Robert Prudhomme

LOL Yup, John, who would've thought the ARRB would come along someday and actually demand to see the contents of those 26 interviews, instead of just taking the HSCA's word for what was in them?

Okay, Mr. Caddy, I take back everything I said about the material you post being trivial.

This is most amazing, the interview with Tippit's father. If what he says is true, this means there would have been two DPD members searching for LHO possibly before LHO was "discovered" missing by Roy Truly. I wonder how difficult it would be to track down which other officer was involved in the accident and to track down how that officer was dispatched.

Amen, Vince. 'Nuff said.

144 replies later, nobody in this thread has bothered to discuss the research cited by Speer proving that looking at a human head upside-down (as in the case of any doctor who observed the wound while standing behind JFK's head in Parkland) significantly impairs one's ability to tell the location of features relative to the others. Commenters keep asking Speer why many witnesses placed the head in the occipital region, when they could have easily found out (by reading the website patspeer.com) that Speer explains why he thinks these location estimates were wrong.

Similarly, the findings quoted by Speer proving that people have a symmetry bias (which may explain why some witnesses drew the wound in the exact center of the head) have been quoted by zero people in this thread.

There may be several explanations as to why commenters are ignoring these topics:

1) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it's too long to read.

2) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it was too boring.

3) They are so confident that the location is in the back of the head that they thought, "I don't need to read anything new. I know what happened."

Or a combination of the above.

If I stand on my head and my big toe is bleeding, are you going to tell everyone I have a nosebleed?

Please, do not insult our intelligence.

In any of Tague's statements or recollections, does he recall which of the three shots he felt caused his wound?

I, for one, will no longer be responding to Pat Speer's posts. By responding to him, I believe we are only providing him a stage for spouting his nonsensical drivel.

Okay, Pat, you are a wannabe expert on bullets, now, are you? Define what you mean by "exploding" bullet.

Next, tell us all just how you know the exact shape of this 1/4" hole in JFK's head, as, from what I am reading, Robinson did not describe it as you are doing.

And heck, Pat, did you know that 6.5 mm = .256" which is about as close to 1/4" as you can get. Of course it was a small hole; how big a hole do you think a 6.5mm makes?

And are you saying hollow point, fragmenting and explosive rounds make bigger entrance holes than FMJ bullets? Just how would you know this? I can tell by what you write you don't know the first thing about firearms, or anything else, for that matter.

What if the Parkland doctors did not see this small wound? Would we be required to believe that Mr. Robinson was not telling the truth about it?

Yes, that is the one, the interview with Andy Purdy dated 12/01/77 and suppressed until forcefully released by the ARRB in the 1990's.

What I find interesting is the Secret Service or FBI agent (never identified by Robinson, though he was shown some credentials), present at the autopsy with Robinson, who was a "bullistic (sic) expert" and seems to have convinced Robinson it was perfectly normal for a bullet to make a ragged 3" diameter entrance hole and that a perfectly round 1/4" hole in the right temple could have been made by an exiting bullet fragment or a piece of bone exiting. I am frankly amazed at Robinson's gullibility, considering his profession.

Re-reading this interview clearly shows Robinson as a reliable back of head wound witness, plus a total absence of any other large head wound witness.

I can't lay my hands on it right now but, there is an interview with the mortician Tom Robinson in which he describes the only two wounds he saw on JFK's head; a 1/4" hole in the right temple and a large gaping wound in the rear of JFK's head.

He also goes on to say he had a discussion about these wounds with an FBI "ballistics expert" during the autopsy in which this expert told him it was highly probable for a bullet to make a large gaping entrance wound and that the 1/4" hole in the right temple was likely made by an exiting bullet fragment or piece of bone.

Someone put LSD in the Parkland coffee machine that day. I think Pat has been into the same stuff.

Still the back of the head though, right? How does a bullet entering the back of the head create a large gaping wound in the back of the head?

BTW, you're not "winning" anything, unless you think that influencing the young and the mentally challenged with your nonsense equates to "winning" something.

The basic thing wrong with the WC findings includes the autopsy report. We are asked to believe that JFK was shot in the back of the head with a long thick walled round nosed full metal jacket bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps and from six storeys up, that entered JFK's head just to the right of the external occipital protuberance; a point very low in the back of JFK's head.

In the real world, JFK would have had an exit wound under his nose.

Ohhhh yes, indeed.

It may get me in trouble concerning forum rules but, I agree with everything Bjorn Gjerde has said. Disinformation is a cancer that has invaded America.

From Pat Speer:

"The line I've highlighted is not remotely true."

Care to elaborate?

Ray and John

Very good arguments, but I am sure Mr. Speer will point out the flaws in your thinking for you.

