Daniel Gallup

Robert, according to the autopsy doctors, the entrance wound was low in the back of the head slightly above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. If this shot came from the sixth floor, it would seemingly have exited his face, as you noted earlier. That might explain why fragments were found in the front of the limo, but the last time I checked, Kennedy had no hole in his face. if the kill shot hit the right temple and left the avulsive wound described by Perry, McClelland et al, in the rear of the head, the fragments 55 7 and 569 would not likely be found in the front of the limo, would they? I mean, what in the world blasted the orange-size hole in the back of Kennedy's head? A shot from the front would have meant the true bullet exited the rear with a third of his brain etc. My point: isn't the location of the fragments noted herein evidence that they really are just plants?

Daniel, The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence: Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report) One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition). Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera. To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963? That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes." DSL 6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California David, there was only one "first time" for that important question to be asked of Perry,viz,, how large was the incision, and by a very great Providence you asked it at a time when the question could be asked with good certainty that it would be answered accurately. I fail to understand the extraordinary doubt cast on your work when we have such an unequivocal response from Perry on so great a matter. One cannot brush aside wound alteration if one faces Perry's assertion squarely. Yet the contempt for this ;position as "extreme" and "risible" etc. is pervasive, or so it seems. One can sit back in an arm chair and theorize Perry purposely made a wide irregular 6-8 cm incision ( as Humes describes it) for any of a number or reasons, but there was only one moment in history when Perry could first divulge the size of the incision transparently, as it were. Anyone seeking to evade the significance of Perry's admission is running from history, not seeking insights from it.

Daniel, The conversation your quoted (and which I had with Dr. Malcolm Perry) took place on October 27, 1966, and is exactly as described in Chapter 11 of Best Evidence. Using the pretext that I was doing a research paper for a UCLA Law School class, and that it was an exercise in fact-finding, I queried Dr. Perry about the length of the trach incision. He said: “2-3 cm.” and I wrote that down, as he talked. I then asked a number of “could it have been larger than that. . .?” questions, making it larger each time. He was clearly uncomfortable with going much larger than “2-3 cm.” Immediately after that conversation—and fully aware that what he had just said was of considerable historical importance—I decided to purchase a tape recorder, with the appropriate attachments to record telephone conversations. I did just that, and from that point forward, had a reel-to-reel recorder on the line when I spoke with the Dallas doctors, Dr. Humes, and FBI agent James Sibert. All of this is described in chapters 10, 11, and 12 of Best Evidence: Chapter 10: The Liebeler Memorandum Chapter 11: The Tracheotomy Incision: Dallas vs Bethesda Chapter 12: An Oral Utterance (about the S & O report) One other thing about the trach incision, and that concerns what occurred in December, 1982 (and January, 1983), when I first came into possession of good copies of the autopsy photographs. At that time, I –along with Pat Valentino (in January)—were the first to show the autopsy photographs to a number of the Dallas doctors and nurses. Almost everyone reacted by shaking their head from left to right, and/or stating (in effect): “No, that’s not the way it was.” I summed up these interviews in the Epilogue to the 1988 Carrol and Graf edition of Best Evidence, and that epilogue is also re-published (as an “Afterword”) in the 1993 New American Library edition). Finally, there is this "postscript": In 1989, I went to Dallas –again with Pat Valentino, and this time with a a professional film crew—and showed the photographs (again) to various Dallas doctors and nurses, this time recording their reactions on camera. To go back to the point that you have made, Daniel: My conversation with Dr. Perry was on October 27, 1966, and certainly is more significant than statements made 22 years later, after books and articles have been published, and by which time the issue became crystal clear: did somebody alter the wounds between the time the Dallas doctors saw the President’s body, and the “start time” of the Bethesda autopsy, at 8 PM on the night of November 22, 1963? That's the issue, and based on the data presented in Best Evidence, the answer is clearly "yes." DSL 6/11/13; 8:40 PM PDT Los Angeles, California Mr. Lifton While it is true that tracheotomy incisions are made both horizontally and vertically, I have never understood the preference for one over the other. As it would seem that the muscles overlying the trachea tend to run up and down, it would make sense that a vertical incision would damage less muscle tissue than a horizontal incision. Has anything in your research ever arisen that would shed some light on this matter? Forgive me for interjection an opinion, but what you have observed about the nature of the neck muscles would be a good motive for Perry to make the horizontal incision as small as possible, say, 2-3 cm, so as to minimize damage to the area.

