Keven Hofeling

Personally, I don't believe J. Thornton Boswell's explanation of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs. Mostly because it's not consistent with the testimony of the BOH witnesses, none of whom reported a huge segment of detached scalp at the back of JFK's head, but also because I once had a client who was a second-year med intern who had an interest in the JFKA and discussed that particular Boswell testimony with me. He had experience with cadavers and gunshot wounds, and told me that anybody that believes we are looking at a grapefruit sized piece of scalp being held up in those BOH photographs must be suffering from magical thinking because broken heads don't look perfectly intact the way JFK's head looks in those photographs. He said "it's just not credible." But if I were inclined to believe it, it would cause me to see the testimony of Dr. McClelland in the video below in a different light. However, I think McClelland was, like the other Parkland doctors in the PBS Nova episode "Who Killed President Kennedy," just concerned about his professional reputation when confronted with the original autopsy photographs, and didn't want to be pilloried as the "lone conspiracy doctor." I suspect that what was going on with Boswell and Humes is that they were told by some higher up, perhaps even LBJ himself, that the Cubans and Soviets were behind the assassination and that the lives of forty million Americans -- who would die in a nuclear war if the American public were to find out -- rested in their hands, and in their ability to convince the public with their Autopsy Report that President Kennedy had been assassinated by a lone gunman shooting from behind. It was by the use of this exact story that LBJ enlisted Senator Richard Russell and Chief Justice Earl Warren onto the Warren Commission: __________ 'LBJ-Russell 11-29-63, 2nd call' This fascinating conversation between President Johnson and his old mentor Senator Richard Russell is very revealing. Johnson begins by reading to Russell the announcement of the formation of the President's Commission to study the assassination, to which he has named Russell. Not realizing that it's a done deal, Russell complains that he "couldn't serve on it with Chief Justice Warren--I don't like that man" and pleads with Johnson to reconsider. LBJ tells him that "Dick, it's already been announced and you can serve with anybody for the good of America, and this is a question that has a good many more ramifications than on the surface and we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khruschev and Castro did this and did that and kicking us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour." Toward the end of the conversation, Johnson re-invokes the image of 40 million Americans killed in a nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union, and then tells Russell how he got Warren to serve on the Commission. After Warren refused several times, Johnson called him to the Oval Office and told him "what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City," whereupon Warren began crying and told Johnson "well I won't turn you down, I'll just do whatever you say." https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Russell_11-29-63_2nd.htm

Then why are you working so hard not to address the implications of the video and documents? The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public). In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote: "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39) The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. ⁠ By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. ⁠ This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position.... ⁠ In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. ⁠ In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. ⁠ The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] ⁠ Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. ⁠ More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. ⁠ That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] ⁠ So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants." ⁠ ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar: 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding. Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials: Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis!

Yup. Sounds like the stock response...

My background? As if I would be seeking to discredit YOU on behalf of the government? That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? That's right. You and Von Pein clean up after yourselves real fast...

Yes, you covert tag teams clean up after yourselves fast, don't you?

Yes, Mr. Speer, you're a legend (in your own mind)...

This isn't "nonsense." It's document and video evidence you don't even dare attempt to refute! The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public). In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote: "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39) The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. ⁠ By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. ⁠ This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position.... ⁠ In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. ⁠ In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. ⁠ The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] ⁠ Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. ⁠ More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. ⁠ That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] ⁠ So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants." ⁠ ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar: 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding. Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials: Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis!

Now I've got you defending the bona fides of a limited hangout?

Actually, once again, your comment is unresponsive. But since you bring up the autopsy photographs of the back wound, maybe you can explain the discrepancies Dr. Mantik has discovered in the photos of the back wound at NARA?

The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public). In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote: "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39) The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. ⁠ By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. ⁠ This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position.... ⁠ In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. ⁠ In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. ⁠ The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] ⁠ Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. ⁠ More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. ⁠ That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] ⁠ So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants." ⁠ ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar: 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding. Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials: Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis! Incidentally, a dissent to the authenticity report by Robert Groden -- who was a photographic consultant to the HSCA -- was published by the HSCA: Said report is interesting to me for three reasons: First, Groden reported that "[i]n later generations of [the autopsy] photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined" indicated alteration of the back-of-the-head photos; secondly, Groden described the soft matte edge insertion process by which he believed those photos had been altered; and third, Groden submitted an attachment to his report attesting to the importance of the witness of testimony of the medical professionals who reported the occipital-parietal wound (which is ironic, considering the HSCA's suppression of witness statements). That report, in relevant part, is as follows: VII. REPORT ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AUTOPSY X-RAYS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT JOAN F. KENNEDY During the public hearings in September, witnesses from the com- mittee's scientific panels stated that in their opinion the autopsy pho- tographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were genuine, citing such evidence as the fact that the film used was produced in 1963. The importance of the photographs and X-rays cannot be over- estimated. Every scientific panel-photographic, medical, acoustics. ballistics, N.A.A., et cetera-all depend upon the autopsy materials for their testing and conclusions. The basic conclusions from all except the acoustics panel is that two shots struck the President from behind. On the surface it would seem that the autopsy materials bear out that conclusion. That, however, may not be the case. There is evidence that raises grave questions about the authenticity of the items being relied upon by the select committee and its panels. Moreover, there is medical data in the photos and X-rays which is apparently being ignored. 1. THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY The fact that the HSCA panels have been unable to establish in- authenticity of these items may not reflect their authenticity but rather the skill with which they were forged. In considering the matter of authenticity of some of the autopsy photographs, my main concern is that of the large head exit wound and its exact and general location as described by the vast majority of trained medical personnel at Parkland Hospital and reported by many of the Dallas witnesses. The main issue here is that such a wound may have been photographically eradicated from the only visual record of the President's body following the assassination via the simple technique of photo-compositing. If done with care, this would be undetectable. On this point, some of the photo panel's tests would be meaning- less. For example, one test the panel claims proves authenticity is that the film in evidence was manufactured in 1963. It seems that if any one were to plot the forging of these pictures that they would not wait until the film used in the other (genuine) autopsy photo- graphs would be out of date, and that they would certainly use the same film that would have been originally used in the entire autopsy series. All this test proves is that the forgeries could have been pro- duced in late 1963 or early 1964. For the record, my visual inspection of the autopsy photographs and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs Color chromes No. 42 and No. 43 showing the rear of the head and No. 15 and No. 16 which appear to be the same shots in black and white (made from black and white duplicate negatives of No. 42 and No. 43). Within the circumference of the President's head, there is an irreg- ular line. Within this line the hair appears black and wet. On the outside of the line it is auburn and completely dry. In later genera- tions of these photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined. This phenomenon is characteristic of crop lines in matte insert processes used for retouching and recompositioning of photographs. It is my opinion that these two photographs are forgeries, com- posites manufactured to eliminate evidence of an exit wound in the rear of the President's head. The onlv method I am aware of that could have been used to create these composites is known as "soft edge matte insertion." (See attachment 1.) The question of the authenticity of these particular photographs is crucial because of the large volume of evidence indicating that at least one shot struck the President in the head from the front, causing an exit wound at the rear of the skull. The problem is that this wound, seen by so many in Dallas, does not appear in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. The most reliable descriptions were those from the Parkland doctors on the day of the murder. Doctors Clark, Jones, Perry, Baxter, Akin, McClelland, and Nurses Hutton, Bowron, and several others all de- scribe that same wound in great detail, and all place it at the same point in the rear of the President's head in the area of the occipital bone. Many said cerebellar tissue protruded from a large avulsive exit wound. This too indicates a lower rear head exit wound. A partial list of the many eyewitnesses who describe this wound is included as attachment 2 to this memo. It seems highly improbable that all these witnesses were mistaken. Furthermore, the descriptions of the eyewitnesses who saw Ken- nedy's head wound at Parkland are corroborated by those who saw the bullet impact upon the head in Dealey Plaza. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill saw a piece of the President's skull fly from the President's head and travel toward the rear-left of the car. Mrs. Kennedy attempted to pick up this piece (and indeed from a recently declassified portion of her Warren Commission testimony we can see that she may have picked up a section of skull) and tried to hold it onto the rear of her husband's head. The next day Billy Harper found a piece of bone in Dealey Plaza. Originally, the "Harper" fragment was identified by a qualified pa- thologist as a section of occipital bone. In addition, there is photographic evidence of a shot exiting from the rear of the President's head. Zapruder film frames No. 335 and No. 337 clearly show the result of the head shot. They are the clearest two frames showing the Presi- dent after the head explosion. I have examined and measured the contours of the President's head on Zapruder film frames 335 and 337. The rear of the President's head, in these frames, shows his hair pushed upward and away from the scalp. That indicates the bones underneath were avulsed outward. This matches the description of the wound provided by Dr. McClel- land who said the bones at the rear of the head were "sprung open." (See attachment 2 for full quote and other descriptions of this wound.) Conclusions The Dallas observations indicating a rear exit hole cannot be easily dismissed. These accounts were provided by trained medical personnel. It defies belief that so many people, viewing the President from dif- ferent angles at different times, should all describe the same wound condition and position. My own examination of the autopsy photo- graphs of the rear of the head shows a sharp contrast buildup along an irregular line at the rear of President Kennedy's head. This con- trast buildup could be the result of a photocompositing process where- by another photograph was superimposed on the back of President Kennedy's head, thus eliminating evidence of that exit wound. Based upon my observation of that contrast buildup, and the Dallas medical observations indicating there was a wound there, it is my opinion, as a photo-consultant to the House select committee, that these photo- graphs are forgeries.... ATTACHMENT 1: SOFT EDGE MATTE INSERTION Given the present nature of these photographs, the only method that I am aware of that could have been used to alter them is called soft edge matte insertion. The technique uses a black and white masking process and this is how it works: An original 4 x 5 photograph; that is, transparency would be taken showing the rear of JFK's head with the exit wound in the center (in this case two, No. 42 and No. 43) . Using one at a time, it is pin reg- istered and placed in a photographic enlarger along with a pin registered piece of 4 x 5 black and white film called a registered black core matte. This is clear film with a black center in a specific area over the area on the original transparency to be eliminated. The clear fades quickly to the black, not a sharply defined edge, hence the term "soft edge." This "sandwich" is then projected onto another piece of 4 x 5 Ektrachrome transparency film. In this case. the result so far would be the rear of the President's head with a large blank, black area in the rear. This new piece of film is then put in a light tight container. At this point, another transparency of the back of another head, this one with an entrance bullet hole and hair that matches J.F.K.'s head photographed to the same size, is pin registered with a clear core matte which is a piece of black film tapering to a clear center. This is a con- tact film print of the black core matte and fits exactly in register with the original transparency and the black core matte. This new "sandwich" is then projected in register onto the par- tially exposed Ektachrome. Now the photograph is complete. The final result is what appears to be the rear of the President's head with a small wound of entry near the top. The same thing is done to the other original in register and the result is a pair of virtually undetectable forgeries of the finest possible quality. The technique would allow the integrity of stereo views. ATTACHMENT 2: REFERENCES TO AN OCCIPITAL HEAD WOUND OF EXIT IN WARREN REPORT (PART OF CE 392, APPENDIX VIII, PP. 516-530) Kemp Clark-"Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted." (p. 517) "There was a large wound in the right occipito parietal region * * * both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were ex- truding from the wound" (p. 518). Charles Carrico-"Dr. Jenkins attempted to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted" (p. 520). Malcolm Perry-"A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted * * *" (p. 521). Charles Baxter-"* * * the right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table * * * (p. 523). Kemp Clark (handwritten at 4 :15 p.m.)-"There was a large wound beginning in the right occipital extending into the parietal region" 525). M. T. Jenkis-"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) causing a great defect in the skull plate * * * even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound" (p. 530). Dr. John Ebersole (taped interview with Gil Delaney, Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal) + (a.), March 8, 1978-"knew shot came 42-370 0 - 79 - 20 from the back or side because the back of his head was blown off." (Ebersole now says he was misquoted.) In an interview with Art Smith, Chester, Pa ., Ebersole said the back of the skull was intact "except for maybe three small fragments." Dr. Ronald Jones-"What appeared to be an exit wound in the pos- terior portion of skull," (61156). Dr. Perry-"A large avulsive injury of the right occipital area (61111). Dr. Charles Baxter-"A large gaping wound in the back of the skull * * * literally the right side of his head was blown off" (61140-41). Dr. McClelland-"As I took the position at the head of the table I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out" (61133). Nurse Pat Hutton-"Pressure bandage was no use * * * because of the massive opening on the back of the head." Dr. Gene Akins-"Back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance protruding" (61165). Dr. Clark-"* * * examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed" (6H20). Dr. Peters-"We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound" (6H71). Diana Bowron-Parkland Hospital nurse. [Warren Commission testimony follows:] BOWRON, DIANA - TESTIMONY before Warren Commission: These are some of the most relevant excerpts from the testimony of Parkland hospital nurse Diana Bowron who was the first trained medical person to observe the President upon arrival at Parkland hospital and observed the President face down in the car. She looked directly at the wound of exit in the rear of the President's head. TESTIMONY OF DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON The testimony of Diana Hamilton Bowron was taken at 2 :05 p.m ., on March 2-1, 1001, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Spec- ter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission, Mr . Specter. And what, to a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON. He was moribund-he was lying across Mrs . Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what? Miss Bowron. The back of his head. Mr. Specter: And what was that condition? Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad you know. Mr. Specter. How many holes slid you see? Miss Bowron. I just saw one large hole. Mr. Specter. Did yon see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss Bowron. No, sir. Mr. Specter. Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss Bowron. No, sir. Mr. Specter. And what action did you take at that time, if any? Miss Bowron. I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran oil with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us. And an excerpt from a newspaper article labled as "Bowron exhibit No . 3. in Warren Commission volume #19. Diana, who was trained at Hope Hospital, Salford, said:- "I realised who the man in the car was as soon as I Saw Jackie Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was slumped forward in his seat and so was Mr. Connally." https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_5_GrodenComments.pdf Dr. David Mantik's spectrographic testing of the "original" autopsy photographs subsequently confirmed Groden's suspicion that the back-of-the-head photos had been altered via the soft matte edge insertion process he had described to the HSCA, as indicated by Mantik in the following video: Thus and therefore, contrary to your conclusion that the HSCA Final Report "proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong" for "all time," it is in truth the descriptions of Dr. McClelland and some fifty other witnesses as to the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head that are in fact true. Furthermore, you don't seem to understand how disputes about questionable photographic and X-ray evidence are resolved in the real world. This is the process by which fraudulent photographs -- like the JFK back-of-the-head autopsy photograph -- are excluded from evidence (except to prove fraud) in American courtrooms... FRE 402 HEARING RESULTING IN FINDING THAT AUTOPSY MATERIALS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE -- EXCEPT TO PROVE FRAUD: The evidentiary dispute about whether the autopsy photographs were authenticated or are fraudulent -- as well as the Autopsy Protocol and X-rays [and the Zapruder film would also be subject to a similar legal process]) would result in a 402 evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence where members of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel would be subjected to cross examination about the voluminous medical evidence they were denied by the HSCA; Robert Groden (photographic consultant to the HSCA) and Dr. David Mantik would present testimony about the BOH photographs being proven to have matte inserts by stereoscopic testing of the purported "originals"; and there would be a long list of 11/22/1963 first day witnesses (the records and testimony of those who are deceased would be admitted into evidence under the official records exception to the hearsay rule) whose testimony would demonstrate that the extant autopsy photographs, X-rays, autopsy report and Zapruder film misrepresent the true nature of JFK's wounds. The court would exclude the autopsy evidence EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING FRAUD, and the matter would proceed to trial on the basis of the admissible records and testimony. _____________ Digital and photographic evidence is thrown out of courtrooms every day once shown by multiple testimonial witnesses to be fraudulent. Photographic fakery is more common than most people realize. Disputed photographic evidence must be authenticated in a Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402 evidentiary hearing before being admitted into evidence, and if found to be fraudulent (most often as the result of conflicting testimonial evidence), it is excluded as evidence and very often ruled to be admissible ONLY to prove fraud. With regard to the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in particular in the JFK case, we are not talking about just 1 or 2 witnesses that dispute their veracity, BUT OVER 40 WITNESSES WHO DO. And it's not just a mere matter of those witnesses having widely varying accounts of the back-of-the head wound actually seen on 11/22/1963; the vast majority of them describe the actual wound as being in the same location, and having virtually the same characteristics, placing defenders of the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in the impossible position of claiming it is mere coincidence that 40+ witnesses were not only wrong, BUT WRONG IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. This simply isn't going to go ever well in an American courtroom. The back-of-the head autopsy photographs would be found to be fraudulent and excluded from evidence except to prove fraud. @James DiEugenio made a very interesting post in this forum a few months ago about how the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs would be evaluated in a FRE 402 hearing that is probably pretty close to how it would actually transpire, as follows: _____________ "As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pretrial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer. I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film. Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht. (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?) This is what would occur: 1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures. 2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas. 3. The lawyer would then ask him: what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it? 4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted? Well, does it look disrupted to you here? 5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures? He would likely say yes. The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique? He would say no. At this point the attorney would call Robert Knudsen to the stand. 6. Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain? Yes, that is Ansco. What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack. 7. Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body? Yes I did. Are you aware that those pictures do not exist? Yes I am. 8. Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965? Yes I did. Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for? Yes it does. You yourself knew that was a false statement. Yes I did. Why did you sign it? Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. Lawyer says, but some people don't. Stringer says: but they don't last very long. 9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen. He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland. One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember. Namely a baseball sized cavity. 10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment. He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand. He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas. And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now: Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it. Lawyer says: how convenient. The lawyer then asks: but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture? After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me. Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject. Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible. Judge: Motion is sustained. Bugliosi starts stamping his feet, and yelling objections. Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt. This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28751-the-402-hearings-on-the-autopsy-pictures/

