Jump to content
The Education Forum

EOP v. Cowlick


Recommended Posts

Personally!

Were it I that had clearly demonstrated that I understand so little in regards to the medical evidence in the JFK assassination, and had wasted good time; money; and ego on the "Mystery Photo", then I too would be highly PO'd at someone.

And, in my usually "tactful" manner, would probably ask a question which would go somewhat like:

"Well, you low-life, snake-in-the grass, exactly how long have you known about the HSCA manipulations and kept it to yourself while many of the others of us have been allowed to make fools of ourself?"

Heh! Heh! Heh!

One can, if they so wish, "Enter the Dark Side" and run around in circles down in the labyrinth of the lair of the rabbit!*

Or, one could, if they so wish, take off the blinders and turn on the light, and see if there may actually be true, and even more importantly, FACTUAL knowledge in the light.

*When one takes into consideration the number of complaints filed by the rabbit, the former statement appears to be the prevaling trend.

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...html/Image0.htm

First off, correct the following to read: One can, if they so wish, "Enter the Dark Side" and run around in circles down in the labyrinth of the lair of the rabbit!*

Correct to rear:

One can, if they so wish, "Enter the Dark Side" and run around in circles down in the labyrinth of the lair of the hare!*

My old "Creative Writing" instructor would not approve of the first version.

Now!

For those who have actually been paying attention to this discussion in regards to the late/great "Mystery Photo",/aka Photograph#44, might I recommend that even closer scrutiny be applied.

Either I have an upset stomach (possibly gas), or else we just may see the birth of an epiphany.*

(*a sudden striking understanding of something)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0064b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...possibility.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Personally,

I too would be offended (at myself) in the event that I too knew so little about the medical evidence that I wasted my small remaining cerebral capacity in writing up some big article in regards to a "Mystery Photo" of the rear of the head.

When in fact, it has been known and written about long ago that the photograph is in fact taken from the front of the head, demonstrates the parietal/parietal-frontal portion of the head with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head.

Especially when others long prior had clearly demonstrated the latter and the HSCA testimonies specifically discuss this photograph.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...possibility.htm

(315) Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly [emphasis added]. (7HSCA118)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, had the person responsible for this article not also fallen for the "reverse image" closeup of the parietal/parietal-frontal exit wound, then he most assuredly should have come to understand more than he did.

And, not that it will serve any purpose in attempting to explain it to you, this IS NOT the only location in which "Reverse Image" photography has been presented in continuation of confusion of the facts.

"Plausible Deniability" goes to many items which you quite obviously would not understand.

So!

In the event that you are "offended", good!

Perhaps next time that you launch off into some BS scenario about "Mystery Photographs" of the back of the head which are in reality KNOWN photographs taken from the front of the head, then perhaps you will stop to think as well cease to add further confusion to a subject matter in which you quite obviously know little.

Personally, I have wasted more then sufficient time and energy in debucking the garbage such as "Six Groove Bullets" and other such nonsense without having to also "debunk" anymore and/all of the garbage which has been written in regards to the autopsy; the medical X-rays and photographs; and the injuries sustained by JFK.

Try writing something factual and we will get along just fine!

Lastly, for the enjoyment of the reading public, would you like to now so inform them that you have been totally incorrect and that the "Mystery Photograph" does not represent the exterior rear of the head of JFK and in fact is a photograph which was taken from the front?

Try staying with the simple part like learning to walk first Pat.

Once you have accomplished that, then you can jump off a building and see if you can fly.

"Stupid is as Stupid Does"

(Forest Gump)

TOM: "When in fact, it has been known and written about long ago that the photograph is in fact taken from the front of the head, demonstrates the parietal/parietal-frontal portion of the head with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head."

My response: "This is utter hogwash! You are the only one who "knows" or even thinks the photograph was taken from the front with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head. This is your pet theory and yours alone. In an autopsy, the scalp is normally reflected down over the face. As a result, many of the medical people to look at this photo have assumed this photo was taken from the front, with the scalp reflected down over the eyes. As demonstrated in Part 1 of my video series, both the forensic pathology panel and its consultant on skulls, Dr. Lawrence Angel, concluded as much. They just differed on what part of the skull it showed, with Angel concluding the beveled bone believed to represent an exit was two inches further forward on the skull, just above Kennedy's eye. In short, the HSCA FPP disregarded the advice of their own consultant on the matter. Dr. Baden then got up before congress and testified with the photo upside down in comparison to the interpretation of his OWN PANEL. (He would later admit to researchers that he could never quite understand the photo. But he wasn't alone on the panel. In his chapter in Trauma Room One, Dr. Cyril Wecht admitted that he, too, could never make sense of the photo.) All this indicates to me that they never quite understood the photo, and were guessing. Which is why it's been called, long before me, the "mystery photo."

So what of the autopsy doctors, you might ask? Certainly they know what this photo represents. As demonstrated in Part 1 of my video series, all three of them begged off on this issue when shown the photo by the ARRB, and claimed they just couldn't tell. Well, why would they do this? Now maybe they just couldn't tell. In Part 3 of my video series, and in chapter 14 of patspeer.com, however, I show how the doctors had NO PROBLEM saying this photo was of the back of the head in November, 1966, but then signed a statement saying this photo was of the front of the head in January 1967, after CBS asked the Johnson Administration to allow Dr. Humes to appear on their upcoming show, and state he'd reviewed the photos and found them to confirm his autopsy report.

