hair on it which appeared to be near the hairline." And Dale wasn't the only motorcycle officer to make such a statement. When interviewed for the 2008 Discovery Channel program Inside the Target Car, H.B. McClain related: "When I raised her up (he means Mrs. Kennedy)...I could see it on the floor. That's pieces of skull with the hair on it."

I got sucked down this rabbit hole by two things essentially. The first was my realization that no one had successfully explained or even really tried to explain what looked to me like a bullet hole in the mystery photo. The second was my discovery of the HSCA Pathology Panel's report on the history matters website, and my subsequent realization they were blowing smoke. One of the things I noticed that had somehow escaped previous scrutiny was their discussion of the fractures on the top of the skull and how they were consistent with the exit of a mostly intact bullet. I was like wtf? This spurred me on to read all sorts of stuff on skull fragmentation and to realize it was directly related to mass and velocity of the projectile. The members of the FPP were undoubtedly aware of this and knew damn well a bunch of fragments could not create the large fractures at the top of the head...so mused that the bullet must have exited while (mostly) intact. That this was the case was supported, moreover, by Baden's many statements afterwards, in which he claimed the fragment supposedly visible on the back of the head on the x-rays was rubbed off from the base of the bullet, and that the bullet did not fully fragment until hitting the windshield strut. He needed to claim this in order to explain the large fractures at the top of the head. As far as Olivier's re-enactments...they aligned the skulls as best as they could in hopes the bullet would explode from the top of the head and simulate Kennedy's wound. They failed. They could not get the bullet to exit from where they wanted. The presentation of a skull with the face blown out and the claim it was close enough, moreover, was a scam. They knew full well that a bullet on such a trajectory would explode through the back of the eye sockets and create many secondary missiles and a much larger wound than one would expect on a shot straight through the calvarium. I have a book's worth of material on this subject in chapters 16 and 16b. You may want to check it out if you have not already.

If muckety-mucks tasked with defending the government concluded the actions of a local politician were damaging the reputation of the president and Federal Government in general, and were under the belief this person was doing this for his own selfish reasons, and was perhaps under the influence of a foreign government, would these muckety-mucks be inclined to act? Regardless of the truth of the allegations? To me it's obvious the Johnson Administration from top to bottom viewed anyone stirring up doubts about the Kennedy assassination a public menace, who needed to be stifled. That's why Epstein is so important. He was essentially a college kid, asking questions about the functioning of a government panel. He was not seen as a trouble-maker, and was thereby granted access. Only...gadzooks...the members of the commission and staff who spoke to him did not realize that admitting the commission had a bias and was essentially determined to pin it on the Oswald that this would puncture the myth previously reported...and open the door to people like Lane and Weisberg receiving attention as more than conmen or cranks. I worked in the record business. I was one of the top buyers of independent music in the country, but I knew many of the top salesman from the major labels as well. And when discussing new music, with me, someone who was not gonna help with their bottom line, they would almost always hype the very artists their labels were pushing. In a similar vein, I've read that some law schools randomly select students for the different sides of mock trials, and that the students have been quizzed afterwards. And that the vast majority of students whose grades(and future) depended on their successfully arguing one side of a case came away convinced their case was the winning case. IOW, they immediately sided with a "truth" that was picked out for them in a random manner. So it should not be surprising that agencies tasked with defending this country and given the power to infiltrate etc would do so when they think someone is up to no good...even if that "no good" is in search of the truth.

From my collection of Greer quotes in chapter 5b: (A number of late-1960's phone calls between Greer and researcher Walt Brown as recounted in Brown's Treachery in Dallas, 1995) (Brown describes Greer's claiming he was unsure what to do when he saw so many people standing on the overpass over the motorcade route--in violation of standard protocol. Brown then continues) "With all this going through his mind, he heard a 'backfire,' which he did not immediately recognize as a shot, and then he looked back in time to see Connally begin to react to a wound. He never saw the President, he told me. He added that it was at that time that he hit the gas. I told him that it was several seconds later that the car fully accelerated, and I almost expected to hear a click at his end but instead I heard a deep sigh followed by his answer. The car was in low gear for parades, he told me, and it had to be shifted and then there would be a pause regardless, because of the weight of the heavily armored vehicle..."