@Pat Speer you've really got some gig going there when even lone nutters are questioning the lack of honesty and integrity inherent to your distortions of the witness testimony...

Greg Doudna wrote: You've got to be kidding Mr. Doudna! After all of the following, you are still attempting to defend Mr. Speer's honesty and integrity? Early in the morning of Sunday, January 21, 2024, in response to @Sandy Larsen's post calling him out for claiming that Dr. Randy Robertson's conclusions about the 3 autopsy photographs that Kodak had developed from Floyd Riebe's exposed film had authenticated the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs, Mr. Speer wrote: "...As brought to our attention by Jerrol Custer, moreover, the photos show JFK on his back with his head in a stirrup. IF there had been a gigantic hole in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, this would not have been possible. Now, Custer mentioned this when discussing the x-rays. He took the x-rays. In order to take the A-P x-ray film would have to have been placed beneath the back of the head. Custer claimed he would not have placed film directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter, and that the back of the head was shattered, but remained beneath the scalp. And the x-rays he took show this fractured eggshell pattern he remembered. Which is why he signed off on the authenticity of the x-rays when speaking before the ARRB." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526546 On Sunday afternoon, January 21, 2024, in response to Sandy Larsen's post arguing against his head stirrup claims, Mr. Speer again wrote: "Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526563 Commentary: Mr. Speer is here repeating his false claims about the Jerrol Custer ARRB deposition as if reading them from the deposition. 9:12 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I posted a comprehensive refutation of Mr. Speer's claims that Jerrol Custer told the ARRB that he wouldn't have placed X-Ray film "directly beneath a gaping hole oozing blood and brain matter," supported by screenshots of the transcript of the ARRB deposition of Custer, pointing out that it had been Custer's testimony that there had not been a brain in JFK's skull at the time of the first X-rays and thereafter. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526695 9:22 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my post of ten minutes prior as follows: "Sadly, you have no idea what you are talking about. "The foundation of my entire project?" What a laugh!" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526698 Commentary: It has been ten minutes since I posted to debunk Mr. Speer's Jerrol Custer claims, and most if not all of that time has been expended by him reading the post. Mr. Speer didn't review the deposition to make certain he wasn't mistaken, instead he exclaims that I simply have "no idea what [I'm] talking about." 9:25 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 9:22 a.m. post as follows: "Prove it." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526700 9:33 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my 9:25 a.m. post with a cut and paste of his website chapter about Jerrol Custer (which was completely unresponsive to my refutation of his claims), which he prefaced as follows: "LOL.Why waste my time? You know damn well that people who've staked out a position--no matter how ill-informed--always double down on that position. If you had any desire to learn about me or what I've uncovered, you would have read a significant portion of my website before coming here in attack mode. So to me you're nothing but a waste of time, until proven otherwise. As far as Custer.... Here's what you would have known if you'd done the research.." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526701 Commentary: Mr. Speer knows that his Jerrol Custer claims were not truthful, but instead of saving face by simply saying he had misremembered or was mistaken, he does summersaults attempting to demean me. "Why waste my time?" Yet Mr. Speer has no hesitation to waste our valuable time spent trying to sort out his lies, and the question of why he would tell those lies. 10:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 9:33 a.m cut and paste post as follows: "This is unresponsive and immaterial to the misrepresentations I have called you out on. Pasting blather from your website just will not do. You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I dared you to "prove it," but your cut and paste job falls far short of achieving that. Not even close. The following are the Custer misrepresentations I have called you out on and is what you should be responding to rather than a pathetic cut and paste job that misses the mark entirely:" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526702 10:09 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to my 10:00 a.m. post as follows: "Stalker." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526703 Commentary: As Sandy Larsen would later write, stalking is a serious forum infraction; it is also a crime. By accusing me of being a "stalker" for simply calling him out on his lies, Mr. Speer trivialized the actual crime of stalking, and revealed to us what he is made of in terms of his seriousness as a researcher, and in terms of his honesty and integrity as a human being. 10:33 a.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: I responded to Mr. Speer's 10:09 a.m. "stalker" allegation as follows: "Seriously? You are really going to mount a "woke" defense like that to what I have clearly proven are material misrepresentations on your part? I would say "that is beneath you," but clearly it is not. Your feeble attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by resorting to name-calling is pathetic. I have presented concrete evidence of your misrepresentations, and instead of owning up to your deceit, you resort to baseless accusations. It's clear that you have no valid defense for your actions, so you resort to childish tactics in a feeble attempt to save face. But let me tell you, Mr. Speer, it's not working. Your lack of integrity is on full display for everyone to see, and no amount of name-calling will change that. It's time for you to face the truth and take responsibility for your dishonesty." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526705 2:25 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 9:33 a.m. post as follows: "Upon witnessing all the misrepresentations Pat has tried to pass on this forum over the past couple of weeks, and his refusal to admit he is wrong when confronted with the truth, I certainly have no faith in the accuracy of anything he has written on his website. I'm sure that much of it is factual, but now I'm sure that much of it isn't." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526719 2:40 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 10:09 a.m. "stalker" allegation as follows: "Stalking is a serious forum infraction. But it is not considered stalking when the pursuing party presents valid evidence to counter the claims of the pursued." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526720 2:54 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 2:40 p.m. post as follows: "Everything Keven has posted has been addressed on this forum over the years, and on my website. His repeating it over and over again serves no purpose beyond harassment. Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense over and over again would be like my asking you over and over again about those pesky rings of Saturn...that you claim you once saw with your naked eyes." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526721 Commentary: It's been six hours since I first confronted Mr. Speer about his Jerrol Custer misrepresentations. Far more than enough time for him to consult the Jerrol Custer deposition if he had any doubts about his memory. But instead he doubles down even harder, and maligns me to other members of the forum. Not only that, but he compounds his previous lies by telling new ones in his attempt to escape his dilemma. 3:01 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 2:25 p.m. post -- though quoted his own 9:33 a.m. post to Keven Hofeling -- as follows: "It's become clear to me that whenever I counter anything written by our friend from Utah, he immediately tries to bury it with an extremely long post filled with lots of images. In this case, his spasm has fooled Sandy into thinking that I have been misrepresenting Custer's statements. So here they are again, Sandy. Maybe read them this time." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526722 Commentary: If there had been any chance at all that Mr. Speer had merely been mistaken rather than deliberately lying, by insinuating that I have "fooled" Sandy Larsen into believing he had misrepresented Jerrol Custer's deposition testimony -- with no less than highlighted pages of the deposition itself -- he invoked a bridge too far. 5:19 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 2:54 p.m. post as follows: On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Everything Keven has posted has been addressed on this forum over the years... "I haven't seen most of what Keven has posted till now. And it's certainly new to the newbies." On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: His repeating it over and over again serves no purpose beyond harassment. "I've noticed that he repeats what he's posted when you don't respond to it (or even acknowledge it)." On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense ... "It is not nonsense. It is factual." On 1/23/2024 at 2:54 PM, Pat Speer said: Even if am wrong, his repeating his nonsense over and over again would be like my asking you over and over again about those pesky rings of Saturn...that you claim you once saw with your naked eyes. "There's a big difference. In my case, I stated what I saw. In your case, you stated what one of the witnesses said. When in fact the witness did not say it." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526731 6:49 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 3:01 p.m. post as follows: "The whole exchange is on the forum, and I saw it with my own eyes. You made this claim: Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette. Kevin responded with a video of Custer stating that the back of the head was missing. He further responded with Custer's ARRB testimony, where he said that he DID place the back of the head on the x-ray cassette in order to take the A-P x-ray. Kevin provided the parts of his ARRB deposition where he said there was no brain when he took the x-ray, but that he nevertheless placed a sheet on the x-ray cassette to protect it from body fluids. (No mention of brain matter.)" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526739 7:48 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Mr. Speer responded to Sandy Larsen's 6:49 p.m. text as follows: "Holy moly! Let's get this straight! Yes, I may have overstated what Custer said about the cassette. He may or may not have said he wouldn't put the brain down on the cassette. I don't have all the interviews with him handy, so I can't say for sure. But that's immaterial. Are you really unable to see that? Custer specified in his ARRB testimony that the back of the head was NOT blown out. He created a drawing for them showing that it was NOT blown out. And he said he took the x-rays which you and I agree do NOT depict a blow out wound on the back of the head. And yet, Keven is telling both of us--actually everyone who reads this website--that Custer was lying when he said the back of the head was NOT blown out, and that, furthermore, the x-rays taken by him DO show the back of the head to be missing...only neither Custer nor the rest of us can see it. Now I know that sounds like nonsense...and it is... But it's not my nonsense. Sprinkled amidst his attacks on me, Keven has indicated that he is a devotee of David Mantik's. Well, Mantik says the far back of the head on the x-rays show missing bone that can only be detected by one using his special device, and that the numerous doctors and x-ray techs, including Custer, who dispute this, are just wrong, seeing as they never used his special device. (IOW, junk science in a nut-shell.) And Custer is of special interest to Mantik because Mantik once showed him a cropped and computer-enhanced x-ray published by the HSCA, and Custer disavowed this x-ray. Ooh...Exciting... Years later, after being shown the originals by the ARRB, however, Custer said he recognized these x-rays as x-rays he'd taken, and vouched for their authenticity. Well, that must have stung Mantik a bit. Perhaps more than a bit. Because Mantik continued (and maybe even continues) telling his audience that Custer had disavowed the x-rays, without telling them that Oh yeah Custer embraced the x-rays as x-rays he'd taken once shown the originals." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526744 Commentary: For the first time, Mr. Speer attempts to escape his dilemma by claiming he may not have recalled correctly, but then goes on to filibuster on a topic he knows full well had nothing to do with his misrepresentations or the manner in which I confronted him about those misrepresentations. By doing so Mr. Speer is misrepresenting the exchange to Sandy Larsen, thereby adding new lies upon old lies. 9:20 p.m., Tuesday, January 23, 2024: Sandy Larsen responded to Mr. Speer's 7:48 p.m. post as follows: "While it is the case that Keven presented a video of Custer saying (in 1988 for KRON TV) that the back of the head was gone, I see now that Keven didn't challenge you on that. My bad. But he is right on the parts of what you said that he did challenge. Since you say those points are immaterial, why didn't you just admit that you misspoke or incorrectly remembered?" https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526753 Commentary: As I write this it is 8:00 a.m. on Thursday morning, January 25, 2024, nearly 36 hours since Sandy Larsen asked Mr. Speer why he didn't just admit that he had misspoken or incorrectly responded, and Mr. Speer has still not responded.