Well, who wrote this January 1967 statement in which the doctors changed their interpretation, you might ask? When interviewed by the ARRB, neither Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell would take credit for writing the report. Dr. Boswell thought maybe it was Dr. Finck who convinced them to change their interpretation. Finck, on the other hand, would take credit for no such thing.

Which leaves us with the contemporaneous evidence. In Dr. Finck's notes on the 67 review of the autopsy photos, he writes that the Justice Department prepared the statement and the doctors signed the statement. Ramsey Clark's phone calls to LBJ during this period, moreover, reflect that the Justice Department had been having great trouble getting the doctors to sign the statement, because they were too "reticent". In Part 3 of my video series, which Tom has clearly never viewed, I show all this documentation and play these tapes, and conclude that the doctors were forced to change their interpretation of the photo, and hide that there was a bone with exit beveling on the back of the head. Now the reader is free to disagree. But to conclude, as Tom, that everyone has known all along that this photo has been printed in reverse, and that everyone knows this photo shows the front of the head, is just plain wacky.

I mean, let's get real, here. The photo on the internet, in its supposedly "reversed" orientation, came courtesy the Secret Service agent who developed the photos within a week of the assassination. A number of researchers, including Mark Crouch, David Lifton and Walt Brown, have handled his copies. None of them have ever said anything about Fox's photo being reversed when printed in books. Are you claiming then that James Fox himself "reversed" the photo, and that it just so happens the HSCA also printed this photo in its "reversed" orientation, even though they had no idea Fox even had the photo? While you, no doubt, would like to believe this photo was taken from the front, and then reversed, there's just no reason to believe this happened, outside your desire.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally,

I too would be offended (at myself) in the event that I too knew so little about the medical evidence that I wasted my small remaining cerebral capacity in writing up some big article in regards to a "Mystery Photo" of the rear of the head.

When in fact, it has been known and written about long ago that the photograph is in fact taken from the front of the head, demonstrates the parietal/parietal-frontal portion of the head with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head.

Especially when others long prior had clearly demonstrated the latter and the HSCA testimonies specifically discuss this photograph.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...possibility.htm

(315) Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly [emphasis added]. (7HSCA118)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, had the person responsible for this article not also fallen for the "reverse image" closeup of the parietal/parietal-frontal exit wound, then he most assuredly should have come to understand more than he did.

And, not that it will serve any purpose in attempting to explain it to you, this IS NOT the only location in which "Reverse Image" photography has been presented in continuation of confusion of the facts.

"Plausible Deniability" goes to many items which you quite obviously would not understand.

So!

In the event that you are "offended", good!

Perhaps next time that you launch off into some BS scenario about "Mystery Photographs" of the back of the head which are in reality KNOWN photographs taken from the front of the head, then perhaps you will stop to think as well cease to add further confusion to a subject matter in which you quite obviously know little.

Personally, I have wasted more then sufficient time and energy in debucking the garbage such as "Six Groove Bullets" and other such nonsense without having to also "debunk" anymore and/all of the garbage which has been written in regards to the autopsy; the medical X-rays and photographs; and the injuries sustained by JFK.

Try writing something factual and we will get along just fine!

Lastly, for the enjoyment of the reading public, would you like to now so inform them that you have been totally incorrect and that the "Mystery Photograph" does not represent the exterior rear of the head of JFK and in fact is a photograph which was taken from the front?

Try staying with the simple part like learning to walk first Pat.

Once you have accomplished that, then you can jump off a building and see if you can fly.

"Stupid is as Stupid Does"

(Forest Gump)

TOM: "When in fact, it has been known and written about long ago that the photograph is in fact taken from the front of the head, demonstrates the parietal/parietal-frontal portion of the head with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head."

My response: "This is utter hogwash! You are the only one who "knows" or even thinks the photograph was taken from the front with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head. This is your pet theory and yours alone. In an autopsy, the scalp is normally reflected down over the face. As a result, many of the medical people to look at this photo have assumed this photo was taken from the front, with the scalp reflected down over the eyes. As demonstrated in Part 1 of my video series, both the forensic pathology panel and its consultant on skulls, Dr. Lawrence Angel, concluded as much. They just differed on what part of the skull it showed, with Angel concluding the beveled bone believed to represent an exit was two inches further forward on the skull, just above Kennedy's eye. In short, the HSCA FPP disregarded the advice of their own consultant on the matter. Dr. Baden then got up before congress and testified with the photo upside down in comparison to the interpretation of his OWN PANEL. (He would later admit to researchers that he could never quite understand the photo. But he wasn't alone on the panel. In his chapter in Trauma Room One, Dr. Cyril Wecht admitted that he, too, could never make sense of the photo.) All this indicates to me that they never quite understood the photo, and were guessing. Which is why it's been called, long before me, the "mystery photo."

So what of the autopsy doctors, you might ask? Certainly they know what this photo represents. As demonstrated in Part 1 of my video series, all three of them begged off on this issue when shown the photo by the ARRB, and claimed they just couldn't tell. Well, why would they do this? Now maybe they just couldn't tell. In Part 3 of my video series, and in chapter 14 of patspeer.com, however, I show how the doctors had NO PROBLEM saying this photo was of the back of the head in November, 1966, but then signed a statement saying this photo was of the front of the head in January 1967, after CBS asked the Johnson Administration to allow Dr. Humes to appear on their upcoming show, and state he'd reviewed the photos and found them to confirm his autopsy report.