A fine job indeed. I would have liked this segment to have included the Friday night understanding of the wound as recorded in the FBI report and by various personnel (such as O'Connor). What a hornet's nest that would have uncovered.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop. More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again. Then the question is begged, Len, what constitutes a new development? A new eye-witness is interviewed, as in the case of Toni Foster. How many readers know of this interview, and what she said? They may know who she is, but not what she told Debra Conway in the interview. A new development may be in a related area that has bearing on the lilmo stop. For instance, the suspicious peregrinations of the Z-film or copies of it as recorded by Horne may have a powerful influence on the credence one gives the limo-stop witnesses. Any new attack on the integrity of the extant film, should it come in the future, might cause the reader to doubt the accuracy of the film. Then there is the brain power of those thinkers who are able to synthesize seemingly disparate events into a coherent whole and shed new light on the case, and that synthesis might involve the Z-film and consequently the limo stop. I cannot count myself among such elite thinkers as i am only a casual reader, but they are out there. Then there is the very human tendency to want to sweep inconvenient anomalies under the rug and settle for shallow answers. If a person is convinced that an issue, while discussed in the past, has nevertheless not received the attention it deserves, then why not bring it up again and say why it needs to be reconsidered? A new development, is well a development (a witness etc.) that is new (i.e. recent or not previously discussed) Discussed to what depth? Let me provide an example. The early entrance of Kennedy's body into the Bethesda morgue in a shipping casket and in a body bag -- if true-- is the most significant smoking gun in the entire case because the implications are so vast. It means the chain of possession of Kennedy's body was lost and the autopsy and everything connected with it rendered irrelevant. It strongly suggests the plan to murder the President included a plan to falsify the wounding and create a false solution to the crime. The Boyajian report corroborated Dennis David, Paul O'Connor and others at Bethesda and is thus a valuable contribution to the case. Jim DiEugenio sent a link to his review of Kaleidoscope wherein he defended Livingston's most significant claim-- that despite the above witnesses claims, the body was simply that of an Air Force officer. I attacked that part of the review on several occasions, waiting for Mr. DiEugenio to respond with insights/information that might illumine the matter. Nothing. Zip. Potentially the most important smoking gun in the entire case -- and the forum greets it with a yawn and indifference. Was the matter "discussed"? No. Has Livingston's central claim been subject to proper peer scrutiny on this forum? Not that I have seen. Does anyone care? The silence is deafening. In fact, as you know, there are hopes bysome persons who contribute often here on the forum that the whole issue would just go away. So will the Boyajian report appear again on the forum, this time with proper scrutiny? I sincerely hope so. That would be a new development.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop. More likely explanation is that a) some people will dredge up the same topics over and over again even when there are not any new developments that make them relevant again and new members who haven't bothered to do a forum search will bring up the same topics over and over again. Then the question is begged, Len, what constitutes a new development? A new eye-witness is interviewed, as in the case of Toni Foster. How many readers know of this interview, and what she said? They may know who she is, but not what she told Debra Conway in the interview. A new development may be in a related area that has bearing on the lilmo stop. For instance, the suspicious peregrinations of the Z-film or copies of it as recorded by Horne may have a powerful influence on the credence one gives the limo-stop witnesses. Any new attack on the integrity of the extant film, should it come in the future, might cause the reader to doubt the accuracy of the film. Then there is the brain power of those thinkers who are able to synthesize seemingly disparate events into a coherent whole and shed new light on the case, and that synthesis might involve the Z-film and consequently the limo stop. I cannot count myself among such elite thinkers as i am only a casual reader, but they are out there. Then there is the very human tendency to want to sweep inconvenient anomalies under the rug and settle for shallow answers. If a person is convinced that an issue, while discussed in the past, has nevertheless not received the attention it deserves, then why not bring it up again and say why it needs to be reconsidered?

Thanks Pat for the additional citations--most interesting indeed. I would have liked to think that Mandel never really studied the Z-fim, that is, option 1. If he had studied the film and told a whopper, it must have been his conviction that the film would never be made public, and he could therefore say anything he wanted about it. Also, just read Paul Rigby's post on the related thread -- a magnificent gathering of information and analysis. Yes Pat, it seems incontrovertible that Mandel saw the film, and adjusted his remarks to harmonize with the Dallas' observations with regard to the neck wound.

In the New York Times a few days after the assassination, Kemp Clark is quoted as saying that Kennedy was struck by 2 bullets, and he specifically mentions one bullet that entered the throat ,"ranged downward and did not exit." This corroborated Perry's thrice mentioning that the throat wound was one of entrance at the Parkland press conference. Mandel might have been referencing Clark's remarks and took them as gospel, at least so far as the throat wound was concerned. He may have then reasoned that Kennedy must have been turned around to receive the throat wound, since he also took as gospel that all shots were fired from the sixth floor. IF MANDEL REGARDED BOTH ASSUMPTIONS AS TRUE-- AND AT THAT EARLY TIME AFTER THE ASSASSINATION ONE COULD HARDLY BLAME HIM FOR THAT--WHAT ELSE would he be EXPECTED TO SAY? So far as the head shot, if he assumed the shot came from the sixth floor, then he is reading into the Parkland testimony a meaning not present in any of the contemporaneous record; he may have simply deduced that the doctors must have believed that because, well, the shots came from behind. All this is a bit slippery of him, but who would know at that early date how convoluted this case would become? He did get his hand caught in the cookie jar, but the anomalies of the case weren't understood when he wrote.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop. These witnesses were positioned near the limo and also at a distance. The Z-film most certainly does not show that the limo almost came to a stop, contra Mr. Harris. Slowed, yes, Almost came to a stop, no. Any witnesses conveying an "almost stop" are contradicting the Z-film. So the number is quite large; and not all of them are recorded in Palamara's article. It is the combined corroboration of these witnesses which makes their statements impossible to ignore, unless one has a prior conviction that the Z-film accurately records the assassination. The problems with Z-film authenticity have multiplied since the publication of Horne, and these problems provide in their own way corroboration to the limo stop witnesses. In another forum, and of course here, Mr. Harris argues that the Bronson film never was in the hands of the government, and it shows no limo stop. Viewing the film, I noticed that it ends soon after the head shot. So Bronson is of no use one way or the other. The limo stop and McClelland's drawing (the drawing which McClelland approved) for Josiah Thompson's book are like twins -- utterly derided because they contradict the supposed "best evidence." Lifton proved long ago the "best evidence" game doesn't work in this case. Failing to heed this warning, we simply go round and round chasing our tails getting nowhere. Things don't converge, as Thompson rightly noted, but failed to discern why. It's called fraud in the evidence, and we have fallen for a facade hook, line and sinker. Mr. Gallup And do not forget the swerve, my friend. Mr. Greer specifically mentioned a swerve. Yes Robert, and someone (I wish I had written this down) said Greer pulled over the the left. That would be equivalent to a swerve.

