Pat Speer

Who am I to argue with PhD's who have seen the original images and knows much more about anatomy than I. Oh my. If this were true, you would jump in line behind the Clark Panel, HSCA FPP, the forensic anthropology consultants and a neroranatomist like Riley.

The color photos all come through Groden. For whatever reason, he failed to make some uncropped versions available for years and years and only released them when he had something new to sell. Unfortunately, he also released some photos that were not JFK while claiming they were JFK. So it's bit of a mess.

I'm not sure what you mean. The photos are largely consistent. There is a bone fragment attached to the scalp in the early photos that was removed or fell off in the latter photos. But beyond that? As far as the witnesses, my theory or whatever is more in keeping with the witnesses than most other theories. If you go through the archives for this site, you will find that Lifton and Fetzer et al claimed those seeing an explosion from the temple or top of the head (such as the Newmans and Zapruder) were unreliable. Similarly, I have long claimed the bulk of the witnesses were correct in noticing one large wound--I think many placed it a bit too far back on the skull, that's all. Now contrast that to some CTs who claim 1) these witnesses uniformly failed to notice a bullet wound on the forehead, and 2) many of these witnesses were incorrect in placing the wound above the ear, as it was really at and below the level of the ear. In short then, these CTs insist there was an entrance wound that no one one saw and that these witnesses also screwed up and placed the exit wound too high. Their thinking was as follows: 1. The Harper fragment was found behind the limousine's position at the time of the shooting. (This was a mistaken claim in an early FBI report that Harper did his best to correct.) 2. The Harper fragment was occipital bone. (This was the impression of someone shown the Harper fragment early on, at a time there was still plenty of buzz that the head shot came from the front. Since that time the photos have been examined by a forensic anthropologist and a neuroanatomist, who totally reject this claim, and for good reason. The interior aspect of the fragment looks nothing like occipital bone. When confronted with this, moreover, Dr. Mantik mused that maybe JFK's Addison's disease had deformed his skull bones. I kid you not.) 3. A number of Parkland witnesses thought they saw cerebellum. This would suggest a low exit. (The reality is that macerated brain gives the appearance of cerebellum and that a number of those initially claiming they saw cerebellum later corrected themselves. Now, naturally, those wishing to subscribe to the low blow-out wound seen by no one claim these doctors are all XXXXX. And that leads back to my earlier statement--that my "theories" are more in line with the witnesses than many of those claiming to be supporting the witnesses.)

Charades.... It took forever but you finally admitted Mantik's orientation for the mystery photo was in error. This orientation is the cornerstone for much of his research. if you look closely you will find that many widely-accepted positions on the evidence are just nonsense. (To be clear, I agree with Mantik on several key issues. I adore Tink Thompson, but was perhaps the only person at a mini-conference in which Thompson and Mantik debated the dicta-belt evidence, to side with Mantik. I also believe he is correct in his assertion the SBT bullet trajectory heads through bone. Some of the top medical evidence people think he overstates the case, but I came to conclude he's spot on.)

Thanks, Steve. The age of Martin and the circumstances does make it less suspicious. It seems that one would need to shore up a connection between Martin and Walker before making much of this.

Okay. How do we know this? I mean, if a tourist came forward with footage of Osama Bin Laden, on the same role of film as the Twin Towers, one would have to be suspicious, right?

Yes, it was found on the day after. But no, no one "scoured" the plaza for debris. The Harper fragment was the largest skull fragment found outside the limousine. The z-film shows a large fragment rocketing into space in the direction of where it was found. Coincidence? P.S. The "fragment was moved" nonsense is yet another Mantik invention. I proved to him that the fragment was not found behind the limo's position, but in front of its position. So he had to cough up something to explain how a fragment from low on the back of JFK's head could end up in front of where he was struck. Voila! Someone moved it!

Yes, I must be a real nutcase. I studied the medical evidence not by swallowing gallons of ooze from questionable sources, but by comparing what is in the official record vs what is in textbooks and scientific literature. This thread is on the brain. It turns out, by golly, that the brain damage described in the autopsy report and testimony is incompatible with the trajectory pushed by the WC, and that the trajectory pushed by the HSCA was incompatible with the Z-film. The large head wound was not an exit for a bullet striking the forehead or back of the head, but a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. This leaves the small entrance by the EOP as a separate shot. When all the pieces are added up, it's fairly clear two guns were involved. When one studies the happenings in the TSBD, for that matter, it's even more clear Oswald was not a shooter. So the official evidence, minus spin, actually leads toward conspiracy. One need not believe in widespread body and film altercation, or cover stories designed to hide that Oswald was on the front porch, etc. That stuff is all distraction.