Well, who wrote this January 1967 statement in which the doctors changed their interpretation, you might ask? When interviewed by the ARRB, neither Dr. Humes or Dr. Boswell would take credit for writing the report. Dr. Boswell thought maybe it was Dr. Finck who convinced them to change their interpretation. Finck, on the other hand, would take credit for no such thing.

Which leaves us with the contemporaneous evidence. In Dr. Finck's notes on the 67 review of the autopsy photos, he writes that the Justice Department prepared the statement and the doctors signed the statement. Ramsey Clark's phone calls to LBJ during this period, moreover, reflect that the Justice Department had been having great trouble getting the doctors to sign the statement, because they were too "reticent". In Part 3 of my video series, which Tom has clearly never viewed, I show all this documentation and play these tapes, and conclude that the doctors were forced to change their interpretation of the photo, and hide that there was a bone with exit beveling on the back of the head. Now the reader is free to disagree. But to conclude, as Tom, that everyone has known all along that this photo has been printed in reverse, and that everyone knows this photo shows the front of the head, is just plain wacky.

I mean, let's get real, here. The photo on the internet, in its supposedly "reversed" orientation, came courtesy the Secret Service agent who developed the photos within a week of the assassination. A number of researchers, including Mark Crouch, David Lifton and Walt Brown, have handled his copies. None of them have ever said anything about Fox's photo being reversed when printed in books. Are you claiming then that James Fox himself "reversed" the photo, and that it just so happens the HSCA also printed this photo in its "reversed" orientation, even though they had no idea Fox even had the photo? While you, no doubt, would like to believe this photo was taken from the front, and then reversed, there's just no reason to believe this happened, outside your desire.

As demonstrated in Part 1 of my video series,

(Pat Speer)

When Barbara's grandchildren are up visiting, we usually wind up with Saturday Cartoons on the TV.

Does not mean that I am dumb enough to believe them merely because some children do.

Live with it Pat! You do not know what you are talking about; you have gone off and stuck your foot in your mouth as a result of not knowning what you were talking about; and now you have to either "eat foot" or remain in egotistical "denial".

Since I have personally never been to that extent "totally incorrect" on anything, can not state exactly which path/choice I would take.

http://www.wisdomquotes.com/cat_truth.html

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.

Gloria Steinem:

The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.

Mark Twain:

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.

Bertrand Russell:

What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

Buddha:

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. [paraphrased]

Elizabeth Kenny:

Some minds remain open long enough for the truth not only to enter but to pass on through by way of a ready exit without pausing anywhere along the route.

Galileo:

All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them.

George Bernard Shaw:

New opinions often appear first as jokes and fancies, then as blasphemies and treason, then as questions open to discussion, and finally as established truths.

Isaac Asimov:

[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

Soren Kierkegaard:

Truth always rests with the minority, and the minority is always stronger than the majority, because the minority is generally formed by those who really have an opinion, while the strength of a majority is illusory, formed by the gangs who have no opinion—and who, therefore, in the next instant (when it is evident that the minority is the stronger) assume its opinion ... while Truth again reverts to a new minority.

My response: "This is utter hogwash! You are the only one who "knows" or even thinks the photograph was taken from the front with the scalp reflected back over the left front side of the head.

(Pat Speer)

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...possibility.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(315) Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly [emphasis added]. (7HSCA118)

The bullet exited in the top front area of the skull (right frontoparietal portion) adjacent to the coronal suture. There is a considerable loss of bone in the area where the bullet exited, with multiple fractures extending from the defect. In the photographs, part of the perimeter of the 2.5 centimeters, beveled exit hole is visable [sic] along the margin of the defect and is somewhat larger than the diameter of the bullet itself. On the basis of these photographs and simulated skull reconstruction, the panel was able to determine the location of the point of exit within a reasonable margin of error [emphasis added].[10]

----------------

NOTE: As should be quite evident, I personally have little qualm in regards to being up the tree and out on a limb by myself in regards to a lot of items relative to the assassination and the evidence.

However, since on this one I also have the entire HSCA Medical Panel, I most certainly do not feel to lonely.

And Pat, while you are stuttering about:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0032a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0032b.htm

I have little doubts that your "Movie Audience" would appreciate an explanation as to exactly how it is/was that the seperate fragment of bone which arrived later from Dallas, and which contained the 2.5cm beveled exit point, ended up in photo#44.

I take it that you like the taste of fish?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Commonality" of JFK assassination research and Fishing

By: Thomas H. Purvis

Down here in these deep South Mississippi woods (and especially down at Buzzard Roost), it is not uncommon for many to be raised in an environment in which fishing is a common interest.

Now-a-days, many refer to this as "sport".

However, even now it is more a source of food supply than anything related to "Sport", and that is of course why in years past, considerable "Telephoning" as well as dynamiting of fish was quite common.

Therefore, most of us, at an early age, developed a tast for and a liking of "fish".

But of course, properly cleaned and cooked catfish; bream; and/or bass, do not carry with it that extremely "Fishy" taste as do some other varieties.

For that reason, most of us never developed an instant dislike for the taste of fish, and as we grew older, could even develop a taste for those members of the fish family which were considerably more "fishy" in taste.

--------------------------------------------------

Having personally travelled through considerable parts of the world and sampled the cusine of these places, it can be absolutely stated that were it not for an already developed taste for "fish", that some of these cusines would have been most un-palateable.