Regardless of CE 903 showing Spector's pointing to the upper back while modeling a possible trajectory for a bullet to solve the Waren Commission's 3 shot timing dilemma... ...it nevertheless remains the fact of the matter that it was the official government position both for the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and for the government today, that the magic bullet struck JFK in the back of the neck. COMMISSION EXHIBIT 385 ABOVE Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford was aware of the following trajectory problem, as is everybody else, except diehard Lone Nutters like David Von Pein... So Gerald Ford kept the magic bullet theory in play with a little bit of magic from his pencil, and if nothing else, Gerald Ford's revision demonstrates his knowledge of guilt of the fact that the Warren Commission was engaged in a frame-up... With evidence like JFK's jacket being available for inspection at NARA, the official government location of the neck for the magic bullet entry wound just isn't going to cut it. As Dr. David Mantik tells us: But let's assume -- maybe better said, "pretend" -- that the official government version of the magic bullet theory did place the entry wound in JFK's upper back... The back wound was too low on JFK's back for the "magic bullet theory" to work. The best evidence of that fact is JFK's Death Certificate, executed by White House Physician George Burkley (who was present in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital, and at the Bethesda autopsy) on November 23, 1963, the day after the assassination. The Death Certificate states: “A second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.” The Warren Commission was well aware of this, and consequently omitted the Death Certificate from the 26 volumes of the Warren Report. Can you imagine that? Including Oswald's pubic hairs in the Warren Report, but omitting the President's actual Death Certificate? Secondly, autopsy pathologist J. Thornton Boswell's autopsy face sheet diagram shows the wound five to six inches below the neck. That face sheet, by the way, was marked "verified." Among the other evidence that the back wound was "at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra" is the following compiled by Dr. Gary Aguilar: "...The autopsy photographs and a fractured right transverse process of the first thoracic process, “T-1,” support the current, official view, that JFK was hit 3- to 4-cm to the right side of the middle of the 7th cervical vertebra. or perhaps the 1st thoracic vertebra. That would place it at the very top of the back, close to the midline. But even so simple a fact as that isn’t beyond dispute. On the night of the autopsy Boswell prepared a diagram of the backside of JFK, marking a bullet’s entrance well below either “C-7” or “T-1.” Though the Warren Commission did not print it, an identical version of Boswell’s diagram turned up which was signed as “verified” by the President’s personal physician, George Burkley,[337] who gave his own evidence for a lower wound. In the official death certificate, which Burkeley wrote on 11-23-64, the day before he saw and verified the low wound depicted on Boswell's face sheet, Burkeley wrote that, “A second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.”[338] A good match for Boswell’s sketch. Other credible witnesses corroborated a lower wound: · Secret Service agent Glenn Bennett was riding the follow up car. He was the first to document, in contemporaneous notes, Kennedy taking the back shot. He wrote, "I looked at the back of the President. I heard another firecracker noise and saw that shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder."[339] The Warren Commission accorded his observations “substantial weight,” writing, "Although [Bennett’s] formal statement was dated November 23, 1963, his notes indicate that he recorded what he saw and heard at 5:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, on the airplane en route back to Washington, prior to the autopsy, when it was not yet known that the President had been hit in the back.”[340] · Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who climbed aboard the President's limousine after the shooting, described the back wound to Representative Boggs under oath, "I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column."[341] · John Ebersole, the morgue described the back wound in a recorded telephone conversation with David Mantik, MD, PhD in 1992, as, "to the right of T-4", the fourth thoracic vertebra - one vertebral space lower than Burkley's death certificate placed it. · The FBI agents who witnessed the autopsy described the wound in a formal report dictated on 11/26/63, saying, “Dr. Humes located an opening which appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column."[342] Moreover, after a 1977 interview with one of the FBI agents, Francis O’Neill, the HSCA interviewers reported, "O'Neill mentioned that he does not see how the bullets that entered below the shoulder in the back 'could have come out of the throat." In addition, O'Neill hand-sketched a 'profile' drawing of the 'back-throat' wound showing the back wound considerably lower than the throat wound.[343] The other FBI witness, James Sibert, also drew a sketch of JFK’s ‘back-throat’ wound for the HSCA in which the entrance site on the back is considerably lower than the throat wound.[344] Finally, Kennedy’s throat wound was described by the Dallas doctors as a “puncture” wound, a wound that had the appearance of an entrance wound. In fact, as already discussed, the treating Dallas doctors were convinced early on that Kennedy’s throat wound had been an entrance wound. Normally, when bullets exit a body they leave skin wounds that are irregular, stellate, with slit-like margins that are generally free of abrasions.[345] Yet, before Malcolm Perry, MD had obliterated it with the tracheotomy, Kennedy’s was reportedly small, round and regular, an untypical appearance for a wound of exit...." https://history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm And how about what the doctors thought about the magic bullet theory? Drs Shaw, Finck and Humes expressing doubts about the SBT: Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck? Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. Mr. SPECTER. And could it (CE399) have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist? Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist. Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh? Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile. And if the above is not enough, we can see in this slow-motion footage of the Zapruder film that JFK is obviously reacting to being struck by reaching for his throat when he emerges from behind the Stemmons Freeway Sign at Z-226. Governor Connally is not reacting at that point and we know he hasn't yet been hit because he is holding his white Stetson hat with his 302right hand (the same right hand connected to the wrist that would be shattered by the bullet that hit Connally), and Connally is still holding that hat when it falls out of the field of view of the film at Z-277 Governor Connally testified to the Warren Commission that upon hearing a gunshot he turned around to look toward President Kennedy, and then upon starting to turn back around leftward was hit: GOVERNOR CONNALLY: "We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye. and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I Immediately—the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So I looked, failing to see him. I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. I got about in the position I am in now facing you. looking a little bit to the left of center, and then I felt like someone had hit me in the back..." In the Zapruder film we see Connally make these maneuvers, turning around to his right almost to the point of looking at Kennedy, and then beginning to turn leftward toward the front when we see him grimace and react to being shot at Z-302. AT LEAST 4 seconds had passed between the time JFK had come out from behind the sign reacting to being shot, and Governor Connally getting shot, and this timing CONCLUSIVELY eliminates the possibility that Kennedy and Connally were struck by the same magic bullet.

