Eye Hand Witnesses to the back of JFK's Head Wound

Ron Ecker · October 7, 2010

I was discussing Clint Hill, who has made it as clear as he can that he did not see the wound on the far back of Kennedy's skull that CTs presume he saw. Maybe he's lying. I don't know. But for people to go around pretending "Clint Hill said it was on the back of the head," when he ultimately claimed it was above Kennedy's ear, is totally disingenuous.

My guess (and that's all it is) is that Hill eventually decided that he didn't see what he thought he saw after years of reading and hearing conflicting "evidence" (the autopsy photo etc.) about the location of the wound.

I have had a similar experience regarding the JFK case. For years I thought without question that I saw the arrival of the hearse carrying the Dallas coffin at Bethesda on live TV. I had a vivid recollection of it, including the long wait while the coffin was left alone in front of Bethesda. But when I raised the question a few years ago of where this TV footage is, I was gradually convinced, by Gary Mack and others, that there was no such TV coverage of the Bethesda arrival. I must have seen instead the departure of the hearse from Andrews AFB. So I simply didn't see what I thought I saw. I can only assume that my memory of what I saw was influenced by all I subsequently read about the arrival at Bethesda. The difference between this and the Hill case being, I didn't see what I thought I saw, whereas Hill came to disbelieve what he thought he saw, when the evidence of so many other witnesses shows that he actually did see it.

October 8, 2010

Pat and I have discussed this before, where his views about the head wounds are rather peculiar. I would agree that the flap at the side of the head may have been blown open from the force of the exploding bullet, but that was incidental damage and not the exit for any wound. On the contrary, the blow-out was to the back of his head and the ejecta hit Officer Hargis at the left rear with such force that he thought he himself had been hit. The Harper Fragment was found in the grass (to the left of the limo) the following day. David Mantik discovered that the X-rays had been "patched", where the area that had been thereby concealed is almost exactly like the wound itself, which can be seen in Frame 374. (It has the shape of a cashew.) I have laid out the proof in several places, perhaps most conveniently as Chapter 30 of http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ (Frame 374 appears on page 360, where the pinkish bone flap is also visible.) Among Pat's views that I find most dubious is taking the Groden color photos as authentic, when (in my opinion) they are obviously faked. Perhaps Pat has never read David's annotated copy of Hume's deposition, which appears as Appendix G of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), in which (on page 447) he is asked if the deceased had received a haircut or a shampoo during the autopsy, which of course he denied. But the question arose because of the extreme difference between photos of the back of his head showing clean and closely cropped hair and those in the Groden color-prints, a point that I accented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) during my survey of the use of deceit and deception in the evidential record (on page 15). The obvious conflict between them indicates that one or the other has to have been faked, where in fact -- since the back of head conceals the massive blow-out altogether -- they are BOTH faked. But other photos support the clean and closely cropped hair, where the Groden color-photos appear to be part of the elaborate misrepresentation of the head wounds to create the impression that the damage was caused by a shot from behind, which extended to altering the anterior-posterior to suggest the right-front of his face was also missing mass, as I also explain in HOAX (and on page 15 as well). And no doubt I should point out that the Zapruder film was altered to create the impression of a blow-out to the right-front, as I have previously explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html For reasons which I do not profess to understand, these books which bring together studies by nine experts (in the case of the former) and six (in the case of the latter) do not seem to have made an impact on Pat's thinking. With regard to Clint Hill's testimony, however, given the appearance of the wound in Frame 374, he seems to have been telling the truth, where his later disavowal, as it appears in the video, looks to me like no more than a faulty recollection of what he now remembers more dimly. When we consider all the evidence about the head wound(s), while it is not difficult to see where he could have run the flap and the wound at the back of his head together, the weight of the evidence suggests that his earlier reports were more accurate than his later revision. His later memory seems to be the less reliable, which is unsurprising, given the difference in age.

Your welcome, pleased you know of him, and yes the first other than jackie to see the back right wound to the head was no other than clint hill...a hero, being the only man that really tried.and suffered so for many years for doing so...within this video i believe is shown some areas of the motorcade that we have not seen or rarely are shown, watch for them.....b

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill '2004

http://kentuckyhelp....nt-hill-04.html or

Some great frames in here that show the back of JFK's head close up ... and show his cowlick, high and on the *left*. A great frame at about 18 secs in.

Thanks for this, too, Bernice!

Bests,

Barb :-)

Yes, thanks. I don't recall if this is the video or not, but people need to see that Hill has disavowed the whole "back of the head" thing.

From chapter 18c at patspeer.com:

Clint Hill, one of the Secret Service agents riding on the left side of the limo, while never commenting on the impact location of the fatal bullet, would later describe the appearance of Kennedy's head wound both upon arrival at the hospital in Dallas, and then later, after the autopsy in Bethesda. An 11-30-63 report written by Hill relates: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lieing in the seat." Hill returns to this later. When describing the aftermath to Kennedy's autopsy, Hill relates "At approximately 2:45 A.M., November 23, I was requested by ASAIC to come to the morgue to once again view the body. When I arrived the autopsy had been completed and ASAIC Kellerman, SA Greer, General McHugh and I viewed the wounds. I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." Well, this once again, is vague. A wound, whether on the "right rear side" of the head, or simply in "the right rear portion of the skull," could be most anywhere in back of the face, including the area above the ear.

So what about Hill's testimony, you might ask? Did he clear this matter up when testifying before the Warren Commission? Some would say so. In testimony taken nearly four months after the shooting, Hill told the Warren Commission: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head." Hill's testimony, then, first reflects that the wound was not on A portion of the right rear side, or merely ON a right rear portion of the skull, but instead covered THE entire right rear portion. It then reverses course, and reflects merely that it was IN the right rear portion, which could, of course, be anywhere in back of the face.

So, despite the widespread claims that Hill's testimony is proof the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, it is, in reality, a confusing mess. With his statements and testimony, Hill had made four references to Kennedy's head wound--three that were unduly vague, and one that was overly expansive, as not even the looniest of conspiracy theorists believes the entire right rear portion of Kennedy's skull was missing. Perhaps Hill, then, when claiming "THE right rear portion" was missing, meant simply to repeat his earlier statement that "A portion of the right rear side was missing," and mis-spoke. While this may be stretching, it explains Hill's subsequent claim, in a 2004 television interview, that, when he first looked down on the President, he saw "the back of his head, And there was a gaping hole above his right ear about the size of my palm" better than that he had forgotten what he had seen, or that he had suddenly, for the first time, more than forty years after his original testimony, decided to start lying about what he saw.

Edited October 8, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

Pat Speer · October 8, 2010

Pat and I have discussed this before, where his views about the head wounds are rather peculiar. I would agree that the flap at the side of the head may have been blown open from the force of the exploding bullet, but that was incidental damage and not the exit for any wound. On the contrary, the blow-out was to the back of his head and the ejecta hit Officer Hargis at the left rear with such force that he thought he himself had been hit. The Harper Fragment was found in the grass (to the left of the limo) the following day. David Mantik discovered that the X-rays had been "patched", where the area that had been thereby concealed is almost exactly like the wound itself, which can be seen in Frame 374. (It has the shape of a cashew.) I have laid out the proof in several places, perhaps most conveniently as Chapter 30 of http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ (Frame 374 appears on page 360, where the pinkish bone flap is also visible.) Among Pat's views that I find most dubious is taking the Groden color photos as authentic, when (in my opinion) they are obviously faked. Perhaps Pat has never read David's annotated copy of Hume's deposition, which appears as Appendix G of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), in which (on page 447) he is asked if the deceased had received a haircut or a shampoo during the autopsy, which of course he denied. But the question arose because of the extreme difference between photos of the back of his head showing clean and closely cropped hair and those in the Groden color-prints, a point that I accented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) during my survey of the use of deceit and deception in the evidential record (on page 15). The obvious conflict between them indicates that one or the other has to have been faked, where in fact -- since the back of head conceals the massive blow-out altogether -- they are BOTH faked. But other photos support the clean and closely cropped hair, where the Groden color-photos appear to be part of the elaborate misrepresentation of the head wounds to create the impression that the damage was caused by a shot from behind, which extended to altering the anterior-posterior to suggest the right-front of his face was also missing mass, as I also explain in HOAX (and on page 15 as well). And no doubt I should point out that the Zapruder film was altered to create the impression of a blow-out to the right-front, as I have previously explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html For reasons which I do not profess to understand, these books which bring together studies by nine experts (in the case of the former) and six (in the case of the latter) do not seem to have made an impact on Pat's thinking. With regard to Clint Hill's testimony, however, given the appearance of the wound in Frame 374, he seems to have been telling the truth, where his later disavowal, as it appears in the video, looks to me like no more than a faulty recollection of what he now remembers more dimly. When we consider all the evidence about the head wound(s), while it is not difficult to see where he could have run the flap and the wound at the back of his head together, the weight of the evidence suggests that his earlier reports were more accurate than his later revision. His later memory seems to be the less reliable, which is unsurprising, given the difference in age.

