Andric Perez

Some of Speer's most solid work is IMO the systematic analysis based on witness testimony apparently proving a shot at or near frame 190 of the Zapruder film. To my knowledge, no researcher has even attempted to debunk his 190-frame analysis. Speer's work is a careful balance between science and intuition. He is a non-conformist and revolutionary who doesn't go with the flow. His work is much more persuasive to me than that of Fetzer, Lifton and others. I think the future of CT research should revolve around Speer's theories. There is one little thing however that I have doubts about, Mr. Speer. Do I remember correctly that you once implied that Connally may have known JFK was going to be killed? What makes me reluctant to believe this possibility is the fact that Connally was in the line of fire. Why would he agree to sit in such a risky spot in the limo? Besides, Connally is one of the best 190-frame witnesses. Why would he testify that a shot happened in this location? As far as I know, pretending that a shot occurred at this time was not part of the cover-up. Finally, I'd like to add that one of your most significant conclusions (although you don't seem to be 100% sure) is that Oswald shot Tippit. I believe I read that in your site. I believe you based that conclusion on analysis of gun powder residue on Oswald's right hand. I read it a couple of years ago so excuse me if I misremember. If I'm right, I think you should include the Tippit bit in your list of conclusions.

In 2004, Ken Dilanian (Who today works for the AP and previously worked for the LA Times) praised Gerald Posner's "Case Closed" book: Link Today, news outlets are reporting that Dilanian has been outed for being a CIA collaborator: The Huffington Post says that Dilanian "entered into discussions about how the CIA could bend public opinion of drone strikes their way.

You all must have heard about the recent riots in Ferguson, Missouri, following the killing of 18 year old Michael Brown. Attorneys for the deceased's family have hired Michael Baden--the same doctor whose work in HSCA has been called into question by some researchers-- to perform an autopsy. Time Magazine Here Pat Speer explains how Baden messed with the orientation of a photograph in order to distort the facts of Kennedy's fatal head wound:

I'd like to share an excerpt of a poem written in 1966 by the 1971 recipient of the Nobel Prize in Literature, Pablo Neruda, referring to Lyndon Johnson. This is the english translation of the Spanish original. "We could say of this Trujillo (judging by the things we know) was the most evil man in this world (If Johnson didn't exist, of course). http://www.cielonaranja.com/neruda2.htm Biography.com says: "Pablo Neruda was a Nobel Prize–winning Chilean poet who was once called "the greatest poet of the 20th century in any language." http://www.biography.com/people/pablo-neruda-9421737#awesm=~oEEdUupOb0GXvQ

Stone calls LBJ a racist, but historian Robert Caro disagrees: Link

The Rafael Molina you cite was born in the Dominican Republic, as your post noted. It is interesting that thefull name of Dominican dictator Trujillo was Rafael Leonidas Trujillo Molina. Made me wonder of this guy is somehow related to Trujillo; however, I find it very unlikely given that Molina is a pretty common last name in DR, and Rafael even more so regarding first names.

Thanks Pat. This is why fingerprinting and other forensic fields, perhaps with the exception of DNA testing, are so unreliable. There is too much room for subjectivity. A group of distinguished scholars recently agreed that,: By the way, PBS should have conducted a blind test. You don't tell a right wing nut, "Can you tell me if these are the the fingerprints of a left-wing Communist on the rifle?". Blind tests are one of the things that can improve the accuracy of forensic tests.

Pat, I'm unsure as to why Bonebrake found Scalise's claim of 18 points of identity insufficient to reach a positive conclusion. PBS did not tell us which technique each expert used.

Hi Vince. This examination in the video you posted was done by a person who claimed that the suicide note left by Vince Foster (whom Bill Clinton murdered, as claimed by the craziest of right wing nuts) was forged. Scalice's kooky theory is disproved by investigation which include one led by a Republican ,which condlude that Foster committed suicide. But that biographical fact aside, a legend in FBI forenics could not see the "points of identity" that Scalice saw. HIs name is George Bonebrake a man who was supervisor of the Laten Fingerprint Section at the FBI, retiting in 1978. bio I wrote a thread about this in 2011: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17865

The ball will pass to me after you convince readers that ER doctors are accurate when identifying the nature of wounds. It would not hurt to explain why the experienced Dr. Clark said it was possible that the head wound was an exit to the throat wound. If that comment by Clark seems implausible to you, then the "consistency" of doctors treating he throat wound as an entrance is not a very important topic, after all. More importantly, you exaggerate the consistency with which doctors allegedly agreed that the throat wound was an entrance. Dr. McClelland told the Warren Commission: "Dr. McCLELLAND - I would say it would be equally consistent with either type wound, either an entrance or an exit type wound. It would be quite difficult to say--impossible. " So while McClelland believed the nature of the throat wound to be quite difficult/impossible to tell, you find it quite obvious.