Even then, such items as "Nuc Mam" in (you know where?), as well as some of the fish heads and squid of Japan, were not that easy to swallow.

http://www.foodventure.com/Book_ingredients.htm

Fish Soy

Fish soy is the staple salting ingredient used through out Southeast Asia. Typically made from fermented anchovies but other fish stock and even squid are used. Used sparingly in soups, curries, meat marinades and dipping sauces. Known as Nuc Mam (Viet Namese), Duk Trei (Cambodian), Nom Pla ( Thailand and Laos) and widely available at well stocked Asian grocery stores.

In that regards, it is now quite easy to understand why many, who have never tasted of fish before, are easily turned off by the extremely "Fishy" taste of some varieties.

Especially if it is their first encounter with fish.

As example would be the proverbial "RED HERRING"!

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

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

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

In event that one had never tasted fish prior, and was informed that fish tasted good, and their first encounter was with the relatively "FISHY" taste of Red Herring, then they just may thereafter judge ALL fish to taste like this and thereafter be leary of any other variety.

Which is of course, quite understandable.

Likewise, in the event that one has been fed a "RED HERRING" in regards to the assassination of JFK, then it is quite understandable as to whey they have an extremely "FISHY" taste in their mouth, and are understandably reluctant to again fall for the same old line about how good fish taste.

What is even more sad is those who have "tasted" of the Red Herring, know beyond any reasonable doubt that it is quite "FISHY", and yet continue to proclaim exactly how good it is.

As relates to the JFK assassination, one could merely state: "I am a beef and potatoes" man.

However, the beef and potatoes are sometimes severely lacking as well.

Therefore, one should approach all JFK assassination research as if it were a "RED HERRING", which has an extremely "FISHY" taste.

And although one may give rise to "taste" of the fish, I personally would not swallow anything which I did not first find out the source of.

There is a whole lot about the JFK assassination, as well as some of the related research, that is highly "FISHY".

------------------------------------------------

WWW. PatSpeer.Com

"Look Ma, I caught a Red Herring"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prior to advancing onward in what will hopefully be some final resolution to the great "Mystery Photo", as well as the dubious claim of an epiphany, perhaps it would be beneficial to again look at what could not have been.

That being, at Z-frame#313, that it is beyond the realm of all known physical laws for a shot fired from ANY position which was above and to the rear of JFK, to have struck JFK in the lower edge of the hairline at the rear base of the neck, and then for the bullet to turn upwards tunnelling through the soft tissue at the base of the neck to strike the skull at a point higher than the entry point into the scalp.

Therefore, in event that JFK truly possessed the lower edge of the hairline scalp wound and the EOP entry wound as stated and described by the autopsy surgeons, then these wounds absolutely could not have occurred as a result of the headshot at Z-313.

And, they could not have occurred at any point at which JFK was holding his head in an erect position, or even a semi-erect position.

This problem is further compounded when it is taken into consideration that the bullet which struck JFK in the scalp at the lower edge of the hairline at the rear base of the neck, also penetrated his coat from a point which was just below the bottom edge of the coat collar, penetrated through the coat on an oblique angle and exited to strike the scalp.

Thusly, with the physical impossibility of an EOP bullet strike at Z313, and no one attempting to demonstrate that Z313 WAS NOT the last shot fired in the assassination shooting sequence, two actions had to occur.

1. The shot impact for the bullet which was actually responsible for the EOP entry had to be made to disappear.

2. The wounds which this bullet created had to be "fudged" into a scenario in which the shot could have struck at the Z313 impact which was clearly captured on film and could not be hidden.

With that stated, hopefully one now has a better insight into exactly what some of the manipulations regarding the medical evidence are actually in relationship to.

And truthfully, one does not have to work all that hard to come up with the approximate position of JFK's head at the time of the EOP bullet impact, and which position most assuredly does not exist at any point prior to the Z313 impact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Epiphany

the sudden realization or comprehension of the essence or meaning of something

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Counting Backwards: FOUR

http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkm...possibility.htm

The fourth series, those taken of the cranium after reflection of the scalp and removal of the calvarium and brain held the potential to reveal the location of an exit wound on the skull itself. Of this series, the FPP wrote:

(315) Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly [emphasis added]. (7HSCA118)

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0064b.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0064a.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Counting Backwards: THREE

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0032a.htm

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol17_0032b.htm

"Received as seperate specimens from Dallas, Tex are three fragments of skull bone which in agregate

roughly approximate the dimensions of the large defect."

"At one angle of the largest of the three fragments is a portion of the perimeter of a roughly circular wound of exit

which exhibits beveling (shelving) of the outer (table)"

"Estimated to measure approximately 2.5 to 3.0 cm in diameter"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I'm talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn't have sufficient bone to totally close the defect.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The bullet exited in the top front area of the skull (right frontoparietal portion) adjacent to the coronal suture. There is a considerable loss of bone in the area where the bullet exited, with multiple fractures extending from the defect. In the photographs, part of the perimeter of the 2.5 centimeters, beveled exit hole is visable [sic] along the margin of the defect and is somewhat larger than the diameter of the bullet itself. On the basis of these photographs and simulated skull reconstruction, the panel was able to determine the location of the point of exit within a reasonable margin of error

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0093b.htm

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps to some there exists a great "Mystery" as to exactly how a bone fragment which arrived from Dallas, and which contained a 2.5cm circular wound of exit, then appeared in a photograph of the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull.

But, it truly is no great mystery.

[b]When they were repositioned to where they should have been[/[/b]

Seems quite clear to me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom: "Live with it Pat! You do not know what you are talking about; you have gone off and stuck your foot in your mouth as a result of not knowning what you were talking about; and now you have to either "eat foot" or remain in egotistical "denial".