Note that none of the Parkland witnesses saw a blow-out from the middle of the back of the head, and that this is something Fetzer simply chooses to believe in.

Note that Hargis wrote an article the day after the shooting, and reported "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me." He never mentioned a blow-out on the back of the head.

Note that Billy Harper has repeatedly claimed he found the Harper fragment further down the street from where the Z-film shows Kennedy was hit.

Note that Dr. Mantik's proposed location for the Harper fragment is inches away from the "white patch" on the x-rays.

Note that the hair is always washed in autopsies where the skull is damaged and inspected, and that this would have been done by one of the assistants, and that one of Humes' assistants--Jenkins if I remember--acknowledged doing so.

Edited October 8, 2010 by Pat Speer

October 8, 2010

One of us may be fantasizing, but it ain't me. I don't form beliefs without evidence to support them. You

seem to be introducing an ambiguity by saying "from the middle of the back of the head", where I doubt that

I have EVER given that description. Have you bothered to look at FRAME 374, even after I have repeatedly

observed that you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head? It looks to me to be slightly to

the right, but his brains and blood were blown out to the left-rear. So I don't understand what I am doing

that is supposed to be so offensive. I take it that by the "white patch" you mean the patch that was used

to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head. Do you now agree that the X-rays were altered? I

think your question about the Harper fragment in relation to the patch is interesting. I will ask David about it.

Do you now agree about the difference between the blow-out and the bone flap, as I have laid it out in the

very post to which you are presumably replying? I take it that I am right about your not having read either

MURDER or HOAX, because you would be less likely to be following this path if you had. In particular, Gary

Aguilar, M.D., has a nice paper on the consistency of the wound to the back of the head, which demonstrates

(accurately, I believe) that there was great uniformity between the physicians and other observers from the

plaza to Parkland to Bethesda, except for Humes, Boswell, and Finck, which Doug Horne has explained with the

discovery that Humes actually performed surgery to the head to extend the wound upward and forward to make

it appear more likely to have been the effect of a shot from behind. You we agree on surgery to the head?

David's view is that the shot we are discussing actually occurred further down Elm Street, which is another

indication of the fabrication of the film, which was done to remove the limo stop and alter the head wound.

I can't believe you claim that JFK ACTUALLY WAS GIVEN A SHAMPOO! That is stunning, truly stunning. Why,

then, would Humes have denied it during his deposition? I would like some proof of this very quaint claim.

P.S. Here are sources on what Hargis said about being hit by the debris so hard he thought he'd been shot,

which is important as proof that the blow-out went to the left-rear, which I would like to think you agree:

Vince Palamara JFK MEDICAL EVIDENCE blog: January 2010

Then he fell back…I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me , ... That was right about where the President was said to have been hit. ..... he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ..... 37]---"Hargis was struck so hard by a piece of skull bone that he said, ...

palamaravince.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html - Cached

CTKA Reviews Page

The program cites Hargis, a motorcycle man, as struck by debris. What is not noted, however, is that he was struck so hard that he thought it was a bullet. ...

www.ctka.net/2009/jfk_limo.html - Cached

Outline of Evidence for the JFK Assassination (Part 1 of 3 ...

Jul 27, 2009 ... Had he lived to run for a second term, it seems likely that the Cold ... and that he shot the president from the Texas School Book ... Hargis testified the debris struck with such force “I thought at first I might have been hit. ..... There has been so much deception and cover-up in both situations, ...

911blogger.com/.../outline-evidence-jfk-assassination-part-1-3 - Cached

And here's one of my pieces discussing how the medical evidence contradicts the authenticity of the Z-film:

OpEdNews - Article: Zapruder JFK Film Impeached by Moorman JFK ... - 4 visits - May 31

Mar 28, 2009... Hargis, who was riding to the left-rear, was hit so hard by the blown-out brains and debris that he though he himself had been shot. ...

www.opednews.com/.../Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324 -48.html - Cached - Similar

Pat and I have discussed this before, where his views about the head wounds are rather peculiar. I would agree that the flap at the side of the head may have been blown open from the force of the exploding bullet, but that was incidental damage and not the exit for any wound. On the contrary, the blow-out was to the back of his head and the ejecta hit Officer Hargis at the left rear with such force that he thought he himself had been hit. The Harper Fragment was found in the grass (to the left of the limo) the following day. David Mantik discovered that the X-rays had been "patched", where the area that had been thereby concealed is almost exactly like the wound itself, which can be seen in Frame 374. (It has the shape of a cashew.) I have laid out the proof in several places, perhaps most conveniently as Chapter 30 of http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ (Frame 374 appears on page 360, where the pinkish bone flap is also visible.) Among Pat's views that I find most dubious is taking the Groden color photos as authentic, when (in my opinion) they are obviously faked. Perhaps Pat has never read David's annotated copy of Hume's deposition, which appears as Appendix G of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), in which (on page 447) he is asked if the deceased had received a haircut or a shampoo during the autopsy, which of course he denied. But the question arose because of the extreme difference between photos of the back of his head showing clean and closely cropped hair and those in the Groden color-prints, a point that I accented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) during my survey of the use of deceit and deception in the evidential record (on page 15). The obvious conflict between them indicates that one or the other has to have been faked, where in fact -- since the back of head conceals the massive blow-out altogether -- they are BOTH faked. But other photos support the clean and closely cropped hair, where the Groden color-photos appear to be part of the elaborate misrepresentation of the head wounds to create the impression that the damage was caused by a shot from behind, which extended to altering the anterior-posterior to suggest the right-front of his face was also missing mass, as I also explain in HOAX (and on page 15 as well). And no doubt I should point out that the Zapruder film was altered to create the impression of a blow-out to the right-front, as I have previously explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html For reasons which I do not profess to understand, these books which bring together studies by nine experts (in the case of the former) and six (in the case of the latter) do not seem to have made an impact on Pat's thinking. With regard to Clint Hill's testimony, however, given the appearance of the wound in Frame 374, he seems to have been telling the truth, where his later disavowal, as it appears in the video, looks to me like no more than a faulty recollection of what he now remembers more dimly. When we consider all the evidence about the head wound(s), while it is not difficult to see where he could have run the flap and the wound at the back of his head together, the weight of the evidence suggests that his earlier reports were more accurate than his later revision. His later memory seems to be the less reliable, which is unsurprising, given the difference in age.

Note that none of the Parkland witnesses saw a blow-out from the middle of the back of the head, and that this is something Fetzer simply chooses to believe in.

Note that Hargis wrote an article the day after the shooting, and reported "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me." He never mentioned a blow-out on the back of the head.

Note that Billy Harper has repeatedly claimed he found the Harper fragment further down the street from where the Z-film shows Kennedy was hit.

Note that Dr. Mantik's proposed location for the Harper fragment is inches away from the "white patch" on the x-rays.

Note that the hair is always washed in autopsies where the skull is damaged and inspected, and that this would have been done by one of the assistants, and that one of Humes' assistants--Jenkins if I remember--acknowledged doing so.