I read the book when it came out but pretty much tossed it into a corner after discovering Chambers believed the Harper fragment came from the side of the head and cited Dr. Baden on this. At the time I didn't know a single "researcher" who took Baden's bs claim seriously, and here was someone supposedly interested in the truth citing Baden as support for what John Hunt had already proved impossible. (Dr. Angel, a forensic anthropologist and an expert in skull anatomy, had concluded the Harper fragment was parietal bone, and had placed it just back of the coronal suture, just rearward of the large triangular fragment. As Baden had wrongly and probably dishonestly oriented the mystery photo to have a bullet hole on the coronal suture, and have the other half of this hole on the triangular fragment, he couldn't accept Angel's orientation for the Harper fragment and had to move it somewhere else. So he moved it to the side of the head where it clearly did not fit, and claimed he'd demonstrated this placement using paper cut-outs on a skull. John Hunt then tested this and was unable to make it fit, and contacted the archives to gain access to the skull Baden had supposedly left behind, but was told no such thing was in the archives. IOW, Baden was bluffing. Note: this is discussed and demonstrated in Chapter 13b at patspeer.com)

I can only suggest you take some time and actually learn about this stuff. I don't say that to be rude. But proclamations like "The CIA tried to claim that JFK was shot in the top of the head" are just nonsense. (For one, the military--which is many times the size of the CIA, and far more powerful both in fire power and political connections-- was responsible for the autopsy. For two, the autopsy report concluded that the bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded from the top of the head. This makes no sense if there was no explosion from the top of the head. The very explosion of skull at the top of the head is the smoking gun, so to speak, which proves conspiracy.) Here is an image provided in the first ballistics study of M/C ammunition. This shows the damage expected when a bullet passes through brain and calvarium from a range similar to what was presumed in Dealey Plaza. Note that this wound is nowhere near the size of the explosion on Kennedy's head. And there's a reason for that. In Chapter 16b, I run through the history of wound ballistics and show how Kennedy's large wound was almost certainly a tangential wound of both entrance and exit...exactly as first proposed by Dr. Clark on 11-22-63. I would suggest you read it but it seems like you have no interest in such things.

My responses in bold.

Yes, I am well aware of these statements and have been for 20 years. There is quite a bit of confusion in the statements relating to the words "back of the head" and occipital. If one separates the head into two--anterior and posterior, front of the head and back of the head--the photos show a wound on the back of the head. As a consequence there are witnesses such as Clint Hill who will say the wound was on the back of the head and then put their hand up on top of their heads behind their ear. As far as occipital, I think it was Robert Grossman who first said it on the record, but I have heard this straight from the mouths of doctors, that many medical people will say occipital as a general reference to the rear part of the head--an area which includes parietal bone and temporal bone. Statements such as Bowron's are important, however, because they confirm that there was one large wound--which is usually described in a manner consistent with the hole seen on the photos. Mantik and Groden, on the other hand, say this is what the wound looked like at Parkland, underneath the scalp. Does that make much sense?

1. if you put in the time, you will realize that most of the statements used to suggest an occipital blow-out came courtesy the WC. They published the original statements. They took and published the testimony of the Parkland doctors. McClelland, famously, said nothing about an occipital blow-out prior to describing it to Specter. The WC also asked Humes and Boswell to oversee the creation of drawings which undoubtedly misrepresented the location of the back wound, but presented the head wound where many of the witnesses placed the wound, and most certainly NOT in a location helpful to the single-assassin solution. Well it's clear from this that Lifton was wrong and that the WC did NOTHING to hide the "truth" of the head wound, and instead focused on hiding the "truth" of the back wound. 2. Now, when you get down in the weeds, it becomes equally clear there was a major cover-up about the head wound location--but not about the large head wound, about the small entrance wound. In 1968, it became clear to the Justice Dept. that the trajectory presented by the autopsy doctors made little sense, and they brought in a secret panel of government-friendly doctors to solve this problem. Well, they solved it alright. After realizing that the brain photos depicted a brain which had not had a bullet pass through from low to high, they determined that the bullet must have entered high and then studied the photos to "find" where the bullet really entered. They spotted a smudge of blood and then convinced themselves or flat-out lied about there being a corresponding entrance in this location on the x-rays. 3. Chesser is not a forensic scientist. He has no more qualifications to determine a bullet entry on an x-ray than anyone on this forum. I mean, think about it. He claimed there was NO evidence for a bullet entrance on the forehead on the AP x-Ray, which shows the forehead, but that he could make one out on the Lat x-ray, which only shows the forehead from the side. That is bizarre right there. Making matters worse, he "found" a bullet hole entrance on intact bone where Mantik had long claimed his OD-readings proved there was no bone.