Sorry, Tom, the sad fact is I do know what I'm talking about. You are spouting utter nonsense and expecting us all to accept it, as usual. Unfortunately I have studied this stupid photo more than anyone else I know of, and researched its history more than anyone else I know of, and KNOW that you're completely making crap up.

E.G. You keep citing HSCA reports as support for your pet theory, when you know darn well the FPP interpreted the photo as being taken from the front with scalp reflected over the eyes, and with the beveled exit along the coronal suture. You also know, if you've studied this at all, that Dr. Angel interpreted this photo the same way, but with the exit shifted several inches towards the front, so that it no longer resided on the coronal suture, and was just above Kennedy's right eye. NEITHER of these two interpretations of the photo have the scalp of the forehead reflected to the left, as you claim.

foxautangel-full.jpg

You also keep bringing up that Kennedy's head was re-constructed, something disputed by no one. What does that have to do with anything? It by no means suggests that they took photos as the head was re-constructed, or that the mystery photo was taken after a piece of bone had been re-inserted into the skull. Let's look at your favorite quote more closely...

"A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I'm talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn't have sufficient bone to totally close the defect."

This quote suggests, if anything, that the bone fragments found by the SS were re-inserted into the skull AFTER the bones removed from the skull to pull out the brain had been re-inserted. For how else could they note there was still a defect after re-inserting the bones brought in by the SS, if the bones they'd removed themselves were still on the table? The mystery photo, even in your orientation, reveals quite a large defect. The re-insertion of bones described in the quote would have to have come sometime later.

So let's get back to the issues, shall we?

You claim the photo as seen in books and on the internet, and as presented to Congress by Dr. Baden in his testimony, was reversed. Question: by whom? Follow-up question: Why?

In the photo, in YOUR orientation, there is what appears to be a bullet entrance on the forehead. This entrance matches the size of the entrance observed at autopsy. When the photo is properly interpreted, moreover, it is just to the right of the EOP, the location of the entrance described at autopsy. Now, you know I'm a conspiracy theorist... So why would I lie to myself and convince myself the doctors told the truth about the location of the wound observed at autopsy, unless I actually see what I believe to be that wound? (David Lifton, Robert Groden, and Jack White, BTW, have told me they agree with me, and that they also believe what I believe to be a bullet wound is a bullet wound by the EOP.) Now, if you don't think what we believe to be a bullet hole is in fact a bullet hole, then what is it?

FWIW, I agree with you that the small entrance observed by the EOP was not received at frame 313.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom: "Live with it Pat! You do not know what you are talking about; you have gone off and stuck your foot in your mouth as a result of not knowning what you were talking about; and now you have to either "eat foot" or remain in egotistical "denial".

Sorry, Tom, the sad fact is I do know what I'm talking about. You are spouting utter nonsense and expecting us all to accept it, as usual. Unfortunately I have studied this stupid photo more than anyone else I know of, and researched its history more than anyone else I know of, and KNOW that you're completely making crap up.

E.G. You keep citing HSCA reports as support for your pet theory, when you know darn well the FPP interpreted the photo as being taken from the front with scalp reflected over the eyes, and with the beveled exit along the coronal suture. You also know, if you've studied this at all, that Dr. Angel interpreted this photo the same way, but with the exit shifted several inches towards the front, so that it no longer resided on the coronal suture, and was just above Kennedy's right eye. NEITHER of these two interpretations of the photo have the scalp of the forehead reflected to the left, as you claim.

foxautangel-full.jpg

You also keep bringing up that Kennedy's head was re-constructed, something disputed by no one. What does that have to do with anything? It by no means suggests that they took photos as the head was re-constructed, or that the mystery photo was taken after a piece of bone had been re-inserted into the skull. Let's look at your favorite quote more closely...

"A. The pieces that were brought to me, it was either two or three, I think three: one pretty sizable one and two smaller ones. Again, I'm talking off the top of my head. When they were repositioned to where they should have been, there was still a defect. We didn't have sufficient bone to totally close the defect."

This quote suggests, if anything, that the bone fragments found by the SS were re-inserted into the skull AFTER the bones removed from the skull to pull out the brain had been re-inserted. For how else could they note there was still a defect after re-inserting the bones brought in by the SS, if the bones they'd removed themselves were still on the table? The mystery photo, even in your orientation, reveals quite a large defect. The re-insertion of bones described in the quote would have to have come sometime later.

So let's get back to the issues, shall we?

You claim the photo as seen in books and on the internet, and as presented to Congress by Dr. Baden in his testimony, was reversed. Question: by whom? Follow-up question: Why?

In the photo, in YOUR orientation, there is what appears to be a bullet entrance on the forehead. This entrance matches the size of the entrance observed at autopsy. When the photo is properly interpreted, moreover, it is just to the right of the EOP, the location of the entrance described at autopsy. Now, you know I'm a conspiracy theorist... So why would I lie to myself and convince myself the doctors told the truth about the location of the wound observed at autopsy, unless I actually see what I believe to be that wound? (David Lifton, Robert Groden, and Jack White, BTW, have told me they agree with me, and that they also believe what I believe to be a bullet wound is a bullet wound by the EOP.) Now, if you don't think what we believe to be a bullet hole is in fact a bullet hole, then what is it?

FWIW, I agree with you that the small entrance observed by the EOP was not received at frame 313.