Pat Speer · October 9, 2010

FETZER: One of us may be fantasizing, but it ain't me. I don't form beliefs without evidence to support them. You

seem to be introducing an ambiguity by saying "from the middle of the back of the head", where I doubt that

I have EVER given that description.

SPEER: So you agree, then, that the Parkland witnesses did not describe a wound of exit in the location Dr. Mantik offers for the Harper fragment?

FETZER: Have you bothered to look at FRAME 374, even after I have repeatedly observed that you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head? It looks to me to be slightly to the right, but his brains and blood were blown out to the left-rear. So I don't understand what I am doing

that is supposed to be so offensive.

SPEER: I believe I've looked at the frame, and see a dark patch which may or may not be shadow. I don't mean to single you out, Jim. While I am a CT, I have the ability or disability, take your pick, of being able to see the case through the eyes of the so-called mainstream. And one of the things that stands out like a sore thumb, when one inspects the evidence, is that the so-called "back of the head witnesses" described a wound to the right rear of the head, behind the wound on the autopsy photos, but to the right of the wound suggested by those claiming the Harper fragment was occipital bone. You can either claim the witnesses were correct, or that the Harper fragment was occipital bone, but not both.

FETZER: I take it that by the "white patch" you mean the patch that was used to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head.

SPEER: That's what you say. Mantik doesn't say that. In his 20 Conclusions from Nine Visits he claims the white patch was added to draw attention to the dark area in front and make people think the bullet exited from the front. This suggests that he KNOWS the white patch does not overlay the blow-out he proposes on the back of the head.

FETZER: Do you now agree that the X-rays were altered?

SPEER: NO. I believe the x-rays are proof of conspiracy, and that they were not altered.

FETZER: I think your question about the Harper fragment in relation to the patch is interesting. I will ask David about it. Do you now agree about the difference between the blow-out and the bone flap, as I have laid it out in the very post to which you are presumably replying? I take it that I am right about your not having read either MURDER or HOAX, because you would be less likely to be following this path if you had. In particular, Gary Aguilar, M.D., has a nice paper on the consistency of the wound to the back of the head, which demonstrates (accurately, I believe) that there was great uniformity between the physicians and other observers from the plaza to Parkland to Bethesda, except for Humes, Boswell, and Finck, which Doug Horne has explained with the discovery that Humes actually performed surgery to the head to extend the wound upward and forward to make it appear more likely to have been the effect of a shot from behind. You we agree on surgery to the head?

SPEER: No.

FETZER David's view is that the shot we are discussing actually occurred further down Elm Street, which is another indication of the fabrication of the film, which was done to remove the limo stop and alter the head wound.

I can't believe you claim that JFK ACTUALLY WAS GIVEN A SHAMPOO! That is stunning, truly stunning. Why, then, would Humes have denied it during his deposition? I would like some proof of this very quaint claim.

SPEER: I think it was in HT 2. But I'll find it for you. As far as what you call a shampoo...Do you really think doctors sift through brain-soaked hair looking for bullet wounds? If you read books on autopsies you'll see that they have assistants who wash hair to assist in such matters...

P.S. Here are sources on what Hargis said about being hit by the debris so hard he thought he'd been shot, which is important as proof that the blow-out went to the left-rear, which I would like to think you agree:

Vince Palamara JFK MEDICAL EVIDENCE blog: January 2010

Then he fell back…I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me , ... That was right about where the President was said to have been hit. ..... he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ..... 37]---"Hargis was struck so hard by a piece of skull bone that he said, ...

palamaravince.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html - Cached

CTKA Reviews Page

The program cites Hargis, a motorcycle man, as struck by debris. What is not noted, however, is that he was struck so hard that he thought it was a bullet. ...

www.ctka.net/2009/jfk_limo.html - Cached

Outline of Evidence for the JFK Assassination (Part 1 of 3 ...

Jul 27, 2009 ... Had he lived to run for a second term, it seems likely that the Cold ... and that he shot the president from the Texas School Book ... Hargis testified the debris struck with such force “I thought at first I might have been hit. ..... There has been so much deception and cover-up in both situations, ...

911blogger.com/.../outline-evidence-jfk-assassination-part-1-3 - Cached

And here's one of my pieces discussing how the medical evidence contradicts the authenticity of the Z-film:

OpEdNews - Article: Zapruder JFK Film Impeached by Moorman JFK ... - 4 visits - May 31

Mar 28, 2009... Hargis, who was riding to the left-rear, was hit so hard by the blown-out brains and debris that he though he himself had been shot. ...

www.opednews.com/.../Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324 -48.html - Cached - Similar

SPEER: You evade Hargis' own words on the matter. 8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

Pat and I have discussed this before, where his views about the head wounds are rather peculiar. I would agree that the flap at the side of the head may have been blown open from the force of the exploding bullet, but that was incidental damage and not the exit for any wound. On the contrary, the blow-out was to the back of his head and the ejecta hit Officer Hargis at the left rear with such force that he thought he himself had been hit. The Harper Fragment was found in the grass (to the left of the limo) the following day. David Mantik discovered that the X-rays had been "patched", where the area that had been thereby concealed is almost exactly like the wound itself, which can be seen in Frame 374. (It has the shape of a cashew.) I have laid out the proof in several places, perhaps most conveniently as Chapter 30 of http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ (Frame 374 appears on page 360, where the pinkish bone flap is also visible.) Among Pat's views that I find most dubious is taking the Groden color photos as authentic, when (in my opinion) they are obviously faked. Perhaps Pat has never read David's annotated copy of Hume's deposition, which appears as Appendix G of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), in which (on page 447) he is asked if the deceased had received a haircut or a shampoo during the autopsy, which of course he denied. But the question arose because of the extreme difference between photos of the back of his head showing clean and closely cropped hair and those in the Groden color-prints, a point that I accented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) during my survey of the use of deceit and deception in the evidential record (on page 15). The obvious conflict between them indicates that one or the other has to have been faked, where in fact -- since the back of head conceals the massive blow-out altogether -- they are BOTH faked. But other photos support the clean and closely cropped hair, where the Groden color-photos appear to be part of the elaborate misrepresentation of the head wounds to create the impression that the damage was caused by a shot from behind, which extended to altering the anterior-posterior to suggest the right-front of his face was also missing mass, as I also explain in HOAX (and on page 15 as well). And no doubt I should point out that the Zapruder film was altered to create the impression of a blow-out to the right-front, as I have previously explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html For reasons which I do not profess to understand, these books which bring together studies by nine experts (in the case of the former) and six (in the case of the latter) do not seem to have made an impact on Pat's thinking. With regard to Clint Hill's testimony, however, given the appearance of the wound in Frame 374, he seems to have been telling the truth, where his later disavowal, as it appears in the video, looks to me like no more than a faulty recollection of what he now remembers more dimly. When we consider all the evidence about the head wound(s), while it is not difficult to see where he could have run the flap and the wound at the back of his head together, the weight of the evidence suggests that his earlier reports were more accurate than his later revision. His later memory seems to be the less reliable, which is unsurprising, given the difference in age.

Note that none of the Parkland witnesses saw a blow-out from the middle of the back of the head, and that this is something Fetzer simply chooses to believe in.

Note that Hargis wrote an article the day after the shooting, and reported "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me." He never mentioned a blow-out on the back of the head.

Note that Billy Harper has repeatedly claimed he found the Harper fragment further down the street from where the Z-film shows Kennedy was hit.

Note that Dr. Mantik's proposed location for the Harper fragment is inches away from the "white patch" on the x-rays.

Note that the hair is always washed in autopsies where the skull is damaged and inspected, and that this would have been done by one of the assistants, and that one of Humes' assistants--Jenkins if I remember--acknowledged doing so.

Edited October 9, 2010 by Pat Speer

October 9, 2010

Hargis said exactly what I said he said. If he later equivocated, it was because he didn't want to end up dead. I

can't believe you haven't looked at frame 374 after I have invited your attention to it and even provided a link to

make it easy for you to access. It is obvious you don't have any idea what I am talking about since it is not dark

or black but actually bluish-gray in color. Go to http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf'>http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf

and look at pages 357 to 360. Incidentally, how do you respond to the multiple proofs of film fabrication that Doug

Horne has presented and which I have summarized here: hppt://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml ?