I think differently. This is an issue that will not go away, because of the large number of witnesses to the stop. These witnesses were positioned near the limo and also at a distance. The Z-film most certainly does not show that the limo almost came to a stop, contra Mr. Harris. Slowed, yes, Almost came to a stop, no. Any witnesses conveying an "almost stop" are contradicting the Z-film. So the number is quite large; and not all of them are recorded in Palamara's article. It is the combined corroboration of these witnesses which makes their statements impossible to ignore, unless one has a prior conviction that the Z-film accurately records the assassination. The problems with Z-film authenticity have multiplied since the publication of Horne, and these problems provide in their own way corroboration to the limo stop witnesses. In another forum, and of course here, Mr. Harris argues that the Bronson film never was in the hands of the government, and it shows no limo stop. Viewing the film, I noticed that it ends soon after the head shot. So Bronson is of no use one way or the other. The limo stop and McClelland's drawing (the drawing which McClelland approved) for Josiah Thompson's book are like twins -- utterly derided because they contradict the supposed "best evidence." Lifton proved long ago the "best evidence" game doesn't work in this case. Failing to heed this warning, we simply go round and round chasing our tails getting nowhere. Things don't converge, as Thompson rightly noted, but failed to discern why. It's called fraud in the evidence, and we have fallen for a facade hook, line and sinker.

Your post demonstrated a degree of mental confusion I never cited Sherry regarding the supposed limo stop nor did I say your conclusions regarding that point were examples of "circular logic". I was referring to the supposedly suspicious lack of debris in the Z-film. The supposed limo stop is not relevant to this thread and has already been discussed extensively elsewhere on this forum, ditto Horne's claims and conclusions, so been there done that, I'm done. Sherry is an expert on the point I cited her on, her book has won numerous endorsements including from William LeBlanc, Certified Forensic Crime Scene Investigator and Cyril Wecht OTOH you seem to have no training in science or forensic. Nor have you offered us anything but handwaving. As for Foster we have knowing for sure if she was there or how reliable he decades old recolections were even if she were, The limo stop is vital to this thread because it joins the lack of debris from the back of the head as proof the Z-film is just so much foolishness, and arguing about what it allegedly shows or doesn't show is akin to chasing our tails. And again, whatever expertise Sherry may have is irrelevant to the larger issue of the faked film. The lack of debris, not a "supposedly" issue (see the ITEK study) is determinative: if the film does not show the reality of the actual wounding then whatever conclusions Sherry draws from what appears on the extant film is also irrelevant, however many endorsements her book gets. That's simple logic, Len, not hand-waving, which I admit to being an expert at in the classroom. The emperor is naked, and too many believe he is still clothed. Now go out and earn that Nobel Prize.

Come'on she must have realized she was a witness to history and people might be interested in her recollections That aside we still have the woman Posner interviewed and the problem with lack of eyewitness reliability especially after so much time. If you think what she said contradicts the Z-film it's reason to doubt the former not the latter The film's "provenance is uncertain" only to alterationists. And you either did not read or misunderstood her posts here. They were not "based on the assumption of an authentic Z-film" but rather it disputed a claim by Costella which supposedly proved it was fake. You are engaging in circular thinking. Actually paddle-ball is a more fitting analogy. I see you seem to have unquestioningly accepted Fetzer's fishoil many witnesses only said it slowed which is consistent with the Z-film, other only said other parts of the motorcade. Most witness made no such observation. Sorry but unlike Costella and you Sherry is an expert her analysis trumps yours Sorry Len but I stand every word I have said. It is not circular thinking to take the limo-stop witnesses seriously, and there are plenty of them. Fetzer is not the source of my conviction of the limo-stop witnesses; it is their own words, which you categorically reject. I cannot do that, especially when the witnesses, like Bill Newman, were right in front of the limo, and included motorcycle officers Sherry hand-waves their testimony away in a disgusting bit of psychobabble. She knows nothing about the limo-stop except that it contradicts her view that the film is genuine. That's the sum total of it. She would otherwise have no argument against these witnesses. So her analysis trumps nothing, and is a travesty. You can't blame Toni Foster or assign motives to her for not speaking out sooner. What she said to Debra is part of the record. And as far as the provenance of the film, may I suggest you read Volume IV of Horne and tell me where his argument fails? And please be specific. Now, go earn your Nobel Prize and explain to me how a great loss of bone and brain and blood in the back of the head with an avulsive wound, as described carefully by Dr. McClelland et al. would nevertheless show no ejecta out of the spot where the Dallas doctors found the avulsive wound (occiptioparietal)? Don't give that canard about the blood traveling 700 ft/sec. Come up with something that makes sense. Thanks in advance, daniel

Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6162 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7695 LOL witnesses are not reliable even when recalling events shortly after the fact, that is way forensic evidence trumps them not the other way round. Ms. Foster only came forward 33 years after the assassination and AFAIK it has yet to be confirmed she had really been in DP at the time. FWIW Poser previously interviewed “Francine Burrows” who claimed to have been the same woman seen in the Z-film. Foster's 'recollections' were 37 years old at the time. But it would not be the least bit surprising if what she claimed was true, as noted above “ the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS” the human eye and brain are capable of much better than that especially at the distance she claimed to have been. http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7%3Amorepiecesofthepuzzle I assume you have a citation handy. It seems you're not familiar with the true importance of the observation "there was no blood spatter from the back of the head apparent in the Zapruder film." 1. This is not a CT observation. Itek Corporation was hired by CBS to study the film in the 1970's, and came to this conclusion. CBS then used this conclusion to refute the CT argument a bullet exploded from the back of Kennedy's head. This study was subsequently introduced into evidence by the HSCA, and cited repeatedly by Vincent Bugliosi in his LN monster Bible, Reclaiming History. 2. Sherry Fiester, Debra Conway's sister, and a professional blood spatter analyst, has in recent years come to a similar conclusion. This did not convince her that the Z-film was fake, as you seem to think, but that the fatal bullet impacted at the supposed exit--(The same same conclusion I came to from studying the x-rays and medical evidence.) Her 2012 book, The Enemy of the Truth, goes into this matter in detail, and demonstrates, quite clearly, that recent studies in blood spatter suggest that blood spatter would have been apparent at the back of the head in the Z-film, should Kennedy have actually been hit on the back of the head at Z-313. In other words, this isn't CT conjecture, it's SCIENCE. 3. When the Discovery Channel was preparing for its program Inside the Target Car, they asked LN Chad Zimmerman to suggest some tests, that could help clear up some issues of contention. He, in turn, asked the members of aaj to suggest some tests. I pushed that a re-enactment be conducted, and that this re-enactment be filmed by a camera like Zapruder's, using the kind of film used by Zapruder, from a similar distance....to see if blood spatter at the back of the head would be apparent. Zimmerman agreed this was a good idea. When the program was aired, of course, there was no mention of such a test. Apparently, one was never conducted. This demonstrated, at least to me, that the program was designed to argue against conspiracies, and not include any test that might lend substance to the possibility Kennedy was killed by more than one shooter. If so, they messed up. During one of the re-enactments, the shooter missed the back of the simulated head and hit it on its top, right side, where I believe the bullet killing Kennedy impacted. The resultant explosion was quite similar to the explosion of Kennedy's head at 313, while the explosions of the skull from a bullet hitting in the "correct" location at the back of the head in the cowlick area, were not remotely similar. This "missed shot" was, not surprisingly, never shown in the program. But it was put up online. And for that we can be grateful. Pat, where was the shooter firing from in the simulation?