David Von Pein wrote: You seem to be acknowledging Dr. McClelland's historical consistency about the location of the back-of-the-head-wound in your post dated 1/23/2024, but in your post dated 1/4/2024, in this same thread, you posted your meme of McClelland composed of screenshots from the 1988 PBS Nova television program entitled "Who Shot President Kennedy," and you wrote above it "In that PBS program, Dr. McClelland twice put his right hand over the upper-right portion of the back of his head to indicate where he said the large wound was located in President Kennedy's head..." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30045-why-pat-speer-owes-the-family-of-dr-robert-mcclelland-an-apology/?do=findComment&comment=525024 So although you acknowledged McClelland's historical consistency with regard to the location of the large avulsive head wound yesterday, just twenty days ago you were spinning the yarn that McClelland was instead demonstrating the wound to be in the "upper-right portion of the back of his head," over his ear, where his fingers are resting in the images, when in fact, Dr. McClelland was referencing the area on the back of his head behind his ear, as we see in the following slow-motion the same footage from where your screenshots are derived: Dr. McClelland's circular hand gesture is outlining the location of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound as he sketched it the same year (1988) in the first episode of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Does that answer your question about what the disagreement is? David Von Pein wrote: The HSCA authentication of the autopsy photographs and x-rays is tainted due to the fraudulent conduct of the HSCA with regard to its Forensic Pathology Panel (as well as the American public). In the section of its Final Report concerning the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and x-rays the HSCA wrote: "Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA, Vol. 7, p. 37-39) The statement is supported by reference to "Staff interviews with persons present at the autopsy." When the ARRB released the staff interviews referenced by the HSCA its authentication report that the committee had classified "tip secret" for fifty years, it was quickly discovered that the Bethesda witnesses had actually confirmed the presence of a large avulsive rear defect in JFK's skull, consistent with the Parkland witnesses' accounts, and they had also provided written and verbal descriptions of the rear defect to the HSCA, and even drew diagrams, all of which were suppressed by the HSCA. Dr. Gary Aguilar later wrote of this sad sordid episode, as well as the 1995 COPA conference at which some of the HSCA staff members were confronted about it, as follows: "...Once-secret documents, made public in the 1990s, show that the HSCA misrepresented both what the autopsy witnesses told the Warren Commission as well as what they had told the HSCA. Rather than contradicting Parkland witnesses that there was a rear defect in JFK's skull, the suppressed interviews reveal that the Bethesda witnesses corroborated them. They not only described a rear defect to HSCA in writing and verbally, they also drew diagrams of a defect in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which the HSCA had also suppressed. ⁠ By falsely representing the data, including its own interviews, HSCA writers inaccurately portrayed autopsy witnesses as refuting the Dallas witnesses who in fact they had corroborated. (See Table 2) Had it not been for the Oliver Stone-inspired JFK Review Board, public access to these inconvenient interviews and diagrams, which had no national security value whatsoever, was to have been restricted for 50 years, until 2028. ⁠ This stunning suppression of contradictory evidence, which as we shall see included withholding it from the very medical experts responsible for conducting the HSCA’s analyses of autopsy and other medical evidence, is by itself sufficient reason to call into question the HSCA’s entire medical position.... ⁠ In 1994, HSCA counsel Purdy spoke at a public conference hosted by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA) in Washington D.C. During his presentation, he explained that he had searched in vain for signs of conspiracy in JFK’s autopsy evidence. When these suppressed statements and diagrams depicting JFK’s rearward skull damage were projected in slide form before the entire audience, Purdy backed down. After all, his signature was plainly visible at the bottom of most of the documents. ⁠ In retreat, he conceded he was “unhappy” the HSCA had reported, “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts... .” Purdy was quick to add, however, that he hadn’t written the statement, and that he didn’t know who had. ⁠ The report in which these HSCA misstatements appears is prefaced with the following statement: “Materials submitted for this report by the committee’s forensic pathology panel were compiled by HSCA staff members Donald A. Purdy, Jr. and T. Mark Flanagan.”[288] ⁠ Perhaps Mr. Purdy’s denial is factual because neither Purdy nor Flanagan actually furnished the writer of the false passage with the damning interviews. If that is the case, however, the writer’s comment – “All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated …” – makes little sense. ⁠ More enlightening about this episode, however, were the comments of HSCA forensic consultants, Michael Baden, MD and Cyril Wecht, MD, JD, who were also present with Purdy on the podium. Despite their positions as the HSCA’s medical consultants, neither Baden nor Wecht had ever seen this important autopsy evidence. Purdy hadn’t let his own autopsy experts know about any of these autopsy witnesses. ⁠ That assumes, of course, that it was the lowly counsel Purdy who made the decision to keep key consultants in the dark, a decision so beyond his authority it seems unlikely he would have made it alone. In testimony before the ARRB, Purdy stated he in fact did not make that decision. Robert Blakey had.[289] ⁠ So on the mystery of who authored the falsehoods about the autopsy witnesses, one must therefore not discount the possibility that chief counsel, Robert Blakey, might have played a role. Although Blakey specifically denied to author Aguilar writing this unfactual section of the report (as did perhaps the one other possible choice, Richard Billings), it is not impossible to imagine that Blakey might himself have written this section to help keep the lid securely fastened over the revelations of the autopsy witnesses he had apparently already hidden from his medical consultants." ⁠ ⁠http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm The following is the video of the segment of the 1995 COPA conference described by Dr. Aguilar: 1995 COPA CONFERENCE AT WHICH ANDY PURDY AND MICHAEL BADEN WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE HSCA'S BOH FRAUD Thus, according to Michael Baden and Cyril Wecht, the HSCA had also withheld this important medical evidence of the posterior head wound from the HSCA's Forensic Pathology Panel, thereby forcing the Forensic Pathology Panel to rely exclusively upon the so-called "official" Autopsy Protocol and associated autopsy photographs and x-rays themselves, which are incomplete, of questionable provenance, dubious authenticity, and inadmissible in any judicial proceeding. Even before the committee's fraudulent conduct was exposed, the HSCA itself in Addendum A to the section of the Final Report devoted to the authenticity of the autopsy photographs and X-rays acknowledged the evidentiary deficiencies of the materials: Finally, as you can see in the final paragraph above, the HSCA Board of Anthropology Consultants wrote that they "did not concern [them]selves with the description and location of the wounds or of their nature and significance, since this was clearly the responsibility of the forensic pathology consultants," and the forensic pathologists never performed such a wound analysis! Incidentally, a dissent to the authenticity report by Robert Groden -- who was a photographic consultant to the HSCA -- was published by the HSCA: Said report is interesting to me for three reasons: First, Groden reported that "[i]n later generations of [the autopsy] photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined" indicated alteration of the back-of-the-head photos; secondly, Groden described the soft matte edge insertion process by which he believed those photos had been altered; and third, Groden submitted an attachment to his report attesting to the importance of the witness of testimony of the medical professionals who reported the occipital-parietal wound (which is ironic, considering the HSCA's suppression of witness statements). That report, in relevant part, is as follows: VII. REPORT ON ISSUES RELATING TO THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE AUTOPSY X-RAYS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF PRESIDENT JOAN F. KENNEDY During the public hearings in September, witnesses from the com- mittee's scientific panels stated that in their opinion the autopsy pho- tographs and X-rays of President Kennedy were genuine, citing such evidence as the fact that the film used was produced in 1963. The importance of the photographs and X-rays cannot be over- estimated. Every scientific panel-photographic, medical, acoustics. ballistics, N.A.A., et cetera-all depend upon the autopsy materials for their testing and conclusions. The basic conclusions from all except the acoustics panel is that two shots struck the President from behind. On the surface it would seem that the autopsy materials bear out that conclusion. That, however, may not be the case. There is evidence that raises grave questions about the authenticity of the items being relied upon by the select committee and its panels. Moreover, there is medical data in the photos and X-rays which is apparently being ignored. 1. THE PROBLEM OF AUTHENTICITY The fact that the HSCA panels have been unable to establish in- authenticity of these items may not reflect their authenticity but rather the skill with which they were forged. In considering the matter of authenticity of some of the autopsy photographs, my main concern is that of the large head exit wound and its exact and general location as described by the vast majority of trained medical personnel at Parkland Hospital and reported by many of the Dallas witnesses. The main issue here is that such a wound may have been photographically eradicated from the only visual record of the President's body following the assassination via the simple technique of photo-compositing. If done with care, this would be undetectable. On this point, some of the photo panel's tests would be meaning- less. For example, one test the panel claims proves authenticity is that the film in evidence was manufactured in 1963. It seems that if any one were to plot the forging of these pictures that they would not wait until the film used in the other (genuine) autopsy photo- graphs would be out of date, and that they would certainly use the same film that would have been originally used in the entire autopsy series. All this test proves is that the forgeries could have been pro- duced in late 1963 or early 1964. For the record, my visual inspection of the autopsy photographs and X-rays reveals evidence of forgery in four of the photographs Color chromes No. 42 and No. 43 showing the rear of the head and No. 15 and No. 16 which appear to be the same shots in black and white (made from black and white duplicate negatives of No. 42 and No. 43). Within the circumference of the President's head, there is an irreg- ular line. Within this line the hair appears black and wet. On the outside of the line it is auburn and completely dry. In later genera- tions of these photographs, a large degree of contrast buildup becomes apparent at the line's edge and the line becomes clearly defined. This phenomenon is characteristic of crop lines in matte insert processes used for retouching and recompositioning of photographs. It is my opinion that these two photographs are forgeries, com- posites manufactured to eliminate evidence of an exit wound in the rear of the President's head. The onlv method I am aware of that could have been used to create these composites is known as "soft edge matte insertion." (See attachment 1.) The question of the authenticity of these particular photographs is crucial because of the large volume of evidence indicating that at least one shot struck the President in the head from the front, causing an exit wound at the rear of the skull. The problem is that this wound, seen by so many in Dallas, does not appear in the autopsy photographs and X-rays. The most reliable descriptions were those from the Parkland doctors on the day of the murder. Doctors Clark, Jones, Perry, Baxter, Akin, McClelland, and Nurses Hutton, Bowron, and several others all de- scribe that same wound in great detail, and all place it at the same point in the rear of the President's head in the area of the occipital bone. Many said cerebellar tissue protruded from a large avulsive exit wound. This too indicates a lower rear head exit wound. A partial list of the many eyewitnesses who describe this wound is included as attachment 2 to this memo. It seems highly improbable that all these witnesses were mistaken. Furthermore, the descriptions of the eyewitnesses who saw Ken- nedy's head wound at Parkland are corroborated by those who saw the bullet impact upon the head in Dealey Plaza. Secret Service Agent Clint Hill saw a piece of the President's skull fly from the President's head and travel toward the rear-left of the car. Mrs. Kennedy attempted to pick up this piece (and indeed from a recently declassified portion of her Warren Commission testimony we can see that she may have picked up a section of skull) and tried to hold it onto the rear of her husband's head. The next day Billy Harper found a piece of bone in Dealey Plaza. Originally, the "Harper" fragment was identified by a qualified pa- thologist as a section of occipital bone. In addition, there is photographic evidence of a shot exiting from the rear of the President's head. Zapruder film frames No. 335 and No. 337 clearly show the result of the head shot. They are the clearest two frames showing the Presi- dent after the head explosion. I have examined and measured the contours of the President's head on Zapruder film frames 335 and 337. The rear of the President's head, in these frames, shows his hair pushed upward and away from the scalp. That indicates the bones underneath were avulsed outward. This matches the description of the wound provided by Dr. McClel- land who said the bones at the rear of the head were "sprung open." (See attachment 2 for full quote and other descriptions of this wound.) Conclusions The Dallas observations indicating a rear exit hole cannot be easily dismissed. These accounts were provided by trained medical personnel. It defies belief that so many people, viewing the President from dif- ferent angles at different times, should all describe the same wound condition and position. My own examination of the autopsy photo- graphs of the rear of the head shows a sharp contrast buildup along an irregular line at the rear of President Kennedy's head. This con- trast buildup could be the result of a photocompositing process where- by another photograph was superimposed on the back of President Kennedy's head, thus eliminating evidence of that exit wound. Based upon my observation of that contrast buildup, and the Dallas medical observations indicating there was a wound there, it is my opinion, as a photo-consultant to the House select committee, that these photo- graphs are forgeries.... ATTACHMENT 1: SOFT EDGE MATTE INSERTION Given the present nature of these photographs, the only method that I am aware of that could have been used to alter them is called soft edge matte insertion. The technique uses a black and white masking process and this is how it works: An original 4 x 5 photograph; that is, transparency would be taken showing the rear of JFK's head with the exit wound in the center (in this case two, No. 42 and No. 43) . Using one at a time, it is pin reg- istered and placed in a photographic enlarger along with a pin registered piece of 4 x 5 black and white film called a registered black core matte. This is clear film with a black center in a specific area over the area on the original transparency to be eliminated. The clear fades quickly to the black, not a sharply defined edge, hence the term "soft edge." This "sandwich" is then projected onto another piece of 4 x 5 Ektrachrome transparency film. In this case. the result so far would be the rear of the President's head with a large blank, black area in the rear. This new piece of film is then put in a light tight container. At this point, another transparency of the back of another head, this one with an entrance bullet hole and hair that matches J.F.K.'s head photographed to the same size, is pin registered with a clear core matte which is a piece of black film tapering to a clear center. This is a con- tact film print of the black core matte and fits exactly in register with the original transparency and the black core matte. This new "sandwich" is then projected in register onto the par- tially exposed Ektachrome. Now the photograph is complete. The final result is what appears to be the rear of the President's head with a small wound of entry near the top. The same thing is done to the other original in register and the result is a pair of virtually undetectable forgeries of the finest possible quality. The technique would allow the integrity of stereo views. ATTACHMENT 2: REFERENCES TO AN OCCIPITAL HEAD WOUND OF EXIT IN WARREN REPORT (PART OF CE 392, APPENDIX VIII, PP. 516-530) Kemp Clark-"Two external wounds, one in the lower third of the anterior neck, the other in the occipital region of the skull, were noted." (p. 517) "There was a large wound in the right occipito parietal region * * * both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were ex- truding from the wound" (p. 518). Charles Carrico-"Dr. Jenkins attempted to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue via pads instituted" (p. 520). Malcolm Perry-"A large wound of the right posterior cranium was noted * * *" (p. 521). Charles Baxter-"* * * the right temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table * * * (p. 523). Kemp Clark (handwritten at 4 :15 p.m.)-"There was a large wound beginning in the right occipital extending into the parietal region" 525). M. T. Jenkis-"There was a great laceration on the right side of the head (temporal and occipital) causing a great defect in the skull plate * * * even to the extent that the cerebellum had protruded from the wound" (p. 530). Dr. John Ebersole (taped interview with Gil Delaney, Lancaster Intelligencer-Journal) + (a.), March 8, 1978-"knew shot came 42-370 0 - 79 - 20 from the back or side because the back of his head was blown off." (Ebersole now says he was misquoted.) In an interview with Art Smith, Chester, Pa ., Ebersole said the back of the skull was intact "except for maybe three small fragments." Dr. Ronald Jones-"What appeared to be an exit wound in the pos- terior portion of skull," (61156). Dr. Perry-"A large avulsive injury of the right occipital area (61111). Dr. Charles Baxter-"A large gaping wound in the back of the skull * * * literally the right side of his head was blown off" (61140-41). Dr. McClelland-"As I took the position at the head of the table I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been blasted. It had been shattered apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out" (61133). Nurse Pat Hutton-"Pressure bandage was no use * * * because of the massive opening on the back of the head." Dr. Gene Akins-"Back of the right occipital parietal portion of his head was shattered, with brain substance protruding" (61165). Dr. Clark-"* * * examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed" (6H20). Dr. Peters-"We saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound" (6H71). Diana Bowron-Parkland Hospital nurse. [Warren Commission testimony follows:] BOWRON, DIANA - TESTIMONY before Warren Commission: These are some of the most relevant excerpts from the testimony of Parkland hospital nurse Diana Bowron who was the first trained medical person to observe the President upon arrival at Parkland hospital and observed the President face down in the car. She looked directly at the wound of exit in the rear of the President's head. TESTIMONY OF DIANA HAMILTON BOWRON The testimony of Diana Hamilton Bowron was taken at 2 :05 p.m ., on March 2-1, 1001, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Spec- ter, assistant counsel of the President's Commission, Mr . Specter. And what, to a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON. He was moribund-he was lying across Mrs . Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. Specter. You saw the condition of his what? Miss Bowron. The back of his head. Mr. Specter: And what was that condition? Miss Bowron. Well, it was very bad you know. Mr. Specter. How many holes slid you see? Miss Bowron. I just saw one large hole. Mr. Specter. Did yon see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss Bowron. No, sir. Mr. Specter. Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss Bowron. No, sir. Mr. Specter. And what action did you take at that time, if any? Miss Bowron. I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran oil with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us. And an excerpt from a newspaper article labled as "Bowron exhibit No . 3. in Warren Commission volume #19. Diana, who was trained at Hope Hospital, Salford, said:- "I realised who the man in the car was as soon as I Saw Jackie Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy was slumped forward in his seat and so was Mr. Connally." https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/pdf/HSCA_Vol6_5_GrodenComments.pdf Dr. David Mantik's spectrographic testing of the "original" autopsy photographs subsequently confirmed Groden's suspicion that the back-of-the-head photos had been altered via the soft matte edge insertion process he had described to the HSCA, as indicated by Mantik in the following video: Thus and therefore, contrary to your conclusion that the HSCA Final Report "proves that ALL of the witnesses who said there was a huge blow-out wound at the rear of Kennedy's head were dead wrong" for "all time," it is in truth the descriptions of Dr. McClelland and some fifty other witnesses as to the existence of the large avulsive wound in the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head that are in fact true. David Von Pein wrote: No, not just "CTers," but any reasonable jury of your peers would not just "pretend" that the Autopsy Protocol, photographs, X-rays and Zapruder film are fraudulent, but would judicially find and determine that they are fraudulent You don't seem to understand how disputes about questionable photographic and X-ray evidence are resolved in the real world. This is the process by which fraudulent photographs -- like the JFK back-of-the-head autopsy photograph -- are excluded from evidence (except to prove fraud) in American courtrooms... FRE 402 HEARING RESULTING IN FINDING THAT AUTOPSY MATERIALS ARE INADMISSIBLE AS EVIDENCE -- EXCEPT TO PROVE FRAUD: The evidentiary dispute about whether the autopsy photographs were authenticated or are fraudulent -- as well as the Autopsy Protocol and X-rays [and the Zapruder film would also be subject to a similar legal process]) would result in a 402 evidentiary hearing pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence where members of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel would be subjected to cross examination about the voluminous medical evidence they were denied by the HSCA; Robert Groden (photographic consultant to the HSCA) and Dr. David Mantik would present testimony about the BOH photographs being proven to have matte inserts by stereoscopic testing of the purported "originals"; and there would be a long list of 11/22/1963 first day witnesses (the records and testimony of those who are deceased would be admitted into evidence under the official records exception to the hearsay rule) whose testimony would demonstrate that the extant autopsy photographs, X-rays, autopsy report and Zapruder film misrepresent the true nature of JFK's wounds. The court would exclude the autopsy evidence EXCEPT FOR PURPOSES OF PROVING FRAUD, and the matter would proceed to trial on the basis of the admissible records and testimony. _____________ Digital and photographic evidence is thrown out of courtrooms every day once shown by multiple testimonial witnesses to be fraudulent. Photographic fakery is more common than most people realize. Disputed photographic evidence must be authenticated in a Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 402 evidentiary hearing before being admitted into evidence, and if found to be fraudulent (most often as the result of conflicting testimonial evidence), it is excluded as evidence and very often ruled to be admissible ONLY to prove fraud. With regard to the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in particular in the JFK case, we are not talking about just 1 or 2 witnesses that dispute their veracity, BUT OVER 40 WITNESSES WHO DO. And it's not just a mere matter of those witnesses having widely varying accounts of the back-of-the head wound actually seen on 11/22/1963; the vast majority of them describe the actual wound as being in the same location, and having virtually the same characteristics, placing defenders of the authenticity of the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs in the impossible position of claiming it is mere coincidence that 40+ witnesses were not only wrong, BUT WRONG IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY. This simply isn't going to go ever well in an American courtroom. The back-of-the head autopsy photographs would be found to be fraudulent and excluded from evidence except to prove fraud. @James DiEugenio made a very interesting post in this forum a few months ago about how the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs would be evaluated in a FRE 402 hearing that is probably pretty close to how it would actually transpire, as follows: _____________ "As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pretrial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer. I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film. Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht. (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?) This is what would occur: 1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures. 2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas. 3. The lawyer would then ask him: what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it? 4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted? Well, does it look disrupted to you here? 5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures? He would likely say yes. The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique? He would say no. At this point the attorney would call Robert Knudsen to the stand. 6. Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain? Yes, that is Ansco. What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack. 7. Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body? Yes I did. Are you aware that those pictures do not exist? Yes I am. 8. Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965? Yes I did. Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for? Yes it does. You yourself knew that was a false statement. Yes I did. Why did you sign it? Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. Lawyer says, but some people don't. Stringer says: but they don't last very long. 9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen. He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland. One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember. Namely a baseball sized cavity. 10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment. He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand. He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas. And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now: Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it. Lawyer says: how convenient. The lawyer then asks: but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture? After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me. Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject. Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible. Judge: Motion is sustained. Bugliosi starts stamping his feet, and yelling objections. Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt. This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28751-the-402-hearings-on-the-autopsy-pictures/