[b]When the photo is properly interpreted, [/b]

(Pat Speer)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Richard Avedon:

There is no such thing as inaccuracy in a photograph. All photographs are accurate. None of them is the truth.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, Tom, the sad fact is I do know what I'm talking about. You are spouting utter nonsense and expecting us all to accept it, as usual. Unfortunately I have studied this stupid photo more than anyone else I know of, and researched its history more than anyone else I know of, and KNOW that you're completely making crap up.

------------------------------------------

You must be speaking about some other photograph that I am not aware of. Personally, I have been referencing photograph No. 44, which depicts the (anterior) parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull with the bone fragment which contains the 2.5cm circular area of beveling on the exterior side of the bone, re-positioned.

P.S. Having observed a few thousand photographs in my lifetime, I have yet to see one that is "stupid".

Seen quite a few that were taken by stupid persons as well as having observed a few stupid persons make attempts to explain what the photograph represents.

Just never actually observed a "stupid" photograph.

-------------------------------------------

Black and white photograph No. 17 and color transparency and print No. 44 are closeups of the margins of the fracture line in the right frontoparietal region after reflection of the scalp. On the margins of this fracture line is a semicircular defect which appears to be beveled outward, although the photograph is not in sharp focus. Computer-assisted image enhancement of this photograph revealed the defect more clearly

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0064b.htm

------------------------------------------------------------

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

A. Well, depending on which photographs you're talking about. We didn't photograph the wound in the occiput until the brain was removed,

------------------------------------------------------------

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arr...tml/Image01.htm

"Well, to the best of my recollection, and I regret that these photographs are so poorly marked, this was the right parietal region approximately here."

Dr. Boswell: Now, whether this was prior to or after removal of the brain tissue, I don't know."

Dr. Humes: It would be after.

--------------------------------------------------------------

"when you know darn well the FPP interpreted the photo as being taken from the front with scalp reflected over the eyes,"

(Pat Speer)

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arr...tml/Image07.htm

Actually, according to Dr. Humes as well as the FPP, that portion of the scalp which covered the parietal/parietal-frontal

exit wound location, and which is the topic of factual discussion, was reflected down (as in towards the bottom of the photograph) over the front of the face, as in normal procedures.

Since "down" is the direction of the bottom of the photograph as one looks at it, then there is little difficulty in recognizing that "physical left" is the right-hand side of the photograph as viewed.

In that regards, on can also see portions of the scalp which have been "reflected" back and to the left side of the skull.

If you will take the time to review the testimonies of Dr. Humes, you will find that the scalp had so many tears in the parietal/parietal-frontal region, that the only incision that he had to make was the horizontal one across the forehead.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/boswella.htm

Q. Dr. Boswell, you've just had an opportunity to hear your prior answer read back. Was it correct that there was a wound that went from the left posterior to the right anterior? Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. When you say the left posterior, what do you mean?

A. The left occipital area, and that wound extends to the right frontal area. And what I meant was that the wound in the scalp could be closed from side to side so that it didn't appear that there was any scalp actually--scalp missing.

Q. Do you recall whether there were tears or lacerations in the scalp?

A. Right across here and--

Q. Approximately across the midline?

A. What I previously described, post- occipital, and on the left, across the top, and then down to the right frontal area, and then the laceration extended into the right eye.

A. Yes. The scalp was essentially loose. In the usual autopsy, you have to cut underneath the scalp in order to reflect it. In this case, the scalp was mobile so that you could pull it forward to obscure the wound or pull it back to make the wound completely lucid.

Q. Was it necessary to make any incisions in the scalp in order to remove the brain?

A. No.

Q. Could we turn to the third view, please, which is described in the 1966 inventory as the "superior view of the head"?

They correspond to black and white photo Nos. 7, 8, 9, and 10, and color photos Nos. 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, and 37.

Dr. Boswell, do you recognize those as being photographs that you previously designated as "superior view of the head"?

A. Yes.

Q. I'm going to ask you to look at approximately the midline of the brain. There appears to be a straight line or a straight-ish line that goes--it appears to me to be slightly left of the midline of the brain that goes through the scalp. Do you see that line that I'm referring to?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you tell me what that line is, as best you understand?

A. Well, that's a laceration margin of--you can see hair, skin, and subcutaneous tissue, and then a little soft membranous tissue attached with some blood coagulation on the under surface of the scalp.

Q. In the photograph, as I mentioned, it appears as if that laceration is somewhat to the left of the midline. If the scalp were put back in place, where would you estimate that that scalp would come on the head?

A. I think it would fall over here.

Q. You're pointing over to the right side?

A. To the right side of the body.

Q. So that the laceration that we see there would not have, in fact, been near the midline but would have come much farther over onto the right hemisphere?

A. Yes.

====================================

Which, by it's nature, would certainly make one come to the general assumption that a portion of the scalp in the upper region of the skull was laying over to the LEFT side of the skull in varous photographs with the underside of the scalp exposed.

And, when re-positioned, this portion of scalp would extend back over to the RIGHT portion of the skull.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the "Clark Panel" review of the medical evidence.

Now!

1. The Clark Panel, with no input from the autopsy surgeons, determined that photo#44 was taken from the front and primarily depicted the frontal area of the skull.

2. The HSCA FPP Panel, in conjunction with clarification discussion with Dr. Humes & Dr. Boswell, determined and all fully agreed that photo#44 was taken from the front and depicted primarily the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull.

And then, along comes Pat Speer.com to let us know that none of these persons knew what they were speaking of, and that photo#44 is a photograph which primarily depicts the rear of the skull, due primarily to an inability to recognize "reverse image" photography.