Please spell out any technical qualifications you have to have reached such a conclusion; Debra Conway's sister is a CT regarding the assassination and forensic expert specialising in blood splatter, she reached the same conclusion regarding a similar claim made by Costella. You do realize the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS and that even the MC fired bullets at over 2000 ft/sec? Even if the debris ejected at 700 FPS (1/3 the speed of an MC bullet) it would have travelled over 30 ft between frames. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6162 http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7695 LOL witnesses are not reliable even when recalling events shortly after the fact, that is way forensic evidence trumps them not the other way round. Ms. Foster only came forward 33 years after the assassination and AFAIK it has yet to be confirmed she had really been in DP at the time. FWIW Poser previously interviewed “Francine Burrows” who claimed to have been the same woman seen in the Z-film. Foster's 'recollections' were 37 years old at the time. But it would not be the least bit surprising if what she claimed was true, as noted above “ the Z-film was low resolution and only 18.3 FPS” the human eye and brain are capable of much better than that especially at the distance she claimed to have been. http://www.patspeer.com/chapter7%3Amorepiecesofthepuzzle I assume you have a citation handy. Citation? I'll have to look it up, but it is something I read years ago. Hopefully other members of the forum have the citation. I rather thought this was old news and trivially accepted. I see Pat Speer has commented, so let's leave that issue behind. As to Toni Foster's eye-witness testimony, the reason she didn't come forward is that until Debra Conway interviewed her in 2000, no one else had. You can't blame her for that. I do recommend you read that interview. Go to Lancer and you will easily find a PDF of the interview. Look up the summer 2000 KAC. Debra tells me that there is also a DVD with that interview on it. I highly recommend it to you, as you seem doubtful that she was there in Dealey plaza (even though she is a prominent feature in the Z-film). As for Sherry Fiester, Debra's sister, her analysis is based on the assumption of an authentic Z-film, a notion I find untenable. It is not science to base one's conclusion on an a film whose provenance is uncertain. The limo stop, and the lack of ejecta out of the back of Kennedy's head, which , despite your protestations, should be the most outstanding feature of the film, show the film for the fraud it is. Blood and brains do not travel 700 ft/sec. Period. A piece of bone might if struck properly, but watery blood and brains, no way. You can't match an avulsive wound in the occipitoparietal area with a great loss of brain in the rear of the head (including cerebellar tissue) with a total lack of ejecta. Match the McClelland diagram of Kennedy's wounding with Z 313 and I will give you a Nobel Prize in physics.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You ASSUME Perry et al saw a wound on the far back of the head, and were not completely honest when they later said the wound they saw was compatible with the autopsy photos, and then you use YOUR assumption about what they saw and believed to interpret Hill's vague description as a description of a wound on the far back of the head. Well, he has in recent years stopped being vague, and has pointed out where he saw a wound, and what he meant by "right rear" and it's NOT where you want it to be. So, what do you do? You ASSUME he has somehow been gotten to, and has taken to misrepresenting the location of the wound. And you do this even though Hill continues to denounce the single-bullet theory, and has proven himself to be as defiant of the LN community as he is the CT community. I mean, let's get real here. You THROW OUT all the statements that don't fit your conclusion, in order to reach your conclusion, and then say MY argument has a fatal flaw. Oy vey. I stand by my words. I will throw out later polluted memories if they contradict earliest recollections. Perry is of course just one outstanding example. There is nothing vague about the wording occipitoparietal, except to you. It has to be vague to your thinking because there is nothing occipitoparietal in those bastard autopsy photos. Oy vey is right. Your thinking is fatally flawed if you cannot discern the difference between Perry et al. on Nov 22 and their thinking 25 years later. I conclude that Hill meant "right rear" in the same manner that the Parkland doctors meant "right rear." That is a very elementary deduction. If his later view of things contradicts the "right rear" observed by a good number of Parkland doctors, I conclude, rightly, that Hill has suffered memory pollution. Nice switcheroo, Daniel. I have never disputed that some of the Parkland witnesses changed their minds about the wound location. I have never suggested that by "occipitoparietal" some of them meant "above the right ear." But HIll is a different story. You have no evidence Hill ever thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area. He said "right rear." He later demonstrated where he meant when he said "right rear." It wasn't where you wanted it to be. For some reason, however, you feel perfectly entitled to assume his memory is in error, and that Hill really thought the wound was where he now says it was not. Now, some might call that denigrating a witness. Hill is still alive, of course, if you'd like the historical record to show that he changed his mind about the head wound location, you should contact him and point out that to you "right rear" means occipitoparietal, and then ask him if he originally thought the wound was in the occipitoparietal area, but has since changed his mind. I wonder what he'll say. P.S. You know, of course, that Dr. McClelland's earliest recollection was that the wound was in the left temple. And yet you embrace his later polluted memory over his earliest recollection. Hmmm... Your butchering of McClelland's words to Dudman is beneath you. Tedious. And yes, Hill's observations cannot contradict the Parkland occipitoparietal witnesses. The body looked only one way. Wounds don't migrate (unless the chain of possession of the body is lost, then all bets are off). I don't have to call Hill but rely rather on consistent accounts of occipitoparietal wounding at Parkland. If Hill thought the wound was elsewhere, he was looking at a different body. Pat, your hermeneutical approach and mine seem to have little in common. I'll stand by mine.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You ASSUME Perry et al saw a wound on the far back of the head, and were not completely honest when they later said the wound they saw was compatible with the autopsy photos, and then you use YOUR assumption about what they saw and believed to interpret Hill's vague description as a description of a wound on the far back of the head. Well, he has in recent years stopped being vague, and has pointed out where he saw a wound, and what he meant by "right rear" and it's NOT where you want it to be. So, what do you do? You ASSUME he has somehow been gotten to, and has taken to misrepresenting the location of the wound. And you do this even though Hill continues to denounce the single-bullet theory, and has proven himself to be as defiant of the LN community as he is the CT community. I mean, let's get real here. You THROW OUT all the statements that don't fit your conclusion, in order to reach your conclusion, and then say MY argument has a fatal flaw. Oy vey. I stand by my words. I will throw out later polluted memories if they contradict earliest recollections. Perry is of course just one outstanding example. There is nothing vague about the wording occipitoparietal, except to you. It has to be vague to your thinking because there is nothing occipitoparietal in those bastard autopsy photos. Oy vey is right. Your thinking is fatally flawed if you cannot discern the difference between Perry et al. on Nov 22 and their thinking 25 years later. I conclude that Hill meant "right rear" in the same manner that the Parkland doctors meant "right rear." That is a very elementary deduction. If his later view of things contradicts the "right rear" observed by a good number of Parkland doctors, I conclude, rightly, that Hill has suffered memory pollution.

David, I have never used the Z-film to prove anything because I find the lack of debris exiting the avulsive wound in the right rear of the head as proof of alteration. 10 years ago Bill Miller on Lancer responded that the debris exited the back of Kennedy's head too fast for the camera to capture. Funny-- Toni Foster in her 2000 interview with Debra Conway said the "spray went behind him." So Toni could see easily what the camera could not. Therefore I argue nothing from the film. Yet you seem to take the film seriously. May I pose the question then to you: how do you account for the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head? ITEK confirmed there are no debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head in the extant film . thanks in advance, Daniel

Pat, there is nothing vague about Hill's "right rear" when put in the context of the occipitoparietal wound described so eloquently by Perry, McClelland, Peters, Jones, Curtis, Crenshaw et al. at Parkland. Your failure to locate the description in context of other similar descriptions, and instead relying on later memories polluted by corrupted evidence, is a fatal flaw in your argument.