Pat Speer wrote: You are writing as if there is some kind of consensus that has been reached whereby a large number of other researchers have flocked around your distortions of the meaning of Dr. McClelland's first day Admission Note being that he saw only a large wound at President Kennedy's right temple (which he misdescribed as the left temple) when the fact is that a long list of other researchers, including Dr. Gary Aguilar -- and more recently Sandy Larsen and myself -- have been schooling you for more than a decade on some very simple facts about that Admission Note; that it identified two wounds, a "a massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and ''a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the wound of entrance, based upon his colleague, Dr. Jenkins having represented to him that there was an entry wound at the left temple. Let's set the record straight. Dr. McClelland's note unequivocally identified two distinct wounds: a "massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and "a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the entrance wound. Your attempt to twist this into a large right temple wound is a desperate and transparent ploy to fit your narrative. It is evident that Dr. McClelland was mistaken about the left temple wound based on Dr. Jenkins mistakenly telling him that there was a left temple wound, a fact that you conveniently overlook to serve your own agenda. Your claim that my presentation of these well-established facts is insulting to those who have studied the case is not only baseless but also a cheap tactic to deflect from the truth. It is nothing short of gaslighting to suggest that a majority of researchers are "insulted" by these fundamental and widely recognized facts. Your discomfort with having your project questioned is palpable, but your reaction is hardly surprising. It is clear that exposing your fallacies threatens your entire narrative, and understandably, that rattles you to the core. Your persistent distortions and attempts to manipulate the truth are not only intellectually dishonest but also an insult to the integrity of historical inquiry. It's time to abandon your self-serving narrative and engage with the facts as they stand, rather than perpetuating a skewed version of events to suit your agenda. ____________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm LINKS TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: PAGE 1: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019a.htm PAGE 2: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019b.htm ____________ Pat Speer wrote: This too is another one of your distortions of the facts. Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and he likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death. To demonstrate this, let's take the evidence you present to the contrary on your website, which we'll call Exhibit A: In Exhibit A you present screenshots of Dr. McClelland with his right hand on his head demonstrating the large avulsive back of the head wound from TMWKK and KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Mystery, and in parenthesis you tell us to "Just look at the locations of his fingers in comparison to his hairline...," to stand for your proposition that McClelland was actually demonstrating your side of the head wound instead of the occipital-parietal wound he has always described. There is a problem with the screenshots you use in Exhibit A however, and it is a BIG PROBLEM! The actual footage from the TMWKK episode shows that McClelland is actually just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from that segment and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head. As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. Moreover, there is no way you could have merely been confused about what Dr. McClelland was communicating with his hand gesture when you were capturing the screenshot from the segment because at the time, in that video, he was saying the following: "Almost a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the right back part of the head in this area here [AT WHICH POINT MCLELLAND RAN HIS THUMB UP AND DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD] had been blasted out along with probably most of the brain tissue in the area." See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE: Likewise, the actual footage from the KRON episode shows that McClelland is again just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from this segment as well and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head. As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. It is not as obvious as it is in the TMWKK episode, but if you watch how his wrist moves, you can see that his manner of demonstrating the wound is to rest his fingers higher on his head and to feel around for the occipital bone with his thumb. And if you have any doubt at all, simply listen in the video of the segment to hear that as Dr. McLelland is feeling the back of his head with his thumb, he is saying the following: "It was in the right back part of the head -- very large..." See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE: Such trickery is the law of the land for Mr. Speer, and others like him, such as David Von Pein, who has the following meme of deceptive screenshots on his website: To debunk Mr. Von Pein -- as we just debunked Mr. Speer -- I wrote the following: Here's the problem: You've presented this meme of Dr. McClelland in the 1988 PBS Nova program "Who Shot President Kennedy" in support of the notion that he was communicating that the large avulsive back of the head wound that he reported to the Warren Commission was actually on the side of JFK's head in the parietal area over the ear. But close examination of the program reveals that your two screenshots comprising your Lone Nutter meme were taken when McClelland quickly made these gestures while highly animated in thought and speech, making for a very misleading impression of what he was intending to communicate. I say this because in the same program, within minutes of the footage from which you derived these two screenshots, Dr. McClelland takes his hand and swirls his fingers in a vertically oriented oval shape on the back of his head to demonstrate the location of the large avulsive wound, as follows: I have slowed this footage down to 25% of its normal playing speed and turned it into a GIF to highlight his oval shaped vertical gesture. Moreover, we can be certain that McClelland was much more focused on presenting an accurate demonstration of the dimensions of the back of the head wound at this time -- as opposed to your screenshots -- because while doing so (when presenting his rationalization for why the large avulsive wound is not visible in the BOH autopsy photos) he was saying the following (AND PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE EXACT WORDS HE IS SAYING WHILE MAKING THE OVAL SHAPED GESTURE IN RED). _____________ "The Pathologist has taken this loose piece of scalp which is hanging back this way in most of the pictures, exposing this large wound, and has pulled the scalp forward to take a picture..." _____________ As follows is a video of the segment described above to allow you to appreciate the importance of what Dr. McClelland is saying simultaneous with his hand gesture (it is at 50:37 through 50:53 of the original program at this link: https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c?si=4Fo7ICwInJX-rxKO ). So although Mr. Speer is a "limited hangout" version of Mr. Von Pein, we can see that these types who deny the first day medical testimony and relentlessly fight for the integrity of the Autopsy Protocol, Photos, X-Rays and the Zapruder film are more alike than Speer would ever admit. In short, the misrepresentations about Dr. McClelland -- as demonstrated in Exhibit A -- serving as the foundation of Speer's crusade against the voluminous evidence of JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound, all comes down like a house of cards upon a showing that his bedrock assumptions are demonstrably false. Again, Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and he likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death, and as we have seen above, the evidence Speer presents to the contrary is nothing more than the sophistry of deceptively labeled screenshots. Pat Speer wrote: Sure, and "we could very well believe" the moon is made of blue cheese. What seals the deal on this is that Dr. Kemp Clark was a very competent and well-respected neurologist, and he identified the extruding macerated brain as cerebellar tissue, as did virtually all of the surgeons that completed first day Admission Notes along with Dr. McClelland (Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins). Pat Speer wrote: You are writing as if it is me, rather than you, who is always setting up the drawing out of the Thompson book as a straw man to knock down and ridiculously use like a bowling ball to knock over the pins you designate as the earliest reports of the Parkland doctors and nurses. No, Speer, that's all your gig, and it's an artificial farcical one at that. I, on the other hand just started a thread on the actual back-of-the-head image that McClelland sketched on TMWKK, and the following is that drawing: Pat Speer wrote: I've only just begun to take apart the libel and misrepresentations you have disseminated about James Jenkins, and will here give you a downpayment on that investment: James Jenkins's earliest -- and therefore his most credible -- representations about the large avulsive back-of-the-head-wound was that it was in the occipital-parietal region, and there is absolutely nothing you can ever do -- regardless of how loud you scream, and how hard you kick -- to change this fact. No matter how much ink you devote to distortions about Jenkins, you can never change that he executed the following diagram of the head wound for the HSCA in 1977: And by the way, while you consider extending an apology to Mr. Jenkins, I caution you to bear in mind that your apology to the family of Dr. Robert McClelland is long overdue. And you can never change the fact that Jenkins told David Lifton the wound was occipital-parietal in 1979: Pat Speir wrote: And here is another example of the "woke" defense you deployed against me today to defend yourself against my demonstration that you were completely fabricating your summary of the ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer. You claimed that I am a "stalker." You are getting this all backwards, Mr. Speer. Throwing accusations like that at me for confronting you about your fabricated research is what I would characterize as "hate," while I have done nothing but, well ...the research necessary to expose and shine a spotlight on those very fabrications. Perhaps you should reword your concluding remark to state something like "Dear fellow researchers, I today commit to you that I will never attempt to deceive you again, and to lend credibility to my commitment, I will today take down my website and do some deserving honest research on my claims before putting it back up." I'm certain that the family of Dr. Robert McClelland would appreciate that very much...