Move over rabbit, here he comes again.

P.S. Would today be a good day for an Epiphany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom: The Clark Panel, with no input from the autopsy surgeons, determined that photo#44 was taken from the front and primarily depicted the frontal area of the skull.

REALITY: The Clark Panel was convened by the Justice Department, which changed the description of this photo, which had previously been identified as a photo of the entrance on the posterior skull, to being a photo of an exit defect in January 67. Even so, the Clark Panel made no mention of this supposed exit defect so obvious to others. They said the only thing they could say for sure was that there was "no exiting defect in the supra-orbital region of the skull."

Tom: The HSCA FPP Panel, in conjunction with clarification discussion with Dr. Humes & Dr. Boswell, determined and all fully agreed that photo#44 was taken from the front and depicted primarily the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull.

REALITY: The HSCA's consultant on skulls, Dr. Angel, said the exit defect in this photo was in the supra-orbital region of the skull, exactly the opposite of the Clark Panel's conclusion. Dr. Baden, as the head of the panel, not only testified with the photo upside down in relation to his own panel's interpretation of the photo, but later admitted he had problems orienting the photo. Dr. Wecht, in Trauma Room One, said the same thing. In short, no tests were ever performed on this photo, or comparison photos taken, in order to interpret the actual orientation of this photo. They just guessed, and guessed wrong.

Tom: And then, along comes Pat Speer.com to let us know that none of these persons knew what they were speaking of, and that photo#44 is a photograph which primarily depicts the rear of the skull, due primarily to an inability to recognize "reverse image" photography.

REALITY: I was the first person to note that Dr. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down, and I am the only person of whom I am aware to test the orientation of this photo in multiple ways, all of which indicate this photo was taken from behind. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, Tom, find some doctors to debate me on this issue, so I can prove them wrong and close the case.

As far as your "reverse" theory, neither the Clark Panel nor HSCA FPP believed this photo was reversed and you know it. We're still waiting for you to explain who, when, and why, this photo was reversed.

We're also waiting for you to explain the apparent bullet entrance, which in your orientation, is on the forehead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as your "reverse" theory, neither the Clark Panel nor HSCA FPP believed this photo was reversed and you know it.

(Pat Speer)

Clark Panel:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...tml/Image06.htm

As is readily apparant, you can not seem to grasp the conceptual difference between "looking" at a photograph and/or negative, as opposed to the actual printing of that image on a piece of paper.

I can "look" at a or be shown a photograph and/or negative all day long, in the correct image.

Yet! When that image is again transferred to paper and published, does not mean that it is going to appear exactly as it was oriented when I held and looked at it.

You also quite obvioulsy know nothing in regards to photography and photographic images.

The Clark panel correctly stated what photo#44 was, and anyone with even an iota of common sense would have immediately questioned the ultimate "reverse image" photo which has been flying around the internet as some great "Mystery" photograph.

http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/index.html

In the "Reverse Image" publishing of this photograph, if one read the Clark Panel evaluation, then it would mean that one is looking at the front of the head, which is of course true and factual.

HOWEVER!

Unless one were a complete bonehead idiot, they would (or certainly should) recognize that if this photograph is correctly oriented/printed and one is looking at the front of the head, then this would mean that the entire left hemisphere of the skull of JFK was blown away.

(Red Flag on Playing Field)

Now! PatSpeer.Com may be so uninformed about the pathological and medical evidence in the JFK assassination that he is of the opinion that the left hemisphere of JFK's head was shattered and blown apart.

But, ole TP has a sufficient grasp of this information to immediately recognize that it was in fact the right hemisphere of JFK's head that was fractured; fragmented; and blown apart.

And thusly, ole TP readily recognized that although "front" remains "front", right only becomes left in a photograph when one publishes a photograph in reverse image.

"Fool me once, shame on you"

"Fool me twice, shame on me"

Otherwise all of us would have gotten 100's (a+) in imagery interpretation.

Did they teach you right from left in the schools which you attended Pat?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk..._Vol7_0064b.htm

HSCA

Or! Are you of the completely misguided impression that of ALL of those combined personnel of the Clark Panel as well as the HSCA FPP panel who looked at photo#44 and recognized that it was a photograph which primarily represented the frontal area of JFK's head, (and so stated) that ABSOLLUTELY NONE of these persons were smart enough to recognize that JFK had no fracture and fragmentation to the left side of his head and thereafter point this little error out?

Or, did it ever dawn on www.PatSpeer.WAG.Com that just perhaps these persons were shown the photograhs and film in their correct imagery, and thereafter much of this imagery was published and printed in Reverse Imagery.

You keep forgetting one major item Pat!

Those who are in the business of obfuscation are by far smarter than is www.PatSpeer.Com.

Who I might add, fell for the "reverse imagery" photo#44, hook; line; sinker; and "bobber/cork" as well.

Move over Rabbit! Here he comes again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues. If, as you seem to believe, the Clark Panel and HSCA shared your impression of the photo, then why did the HSCA depict the beveled exit inches away from the exit in your interpretation? And why did Dr. Angel, who was only the world's foremost authority on skull reconstruction, interpret the photo as being a straight-on shot of the front of the skull, with the scalp reflected over the eyes?

Now I agree that they were both incorrect, but your pretending that they agreed with YOUR interpretation, and that the photo was reversed, is completely bizarre, and without foundation.