"In this case, MOST of the witnesses claiming they saw a wound on the far back of the head deferred to the autopsy photos when shown them. It is offensive, in my opinion, to assume these people were lying, or scared or intimidated, whatever. There was a conflict in the evidence. They stepped up and said, "My bad, I probably made a mistake." No one standing on the outside could possibly know how certain they'd been to begin with, and how easy or hard it was for them to admit they made a mistake."

Just one minor problem with your thinking here, Pat. If the witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda had, in equal numbers, randomly put the large head wound all over JFK's head (ie. face, back, high, low, top, forward, back, etc.), your logic might have some credence to it.

HOWEVER, the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, WITHOUT any communication between them, miraculously all placed the large gaping head wound at the BACK of JFK's head. What a frickin' coincidence, eh, Pat?

Think it might have been a conspiracy??

From John Crites:

"A frangible bullet hitting the president from the right side would have to drag out some of the right side - maybe part of the parietal, via its exit through the back of the head I would think."

Hello John

This is a very good point you make here, and one of the basic talking points LN's have used for years to deny the possibility of a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. The truth of the matter is, not all bullets are created equal and, under identical conditions, different types of bullets will do different things.

The most basic bullet, and the most predictable, is a very long, round nosed, full metal jacket bullet, such as the 162 grain 6.5mm Carcano bullet, travelling at a lower speed range imparted by a muzzle velocity of around 2200 fps and hitting its target within a range of 100 yards. As I have pointed out before, the 6.5 Carcano is unique amomg 6.5mm calibre rifles. Its rifling grooves are somewhat deeper, meaning that it shoots a bullet .268" in diameter as opposed to the .264" diameter bullet fired from other 6.5mm calibre rifles. Translated, the jacket walls of the 6.5mm Carcano bullet are thicker than the jacket walls of any other 6.5mm rifle bullets.

It is well known that the 6.5mm Carcano was dubbed the "humanitarian rifle" by Italian troops. However, this was not a reflection on its accuracy. Rather, the bullet was so stable (and sturdy) it often went straight through its victims, without breaking up, and left an exit hole not much bigger than the entrance hole. The joke amongst the troops was that at least it was possible to shoot more than one person with the same bullet, sometimes three if you were lucky.

In comparison, look at a modern full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet such as the 5.56mm NATO bullet fired from the AR15 or the M16. This is a much shorter bullet than the 6.5mm Carcano and leaves the muzzle at the outrageous speed of 3200 fps. Not only is the bullet much shorter, causing it to de-stabilize on impact at these high speeds, the tip of the bullet is pointed instead of rounded like the 6.5mm Carcano. While a round nose on a stable bullet will often "punch" its way through matter, a high speed short pointed bullet has a tendency to tumble on impact. The results are devastating, and there is nothing "humanitarian" about them.

Getting away from FMJ bullets, the next types of bullets are soft point and hollow point. There are also many other types of controlled expansion bullets but there is not enough room here to discuss them all.

The soft point bullet's copper alloy jacket does not extend all the way to the forward tip of the bullet. Rather, the tip has exposed lead. On impact, there is nothing holding the copper alloy jacket at the tip together and it will begin to peel back, pulling the lead with it. As shooters say, the bullet "expands" and becomes much greater in diameter than the original bullet. The greater the expansion, the more matter it damages passing through its victim and the quicker it slows down; often not exiting at all. Most importantly, though, is that the expansion is not always equal on all sides and the expanded bullet is not nearly as aerodynamic as the original bullet. Translation: An FMJ bullet will often travel a very straight path through a body while a soft tipped bullet, due to its expansion, is not nearly so predictable.

Finally, we have the hollow point bullets, followed by fragmenting bullets and frangible bullets. The hollow points, which actually have a hollow point on the tip, open up and expand into a mushroom shape more readily than a soft point bullet will, thereby stopping quicker in a wound and inflicting greater damage. Fragmenting bullets are similar to hollow points but usually have deeper and larger openings and often thinner jacket walls. To improve ballistics, this large nose cavity is often filled with a plastic tip to allow the bullet to fly through the air better. Fragmenting bullets are designed to break up into many small pieces on impact and are often fired at high muzzle velocities to enable this. As you will see further in my story, there is often a fine line between a fragmenting and a hollow point bullet.

Frangible bullets are something else altogether. They are often made of tiny fragments held together by a weak binding, or from tiny lead balls in a thin copper alloy jacket, held together by some binding agent that will shatter on impact. Whatever the construction, a frangible bullet turns almost to powder when it impacts anything solid. For this reason, they are used in combat training to prevent ricochets and by armed security agents on aircraft to prevent stray bullets from doing further damage to the aircraft. They are touted by some manufacturers as the ultimate expanding bullet, and can have devastating results, but often, on larger game, they disintegrate on impact with the surface of the animal and do not penetrate far enough to do any serious damage.