You appear to have gotten a hold of the research and concluded that the more familiar ER doctors are with gunshot wounds, the more accurate they are in determining whether the bullets are entrance or exit. Alternatively, you are just guessing that ER doctors' crappy performance is mediated by the familiarity factor (not that we know how "familiar" Perry and the other Parkland doctors and the doctors in the study were).

Read page 55 of the book Forensic Emergency Medicine. To put this into perspective, a blind person or a person just guessing would have an equal chance (Chance=50%) as Trauma Room doctors, nurses and neurosurgeons in identifying a gunshot wound as being an entry of exit. Have we in the CT world exaggerated the significance of Parkland DR. Malcolm Perry's initial assertion that JFK's throat wound was an entrance, since he was probably clueless about this?

I ask you to argue for or against Pat Speer's theory that JFK's throat wound is an exit wound possibly caused by a bullet penetrating the low occipital bone (EOP). Speer cites several premises to back up his argument, some of which are: Read the entire piece here.

Andric, you may be referring to a different quote from Jackie than I have. From her WC testimony: "I was trying to hold his hair on. But 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." This testimony accords well with Clint Hill. May I ask the source of your quote? Thanks in advance , Daniel "11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95, and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles" This is consistent with what William Manchester wrote in his book based on his (many) interviews with Jackie: "The Death of a President, 1967": ""He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn't there anymore." Link Jackie, who died in 1994, had 27 years to correct Manchester, in case you argue that Manchester misrepresented the content of her interviews. Perhaps it is just a coincidence that she told White the same thing, unless you will argue that White and Manchester engaged in a sinister plan to pretend she thought the wound was at top of her head. Another thing: you argued that Jackie was clueless about holding down the top of his head, because one cannot hold down that which isn't there; but then you go on to argue that it was the back of JFK's head she tried to hold on to. But wait a minute. How could she hold down the back of his head if it is not there?

" I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." She later described the condition of Kennedy’s head upon arrival at the hospital. White’s notes relate: "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." A couple of people have said that the Parkland doctors standing behind JFK's head had "the best view" of all. Wrong. Actually, the best view was Jackie's. Unlike the Parkland doctors, she had the advantage of seeing JFK's head in an upright position. Any deviation of the upright position (0 degrees) increases the chance of error in locating the wound. Anyways, two questions need to be answered by back-of-the-head theorists if they wish to count Jackie as their ally in this debate. 1) What was so not beautiful about JFK's head behind his forehead? 2) As for the top of JFK's head, why was Jackie trying to "keep it in"? (rhetorical question). JFK's head as described by Jackie sounds a lot like it was supposed to look like after pre-autopsy surgery was complete (See Lifton, D.) The big problem. She described what she saw in the car.

Had scalp been reflected before that picture was taken?

Does Fritz' alleged statement is a direct quote or a quote of Frudge stating that Fritz might have said that? Here's what I see in another book by Jim DiEugenio (The Assassinations):

It is important than no participant be allowed to attempt the three shots more than once (Oswald didn't). Question: will the scope be misaligned?

Your claim that Frazier stated that the goal of the 15-yard tests was to assess speed alone is false. al·so [awl-soh] adverb 1. in addition; too; besides; as well: Source:Dictionary.com

Mr. Joseph, as a person who has done a lot of research on ballistics, what is your opinion regarding the possibility that one frangible or hollow point bullet caused both one teeny tiny entrance hole to the right temple and a large exit wound on the lower back of the head?

More fun with lines, Carrico version:

You don't have to describe the wound O'neill said he saw. We have video. Does his demonstration seem accurate to you?

O'neill's demonstration relative to the top of the ear, from the video:

By not heeding my advice to Josephs to avoid blanket statements such as "all," "always," "nobody," etc., you made a mistake, in my opinion. You said that all head witnesses were described "roughly" the same wound location. How "roughly" did Audrey Bell and Dr. Salyer describe the wound to be in the same spot? There are two words that are commonly used by people who are hedging their bets: "roughly," and "could." I hate it when I see website with headlines screaming (for example). The NSA metadata program "could" be unconstitutional. No xxxx, Sherlock, I think to myself. Why doesn't the journalist tell us whether he believes the program is constitutional or not? In the case of "roughly," which you used, the room for spin is tremendous.

I don't suspect conspiracy between Parkland doctors, and once again you refuse to read Speer's website, in which he cites research explaining how the orientation of the head has an impact on accuracy when it comes to identifying the space between features. The research is about perception, not about conspiracy; therefore your question has already been answered. But again, as I explained earlier, some people believe they don't need to read opposing views because they possess the truth, so it's a waste of time to bother reading such material. You seem to be in that group. One who does believe there was a conspiracy among Parkland doctors was, ironically, Charles Crenshaw, but in the opposite direction. Do you believe in his conspiracy theory? Finally, tell me about the conspiracy by Zapruder, the Willis couple, etc.