When asked to point out the wound's location, most of those initially claiming they saw cerebellum pointed to a location at odds with their seeing cerebellum. When confronted with this, Jenkins and Carrico said they had been mistaken with Carrico making the point that macerated cerebrum gives the appearance of cerebellum and that he had in fact never lifted the head to see if the wound overlay the cerebellum. For his part, Perry flat-out denied ever seeing cerebellum. Peters, on the other hand, said he saw THE cerebellum from a hole well above the cerebellum. As a number of doctors said over the days following the assassination that they thought the bullet entered the throat and was deflected upwards in the neck and then exploded from the back of the head, this wasn't really that far-fetched. (As the cerebellum would have been en route and exposed by the explosion of tissue.) The only expert on brain tissue to say he saw cerebellum was of course Clark. While he never publicly admitted he was wrong, he did sign off on the shot being fired from behind in his testimony, denounce conspiracy theorists in the press, and ultimately team up with John Lattimer on tests suggesting the shots came from behind. Although people wish to believe he was a CT, I think we should suspect the opposite. I do suspect he had some reservations, however, possibly related to his thinking he saw cerebellum but more likely, IMO, to his never hearing anything that would refute that the large wound was a tangential wound of entrance and exit. He was TOLD by Specter that the bullet had passed through the brain from behind, but there was nothing to actually support this. Beyond wishful thinking. When the Clark Panel inspected the brain photos, they realized that there was no sign of a bullet passing through the brain from low to high and so began looking for an entrance high on the back of the head. They settled, of course, upon a red splotch on the photos that Dr. Humes dismissed as a speck of blood in a location where ALL the witnesses at the autopsy said there was not a bullet hole. Painfully aware of this, but under pressure to make the evidence "fit", HSCA counsel Gary Cornwell decided to attack Humes as a hostile witness, but avoided doing so at the last minute after Petty and Baden et al prevailed upon Humes to pretend the bullet entered at the red splotch. P.S. In going back to your original question, I suppose I should clarify that ER doctors are not used to seeing shredded brain tissue. People suffering such wounds usually die before they reach a doctor. As cerebellum has a slightly different color than cerebrum, it is a lot easier to tell the tissues apart in a jar, than when soaked in blood. So I suspect Carrico is correct--that the doctors may very well have been mistaken. Clark is the main problem with this, IMO, and if he stuck by his claims he saw cerebellum and insisted the wound was low on the back of the head, that would make it a lot harder for me and others to conclude they were mistaken about the cerebellum. But he didn't. Instead he buddied up with Lattimer and denounced CTs (I assume he meant Lifton) in the press. There's also this to consider. The bulk of the evidence led me to conclude the bullet entering near the EOP descended within the neck. Such a bullet would almost definitely graze the underside of the cerebellum. Now, here's a surprise. Among the tissue samples taken at autopsy was a slice from the underside of the cerebellum. And it's right there in the report. Humes concluded it showed signs of being struck by a bullet. Now these slides of course disappeared and I can't help but wonder if there was more to it than these slides containing flesh from the President. IF the sample indeed showed signs of a bullet striking the underside of the cerebellum, well this proves the bullet did not pass upwards across the top of the cerebellum--which means this bullet did not explode the top of the head. And that there were two shots to head. So, my theory, if you will, is not actually at odds with the sighting of some cerebellum. It seems possible, IMO, that a small amount of cerebellum leaked out the EOP entrance. But the big clump of brain McClelland saw fall to the cart? I think that was most likely macerated cerebrum.