APPENDIX The JFK Autopsy Materials: Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. Introduction I examined the JFK autopsy materials at the National Archives (NARA) on four separate days in 1993, on two days in 1994, and on two days in 1995. This review included the photographs, X-rays, clothing, magic bullet, and two metal fragments removed from the skull. My most recent visit (day # 9) was on 12 April 2001. Nearly six years had passed since my eighth visit, during which time the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) had come and gone. During this six -year time interval my initial findings had been published in two books: (1) Assassination Science (1998) and (2) Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), both edited by James Fetzer. To place the significant discoveries of this ninth and last visit in context, the major conclusions from my initial eight visits are first summarized. It is important to note that this succinct account is primarily intended for those readers who are already familiar with these issues. Newcomers will find supporting details in the aforementioned books. All readers should note that additional conclusions of somewhat lesser importance either have been or shall be summarized elsewhere. Visits # 1– 8 (1993-1995) 1. Shortly after the autopsy, a large white (i.e., relatively transparent) patch was superimposed (in the darkroom—not on a physical skull) over the posterior portion of both lateral skull X-rays during the production of altered copies. These are now part of the official collection at NARA. This left unaltered a large, dark area at the front of the skull, which made it appear that a posterior bullet had blown out the front. Even Humes, during his ARRB deposition, repeatedly expressed his bewilderment at this dark area, most likely because the white patch subconsciously confused him. An obvious corollary to this conclusion is that both original, lateral skull X-rays have vanished—without a trace. 2. Shortly after the autopsy--by using a simple, double exposure technique in the dark room—a 6.5 mm, metal-like object was superimposed over an authentic, but smaller, metal fragment (within the right orbit) on the original, frontal X-ray during the production of a copy film. This is now part of the official collection. The evidence for this conclusion derives from eight separate lines of evidence, most based on optical density (OD) measurements of the X-rays. During their ARRB depositions, the autopsy pathologists did not recall seeing this object on 22 November 1963—nor for that matter did anyone else (including the radiologist). This X-ray forgery was done with a single purpose: to incriminate Oswald via the 6.5 mm M annlicher-Carcano carbine. Within the past several years, Larry Sturdivan, the ballistics expert for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), has also stated his absolute conviction that this 6.5 mm object cannot be a bullet fragment. This new interpretation of the 6.5 mm object (as an irrelevant artifact) totally contradicts the Clark Panel (1968) and the HSCA (1978), both of whom interpreted this object as an authentic bullet fragment. Even more to the point, this object played a crucial role in their conclusions —which have now been thoroughly undermined. The extant frontal X-ray, therefore, also cannot be an original but must be a copy. The original has vanished without a trace. Therefore, no original unaltered skull X-ray remains. 3. At the front of both lateral skull X-rays is a fist-sized dark area that is devoid of brain tissue. This is in dramatic disagreement with the brain photographs, which show nearly intact brain on both sides of midline. On the other hand, it is remarkably consistent with the substitute brain hypothesis, as advanced by Douglas Horne, and which is supported by multiple lines of evidence. Furthermore, the autopsy photographer, John Stringer, told the ARRB that the photographic film that he used for the brain photographs was different from the extant film that shows the brain—which would also be consistent with the substitute brain scenario. 4. Based on OD measurements of all three skull X-rays, more brain is missing on the right side, but a substantial amount is also missing on the left. This latter conclusion, especially, is in serious disagreement with the brain photographs. On the other hand, one of the Parkland nurses, who looked inside the skull while preparing the body for departure, actually noted that a significant volume of the left brain was also missing. 5. Based on both OD measurements and on intense light observations of the X-rays, the right skull is missing anteriorly to the forehead, very near the hairline. This is consistent with both the face sheet from the autopsy and with Boswell’s drawings on a skull for the ARRB. 41 6. The black and white prints of the X-rays, listed in Burkley’s Memorandum of Transfer (26 April 1963), no longer exist. Nothing is known about their disappearance or their present location.... ...9. When the anatomic landmarks from the skull X-rays are integrated with similar landmarks from 3D viewing of the mystery photographs of the large skull defect a clear conclusion emerges: the large skull defect must lie at the right rear—in striking agreement with virtually all of the Parkland and Bethesda medical personnel. (Because the b & w images (# 17, 18) are cropped, the color images (# 44, 45) are essential for this exercise.... 13. As viewed at NARA, CE 843, the larger metal fragment supposedly removed from the skull, is pancake shaped and 3 x 2 x 2 mm. This is in conspicuous contrast to its appearance on the skull X-rays--where it is more nearly linear at 7 x 2 x 2 mm. No tests performed on this fragment can explain its odd transformation in shape and size, nor has 42 any official explanation ever been advanced for its current, and dramatically different, shape. Visit # 9 (12 April 2001) None of the prior conclusions are changed; on the contrary, they are reinforced. 14. There are remarkably many, tiny metal fragments widely scattered on the skull X- rays--even on the left side and on the inferior skull, including at least four near the chin on the frontal X-ray. This remarkable, and heretofore ignored, observation is hardly compatible with the passage of a single, full metal-jacketed, Mannlicher-Carcano bullet near the top of the skull, but might more easily have resulted from a hollow point or mercury bullet—or perhaps even from shrapnel from a bullet that was not counted by the Warren Commission. 15. All three skull X-rays show a (spatially consistent) fuzzy, gray cloud within the fragment trail that extends across the top of the skull; this fuzzy cloud seems more consistent with mercury (extruded from a bullet) rather than lead. I am, however, unaware of any existing experiment with mercury bullets shot into skulls that could test this conclusion; this should therefore be viewed instead as a hypothesis ripe for experiment.... ...20. The most important conclusion from day # 9 is this: the left, lateral skull X-ray must be a copy. The supporting evidence for this is totally new, simple, and straightforward. Since we now know, beyond any doubt, that at least this one extant skull X-ray must be a copy, several elementary questions immediately arise: (a) Where is the original? (b) Why is there no documentation for the missing original? (c) Why was the film copied at all? (d) Why is there no record of its copying? (e) Who copied it? (f) Why have all of the official panels, and NARA, too, insisted to the present day that all of the X-rays are originals and that none are copies? (g) Finally, and most importantly, was it copied in order to alter the image? Evidence for the New Conclusions 14. These fragments are obvious to the unaided eye on close inspection. Since direct copying from the X-rays is not permitted, I employed an alternate technique to locate and to sketch all of these metal fragments. I first placed a transparent piece of graph paper over an X-ray; immediately adjacent to this (on a light box) I placed an identical, but opaque, piece of graph paper. I then located each metal fragment in two dimensions on the transparent graph paper overlying the X-ray; after finding the same site on the opaque graph paper, I outlined each fragment’s size and shape with good precision. 15. This fuzzy cloud looks quite different from the obviously metallic fragments: (a) it appears translucent rather than transparent, (b) it is very large compared to the fragments, and (c) it has ill-defined, sometimes almost invisible, borders... ...20. On the left, lateral skull X-ray, just anterior to the cervical spine (see enclosed image) is an apparently hand drawn inscription, not previously discussed by me —or by anyone else. It looks like an upper case letter T, lying on its side, with a slight separation between the two perpendicular strokes. It is the only hand drawn symbol that I could find on any of the three skull extant X-rays. This inscription is quite transparent, as if emulsion had been removed from one side of the film. In fact, small black traces, suggesting residual islands of emulsion in a sea of gray, are still visible. OD measurements support this conclusion of missing emulsion from one side: ODs inside the inscription are 1.05, 1.44, 1.42, 0.92, and 1.42, yielding an average value of 1.25; ODs just outside are 2.29, 2.44, 2.37, 2.44, and 2.43, yielding an average value of 2.39. The ratio of 2.39/1.25 = 1.91, being a little less than two, is precisely what would be expected for emulsion missing from one side. By way of comparison, at one edge of this same film, emulsion has obviously peeled up from one side of the film; short segments of this detached layer are obvious to the unaided eye. Furthermore, where emulsion has completely separated, the shiny plastic film base is easy to see. As would be expected, light transmission is greater through this single emulsion site. That the emulsion is still intact at this same site on the other side of this double emulsion film is also obvious. Now if emulsion is truly missing from one side where this hand drawn inscription appears, then the interruption of the emulsion surface should be easily visible to the unaided eye (like paint scraped off an oil painting). Here then is the chief discovery of this ninth visit: no emulsion is missing! Even when the emulsion is closely inspected—using reflected light glancing off the surface at a wide range of angles--the emulsion appears entirely intact over this site on both sides of the film. Both surfaces are as slick and smooth as a freshly iced hockey rink. Emulsion is neither missing nor disrupted in any way. 2 Only one explanation is possible --this left, lateral skull X-ray is a copy. The reason, of course, is that the emulsion of a copy film would be fully intact, yet at the same time it would faithfully record any areas of increased transmission (i.e., missing emulsion) from the original. A simpler--or more straightforward--proof of film copying is unimaginable.3 One final comment seems pertinent. Two other odd features of this particular left, lateral skull X-ray are: (a) there are no Kodak identification numbers anywhere on it and (b) this film has never appeared in any publication. It can only be seen at NARA. "THE JFK AUTOPSY MATERIALS: TWENTY CONCLUSIONS AFTER NINE VISITS" David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. https://assassinationresearch.com/v2n2/pittsburgh.pdf [Editor’s note: This is an expanded and revised version of a presentation for “Solving the Great American Murder Mystery” Symposium, which was held at Duquesne University 20-23 November 2003. The speaker, who is the leading student of the death of JFK in the world today, has elaborated on the formal paper that he submitted on that occasion for its appearance in this journal, while preserving the sequence of figures and photographs. The formal paper appears following this informal version as an appendix.]