Daniel, you need to put down the CT books you've been reading, and continue your research. Here is my discussion of Jackie's statements in chapter 18c: Let's remember the words of Mrs. Kennedy. While many have used her statement "from the front there was nothing" as evidence the bullet erupted from the back of her husband’s skull, they largely ignore the context of her statements. When describing the fatal shot, she told the Warren Commission “just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull, sort of wedge-shaped like that, and I remember it was flesh colored.” (The words "sort of wedge-shaped like that" were in the court reporter's transcript but never published. They are presumably a reference to the bone flap visible in the right lateral autopsy photos.) She then described cradling her husband in her arms, and getting a closer look at the wound. She said: “from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” Her words do not describe the wound's exact location, and suggest merely that the gaping wound on President Kennedy's head did not extend as far as his face. They do not detail an exit on the back of his head, as mistakenly purported by Dr. James Fetzer in his January 12, 2010 radio interview of Doug Horne, in which he claimed she had testified that "she had a terrible time holding the back of his head and skull together," an assertion, by the way, to which Horne readily agreed. Still, one might wonder about the exact location of this wound. Fortunately, only a week after the assassination, in a conversation with historian Theodore White, Mrs. Kennedy was far more descriptive. According to White's notes, released to the public in May 1995 and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, she said: “I could see a piece of his skull coming off…this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” Now, this would seem to be a reference to the detachment of skull seen in frame 314 of the Zapruder film, and can be taken as an indication of the film's legitimacy. But that's not all she had to say. According to White's notes, she also said: "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, 'Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack.' I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." White's notes then detail that when discussing her husband's condition at the hospital, Mrs. Kennedy said "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." Thus, according to White, she said the wound was at the "top" of her husband's head--not once but twice... And that wasn't the last time she described the wound in such a manner. In her interview with White Mrs. Kennedy worried that the history of her husband's Presidency would be written by the likes of AP correspondent "Merriman Smith, that bitter man," who, irony of all ironies, would soon thereafter win a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on the assassination. This no doubt contributed to her subsequent decision to hire an historian of her own, William Manchester, to write an authorized book on the assassination. She was interviewed by Manchester on 4-7-64, 5-4-64, 5-7-64, 5-8-64, and 7-20-64. While Manchester's notes on these interviews have never been released, it's clear she told him, as White, that the fatal wound was at the top of Kennedy's head. In late 1966, she had a falling out with Manchester over his use of these interviews. His book could not be released without her approval. This, then, led to her reading a draft of his book, The Death of a President, and giving it her personal approval. Here is how the final draft described her husband's death: "The First Lady, in her last act as First Lady, leaned solicitously toward the President. His face was quizzical. She had seen that expression so often, when he was puzzling over a difficult press conference question. Now, in a gesture of infinite grace, he raised his right hand, as though to brush back his tousled chestnut hair. But the motion faltered. The hand fell back empty. He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn't there any more." Now this can't be any more clear. Mrs. Kennedy had told Manchester that the fatal wound she saw was at the top of her husband's head. That the descriptions of Kennedy’s head wound by the First Lady and the earliest descriptions of the wound and/or impact location by Newman and Zapruder and so many others match the wound seen in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays leads me to suspect that the large head wound observed at Parkland was on the top of Kennedy's skull in front of his ear, and not on the back of his head as suggested by the Parkland witnesses. As for Hill... he has discussed Kennedy's head wound dozens of times over the last decade, and has claimed over and over again that the wound he saw was at the top of the head above the ear. He has even pointed out this location on TV. Claiming him as a "back of the head" witness based upon a few early statements, in which he was never asked to specify the location, and failing to admit he has long disputed your interpretation of his earliest statements, is a bit desperate, IMO. From the statement of SA Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service, November 30, 1963: "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. The time of the shooting was approximately 12:30 p.m., Dallas time. I looked forward to the jump seats and noticed Governor Connally's chest was covered with blood and he was slumped to his left and partially covered up by his wife. I had not realized until this point that the Governor had been shot." From the Warren Commission testimony of SA Clinton J. Hill, Secret Service: "Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital? Mr. HILL. The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Yes, but Robert, Hill did not really mean right rear portion of the head, even though he used those words, and even though that's what the Dallas doctors closest to Kennedy saw. Though they said "occipitoparietal" they didn't mean it. They really meant top of the skull, as proved by the autopsy pictures and Bill O'Reilly. This is a very important hermeneutical principle: ignore the earliest statements of the witnesses and quote them only after their memory has been sufficiently corrupted by fake evidence and reports based on fake evidence so that they contradict their earliest observations.