What? If you wanna know what was seen at Parkland you need to go by the words of those who saw the President before his body left Parkland. This includes those who saw his body in the plaza and in the limo. As no notes were taken by the Dallas doctors, or photos, the only photos and films of the body before it reached Bethesda are the films and photos taken in the plaza. These are consistent with what is shown in the photos and x-rays taken at the autopsy. I have been discussing this stuff for decades with pretty much everyone to write about this stuff--most tellingly Lifton and Fetzer. When I have pointed out that the statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the photos and films taken in the plaza, the statements of the Bethesda doctors, and the photos taken during the autopsy are relatively consistent, and that the only real outlier is the statements of the Parkland witnesses--many of whom would later claim they were mistaken, and say they believed the films and photos were legit--they would assure me that: 1.) The Dealey Plaza witnesses were all mistaken. 2.) The films and photos taken in the plaza were faked to hide a hole on the back of .the head. 3.) The films and photos taken at the autopsy were similarly all faked. 4.) The Parkland witnesses who later corrected their statements and said they supported the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays were all cowards and liars. And this even though the films, photos and x-rays, when taken as legit, PROVE conspiracy.

Why make this about me? Not one of the many Parkland and Bethesda witnesses has ever looked at that photo and said that was a bullet hole. FWIW, I have no medical career outside of being a cancer patient and having my wife's insurance pay for a new building or two. What I have had is time and the willingness to read. And that led me to access numerous books and articles about gunshot wounds in general and M/C bullet wounds I particular. Now, surprise surprise, it turned out that NONE of the experts on the JFK medical evidence had access to this stuff before me, or had found the time to look through it. So for the past several decades I have had numerous exchanges with the top doctors associated with the case, who were always eager to see what I had uncovered. But I have mostly shared my info on this website and at conferences. Now the dark shape you see on the right lateral photo is denuded bone. This is what happens when a skull fragment tears forward or backwards from the head--it tears skin away from the skull. I have found an image that depicts a similar tearing of the skin, and present it below.

No one at Parkland saw a bullet wound on the forehead. No one who worked on the autopsy saw a bullet wound on the forehead. None of the photos or x-rays show a bullet wound on the forehead. None of the reports written by those who viewed the body or studied the autopsy materials ever noted a bullet wound on the forehead. It follows then that...you know... As far as the exit wound, I've been explaining this to people for roughly 20 years. The Dealey Plaza witnesses placed the wound where it is shown in the films and photos. The Parkland witnesses taken in sum placed it further back. But NOT on the far back of the head. When shown the photos those most closely involved deferred to the accuracy of the photos. I subsequently realized that the top of the head in the BOH photo was a flap that almost certainly flapped out at Parkland, giving the wound a more rearward appearance. That this was the cause of the confusion is supported by the fact none of the Parkland witnesses, as I recall, said the TOH photo was faked. McClelland, in fact, said it was what he remembered. Once again, note that there are inches of scalp forward of the crown in the photo at left but none in the photo at right. That's because the skull flap readily visible on the x-rays is held up in the photo at left but allowed to collapse in the photo at right. Now you might be looking for additional proof there was a skull flap. So take a look at this. Now note as well that JFK was placed in the Trendelenburg position at Parkland, and that this would rotate the wound at the top of the back of the head into the back of the space occupied by the head. (In looking at this image I realize now that the A indicating the location of the wound is probably an inch or so too forward...which makes the likelihood this rotation led to some confusion even more likely, IMO.)

My understanding is that the casket was never re-opened after the funeral. So for me the whereabouts of the fragment remain a mystery along with the brain and the slides. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if Burkley disposed of it.

Dr. Shaw never saw the Harper fragment. No one viewing JFK's body outside of Dr. Burkley ever saw the fragment. As it is, we have extremely good photos of the fragment...which prove it was not occipital bone. (This is one of the reasons I am constantly under fire on this forum. Dr. Mantik decided it was occipital bone because he thought it fit into the mystery photo like a puzzle piece. He never studied the bone itself to see if this made any sense. When later called out on this by Dr. Joseph Riley, a neuro-anatomist, he doubled-down and made up all sorts of reasons to believe he was correct, including that the beveling on the fragment is outward beveling even though it marks an entrance. When I finally started writing about this, moreover, and further demonstrated that he was blowing smoke, he began claiming that the Harper fragment was not shaped like occipital bone because the medication JFK was taking for his Addison's disease had deformed his bones. This is disgusting, IMO.)