Pat Speer wrote: You are writing as if there is some kind of consensus that has been reached whereby a large number of other researchers have flocked around your distortions of the meaning of Dr. McClelland's first day Admission Note being that he saw only a large wound at President Kennedy's right temple (which he misdescribed as the left temple) when the fact is that a long list of other researchers, including Dr. Gary Aguilar -- and more recently Sandy Larsen and myself -- have been schooling you for more than a decade on some very simple facts about that Admission Note; that it identified two wounds, a "a massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and ''a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the wound of entrance, based upon his colleague, Dr. Jenkins having represented to him that there was an entry wound at the left temple. Let's set the record straight. Dr. McClelland's note unequivocally identified two distinct wounds: a "massive gunshot wound of the head," which he believed to be the exit wound, and "a gunshot wound of the left temple," which he believed to be the entrance wound. Your attempt to twist this into a large right temple wound is a desperate and transparent ploy to fit your narrative. It is evident that Dr. McClelland was mistaken about the left temple wound based on Dr. Jenkins mistakenly telling him that there was a left temple wound, a fact that you conveniently overlook to serve your own agenda. Your claim that my presentation of these well-established facts is insulting to those who have studied the case is not only baseless but also a cheap tactic to deflect from the truth. It is nothing short of gaslighting to suggest that a majority of researchers are "insulted" by these fundamental and widely recognized facts. Your discomfort with having your project questioned is palpable, but your reaction is hardly surprising. It is clear that exposing your fallacies threatens your entire narrative, and understandably, that rattles you to the core. Your persistent distortions and attempts to manipulate the truth are not only intellectually dishonest but also an insult to the integrity of historical inquiry. It's time to abandon your self-serving narrative and engage with the facts as they stand, rather than perpetuating a skewed version of events to suit your agenda. ____________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 392: APPENDIX VIII - MEDICAL REPORTS FROM DOCTORS AT PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, DALLAS, TEXAS: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm LINKS TO ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: PAGE 1: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019a.htm PAGE 2: https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0019b.htm ____________ Pat Speer wrote: This too is another one of your distortions of the facts. Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and he likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death. To demonstrate this, let's take the evidence you present to the contrary on your website, which we'll call Exhibit A: In Exhibit A you present screenshots of Dr. McClelland with his right hand on his head demonstrating the large avulsive back of the head wound from TMWKK and KRON's JFK: An Unsolved Mystery, and in parenthesis you tell us to "Just look at the locations of his fingers in comparison to his hairline...," to stand for your proposition that McClelland was actually demonstrating your side of the head wound instead of the occipital-parietal wound he has always described. There is a problem with the screenshots you use in Exhibit A however, and it is a BIG PROBLEM! The actual footage from the TMWKK episode shows that McClelland is actually just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from that segment and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head. As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. Moreover, there is no way you could have merely been confused about what Dr. McClelland was communicating with his hand gesture when you were capturing the screenshot from the segment because at the time, in that video, he was saying the following: "Almost a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the right back part of the head in this area here [AT WHICH POINT MCLELLAND RAN HIS THUMB UP AND DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD] had been blasted out along with probably most of the brain tissue in the area." See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE: Likewise, the actual footage from the KRON episode shows that McClelland is again just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from this segment as well and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the side of JFK's head. As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. It is not as obvious as it is in the TMWKK episode, but if you watch how his wrist moves, you can see that his manner of demonstrating the wound is to rest his fingers higher on his head and to feel around for the occipital bone with his thumb. And if you have any doubt at all, simply listen in the video of the segment to hear that as Dr. McLelland is feeling the back of his head with his thumb, he is saying the following: "It was in the right back part of the head -- very large..." See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE: Such trickery is the law of the land for Mr. Speer, and others like him, such as David Von Pein, who has the following meme of deceptive screenshots on his website: To debunk Mr. Von Pein -- as we just debunked Mr. Speer -- I wrote the following: Here's the problem: You've presented this meme of Dr. McClelland in the 1988 PBS Nova program "Who Shot President Kennedy" in support of the notion that he was communicating that the large avulsive back of the head wound that he reported to the Warren Commission was actually on the side of JFK's head in the parietal area over the ear. But close examination of the program reveals that your two screenshots comprising your Lone Nutter meme were taken when McClelland quickly made these gestures while highly animated in thought and speech, making for a very misleading impression of what he was intending to communicate. I say this because in the same program, within minutes of the footage from which you derived these two screenshots, Dr. McClelland takes his hand and swirls his fingers in a vertically oriented oval shape on the back of his head to demonstrate the location of the large avulsive wound, as follows: I have slowed this footage down to 25% of its normal playing speed and turned it into a GIF to highlight his oval shaped vertical gesture. Moreover, we can be certain that McClelland was much more focused on presenting an accurate demonstration of the dimensions of the back of the head wound at this time -- as opposed to your screenshots -- because while doing so (when presenting his rationalization for why the large avulsive wound is not visible in the BOH autopsy photos) he was saying the following (AND PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED THE EXACT WORDS HE IS SAYING WHILE MAKING THE OVAL SHAPED GESTURE IN RED). _____________ "The Pathologist has taken this loose piece of scalp which is hanging back this way in most of the pictures, exposing this large wound, and has pulled the scalp forward to take a picture..." _____________ As follows is a video of the segment described above to allow you to appreciate the importance of what Dr. McClelland is saying simultaneous with his hand gesture (it is at 50:37 through 50:53 of the original program at this link: https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c?si=4Fo7ICwInJX-rxKO ). So although Mr. Speer is a "limited hangout" version of Mr. Von Pein, we can see that these types who deny the first day medical testimony and relentlessly fight for the integrity of the Autopsy Protocol, Photos, X-Rays and the Zapruder film are more alike than Speer would ever admit. In short, the misrepresentations about Dr. McClelland -- as demonstrated in Exhibit A -- serving as the foundation of Speer's crusade against the voluminous evidence of JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound, all comes down like a house of cards upon a showing that his bedrock assumptions are demonstrably false. Again, Dr. McClelland referred to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" in his first day Admission Note (as did Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins in their accompanying Admission Notes), and he likewise thereafter consistently described and demonstrated that wound until the day of his death, and as we have seen above, the evidence Speer presents to the contrary is nothing more than the sophistry of deceptively labeled screenshots. Pat Speer wrote: Sure, and "we could very well believe" the moon is made of blue cheese. What seals the deal on this is that Dr. Kemp Clark was a very competent and well-respected neurologist, and he identified the extruding macerated brain as cerebellar tissue, as did virtually all of the surgeons that completed first day Admission Notes along with Dr. McClelland (Drs. Clark, Carrico, Perry, Baxter and Jenkins). Pat Speer wrote: You are writing as if it is me, rather than you, who is always setting up the drawing out of the Thompson book as a straw man to knock down and ridiculously use like a bowling ball to knock over the pins you designate as the earliest reports of the Parkland doctors and nurses. No, Speer, that's all your gig, and it's an artificial farcical one at that. I, on the other hand just started a thread on the actual back-of-the-head image that McClelland sketched on TMWKK, and the following is that drawing: Pat Speer wrote: I've only just begun to take apart the libel and misrepresentations you have disseminated about James Jenkins, and will here give you a downpayment on that investment: James Jenkins's earliest -- and therefore his most credible -- representations about the large avulsive back-of-the-head-wound was that it was in the occipital-parietal region, and there is absolutely nothing you can ever do -- regardless of how loud you scream, and how hard you kick -- to change this fact. No matter how much ink you devote to distortions about Jenkins, you can never change that he executed the following diagram of the head wound for the HSCA in 1977: And by the way, while you consider extending an apology to Mr. Jenkins, I caution you to bear in mind that your apology to the family of Dr. Robert McClelland is long overdue. And you can never change the fact that Jenkins told David Lifton the wound was occipital-parietal in 1979: Pat Speir wrote: And here is another example of the "woke" defense you deployed against me today to defend yourself against my demonstration that you were completely fabricating your summary of the ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer. You claimed that I am a "stalker." You are getting this all backwards, Mr. Speer. Throwing accusations like that at me for confronting you about your fabricated research is what I would characterize as "hate," while I have done nothing but, well ...the research necessary to expose and shine a spotlight on those very fabrications. Perhaps you should reword your concluding remark to state something like "Dear fellow researchers, I today commit to you that I will never attempt to deceive you again, and to lend credibility to my commitment, I will today take down my website and do some deserving honest research on my claims before putting it back up." I'm certain that the family of Dr. Robert McClelland would appreciate that very much...

Pat Speer wrote: Seriously? You are really going to mount a "woke" defense like that to what I have clearly proven are material misrepresentations on your part? I would say "that is beneath you," but clearly it is not. Your feeble attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by resorting to name-calling is pathetic. I have presented concrete evidence of your misrepresentations, and instead of owning up to your deceit, you resort to baseless accusations. It's clear that you have no valid defense for your actions, so you resort to childish tactics in a feeble attempt to save face. But let me tell you, Mr. Speer, it's not working. Your lack of integrity is on full display for everyone to see, and no amount of name-calling will change that. It's time for you to face the truth and take responsibility for your dishonesty.

This is unresponsive and immaterial to the misrepresentations I have called you out on. Pasting blather from your website just will not do. You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I dared you to "prove it," but your cut and paste job falls far short of achieving that. Not even close. The following are the Custer misrepresentations I have called you out on and is what you should be responding to rather than a pathetic cut and paste job that misses the mark entirely: Pat Speer wrote: Mr. @Pat Speer, I regret to inform you that I must once again point out your misrepresentation of testimony to the members of this forum. You claimed that Jerrol Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray if the back of his head was missing. This is, according to you, because the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so. Below, I demonstrate your misrepresentations: As you can see in the first segment of Custer's deposition testimony I have highlighted in bright yellow, Custer testified that he didn't even see the stirrup at the autopsy, and that the stirrup was not used during x-rays, but only when the body was being probed. With regard to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray, in the second segment I have highlighted in light yellow we see that Custer placed a sheet over the film to collect any bodily fluids that might drain while he was taking the x-rays. In the third pink-highlighted segment, when Jeremy Gunn questioned him about Autopsy Photos 42 and 43, Jerrol Custer confirmed that he had x-rayed the back of JFK's head and mentioned lifting the head just enough "to place the cassette underneath." Furthermore, contrary to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette because the x-rays were taken while the brain was in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so, Custer consistently maintained throughout his deposition that there was no brain in the skull when he took the x-rays. Note that on page 89 of the deposition Custer states that the brain was missing from the skull at the time he took the initial set of x-rays, and indicates that he did not witness what was surely a pre-autopsy clandestine craniotomy: Finally, despite the impression you gave of Jerrol Custer's ARRB deposition as uneventful and uncontroversial, the truth is that Custer recalled highly controversial and explosive events, including: He mentioned seeing a mechanical device in the skull at the start of the autopsy; being told the body was at Walter Reed before being brought to Bethesda; witnessing Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy; seeing more than one casket in the morgue; witnessing the Kennedy entourage arriving after the body had already been at Bethesda for over an hour; seeing interference with the autopsy from a four-star General and a plainclothesman in the gallery; and, many indications that Kennedy had been shot from the front. In the deposition, Custer's memories seem to overlap, such as when, as follows, he relates his memories of the mechanical device in JFK's skull, being told by two separate duty officers that JFK's body had been at the Walter Reed compound before arriving at Bethesda, and recalling having seen Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy: Your reliance on the Jerrol Custer deposition is nothing short of an act of self-sabotage. It's astonishing that you would stake your project by misrepresenting it the way that you have. One would expect you to steer researchers away from this deposition like it's the plague, yet you seem to be actively promoting it as if it's an uncontroversial pillar supporting your skewed version of reality, which a simple reading reveals that it is not. Are you so desperate to push your agenda that you're willing to sacrifice your credibility? Or perhaps that is why you expended your "credibility" to assure fellow researchers that it is uncontroversial and supports your twisted version of reality, hoping to channel them toward more prosperous subjects for you, such as the Dallas physicians, who many years later, renounced their initial memories when confronted with the fraudulent autopsy photographs, and feared for their professional reputations. The foundation of your entire project rests on these feeble sands of misinformation, but rest assured, your fellow researchers will soon see through this charade. It's only a matter of time before the shaky ground you've built upon crumbles beneath you.