There's no conflict in the reasoning. He was laying on his back. They were looking at his face. While it's possible some confused a large wound on top of the head with a wound on the back of the head, it's highly unlikely for none of the Parkland or Bethesda witnesses to notice a bullet hole on the forehead. As far as your image, a number of these witnesses deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos. And a number of them had their statements taken out of context by Groden. Custer and O'Connor were pointing out the large open cavity when the brain was removed, from front to back. Groden took a still from when they were pointing to the back and pretended that was where they saw a large hole at the beginning of the autopsy. I go through these witnesses and more one by one on my website and demonstrate that the blow-out wound low on the back of the head proposed by all too many is nonsense.

Because that's how smurt people think. He was guilty so that means ALL the evidence against him was legit because y'know cops, and the DPD in particular, would NEVER EVER plant a few fibers on a rifle to help sell that a smart-assed commie was also a killer. I mean, they would never do that, right? I mean, do you watch the news? There's been what? 20 shootings over the last few years where a police dept. has put out a story that is quickly disproved by the body-cam or cell-phone footage. They lie all the time.

I hope you realize how desperate that is. The fibers must have got there when he wiped down the rifle, even though there is absolutely no evidence the rifle was wiped down, and all the evidence suggests it was not wiped down. Anything, anything, anything, but admit something strange was afoot at the Circle DPD.

Yes, it's a bit crazy. When I first got into this I was astounded that Ruby and Oswald both had connections to Vincent Lee. It turned out there were two. I was also confused as heck by the two Richard Spragues--BOTH of whom worked for the HSCA. It's good, moreover, that you recognize the potential pearl in this deep dive: John T Martin. Some of the mucky-mucks are looking into him as his filming the Walker house and Oswald in New Orleans on the same roll of film seems WAY too big a coincidence.

I suspect the round shape is a bloody clump of hair which appears to be round when seen at that angle. Upon morphing the two back of the head photos together, it became apparent that that shape is not a hole on the skull, as it moves in relation to the skull. Now, is it possible someone altered the photos on the very first day to hide a hole in that location? I wouldn't say it is impossible. But I would say it is highly unlikely. Those currently pushing there was a hole in this location have been pulling a bit of a con job. They take quotes from people like McClelland and Crenshaw who swore they saw no such hole but thought one might have existed, and make out that they said they saw such a hole. They did not. Their other witnesses are people who first commented on the photos decades later, who seemed to recall seeing a photo with a bullet hole on the forehead. Or whatever. They are not reliable sources. The key sources...The Parkland physicians and nurses...The Bethesda doctors and assistants...failed to see a bullet hole in this location. Most of these witnesses said things which ran counter to the official story. But none ever stepped up and said "Oh yeah, there was a bullet hole on his forehead." And there's a reason for this, IMO. There was no such hole.

You just don't know what you're talking about. Fingerprints would not adhere to the wood stock, which made up the bulk of the rifle. So the main thing to wipe down--should someone wipe it down--would be the trigger guard, y'know that part of the rifle one touches with one's fingers. As the trigger guard was not wiped down it follows that the rifle was not wiped down. This is 2 plus 2 equals 4 stuff. Your buddy Bugliosi would undoubtedly agree.

Follow the record. No one stopped the doctors from examining a bullet track from a back wound they thought went nowhere to a throat wound they thought was a tracheotomy incision. The only thing they didn't inspect out of courtesy, whatever, was the thyroid gland. The throat wound was below this gland.

The wound was at T-1. This is something I corrected on wikipedia an eon ago. Certain LN writers knew T-1 was too low so they started claiming C-7/T-1. But the HSCA FPP said T-1. I do give Ford a pass on his movement of the back wound, however. His only knowledge of the wound's location came from the Rydberg drawings, which showed it to be on the back of the neck. The villains in this case are Specter and Warren, who'd seen the back wound photo, and knew the wound was on the back, but nevertheless let the rest of the commission assume the Rydberg drawings were accurate.