FETZER: One of us may be fantasizing, but it ain't me. I don't form beliefs without evidence to support them. You

seem to be introducing an ambiguity by saying "from the middle of the back of the head", where I doubt that

I have EVER given that description.

SPEER: So you agree, then, that the Parkland witnesses did not describe a wound of exit in the location Dr. Mantik offers for the Harper fragment?

FETZER: Have you bothered to look at FRAME 374, even after I have repeatedly observed that you can actually see the blow-out to the back of the head? It looks to me to be slightly to the right, but his brains and blood were blown out to the left-rear. So I don't understand what I am doing

that is supposed to be so offensive.

SPEER: I believe I've looked at the frame, and see a dark patch which may or may not be shadow. I don't mean to single you out, Jim. While I am a CT, I have the ability or disability, take your pick, of being able to see the case through the eyes of the so-called mainstream. And one of the things that stands out like a sore thumb, when one inspects the evidence, is that the so-called "back of the head witnesses" described a wound to the right rear of the head, behind the wound on the autopsy photos, but to the right of the wound suggested by those claiming the Harper fragment was occipital bone. You can either claim the witnesses were correct, or that the Harper fragment was occipital bone, but not both.

FETZER: I take it that by the "white patch" you mean the patch that was used to conceal the massive blow-out to the back of the head.

SPEER: That's what you say. Mantik doesn't say that. In his 20 Conclusions from Nine Visits he claims the white patch was added to draw attention to the dark area in front and make people think the bullet exited from the front. This suggests that he KNOWS the white patch does not overlay the blow-out he proposes on the back of the head.

FETZER: Do you now agree that the X-rays were altered?

SPEER: NO. I believe the x-rays are proof of conspiracy, and that they were not altered.

FETZER: I think your question about the Harper fragment in relation to the patch is interesting. I will ask David about it. Do you now agree about the difference between the blow-out and the bone flap, as I have laid it out in the very post to which you are presumably replying? I take it that I am right about your not having read either MURDER or HOAX, because you would be less likely to be following this path if you had. In particular, Gary Aguilar, M.D., has a nice paper on the consistency of the wound to the back of the head, which demonstrates (accurately, I believe) that there was great uniformity between the physicians and other observers from the plaza to Parkland to Bethesda, except for Humes, Boswell, and Finck, which Doug Horne has explained with the discovery that Humes actually performed surgery to the head to extend the wound upward and forward to make it appear more likely to have been the effect of a shot from behind. You we agree on surgery to the head?

SPEER: No.

FETZER David's view is that the shot we are discussing actually occurred further down Elm Street, which is another indication of the fabrication of the film, which was done to remove the limo stop and alter the head wound.

I can't believe you claim that JFK ACTUALLY WAS GIVEN A SHAMPOO! That is stunning, truly stunning. Why, then, would Humes have denied it during his deposition? I would like some proof of this very quaint claim.

SPEER: I think it was in HT 2. But I'll find it for you. As far as what you call a shampoo...Do you really think doctors sift through brain-soaked hair looking for bullet wounds? If you read books on autopsies you'll see that they have assistants who wash hair to assist in such matters...

P.S. Here are sources on what Hargis said about being hit by the debris so hard he thought he'd been shot, which is important as proof that the blow-out went to the left-rear, which I would like to think you agree:

Vince Palamara JFK MEDICAL EVIDENCE blog: January 2010

Then he fell back…I thought the shot had come from the garden directly behind me , ... That was right about where the President was said to have been hit. ..... he looked back toward President Kennedy's car and saw debris come up from the ..... 37]---"Hargis was struck so hard by a piece of skull bone that he said, ...

palamaravince.blogspot.com/2010_01_01_archive.html - Cached

CTKA Reviews Page

The program cites Hargis, a motorcycle man, as struck by debris. What is not noted, however, is that he was struck so hard that he thought it was a bullet. ...

www.ctka.net/2009/jfk_limo.html - Cached

Outline of Evidence for the JFK Assassination (Part 1 of 3 ...

Jul 27, 2009 ... Had he lived to run for a second term, it seems likely that the Cold ... and that he shot the president from the Texas School Book ... Hargis testified the debris struck with such force “I thought at first I might have been hit. ..... There has been so much deception and cover-up in both situations, ...

911blogger.com/.../outline-evidence-jfk-assassination-part-1-3 - Cached

And here's one of my pieces discussing how the medical evidence contradicts the authenticity of the Z-film:

OpEdNews - Article: Zapruder JFK Film Impeached by Moorman JFK ... - 4 visits - May 31

Mar 28, 2009... Hargis, who was riding to the left-rear, was hit so hard by the blown-out brains and debris that he though he himself had been shot. ...

www.opednews.com/.../Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324 -48.html - Cached - Similar

SPEER: You evade Hargis' own words on the matter. 8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side."

Pat and I have discussed this before, where his views about the head wounds are rather peculiar. I would agree that the flap at the side of the head may have been blown open from the force of the exploding bullet, but that was incidental damage and not the exit for any wound. On the contrary, the blow-out was to the back of his head and the ejecta hit Officer Hargis at the left rear with such force that he thought he himself had been hit. The Harper Fragment was found in the grass (to the left of the limo) the following day. David Mantik discovered that the X-rays had been "patched", where the area that had been thereby concealed is almost exactly like the wound itself, which can be seen in Frame 374. (It has the shape of a cashew.) I have laid out the proof in several places, perhaps most conveniently as Chapter 30 of http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/ (Frame 374 appears on page 360, where the pinkish bone flap is also visible.) Among Pat's views that I find most dubious is taking the Groden color photos as authentic, when (in my opinion) they are obviously faked. Perhaps Pat has never read David's annotated copy of Hume's deposition, which appears as Appendix G of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), in which (on page 447) he is asked if the deceased had received a haircut or a shampoo during the autopsy, which of course he denied. But the question arose because of the extreme difference between photos of the back of his head showing clean and closely cropped hair and those in the Groden color-prints, a point that I accented in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003) during my survey of the use of deceit and deception in the evidential record (on page 15). The obvious conflict between them indicates that one or the other has to have been faked, where in fact -- since the back of head conceals the massive blow-out altogether -- they are BOTH faked. But other photos support the clean and closely cropped hair, where the Groden color-photos appear to be part of the elaborate misrepresentation of the head wounds to create the impression that the damage was caused by a shot from behind, which extended to altering the anterior-posterior to suggest the right-front of his face was also missing mass, as I also explain in HOAX (and on page 15 as well). And no doubt I should point out that the Zapruder film was altered to create the impression of a blow-out to the right-front, as I have previously explained in "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid", http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html For reasons which I do not profess to understand, these books which bring together studies by nine experts (in the case of the former) and six (in the case of the latter) do not seem to have made an impact on Pat's thinking. With regard to Clint Hill's testimony, however, given the appearance of the wound in Frame 374, he seems to have been telling the truth, where his later disavowal, as it appears in the video, looks to me like no more than a faulty recollection of what he now remembers more dimly. When we consider all the evidence about the head wound(s), while it is not difficult to see where he could have run the flap and the wound at the back of his head together, the weight of the evidence suggests that his earlier reports were more accurate than his later revision. His later memory seems to be the less reliable, which is unsurprising, given the difference in age.

Note that none of the Parkland witnesses saw a blow-out from the middle of the back of the head, and that this is something Fetzer simply chooses to believe in.

Note that Hargis wrote an article the day after the shooting, and reported "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me." He never mentioned a blow-out on the back of the head.

Note that Billy Harper has repeatedly claimed he found the Harper fragment further down the street from where the Z-film shows Kennedy was hit.

Note that Dr. Mantik's proposed location for the Harper fragment is inches away from the "white patch" on the x-rays.

Note that the hair is always washed in autopsies where the skull is damaged and inspected, and that this would have been done by one of the assistants, and that one of Humes' assistants--Jenkins if I remember--acknowledged doing so.