Before I try to explain how a bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll can exit the right rear of JFK's head, let me share a handloading/hunting experience with you. A number of years ago, I owned what I thought was the perfect deer rifle. It was a Winchester Model 70 chambered to shoot the .308 calibre cartridge (7.62x51mm NATO) with a 4x scope mounted on it. I had bought it used and, after correcting a problem it had with a warped forestock that caused it to shoot progressively higher and to the right with each shot, I found it to be a very accurate rifle when sighted in to be accurate at 200 yards.

I got into handloading my own cartridges in a big way and began experimenting with different powder loads, different types of powder and different types and weights of bullets. Eventually, I came across a 110 grain .30 calibre hollow point "varminter" bullet that could be loaded into my .308 cartridges. Where I live, the deer are not overly large in size and can often be shot at ranges under 100 yards. While a shot through the lungs is the safest and surest way to kill a deer, we often found, with such a small target, a lot of meat in the front quarters and backstrap ended up getting damaged and had to be discarded. A head shot seemed like a much better idea but did not have the kill guarantee of a lung shot. So, I thought, why not a hollow point bullet for maximum expansion within the deer's head?

Well, I'm here to tell you the idea worked just as I thought it would. In fact, it worked so well, when I ran out of hollow point bullets I didn't buy any more of them. The results were simply too obscene. As I said, there is a fine line between a fragmenting and a hollow point bullet. While these bullets penetrated the deers' skulls well enough, making only a tiny .308" entrance hole, they literally came to pieces once inside the skull; often making more than one exit hole and totally disgusting anyone who saw the deer later.

This is the point I wanted to make, in answer to your question. While FMJ and soft point bullets will usually have exit wounds coaxial with their entrance wounds, head shots made with hollow point and fragmenting bullets (and possibly frangible bullets) will not necessarily perform in the same way. Often, these bullets will not even exit, and the so called "exit wounds" seen are caused by the build up of hydraulic pressure within the skull seeking a vent through a weak spot where two of the skull bones (ie. occipital/parietal) are seamed together.

Do you see now how it is possible for a bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll to cause a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Dr. Peters:

"A fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (HSCA, I believe)

Hello John

This is a very unusual way for Dr. Peters to have described JFK's head wound, and confirms my belief that Parkland witnesses were living under threat of retribution, should they say too much. At first glance, he appears to be discussing a wound on the top right of JFK's head, and I am sure Pat Speer will jump at the opportunity to point this out. However, the fact of the matter is that the occipital bone is located ENTIRELY at the back of the head, and for the wound to be occipital/parietal, it would have to be far behind the right ear. The observation of cerebellar material places the wound lower in the head, I would believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone

As seen in the above diagrams, the occipital bone is clearly at the back of the head, as well as any juncture between the occipital and parietal bones. Pat Speer also refuses to acknowledge that I pointed out the pointed centre of the occipital bone extends above the level of the ears slightly. This can clearly be seen in the diagrams, as well.

Translated: You can't and won't find the statements about the cerebrum/cerebellum because you know they will not support your exaggerated claims.

Having troubles finding the supporting statements I asked you for, Pat?

So, let us see the statements where these gentlemen say that macerated cerebrum looks like cerebellum, which anyone in the medical field with more than six functioning brain cells will tell you is BS.

Chris

If we are to believe William Greer swerved, as he stated to Jackie, I think we are obligated to consider that Greer also stopped the limousine; or brought it almost to a stop, depending on the witness. Since neither a swerve or a stop is visible in the Zapruder film, and no testimony to that effect appears in the WCR, clear evidence of a coverup would seem to exist here.

I feel Greer may have spotted a shooter somewhere forward of the limousine. "If only I'd seen it in time" does not seem to be describing the head wound. By the time he saw the head wound, wouldn't it be a bit late to take evasive action? It doesn't make sense.

Speaking of survivor's guilt amongst the SS, there is a quote attributed to the limo driver, William Greer, that has often puzzled me. Jackie's historian, William Manchester, quotes Greer as saying to Jackie, at Parkland Hospital, the following:

"Oh Mrs. Kennedy, oh my God, oh my God. I didn't mean to do it, I didn't hear, I should have swerved the car, I couldn't help it. Oh Mrs. Kennedy, as soon as I saw it I swerved. If only I'd seen it in time! Oh!"

Not only is this in direct contradiction of the WC findings, there is no evidence, in the Zapruder film, of the limo swerving (or stopping) although many eyewitnesses did claim to see the limo swerve to the left and stop.

I have often wondered just what the "it" was that Greer saw and how swerving would have been a method of avoiding "it".

Anyone?