Seriously? You are really going to mount a "woke" defense like that to what I have clearly proven are material misrepresentations on your part? I would say "that is beneath you," but clearly it is not. Your feeble attempt to deflect from the issue at hand by resorting to name-calling is pathetic. I have presented concrete evidence of your misrepresentations, and instead of owning up to your deceit, you resort to baseless accusations. It's clear that you have no valid defense for your actions, so you resort to childish tactics in a feeble attempt to save face. But let me tell you, Mr. Speer, it's not working. Your lack of integrity is on full display for everyone to see, and no amount of name-calling will change that. It's time for you to face the truth and take responsibility for your dishonesty.

You write as if you are so certain of this, yet you have built your project upon misrepresentations and untruths, such as the following, and it is collapsing like a house of cards under minimal scrutiny. Just exactly why do you think that is, Mr. @Pat Speer? PAT SPEER WROTE: "When asked in the 80's to show the location of the one wound [Dr. Robert McClelland had] observed, moreover, he pointed to a location far above his ear, essentially at the top of the head, and inches away from where the wound was placed in the drawing mistakenly attributed to him. So, no, he is not much of an occipital witness, is he?" Wait a minute! The actual footage from the TMWKK episode shows that McClelland is actually just resting his fingers on the top of his head while rubbing his thumb up and down the occipital-parietal region of the right side of the back of his head to indicate the location of the large wound, right where he has ALWAYS maintained that it was located. And you have cherry picked a frame from that segment and have falsely described it as being McClelland indicating that the large wound was instead on the top of JFK's head. As can be seen in the following clip of McClelland's entire hand gesture, he is running his thumb up and down on the right side of the back of his head as he describes the location of the large head wound to the interviewer. Moreover, there is no way you could have merely been confused about what Dr. McClelland was communicating with his hand gesture when you were capturing the screenshot from the segment because at the time, in that video, he was saying the following: "Almost a fifth or perhaps even a quarter of the right back part of the head in this area here [AT WHICH POINT MCLELLAND RAN HIS THUMB UP AND DOWN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD] had been blasted out along with probably most of the brain tissue in the area." See SEGMENT ON YOUTUBE: A review of your website indicates that you have used this misrepresentation about Dr. McClelland -- and several other misrepresentations -- as the foundation of your crusade against the voluminous evidence of JFK's large avulsive back-of-the-head wound, meaning that it all comes down like a house of cards upon a showing that your bedrock assumptions are demonstrably false. Take for example your claim that "McClelland described but one wound, a wound of the left temple," which is in its entirety based upon your flawed assumption that the use by McClelland of the phrase "OF the left temple" in his initial report of the wounds means that he was unaware of what he and several other doctors believed to be the large exit wound in the back of the head. If you had actually read medical journals, as you relentlessly advise others to do, you would have learned that it was abundantly common in the era of the doctors who taught Robert McClelland in medical school to refer to entrance wounds with the prefix predicate "of" without need to specify an exit wound (as a means of shorthand). Not only that, but your effort to demonize Dr. McClelland by questioning his integrity in this manner is simply unconscionable, and in my view, places in question your entire project. Insinuating that Dr. McClelland was making money off of the assassination by selling his wound drawings and notes without any evidence that this was so strikes me as being profoundly out of bounds. Dr. McClelland's drawings and notes to researchers were so very prolific and common during his lifetime because of his devotion to the truth, and because of his generous disposition toward researchers -- it is a tribute to him that those items are now considered so valuable after his death. And sure, the sketch in Josiah Thompson's book was an approximation, as all of the witness sketches are, human memory being what it is, but it surely was not sinister of Dr. McClelland to value it so much as an approximation that he ratified it, and perhaps even considered it as his own; but it is sinister to set that sketch up as a straw man, as you have done, by virtue of insisting that the slightest deviation from it by other differing accounts of the wound constitutes conclusive evidence that the account in question must necessarily be impossible for daring to contradict autopsy evidence that is recognized as fraudulent by the majority of researchers who are recognizable as honest brokers who lack any vested interest in the government's theory of the case. You have criticized the sketch of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wound that Dr. McClelland made on TMWKK as contradicting estimations of the wound made by others who lacked first-hand experience with that wound, such as Horne and Mantik, but fail to acknowledge the remarkable similarity it has with the approximations of others who do have first-hand experience, such as Jim Jenkins, as follows: ABOVE: DR. MCLELLAND'S SKETCH OF LARGE BOH HEAD WOUND ON TMWKK (1988): ABOVE: JAMES JENKINS'S DRAWINGS OF BOTH OF JFK'S HEAD WOUNDS ON SKULL MODEL (2018): The remarkable similarities between the sketches of the large avulsive back-of-the-head wounds by the actual hands of both Dr. McClelland and James Jenkins is no mere coincidence. It is the mark of mutual corroboration that defies the cheap sleight of hand parlor tricks that you have thrown at them. It is the mark of authenticity; and accordingly, I think that you owe Jim Jenkins and the family of Dr. McClelland -- as well as all of the others you have misled -- a long overdue apology. And before you cut and paste your diatribe against Jenkins, bear in mind that the following is his earliest representation of the back of the head wound, made to the HSCA in 1977: For the following is the reality that no amount of hair splitting on your part can diminish...

This is unresponsive and immaterial to the misrepresentations I have called you out on. Pasting blather from your website just will not do. You claimed I don't know what I'm talking about, and I dared you to "prove it," but your cut and paste job falls far short of achieving that. Not even close. The following are the Custer misrepresentations I have called you out on and is what you should be responding to rather than a pathetic cut and paste job that misses the mark entirely: Pat Speer wrote: Mr. @Pat Speer, I regret to inform you that I must once again point out your misrepresentation of testimony to the members of this forum. You claimed that Jerrol Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray if the back of his head was missing. This is, according to you, because the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so. Below, I demonstrate your misrepresentations: As you can see in the first segment of Custer's deposition testimony I have highlighted in bright yellow, Custer testified that he didn't even see the stirrup at the autopsy, and that the stirrup was not used during x-rays, but only when the body was being probed. With regard to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray, in the second segment I have highlighted in light yellow we see that Custer placed a sheet over the film to collect any bodily fluids that might drain while he was taking the x-rays. In the third pink-highlighted segment, when Jeremy Gunn questioned him about Autopsy Photos 42 and 43, Jerrol Custer confirmed that he had x-rayed the back of JFK's head and mentioned lifting the head just enough "to place the cassette underneath." Furthermore, contrary to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette because the x-rays were taken while the brain was in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so, Custer consistently maintained throughout his deposition that there was no brain in the skull when he took the x-rays. Note that on page 89 of the deposition Custer states that the brain was missing from the skull at the time he took the initial set of x-rays, and indicates that he did not witness what was surely a pre-autopsy clandestine craniotomy: Finally, despite the impression you gave of Jerrol Custer's ARRB deposition as uneventful and uncontroversial, the truth is that Custer recalled highly controversial and explosive events, including: He mentioned seeing a mechanical device in the skull at the start of the autopsy; being told the body was at Walter Reed before being brought to Bethesda; witnessing Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy; seeing more than one casket in the morgue; witnessing the Kennedy entourage arriving after the body had already been at Bethesda for over an hour; seeing interference with the autopsy from a four-star General and a plainclothesman in the gallery; and, many indications that Kennedy had been shot from the front. In the deposition, Custer's memories seem to overlap, such as when, as follows, he relates his memories of the mechanical device in JFK's skull, being told by two separate duty officers that JFK's body had been at the Walter Reed compound before arriving at Bethesda, and recalling having seen Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy: Your reliance on the Jerrol Custer deposition is nothing short of an act of self-sabotage. It's astonishing that you would stake your project by misrepresenting it the way that you have. One would expect you to steer researchers away from this deposition like it's the plague, yet you seem to be actively promoting it as if it's an uncontroversial pillar supporting your skewed version of reality, which a simple reading reveals that it is not. Are you so desperate to push your agenda that you're willing to sacrifice your credibility? Or perhaps that is why you expended your "credibility" to assure fellow researchers that it is uncontroversial and supports your twisted version of reality, hoping to channel them toward more prosperous subjects for you, such as the Dallas physicians, who many years later, renounced their initial memories when confronted with the fraudulent autopsy photographs, and feared for their professional reputations. The foundation of your entire project rests on these feeble sands of misinformation, but rest assured, your fellow researchers will soon see through this charade. It's only a matter of time before the shaky ground you've built upon crumbles beneath you.

Prove it.

Mr. @Pat Speer, I regret to inform you that I must once again point out your misrepresentation of testimony to the members of this forum. You claimed that Jerrol Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray if the back of his head was missing. This is, according to you, because the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so. Below, I demonstrate your misrepresentations: As you can see in the first segment of Custer's deposition testimony I have highlighted in bright yellow, Custer testified that he didn't even see the stirrup at the autopsy, and that the stirrup was not used during x-rays, but only when the body was being probed. With regard to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray, in the second segment I have highlighted in light yellow we see that Custer placed a sheet over the film to collect any bodily fluids that might drain while he was taking the x-rays. In the third pink-highlighted segment, when Jeremy Gunn questioned him about Autopsy Photos 42 and 43, Jerrol Custer confirmed that he had x-rayed the back of JFK's head and mentioned lifting the head just enough "to place the cassette underneath." Furthermore, contrary to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette because the x-rays were taken while the brain was in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so, Custer consistently maintained throughout his deposition that there was no brain in the skull when he took the x-rays. Note that on page 89 of the deposition Custer states that the brain was missing from the skull at the time he took the initial set of x-rays, and indicates that he did not witness what was surely a pre-autopsy clandestine craniotomy: Finally, despite the impression you gave of Jerrol Custer's ARRB deposition as uneventful and uncontroversial, the truth is that Custer recalled highly controversial and explosive events, including: He mentioned seeing a mechanical device in the skull at the start of the autopsy; being told the body was at Walter Reed before being brought to Bethesda; witnessing Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy; seeing more than one casket in the morgue; witnessing the Kennedy entourage arriving after the body had already been at Bethesda for over an hour; seeing interference with the autopsy from a four-star General and a plainclothesman in the gallery; and, many indications that Kennedy had been shot from the front. In the deposition, Custer's memories seem to overlap, such as when, as follows, he relates his memories of the mechanical device in JFK's skull, being told by two separate duty officers that JFK's body had been at the Walter Reed compound before arriving at Bethesda, and recalling having seen Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy: Your reliance on the Jerrol Custer deposition is nothing short of an act of self-sabotage. It's astonishing that you would stake your project by misrepresenting it the way that you have. One would expect you to steer researchers away from this deposition like it's the plague, yet you seem to be actively promoting it as if it's an uncontroversial pillar supporting your skewed version of reality, which a simple reading reveals that it is not. Are you so desperate to push your agenda that you're willing to sacrifice your credibility? Or perhaps that is why you expended your "credibility" to assure fellow researchers that it is uncontroversial and supports your twisted version of reality, hoping to channel them toward more prosperous subjects for you, such as the Dallas physicians, who many years later, renounced their initial memories when confronted with the fraudulent autopsy photographs, and feared for their professional reputations. The foundation of your entire project rests on these feeble sands of misinformation, but rest assured, your fellow researchers will soon see through this charade. It's only a matter of time before the shaky ground you've built upon crumbles beneath you.

Parkland Doctor Robert McClelland sketches JFK back of head wound on TMWKK (1988):