Pat Speer · October 9, 2010

Hargis said exactly what I said he said. If he later equivocated, it was because he didn't want to end up dead. I

can't believe you haven't looked at frame 374 after I have invited your attention to it and even provided a link to

make it easy for you to access. It is obvious you don't have any idea what I am talking about since it is not dark

or black but actually bluish-gray in color. Go to http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf

and look at pages 357 to 360. Incidentally, how do you respond to the multiple proofs of film fabrication that Doug

Horne has presented and which I have summarized here: hppt://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml ?

The point I was trying to make is that Hargis's comments have been used to suggest there was a hole on the back of Kennedy's head. when he never saw such a hole, and never thought such a hole existed. He has, almost from the beginning, insisted that he saw an explosion from the side of Kennedy's head, and that he drove through the debris. People interested in following the evidence should notice such things...

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot….I felt that the Governor was shot first. (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.”

(8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (1995 interview with Clint Bradford, reported online) "When [JFK] was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (6-26-95 interview, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview from an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.”

Edited October 9, 2010 by Pat Speer

Pat Speer · October 10, 2010

Hargis said exactly what I said he said. If he later equivocated, it was because he didn't want to end up dead. I

can't believe you haven't looked at frame 374 after I have invited your attention to it and even provided a link to

make it easy for you to access. It is obvious you don't have any idea what I am talking about since it is not dark

or black but actually bluish-gray in color. Go to http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf

and look at pages 357 to 360. Incidentally, how do you respond to the multiple proofs of film fabrication that Doug

Horne has presented and which I have summarized here: hppt://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml ?

The point I was trying to make is that Hargis's comments have been used to suggest there was a hole on the back of Kennedy's head. when he never saw such a hole, and never thought such a hole existed. He has, almost from the beginning, insisted that he saw an explosion from the side of Kennedy's head, and that he drove through the debris. People interested in following the evidence should notice such things...

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot….I felt that the Governor was shot first. (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.”

(8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (1995 interview with Clint Bradford, reported online) "When [JFK] was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (6-26-95 interview, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview from an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.”

Jesus, Pat. I can't believe you're perpetuating this crap.

Firstly, in his WC testimony Hargis said he was SPLATTERED by the blood and and matter and gave a distinct impression on the source of the shot:

Mr. HARGIS: Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood...at the time there was something in my head that said that they [the shots] probably COULD HAVE BEEN COMING FROM THE RAILROAD OVERPASS, because I thought SINCE I HAD GOT SPLATTERED, with blood---I was just a little back and left of---just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know.

Secondly, this idea that Hargis "ran through" the blood is utterly ridiculous. As Don Thomas writes:

"Defenders of the official version...had sought to explain away this anomoly by suggesting that the wound effluvia had been suspended in the air and that the motorcycle cops had ridden through it. For such to happen the only thing suspended would be the laws of physics, specifically, Newton's Principia. For the same reason that one can play ping pong on a steadily moving bullet train, a cloud of wound effluvia would have a forward motion component equal to that of the victim. Which is to say that the material will fall back into the moving limo in the same position relative to the victim as it would had it not been in motion. An aerosol of blood or brain fluid might hang in the air, but not heavy tissues. What goes up must come down, and indeed, the two fragments of bone seen flying upwards in the Zapruder film, fell back into the limousine. For the trailing motorcycles to ride into a cloud of brain matter before it fell to earth they would have to be traveling significantly faster than the victim, and they were not."

My God, what nonsense! Hargis never said he was hit by heavy tissues, and never specified what the piece of "concrete" was. It could have been a piece of skull or bullet that bounced off the limo for all we know. What's clear is that he never saw a hole in the back of Kennedy's head, and that there's nothing in his statements to suggest such a hole existed.

I mean, are you really trying to pretend that we know there was a hole on the back of Kennedy's head because Hargis drove through some brain matter, even though Hargis claimed he looked at Kennedy's head and saw no such hole! Because that's pretty darn wacky.

Particularly in that Bill and Gayle Newman were also looking at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of impact, from less than 20 feet away, and noted no such hole.

As far as the fragments...Thomas' claim that "the two" fragments flew up in the air and landed back in the car is utter nonsense. He just made that up. The largest fragment found in the car can be seen falling from the head and not flying up in the air. The fragment rocketing from the top of the head in the Z-film, moreover, is almost certainly the largest fragment found outside the limo, which not coincidentally derived from the top of the head. This is the Harper fragment, which was found 80-100 feet past the location of the limo at Z-313.

Edited October 10, 2010 by Pat Speer

Pat Speer · October 10, 2010

Hargis said exactly what I said he said. If he later equivocated, it was because he didn't want to end up dead. I

can't believe you haven't looked at frame 374 after I have invited your attention to it and even provided a link to

make it easy for you to access. It is obvious you don't have any idea what I am talking about since it is not dark

or black but actually bluish-gray in color. Go to http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/jfkconference/UNDchapter30.pdf

and look at pages 357 to 360. Incidentally, how do you respond to the multiple proofs of film fabrication that Doug

Horne has presented and which I have summarized here: hppt://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5772.shtml ?

The point I was trying to make is that Hargis's comments have been used to suggest there was a hole on the back of Kennedy's head. when he never saw such a hole, and never thought such a hole existed. He has, almost from the beginning, insisted that he saw an explosion from the side of Kennedy's head, and that he drove through the debris. People interested in following the evidence should notice such things...

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot….I felt that the Governor was shot first. (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him.”

(8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository.You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (1995 interview with Clint Bradford, reported online) "When [JFK] was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (6-26-95 interview, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview from an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.”

Jesus, Pat. I can't believe you're perpetuating this crap.

Firstly, in his WC testimony Hargis said he was SPLATTERED by the blood and and matter and gave a distinct impression on the source of the shot:

Mr. HARGIS: Yes; when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, and kind of a bloody water. It wasn't really blood...at the time there was something in my head that said that they [the shots] probably COULD HAVE BEEN COMING FROM THE RAILROAD OVERPASS, because I thought SINCE I HAD GOT SPLATTERED, with blood---I was just a little back and left of---just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know.

Secondly, this idea that Hargis "ran through" the blood is utterly ridiculous. As Don Thomas writes:

"Defenders of the official version...had sought to explain away this anomoly by suggesting that the wound effluvia had been suspended in the air and that the motorcycle cops had ridden through it. For such to happen the only thing suspended would be the laws of physics, specifically, Newton's Principia. For the same reason that one can play ping pong on a steadily moving bullet train, a cloud of wound effluvia would have a forward motion component equal to that of the victim. Which is to say that the material will fall back into the moving limo in the same position relative to the victim as it would had it not been in motion. An aerosol of blood or brain fluid might hang in the air, but not heavy tissues. What goes up must come down, and indeed, the two fragments of bone seen flying upwards in the Zapruder film, fell back into the limousine. For the trailing motorcycles to ride into a cloud of brain matter before it fell to earth they would have to be traveling significantly faster than the victim, and they were not."

My God, what nonsense! Hargis never said he was hit by heavy tissues, and never specified what the piece of "concrete" was. It could have been a piece of skull or bullet that bounced off the limo for all we know. What's clear is that he never saw a hole in the back of Kennedy's head, and that there's nothing in his statements to suggest such a hole existed.

I mean, are you really trying to pretend that we know there was a hole on the back of Kennedy's head because Hargis drove through some brain matter, even though Hargis claimed he looked at Kennedy's head and saw no such hole! Because that's pretty darn wacky.

Particularly in that Bill and Gayle Newman were also looking at the back of Kennedy's head at the moment of impact, from less than 20 feet away, and noted no such hole.

As far as the fragments...Thomas' claim that "the two" fragments flew up in the air and landed back in the car is utter nonsense. He just made that up. The largest fragment found in the car can be seen falling from the head and not flying up in the air. The fragment rocketing from the top of the head in the Z-film, moreover, is almost certainly the largest fragment found outside the limo, which not coincidentally derived from the top of the head. This is the Harper fragment, which was found 80-100 feet past the location of the limo at Z-313.

Apparently the laws of physics matter very little to Pat Speer as he chose to not even address them and stick to his ludicrous claim.