Now answer the questions, please.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues. If, as you seem to believe, the Clark Panel and HSCA shared your impression of the photo, then why did the HSCA depict the beveled exit inches away from the exit in your interpretation? And why did Dr. Angel, who was only the world's foremost authority on skull reconstruction, interpret the photo as being a straight-on shot of the front of the skull, with the scalp reflected over the eyes?

Now I agree that they were both incorrect, but your pretending that they agreed with YOUR interpretation, and that the photo was reversed, is completely bizarre, and without foundation.

Now answer the questions, please.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues.

(Pat Speer)

The "issues" is quite simple.

1. Pat Speer (along with a few others who own crystal balls and Ouiji boards) says that photo#44 is a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head which shows the scalp reflected from the rear of the skull, and a bullet hole in the rear of the skull.

Whereas:

2. Everyone else from the Clark Panel; to the HSCA FPP Panel, to include the atuopsy surgeons, says that that photograph$44 is a photograph which was taken from the front of the head and shows the scalp in the front of the head reflected downwards over the face, as well as demonstrating a semi-circular area of the skull which exhibits beveling on the exterior surface and thusly demonstrates a point of EXIT out the parietal/parietal frontal vicinity of the skull.

==========================

I do believe that I will stick with #2. above.

Although I have little or no qualms in regards to intentionally appearing stupid, I do have qualms in regards to unintentionally looking stupid.

After all: "Stupid is as Stupid Does".

Therefore, if one in intentionally looking "stupid", then quite apparantly it was done for some reason.

Now I agree that they were both incorrect,

(Pat Speer)

Save your agreements for the mouse in your pocket!

When you (provided that you ever do) come to recognize that Photo#44 represents a photographs which was taken from the front of the skull; demonstrates the scalp reflected down over the face as well as to the left hemisphere of the skull; demonstrates the front of the skull in the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull along with a large portion of the bone of the right hemisphere as well as extending into the right rear hemisphere (occipital area) of the skull as being absent, then perhaps as they one used to say: "You will have learned".

Until such time, you continue to remain completely lost!

Do you offer refunds to anyone who knows so little that they may have actually paid something for the "mis-knowledge" contained in your video?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues. If, as you seem to believe, the Clark Panel and HSCA shared your impression of the photo, then why did the HSCA depict the beveled exit inches away from the exit in your interpretation? And why did Dr. Angel, who was only the world's foremost authority on skull reconstruction, interpret the photo as being a straight-on shot of the front of the skull, with the scalp reflected over the eyes?

Now I agree that they were both incorrect, but your pretending that they agreed with YOUR interpretation, and that the photo was reversed, is completely bizarre, and without foundation.

Now answer the questions, please.

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Tom, you're not dealing with the issues.

(Pat Speer)

The "issues" is quite simple.

1. Pat Speer (along with a few others who own crystal balls and Ouiji boards) says that photo#44 is a photograph which was taken from the rear of the head which shows the scalp reflected from the rear of the skull, and a bullet hole in the rear of the skull.

Whereas:

2. Everyone else from the Clark Panel; to the HSCA FPP Panel, to include the atuopsy surgeons, says that that photograph$44 is a photograph which was taken from the front of the head and shows the scalp in the front of the head reflected downwards over the face, as well as demonstrating a semi-circular area of the skull which exhibits beveling on the exterior surface and thusly demonstrates a point of EXIT out the parietal/parietal frontal vicinity of the skull.

==========================

I do believe that I will stick with #2. above.

Although I have little or no qualms in regards to intentionally appearing stupid, I do have qualms in regards to unintentionally looking stupid.

After all: "Stupid is as Stupid Does".

Therefore, if one in intentionally looking "stupid", then quite apparantly it was done for some reason.

Now I agree that they were both incorrect,

(Pat Speer)

Save your agreements for the mouse in your pocket!

When you (provided that you ever do) come to recognize that Photo#44 represents a photographs which was taken from the front of the skull; demonstrates the scalp reflected down over the face as well as to the left hemisphere of the skull; demonstrates the front of the skull in the parietal/parietal-frontal area of the skull along with a large portion of the bone of the right hemisphere as well as extending into the right rear hemisphere (occipital area) of the skull as being absent, then perhaps as they one used to say: "You will have learned".

Until such time, you continue to remain completely lost!

Do you offer refunds to anyone who knows so little that they may have actually paid something for the "mis-knowledge" contained in your video?

Tom, you're still running away from the issues. The fact is that I have studied the photograph and analyzed it, and concluded that Boswell, Humes, Ebersole, and Stringer were correct when they initially catalogued the photos as photos of a wound on the posterior skull after the reflection of the scalp. No one else of whom I am aware has studied this photo beyond looking at it and going "Gee, it looks like a forehead to me!" If you're aware of any such study, please bring it to my attention.

As far as your other evasion...the fact is we agree that the official interpretation of the photo is wrong. Your conclusions that the photo has been reversed, that it was taken after the largest fragment of bone had been re-inserted into the skull, and that it shows a defect near the middle of the skull, are your conclusions, and yours alone. None of the doctors or panels to glimpse at the photo have said as much. If two people look at a photo and one says it's a photo of the Taj Mahal, and one turns the photo sideways and says it's the Roman Colisseum, you can't say they're in agreement just because they both said it was a building.

BTW,

Why would someone reverse the image?

Who reversed the image?

When was the image reversed?

And, finally...

The image when reversed, in your orientation, has what appears to be a bullet hole on the forehead. What is this, if not a bullet hole?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...