Daniel, you need to put down the CT books you've been reading, and continue your research. I mean no disrespect, Pat, but I have read your chapters as part of my research. The CT books, at least some of them, have it all over your special pleading. Jackie's words are plain enough that everyone but you seems to think she was holding his head down because the wound was in the right rear. Nothing you posted of Jackie's words admit of any other conclusion. One doesn't hold the top of his head down if the top of his head is missing. Your condescending remark which I put in bold is groundless and only demeans yourself. As a moderator maybe you think you can get away with insults, but in my eyes you damage your own case. An insult is just an admission of defeat -- that you cannot win by a carefully crafted argument. If what you have written really held water, I as a reasonable man would be inclined to agree with you. Your overall mistake in PatSpeer.com is to put faith in the so called evidence. The Parkland and Bethesda description of the wounding cannot be reconciled except by recourse to the loss of the chain of possession of Kennedy's body, for which there is considerable evidence. You are trying to put a round peg in a square hole, and it won't fit no matter how hard you try. The butchering you have done to Jackie's words are a case in point. But this is just one of a long list of examples one might note in this thread. You attempt to obfuscate the clear statements of McClelland by a peculiar interpretation of his words to Dudman; thus you make muddy what is really very clear (and well-corroborated). When someone disagrees with you it is not due to a lack of research, but due to someone coming to quite a different conclusion than yourself. Maybe it's time for you to admit that.

I discuss this at great length in chapters 18c and 18d of my free online book, and have discussed this in probably hundreds of posts on this forum. When one studies ALL the statements of those viewing Kennedy's head wounds on 11-22-63, it seems almost certain the Parkland witnesses thinking this wound to have been on the far back of the head were wrong. The reasons for this are: 1. Those seeing the actual shooting described a wound on the right side of the head--where the Parkland witnesses failed to report a wound--that matched the size and nature of the wound SOME of the Parkland witnesses thought they saw on the back of the head. 2. The wound described by these witnesses to the shooting was in the location of the wound depicted in the Zapruder film and autopsy photos. 3. A few of the Parkland witnesses made statements more suggestive of the wound portrayed in the autopsy photos than the wound on the back of the head described by some of their colleagues. 4. A number of the Parkland witnesses describing a wound on the back of the head--Carrico, Perry, and Jenkins--later made statements suggesting they'd realized their error. 5. A number of other Parkland witnesses purportedly claiming the wound was on the far back of the head, e.g. Peters, Jones, described a wound higher up on the skull than pushed by most CTs, and refused to claim the autopsy photos were faked. 5. The "star" witnesses--the Parkland witnesses sticking to their claim the wound was on the far back of the head--McClelland, Crenshaw, and Bell--have tremendous problems with their credibility. McClelland originally said the wound was on the left temple, and Crenshaw and Bell made no statements at all for decades after the shooting. When asked to mark the location of the wound on anatomy drawings by the ARRB, even worse, Crenshaw and Bell marked the drawings in different locations on the rear view and lateral viewings. In other words, they either had no grasp of anatomy, or their memory of the wound's location differed from minute to minute. FWIW, I, as most CT's, started out thinking the Parkland witnesses were the key. When I looked at it closer, and realized that very few of the "back of the head" witnesses ever claimed the wound was in the occipital location pushed by most CT writers on the medical evidence, however, I realized I'd been had. In time I decided to add chapters 18c and 18d to my website, which discuss the "back of the head" witnesses in detail, and expose the many lies told about these witnesses in order to prop up the myth the wound observed at Parkland was low on the back of the head. I do acknowledge, however, that a majority of the Parkland witnesses believed or came to believe the head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the autopsy photos. That, to me, is irrefutable. Should a researcher wish to run with this--and make the argument the wound was where these witnesses said it was--he or she would receive very little complaint from me. No, my complaint is with those pretending these witnesses said the wound was low on the back of the head, in a location compatible with the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. That is pure nonsense, and should be exposed as such. Mr. Speer Do I understand your last paragraph to say you consider the possibility of a wound in the rear of JFK's head where no wound exists in the official autopsy photo of the back of JFK's head, as long as it is not solely confined to the occipital bone but possibly inclusive of some occipital bone? Yes, I consider the possibility. I strongly suspect that the wound was at the top of the head, where it is shown in the autopsy photos. But I agree there is support among many of the Parkland witnesses for a wound further back on the skull. What I strongly disagree with is the notion among some prominent CTs that, since these witnesses offer support for a wound in a location other than its location in the autopsy photos, then its okay to pretend these witnesses ALL agreed the wound was on the far back of the head, and in the location depicted in the McClelland drawing. That's not remotely honest, and is the kind of thing I'd expect from an Arlen Specter. If it was at the top of the skull, Jackie made a big mistake trying to hold the back of his head on, as she reported to the WC, and Clint Hill confused the back of his head with the top as well, even though he had a good amount of time to see his wounds, just as the Parkland doctors did. No wonder they could not save Kennedy -- they couldn't find the wound on his head, mistakenly thinking it was occipitoparietal, when in reality the top of his skull was missing.

Your statement on Bell represents a new low. If she asked Perry about the location of the wound, then the presumption is that she was there. She made that statement in 1997; Perry was available to contradict her statement but never did. And Pat, what do you expect McClelland to say after being shown the official autopsy report? Contradict it and cause a hornet's nest? The presumption of a normal person under these circumstances is to go along with the official investigation. and assume it's legit. Consider: what are the chances that such a doctor would suspect a high-level governmental assassination of the President in a plot that included stealing the body and altering the wounds? Zip. Had you and I been the doctor, we would have told Dudman the same thing.