'Nuff said.

This is seriously silly stuff, Martin. Next time you're traveling on a bicycle or in a convertible, I suggest you throw a cup of water high in the air and see where it lands.

The "laws of physics" have been abused so much in this case it's pathetic. The "laws of physics" dictate that people desiring to blow smoke up others' rumps love to cite the "laws of physics" over common sense, and actual experience.

I mean, when I was 7 or 8 years old, I became proficient at riding a bicycle. As I live in California, this meant riding up hills in the heat. Well, one of the first things you learn is to spit towards the side.

Now, why do you think that is?

Pat Speer · October 11, 2010

I mean, when I was 7 or 8 years old, I became proficient at riding a bicycle. As I live in California, this meant riding up hills in the heat. Well, one of the first things you learn is to spit towards the side.

Now, why do you think that is?

I've got a better question, Pat. Why do you think your little anecdote is in any way relevant to the discussion at hand?

Hargis claimed that he drove through a cloud of blood. He thought this cloud exploded from the side of Kennedy's head, and not the back. You, from what I can gather, have been arguing that this couldn't be, as it would be against the laws of physics for him to have done so, and that the blood he drove through must have therefore exploded toward him from an unseen wound on the back of Kennedy's head.

If you are not arguing this...fine.

My anecdote was meant to show that even children know that fluid propelled forward into a breeze, even a breeze of one's own making, ends up back in their face. If you are disregarding the fluid, and focusing on the possibility Hargis was hit by something of substance, moreover, then perhaps you missed my other point. Since we have no idea what it is that hit him we have no idea if this item could have bounced off the car etc...

In short, the use of Hargis as a back of the head witness is NONSENSE.

Pat Speer · October 11, 2010

Hargis claimed that he drove through a cloud of blood.

Bullxxxx. You had the nerve to accuse me of cherry-picking and yet you're happy to ignore Hargis' early testimony that he was "SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND A KIND OF BLOODY WATER" (in a manner leading him to believe shots came from the overpass) in favour of the "rode through a cloud" fable that came later - after he became wrongly convinced that no shots came from the front.

Can anyone say intellectually dishonest?

I'm sorry my use of the word "cloud" to describe bloody air proved so upsetting. Accusing me of cherry-picking is about the dumbest thing ever. Hargis said from the first that he drove through blood. He never said the contents of Kennedy's skull exploded toward him, nor that he saw a hole on the back of the head.

It's clear you have some need to claim him as a back of the head witness but it's just not true.

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot….I felt that the Governor was shot first. (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him." (When asked if he saw any blood) "when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down..." (When asked about the source of the shots) "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from."

(8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository. You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (1995 interview with Clint Bradford, reported online) " When [JFK] was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (6-26-95 interview, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview from an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.”

P.S. If we're gonna get into a discussion of what constitutes someone being "intellectually dishonest," perhaps you can show us Thomas' evidence that the "two" fragments seen flying in the Zapruder film both landed in the car. That is what he said, right?

Edited October 11, 2010 by Pat Speer

October 11, 2010

Here are three comments from David Mantik. But I cannot resist quoting Officer Hargis' remarks about the limo stop:

"As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of

his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete

or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my

motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's

car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney.

He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." [Think how long the stop took

place if Hargis parked his car and drew his weapon before Greer "got his wits about him" and took off! Cheney's action

was noted by John Costella and discussed in "New Proof of JFK Video Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/article/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

None of this is seen in the Zapruder film, so I trust that Pat Speer is now convinced that the film has been recreated.]

From David Mantik:

FIRST COMMENT:

I have never demonstrated exactly where on the lateral skull X-ray the Harper would

appear, but it would be at the very rear.

The original lateral X-ray probably showed missing BRAIN in the current area of the WHITE

PATCH. It was the missing brain, not missing skull, that likely led to the WHITE PATCH.

This is one of my older points: on the lateral X-ray, it is missing brain that

typically produces obvious dark areas, not missing bone!

SECOND COMMENT:

Pat cites the HSCA skull width, but does not clarify (1) whether this included soft

tissues or (2) whether this value had already been corrected for magnification vs. being

a measured value directly from the film.

In any case, that is all irrelevant. The 6.5 mm object lay at the very rear of the skull,

so it should have been very close to the film. That means magnification was minimal.

For the actual size of the 6.5 mm object on the film, my OD graphs are best: measurements

were to within 0.1 mm. Is that precise enough?

THIRD COMMENT:

The Harper fragment was located mostly in the occipital area.

The metallic debris on the Harper X-ray is a powerful corroboration of this conclusion

(and of my reconstruction). That X-ray was not included in MIDP--John Hunt had not yet

announced that discovery.

However, its crucial role is discussed in my Pittsburgh lecture. It would not surprise me,

though, if this has been overlooked since then.

I surely hope the current forum discussion takes this into account.

Cheers,

David

Pat Speer · October 12, 2010

Hargis claimed that he drove through a cloud of blood.

Bullxxxx. You had the nerve to accuse me of cherry-picking and yet you're happy to ignore Hargis' early testimony that he was "SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND A KIND OF BLOODY WATER" (in a manner leading him to believe shots came from the overpass) in favour of the "rode through a cloud" fable that came later - after he became wrongly convinced that no shots came from the front.

Can anyone say intellectually dishonest?

I'm sorry my use of the word "cloud" to describe bloody air proved so upsetting. Accusing me of cherry-picking is about the dumbest thing ever. Hargis said from the first that he drove through blood. He never said the contents of Kennedy's skull exploded toward him, nor that he saw a hole on the back of the head.

It's clear you have some need to claim him as a back of the head witness but it's just not true.

Bobby W. Hargis rode to the right of Martin and to the left of Mrs. Kennedy. (11-22-63 article in Dallas Times-Herald) “About halfway down between Houston and the underpass I heard the first shot. It sounded like a real loud firecracker. When I heard the sound, the first thing I thought about was a gunshot. I looked around and about then Governor Connally turned around and looked at the President with a real surprised look on his face…The President bent over to hear what the Governor had to say. When he raised back up was when the President got shot…I felt blood hit me in the face…I racked (parked) my motorcycle and jumped off. I ran to the North side of Elm to see if I could find where the bullets were coming from. I don’t think the President was hit with the first shot….I felt that the Governor was shot first. (11-23-63 UPI article found in the Fresno Bee) “I saw flesh flying after the shot, and the president’s hair flew up,” Hargis said, “I knew he was dead.” (11-24-63 article in the New York Sunday News) "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy. When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look. The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him. As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." (4-3-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H293-296): “I was next to Mrs. Kennedy when I heard the first shot, and at that time the President bent over, and Governor Connally turned around. He was sitting directly in front of him, and (had) a real shocked and surprised expression on his face…I thought Governor Connally had been shot first, but it looked like the President was bending over to hear what he had to say, and I thought to myself then that Governor Connally, the Governor had been hit, and then as the President raised back up like that the shot that killed him hit him." (When asked if he saw any blood) "when President Kennedy straightened back up in the car the bullet him in the head, the one that killed him and it seemed like his head exploded, and I was splattered with blood and brain, and kind of bloody water, It wasn't really blood. And at that time the Presidential car slowed down..." (When asked about the source of the shots) "Well, at the time it sounded like the shots were right next to me. There wasn't any way in the world I could tell where they were coming from, but at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know. I had a feeling that it might have been from the Texas Book Depository, and these two places was the primary place that could have been shot from."