Sorry. It's not a matter of opinion. if a rifle is wiped down, it either has no prints in the obvious places, or shows extremely smudged prints in the obvious places. In this case, it had relatively clear prints in the most obvious place--the trigger guard. Your saying the rifle was wiped down is like saying someone drove a car through a car wash--when photos prove it was caked with mud. It didn't happen.

The HSCA didn't say that. The medical panel said that, and Baden repeated that numerous times. Blakey was determined to use science to solve the case. When his experts were at odds with each other he found a way around it. In this case he had Vincent Guinn claiming the bullet fragments in Connally's wrist matched the magic bullet. And he had the pathology panel claiming the SBT made sense provided JFK was leaning forward. And he had a photographic panel claim JFK was hit before going behind the sign. And, to top it off, he had an acoustics panel say a shot rang out at 190. So voila! the SBT occurred at 190, even though the pathology panel had rejected this. So how did he get around this? NASA. They hired a NASA trajectory analyst to bs everybody. They'd moved the EOP entrance up to the cowlick, and this made no sense if the bullet really exited the front of the head, given the forward tilt of JFK in Z-312. And they needed JFK to be leaning forward at Z-190. So they blew a big cloud of noxious smoke and claimed JFK was leaning forward at 190, got shot in the back, and then sat up in the car before getting shot in the head---the EXACT opposite of what everyone knows to be true. (FWIW, this is something I uncovered 15 years or so ago--it shocked me that no one had noticed it earlier.)

The Panel's report was published in Volume 6 of the HSCA's 12 volumes. It reads, in part: (61) The Zapruder film was studied with care at each of the Panel's conferences..At the final conference, which took place in July 1978, the film was closely scrutinized by 20 photographic scientists who were either members of the Panel or contractors responsible for much of the committee's laboratory work (i.e. photographic enhancement, restoration, etc.). (64) By a vote of 12 to 5, the Panel determined that President Kennedy first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 207, as he is seen going behind a sign that obstructed Zapruder's view. (65) By a vote of 11 to 3, the Panel determined that Governor Connally first showed a reaction to some severe external stimulus by Zapruder frame 224, virtually immediately after he is seen emerging from behind the sign that obstructed Zapruder's view. (70) At approximately Zapruder frame 200 , Kennedy's movements suddenly freeze; his right hand abruptly stops in the midst of a waving motion and his head moves rapidly from right to his left in the direction of his wife. Based on these movements, it appears that by the time the President goes behind the sign at frame 207 he is evidencing some kind of reaction to a severe external stimulus.

As stated, Charles, there was nothing to dissect. While it's reported they were told not to dissect the neck, there would be no reason to dissect the back wound. To the doctors, it appeared to be a surface wound, like getting poked with a pencil.

Oh my. The fingerprint-wiping rag bit is just nonsense. You've seen the trigger guard prints. No one wiped the damn rifle, David. If you're gonna have a pet theory---which we all do--you should at least fine tune it to remove the nonsense. The rifle was not wiped down. Period.

If you looked at the Lattimer drawing you would realize how ridiculous it is. He has the bullet enter inches below the shoulder line--at the level of JFK's chin. Can you find us a picture where JFK's shoulder line is inches above his chin, halfway up the back of his skull? Of course not.

Once again, you just don't know. The FPP signed off on the SBT under the proviso JFK was hit while behind the sign in the Z-film. For the SBT to work, they concluded, JFK would have to have been leaning sharply forward to an extent not shown in the film. So they said he must have leaned forward while behind the sign... Only...Only... No one bothered to tell them that the photography panel had concluded he was hit before going behind the sign. So they actually did not sign off on the HSCA's version of the SBT. Oops. This is similar to the WC's gambit with Brennan. He ID'ed Oswald as the man on hr sixth floor under the proviso he was not wearing the dark brown shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle. The WC ignored him and pretended that both were true--that he ID'ed Oswald and that Oswald was wearing the shirt Brennan insisted was not the shirt worn by the shooter. It's called a whitewash.

Well, I see no evidence you have ever read a book on forensic pathology or have a clue about this stuff.

The "track" they thought they saw came from above in the direction of the EOP bullet hole. Lattimer also saw this "track". He realized it started way up on the neck, however, and decided JFK was actually a hunchback.