PAT: Yeah, right, Daniel. There was "tremendous pressure" on the doctors to go along with the "all shots came from behind" theory in 1964, when many of their statements suggesting the wound was on the back of the head were made. And there was "tremendous pressure" on them to go along with the findings of the WC, Clark Panel, and Rockefeller Commission panel in 1978, during the HSCA investigation, when many more of their statements suggesting the wound was on the back of the head were made. Their statements were seemingly immune to this "tremendous pressure." But then VOILA! David Lifton's book came out, and they started quaking in their boots, and reversing themselves willy nilly! Under pressure from... WHO, Daniel? WHO? Nova? Dr. Lattimer? Gerald Posner? Give me a break. The facts are, quite clear, IMO, that a few of the doctors formed an impression the wound was on the back of the head, and others followed. And that, when they finally got a look at the photos they deferred to the accuracy of the photos. That is what doctors do. Every day. And that is what most all of them did. The idea that these brave doctors--who presumably told the truth as they believed it to the Warren Commission and HSCA--suddenly turned chicken when GADZOOKS!!! Public Television asked them what they saw is ridiculous, IMO. I don't know how you determine "pressure" except to see its influence. Perry was pressured to change the entry wound in the front of the throat (which by all observations at Parkland it was) to a possible exit wound. Specter's leading questions on the throat wound are well-known. Pat:Yeah, right, Daniel. There was "tremendous pressure" on the doctors to go along with the "all shots came from behind" theory in 1964, when many of their statements suggesting the wound was on the back of the head were made. And there was "tremendous pressure" on them to go along with the findings of the WC, Clark Panel, and Rockefeller Commission panel in 1978, during the HSCA investigation, when many more of their statements suggesting the wound was on the back of the head were made. Their statements were seemingly immune to this "tremendous pressure." But then VOILA! David Lifton's book came out, and they started quaking in their boots, and reversing themselves willy nilly! Under pressure from... WHO, Daniel? WHO? Nova? Dr. Lattimer? Gerald Posner? Give me a break. The facts are, quite clear, IMO, that a few of the doctors formed an impression the wound was on the back of the head, and others followed. And that, when they finally got a look at the photos they deferred to the accuracy of the photos. That is what doctors do. Every day. And that is what most all of them did. The idea that these brave doctors--who presumably told the truth as they believed it to the Warren Commission and HSCA--suddenly turned chicken when GADZOOKS!!! Public Television asked them what they saw is ridiculous, IMO. Daniel: According to Dr. Crenshaw, the Secret Service's briefing of the Dallas doctors as to the official autopsy findings on Nov 29 ended virtually all talk among them regarding the assassination (p. 15, Parker). If that is not a form of pressure I don't know what is. True during the WC the doctors were free to describe the head wound as it was observed, and thank God they were able to do so despite the Secret Service intervention a week after the assassination. Were it not for the WC depositions of the Parkland doctors we would not know anything about the wounding of the President (yes, the loss of the chain of possession of the President's body renders it useless as evidence as to the nature of the wounding, and hence renders the autopsy a complete farce). From Parker, p. 19ff, I take it that after visiting the National Archives in 1988 to view the worthless autopsy pictures, certain doctors, notably Perry, Jenkins, and Carrico changed their tune. That is pressure. I think Lifton was an annoyance to the Dallas doctors as he understood early on that their contemporaneous recollections and his early interviews contradicted the autopsy report. The discussion of the size of the trach incision in Best Evidence gives one the impression that the doctors just wanted Lifton to go away and give them some peace. So Lifton was not a source of pressure, just an irritation because he opened up the can of worms that consists of the anomalies between Parkland and Bethesda and made some of the doctors aware of some of the specific anomalies for the first time. Pat: you said: Give me a break. The facts are, quite clear, IMO, that a few of the doctors formed an impression the wound was on the back of the head, and others followed. And that, when they finally got a look at the photos they deferred to the accuracy of the photos Pat, "formed an impression??!!??" That's the understatement of the year. And totally inaccurate. McClelland's WC deposition could hardly be called an "impression." Reread the specific observations of others and also what they told Lifton in Best Evidence. The accounts are quite specific, and to denigrate them as "impressions" is unconscionable. "Others followed??!!??" Give me one quote from a Dallas doctor or nurse to the effect that they didn't see the wound but agreed with whatever Perry, McClelland, Carrico, Crenshaw, Curtis, Peters, Jones, Jenkins, Clark said about a rear wound in the right occipital-parietal area. There is in interesting revelation on page 19 of Parker. According to Brad, on March 10, 1992 Jenkins told Posner that "most of them (the Dallas doctors) did not even know he had a head injury." To Dennis Breo Jenkins said: "I was standing at the head of the table in the position the anesthesiologist most often assumes closest to the President's head. My presence there and the President's great shock of hair and the location of the head wound were such that it was not visible to those standing down each side of the gurney..." Strange: I thought Bill O'Reilly said the top of the President's skull was missing. Before the ARRB ( p. 198 in Parker) Dr. Peters relates that it was Jenkins who in fact alerted the other doctors to the futility of the resuscitative measures due to the hole that indeed was not too visible . Says Peters: And so at that point I did step around Dr. Baxter and looked into the President's head, and I reported to the WC that I saw a 7 cm hole in the occipitoparietal area.. . This accords well with that witness you love to hate Pat, Audrey Bell. She had to ask Perry where the wound was, and so he turned Kennedy's head to the anatomical left so she could view the right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital. She hadn't read Bill O'Reilly's book yet and learned that the top of his head was missing.