(8-7-68 interview with Tom Bethel and Al Oser, NARA #180-10096-10005) (When discussing how he could have been sprayed with blood, if the shot came from behind) "Well, that right there is what I've wondered about all along, but see there's ah -- you've got to take into consideration we were moving at the time, and when he got hit all that stuff went like this, and of course I run through it." (When discussing his interpretation of the direction of the shots) "Well, like I say, being that we know that the shot came from the School Book Depository, right then it was kind of hard to say what run through your mind. You know you pick up these little things. You don't know why you do it. You don't know why you do 'em, you just do 'em. It's just kind of instinct. But I had in my mind the shots you couldn't tell where they was coming, but it seemed like the motion of the President's head or his body and the splatter had hit me, it seemed like both the locations needed investigating, and that's why I investigated them. But you couldn't tell, there was -- it looked like a million windows on the Book Depository. You couldn't tell exactly if there was anyone in there with a gun." (When asked if the shots could have come from anywhere) "Uh huh. That's correct." (When asked if he saw the President's head jerk as a response to a bullet's impact) "Yes. Uh huh...To the left forward. Kind of that way...I couldn't see what part of it got hit...If he'd got hit in the rear, I'd have been able to see it. All I saw was just a splash come out on the other side." (Interview with NBC broadcast on the 1988 program That Day In November) "It sounded like a firecracker to me and I thought 'Oh Lord, let it be a firecracker. And it looked like the President was bending over, forward. And then when he raised back up is when that second shot hit him in the head." (1995 interview with Clint Bradford, reported online) " When [JFK] was shot in the head, it splashed up, and I ran into all that brain matter and all that. It came up and down, all over my uniform." (6-26-95 interview, posted on Youtube by Gil Jesus) "There was not three shots; there was only two. I only heard two...The facts was there was two shots--one that hit him in the back and one that hit him in the head. And the one that hit him in the head just busted his head wide open." (November 1998 interview with Texas Monthly) “About ten seconds after we made that left-hand turn, that first shot rang out…I remember Kennedy leaned forward to listen to what he had to say. And then when he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. But we figured out that he had got shot—that first bullet had gone through the upper part of his back, well through the seat, and hit Connally’s wrist and glanced off and went into his thigh.” (Interview from an 11-22-03 WBAP radio program found on Youtube) "Yeah I looked toward the President and I thought maybe John Connally was hit because he turned around to look at the President. He had a real surprised look on his face. Kennedy was bending over like he was listening to what Connally had to say. When he raised back up, that second shot hit him in the head. That's what killed him, There was only two shots fired." (11-22-03 article in the Dallas Morning News) “Hargis differs with the Warren Commission and most eyewitnesses, insisting that only two shots were fired. With the first, “a thousand million things went through my mind,” he says. After the last, “there was a plume of blood and brains and plasma. It was just like a fog, and I ran right through it.”

P.S. If we're gonna get into a discussion of what constitutes someone being "intellectually dishonest," perhaps you can show us Thomas' evidence that the "two" fragments seen flying in the Zapruder film both landed in the car. That is what he said, right?

Still playing games with the evidence, Pat? How dull. Accusing you of cherry-picking is spot on, actually.

Not one of Hargis' early statements you've provided even indicates a belief that he drove through "the cloud." Not one. Conversely, his WC testimony flat out states that he was splattered with blood in a manner that led him to think the shot came from the front. Here it is again:

"...at the time there was something in my head that said that they probably could have been coming from the railroad overpass, because I thought since I had got splattered, with blood--I was Just a little back and left of--Just a little bit back and left of Mrs. Kennedy, but I didn't know."

I'm done with this exchange, Pat. I know the truth and so do you - you just don't want to admit it. And frankly I don't give a toss what you believe.

P.S. I'm not here to defend Dr. Thomas. If you've got a problem with his book - and obviously I know you have - take it up with him.

My point was that, with the possible exception of the "concrete," he said he was hit by blood, and not big chunks of brain or skull. I interpret this to mean a thick spray, or cloud. What, do you think blood squirted, in a steady stream, all the way over to Hargis? Is that what you think he was saying? Because, frontal shot or no frontal shot, blood would not have been splashed onto Hargis like a bucket of water thrown in his face. Such a splash would have been easily identified on the films and by witnesses. He was just too far away.

Edited October 12, 2010 by Pat Speer

Pat Speer · October 12, 2010

Here are three comments from David Mantik. But I cannot resist quoting Officer Hargis' remarks about the limo stop:

"As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of

his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete

or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my

motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's

car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney.

He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." [Think how long the stop took

place if Hargis parked his car and drew his weapon before Greer "got his wits about him" and took off! Cheney's action

was noted by John Costella and discussed in "New Proof of JFK Video Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/article/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

None of this is seen in the Zapruder film, so I trust that Pat Speer is now convinced that the film has been recreated.]

SPEER: Hardy har har. It's been long established that the vast majority of "limo stopped" witnesses actually claimed the limo slowed, which supports the authenticity of the film.

From David Mantik:

FIRST COMMENT:

I have never demonstrated exactly where on the lateral skull X-ray the Harper would

appear, but it would be at the very rear.

SPEER: Mantik thereby acknowledges what he should have acknowledged long ago--that the lateral x-rays--in an area not covered by a white patch--are at odds with his orientation of the Harper fragment.

The original lateral X-ray probably showed missing BRAIN in the current area of the WHITE

PATCH. It was the missing brain, not missing skull, that likely led to the WHITE PATCH.

SPEER: Mantik thereby disputes the assumption by many of his supporters--including James Fetzer and Jim Douglass--that the white patch overlay a blow-out on the back of Kennedy's skull.

This is one of my older points: on the lateral X-ray, it is missing brain that

typically produces obvious dark areas, not missing bone!

SPEER: Mantik fails to note that badly damaged brain--where air has been mixed with the tissue, also shows up dark. As shown in the x-ray of an intact brain and skull in the bottom left corner of this slide...

http://www.patspeer.com/radiology.jpg

SECOND COMMENT:

Pat cites the HSCA skull width, but does not clarify (1) whether this included soft

tissues or (2) whether this value had already been corrected for magnification vs. being

a measured value directly from the film.

SPEER: Although Thomas Canning in his HSCA testimony claimed the lateral drawing of Kennedy's skull was created from a tracing of Kennedy's pre-mortem x-ray, I don't believe the HSCA revealed where they got the measurement of the width used on the frontal drawing. But it's not of vital importance. I measured a few skulls and found 17.6 cm to be perhaps on the wide side. This led me to suspect that the measurement was taken from the post-mortem A-P x-ray, where the skull would have been perhaps 10% wider than in life. As the skull would have to have been much much larger than 17.6 cm to support that the fragment was really 6.5 mm, the possibility the 17.6 cm measurement was smaller than the actual measurement only supports my conclusions.

In any case, that is all irrelevant. The 6.5 mm object lay at the very rear of the skull,

so it should have been very close to the film. That means magnification was minimal.

SPEER: This is not true. Mantik makes great hay of the fact that the supposed 6.5 mm fragment is not on the back of the head in the lateral x-ray. It is incredibly deceptive then, to pretend we know it was really 6.5mm because we know it was on the back of the head. It may have been a smaller fragment elsewhere in the skull magnified to appear as large as 6.5 mm.

For the actual size of the 6.5 mm object on the film, my OD graphs are best: measurements

were to within 0.1 mm. Is that precise enough?

SPEER: So Mantik is now claiming that the fragment is in fact 6.5 mm? If so, he is the first person to confirm the Clark Panel's finding that the fragment was that size. The Clark Panel, of course, made their findings based on the supposedly original x-rays, prior to enhancement. Which x-ray did he use?

THIRD COMMENT:

The Harper fragment was located mostly in the occipital area.

The metallic debris on the Harper X-ray is a powerful corroboration of this conclusion

(and of my reconstruction). That X-ray was not included in MIDP--John Hunt had not yet

announced that discovery.

However, its crucial role is discussed in my Pittsburgh lecture. It would not surprise me,

though, if this has been overlooked since then.

I surely hope the current forum discussion takes this into account.

SPEER: Be careful what you wish for... In Mantik's presentation on Dr. Fetzer's website, built upon the presentation he made last year in Dallas, he quotes my website, includes my name in the title of three of his slides, and even presents two of my slides to his audience. He calls two of these slides "Speer Mistake #1" and "Speer Mistake #2." So he is clearly familiar with my website.

It is not unreasonable, then, to assume Mantik is well aware that I have argued against his orientation of the Harper fragment, and have pointed out that in Dr. Angel's orientation of the fragment, the metallic debris is on the outside of the defect by the President's temple, suggesting a bullet entrance at this point. This is, one can only presume, a very interesting development for most conspiracy theorists, who believe the fatal head shot impacted in this region.