IMO, based upon the witnesses and the photographic and film evidence, he had a small entrance wound low on the back of the head AND a large wound (of both entrance and exit) on the right rear quadrant of the head (when viewed from above). The bone fragment at the rear of this latter wound, moreover, was fractured from the skull on the back of the head, and plopped open when JFK was on his back. The brain review and brain photos prove these wounds were not related, moreover. So my conclusion is and has been that there were two head shots, and almost certainly two shooters.

I think they were demonstrating that there was a bone flap in that picture. By holding it up. I really don't think they were trying to hide that the wound went back that far. The drawing they created for the WC, after all, showed a wound which was pretty much at the crown of the head. It is telling, IMO, that a number of those saying they thought that picture was inconsistent with what they remembered had no problem with or even readily IDed the TOH photo as what they remembered. The Horne clique, of course says there was NO damage to the top of the head in the shooting. Well, this is totally at odds with what people like McClelland would later claim.

Bernays created the blueprint for many a propaganda campaign. But as I recall the propaganda maestros for the Guatemala op were E.. Howard Hunt and David Atlee Phillips.

I have explained this on numerous posts online, and have demonstrated this in numerous presentations. A bullet impacting at the supposed exit location would slap the head down and the head would then spring back up. This is precisely what is shown in the films.

Oh my. I have written and spoken on the medical evidence for 20 years and have broken bread with Wecht, Aguiiar, Thompson, etc. I have stood on the knoll and fielded questions with Groden. And my claims haven't changed for 20 years. Because the basic facts haven't changed for more than 20 years. In short, there are witnesses whose initial statements suggested the back of the head was blown out. The majority of these witnesses agreed with Clark--that the wound appeared to be a wound of both entrance and exit, but they also thought it may have been an exit for a bullet entering the throat. Not one said they saw or even thought there was an entrance on the forehead for 30 years or more. And then but two--McClelland and Crenshaw--said they THOUGHT there may have been an entrance on the forehead, but that they did not see such a wound. When initially shown the back of the head photo, many of these witnesses said that wasn't what they recalled--that they thought the wound was more rearward. When shown ALL the autopsy photos at the archives for NOVA, moreover, ALL those asked, including McClelland, said they thought the photos were legit and reflected what they remembered. NONE of them said the photos showed a hole on the forehead. Now... McClelland thought the so-called BOH photo showed intact scalp where he thought there was a hole, and wondered if the hand in the photo was not somehow holding scalp up to cover the hole. Well, I was eventually able to prove he was basically correct. In the comparison below, one can see that the hand at left is holding up a flap that has dropped down into the skull in the photo at right. This proves that the wound as observed at Parkland would have been inches rearward of where it is shown in the BOH photo. Now why would "they"fake a photo to show a hole at the top of the back of the head?

So...wait... Are you saying that YOUR interpretations of an autopsy photo are more valid than the recollections and observations of the Parkland witnesses? Aren't you among the many who have claimed we should not trust the photos because they are at odds with the recollections of these witnesses? Do you see the inconsistency?

This photo has been studied by numerous witnesses who saw the body at Parkland and Bethesda. And none of them have said the dark triangle is a bullet hole. Heck, even those pushing there was a hole on the forehead--Mantik, et al--claim the bullet hole was covered by a lock of hair and not observed at Parkland or by most of the witnesses at Bethesda. The one exception they would normally cite is Tom Robinson. And Robinson actually said there was a tiny fragment wound or wounds by the temple or cheek, and claimed there was no bullet hole on the front of the head. As stated, moreover, James Jenkins said there was a presumed bullet hole by the ear. And Horne turned around and claimed he'd said it was a hole on the forehead. Whether it is a deliberate hoax or just really lousy research, the 40 years later claim by researchers there was a bullet hole on the forehead is an embarrassment to the research community, IMO. As far as Chesser, I've met Mike and believe him to be nice guy who got swept up in helping Mantik et al in their quest.