And so, I looked forward to see how Mantik handled this issue in his Dallas presentation. Would he acknowledge he'd been wrong, and that the Angel (and Riley) orientation made more sense, and supported that the fatal bullet impacted at the temple? Or would he continue to claim that the Harper fragment was occipital?

Well, to my absolute horror, he claimed that the lead smudge on the Harper fragment supported his orientation, as in his orientation, the smudge was by the EOP entrance noted at autopsy, and, in Angel's orientation, the smudge was at the top of the head, nowhere near the entrance or exit purported by the HSCA. This led me to do a double-take. He must have read my website. He must have seen that the gray smudge in Angel's orientation lay by the temple, where at least one member of the autopsy team noted a gray discoloration of the skull.

I then noticed that Mantik had changed locations for the gray smudge and metallic debris between the slide showing his orientation for the Harper fragment, and Angel's. He'd moved it on the fragment, and had then claimed its location made no sense. This was the kind of switcheroo one might expect from the Warren Commission. This put me in a funk, from which I still haven't escaped. Was Dr. Mantik deliberately deceiving his audience?

Hopefully, Dr. Mantik will acknowledge this mistake, and attribute it to excessive zeal, so we can move on...

Cheers,

David

Edited October 12, 2010 by Pat Speer

October 12, 2010

Pat Speer may be among the least competent students of JFK I have ever encountered. We all know that the Harper

fragment was occipital bone, so it is not difficult to locate on the skull. We also know that Officer Hargis said that

he had been hit so hard by debris and blood that he thought he himself had been shot. There is a summary of the

witnesses to the limo stop, as well as studies by Gary Aguilar and by David W. Mantik, on the location of the head

wound in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). David identified the metallic fragment as 6.5mm in ASSASSINATION

SCIENCE (1998). Apparently he hasn't read it either. If Speer is not going to read the best work on the subjects that

interest him, why should anyone have any interest in what he has to say? I think he owes David Mantik an apology.

Jim Marrs interviews William Raymond about the original Z-film:

limo stop, two head hits, eight or nine shots altogether, . . .

Thanks to Bernice who has just forwarded this to me and to Jack.

Here are three comments from David Mantik. But I cannot resist quoting Officer Hargis' remarks about the limo stop:

"As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of

his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood. Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete

or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit. Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my

motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun. Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's

car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney.

He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." [Think how long the stop took

place if Hargis parked his car and drew his weapon before Greer "got his wits about him" and took off! Cheney's action

was noted by John Costella and discussed in "New Proof of JFK Video Fakery", http://www.opednews.com/article/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

None of this is seen in the Zapruder film, so I trust that Pat Speer is now convinced that the film has been recreated.]

SPEER: Hardy har har. It's been long established that the vast majority of "limo stopped" witnesses actually claimed the limo slowed, which supports the authenticity of the film.

From David Mantik:

FIRST COMMENT:

I have never demonstrated exactly where on the lateral skull X-ray the Harper would

appear, but it would be at the very rear.

SPEER: Mantik thereby acknowledges what he should have acknowledged long ago--that the lateral x-rays--in an area not covered by a white patch--are at odds with his orientation of the Harper fragment.

The original lateral X-ray probably showed missing BRAIN in the current area of the WHITE

PATCH. It was the missing brain, not missing skull, that likely led to the WHITE PATCH.

SPEER: Mantik thereby disputes the assumption by many of his supporters--including James Fetzer and Jim Douglass--that the white patch overlay a blow-out on the back of Kennedy's skull.

This is one of my older points: on the lateral X-ray, it is missing brain that

typically produces obvious dark areas, not missing bone!

SPEER: Mantik fails to note that badly damaged brain--where air has been mixed with the tissue, also shows up dark. As shown in the x-ray of an intact brain and skull in the bottom left corner of this slide...

http://www.patspeer.com/radiology.jpg

SECOND COMMENT:

Pat cites the HSCA skull width, but does not clarify (1) whether this included soft

tissues or (2) whether this value had already been corrected for magnification vs. being

a measured value directly from the film.

SPEER: Although Thomas Canning in his HSCA testimony claimed the lateral drawing of Kennedy's skull was created from a tracing of Kennedy's pre-mortem x-ray, I don't believe the HSCA revealed where they got the measurement of the width used on the frontal drawing. But it's not of vital importance. I measured a few skulls and found 17.6 cm to be perhaps on the wide side. This led me to suspect that the measurement was taken from the post-mortem A-P x-ray, where the skull would have been perhaps 10% wider than in life. As the skull would have to have been much much larger than 17.6 cm to support that the fragment was really 6.5 mm, the possibility the 17.6 cm measurement was smaller than the actual measurement only supports my conclusions.

In any case, that is all irrelevant. The 6.5 mm object lay at the very rear of the skull,

so it should have been very close to the film. That means magnification was minimal.

SPEER: This is not true. Mantik makes great hay of the fact that the supposed 6.5 mm fragment is not on the back of the head in the lateral x-ray. It is incredibly deceptive then, to pretend we know it was really 6.5mm because we know it was on the back of the head. It may have been a smaller fragment elsewhere in the skull magnified to appear as large as 6.5 mm.

For the actual size of the 6.5 mm object on the film, my OD graphs are best: measurements

were to within 0.1 mm. Is that precise enough?

SPEER: So Mantik is now claiming that the fragment is in fact 6.5 mm? If so, he is the first person to confirm the Clark Panel's finding that the fragment was that size. The Clark Panel, of course, made their findings based on the supposedly original x-rays, prior to enhancement. Which x-ray did he use?

THIRD COMMENT:

The Harper fragment was located mostly in the occipital area.

The metallic debris on the Harper X-ray is a powerful corroboration of this conclusion

(and of my reconstruction). That X-ray was not included in MIDP--John Hunt had not yet

announced that discovery.

However, its crucial role is discussed in my Pittsburgh lecture. It would not surprise me,

though, if this has been overlooked since then.

I surely hope the current forum discussion takes this into account.

SPEER: Be careful what you wish for... In Mantik's presentation on Dr. Fetzer's website, built upon the presentation he made last year in Dallas, he quotes my website, includes my name in the title of three of his slides, and even presents two of my slides to his audience. He calls two of these slides "Speer Mistake #1" and "Speer Mistake #2." So he is clearly familiar with my website.

It is not unreasonable, then, to assume Mantik is well aware that I have argued against his orientation of the Harper fragment, and have pointed out that in Dr. Angel's orientation of the fragment, the metallic debris is on the outside of the defect by the President's temple, suggesting a bullet entrance at this point. This is, one can only presume, a very interesting development for most conspiracy theorists, who believe the fatal head shot impacted in this region.

And so, I looked forward to see how Mantik handled this issue in his Dallas presentation. Would he acknowledge he'd been wrong, and that the Angel (and Riley) orientation made more sense, and supported that the fatal bullet impacted at the temple? Or would he continue to claim that the Harper fragment was occipital?

Well, to my absolute horror, he claimed that the lead smudge on the Harper fragment supported his orientation, as in his orientation, the smudge was by the EOP entrance noted at autopsy, and, in Angel's orientation, the smudge was at the top of the head, nowhere near the entrance or exit purported by the HSCA. This led me to do a double-take. He must have read my website. He must have seen that the gray smudge in Angel's orientation lay by the temple, where at least one member of the autopsy team noted a gray discoloration of the skull.

I then noticed that Mantik had changed locations for the gray smudge and metallic debris between the slide showing his orientation for the Harper fragment, and Angel's. He'd moved it on the fragment, and had then claimed its location made no sense. This was the kind of switcheroo one might expect from the Warren Commission. This put me in a funk, from which I still haven't escaped. Was Dr. Mantik deliberately deceiving his audience?

Hopefully, Dr. Mantik will acknowledge this mistake, and attribute it to excessive zeal, so we can move on...

Cheers,

David

Eye Hand Witnesses to the back of JFK's Head Wound

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

Announcements