Pat Speer- I am confused (so what else is new?)...re: JFK head wound

[Malcolm Ward]

Massive wound at the back of his head’

Immediately after JFK’s death, the Parkland Hospital medical team went public with their conclusion that the wound they observed in the occipital range of his head near the right ear, a wound most described as being the size of a grapefruit, was an exit wound.

At the Parkland Hospital press conference held one hour and 15 minutes after JFK had been pronounced dead, Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of the attending physicians in the emergency room, and Dr. Kemp Clark, a neurosurgeon who also attended to JFK in the emergency room, attributed the cause of death to a massive wound at the back of his head.

The two physicians knew almost nothing about the facts of the assassination and were cautious about making deductions from the medical evidence.

Clark exhibited caution when he told a reporter that “the head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.”

Either way, it’s clear the two doctors considered the gaping hole at the back of JFK’s skull to have been an exit wound and the bullet hole observed in JFK’s neck to have been an entrance wound.

Dr. Charles Carrico, a surgeon doing his residency at Parkland Hospital at the time, was the first physician to treat JFK in the emergency room. In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Carrico described JFK’s head wound in questioning from assistant counsel Arlen Specter, who later served 30 years in the U.S. Senate:

Dr. Carrico: [JFK’s head wound] was a 5- by 51-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from the wound.

Mr. Specter: Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?

Dr. Carrico: No other wound on the head.

Dr. Robert McClelland, a surgeon on the staff of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, was giving a lecture at Parkland Hospital when JFK was brought into the emergency room.

Summoned to the emergency room, McClelland arrived after the tracheotomy had been given. Putting on surgical gloves, McClelland also observed a massive wound to the back of JFK’s head.

He testified to the Warren Commission that through that wound, “you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that possibly a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.”

McClelland’s testimony shows that the emergency room doctors were more concerned with trying to save the president’s life than trying to figure out how he had been shot.

“The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head,” he testified.

“However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets.”

Dr. Crenshaw’s account

Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D., one of the physicians attending JFK at Parkland has continued to insist the wound to JFK’s head was a front-entry wound – a story Crenshaw told in his book “JFK: Conspiracy of Silence” that was published in 1992 and republished this year without change under the title, “JFK Has Been Shot: A Parkland Hospital Surgeon Speaks Out.”

Crenshaw wrote:

I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater – an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum. The wound resembled a deep furrow in a freshly plowed field. Several years later when I viewed slow-motion films of the bullet striking the President, the physics of the head being thrown back provided final and complete confirmation of a frontal entry by the bullet to the cranium.

The basic logic of gunshot wounds apply: entrance wounds tend to be small, bullet-size holes, as the Parkland Hospital emergency room physicians observed in JFK’s neck wound before the incision was made for the tracheotomy. Exit wounds tend to be larger, such as the grapefruit-sized, gaping wounds the Parkland Hospital emergency room physicians observed in the back of JFK’s head.

Crenshaw’s testimony was so damaging to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that those who maintain Oswald was the lone assassin have attacked him. The American Medical Association claimed in a press conference held in New York City on May 19, 1992, that Crenshaw was not n Parkland Hospital’s Trauma Room One at the time emergency treatment was provided to President Kennedy.

Crenshaw sued the AMA, winning in 1994 an out-of-court monetary settlement that ended the case, substantiating Crenshaw’s claim.

The Warren Commission did not call Crenshaw to testify.

Source of material.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/rare-zapruder-footage-multiple-jfk-assassins/

[John Crites]

come on, come on, come on, come on.

who saw this?

Dis Dr. Clark say he saw this?

[Pat Speer]

The "occipital" region does not necessarily relate to the occipital bone. It refers to the "occiput." It is routinely used to mean back of the head, which includes parietal bone as well as occipital bone.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/occiput

That's what we have been saying all along Pat, the BACK of the head, not the top, or the side.

No one is disputing that many of the Parkland witnesses said the wound was on the back of the head, Ray.

The dispute is over 1) whether ALL the witnesses said it was on the back of the head; 2) whether their description suggests a large wound LOW on the back of the head stretching inches below the top of the ear, and 3) whether they were consistent in their descriptions.

My research has shown that the answers to all three of these questions is a resounding NO. But no one wants to talk about that. They just want to repeat over and over..."but they said it was on the back of the head."

Yes, of course, they did. But there are contra-indications galore which suggest they were mistaken. The vast majority of witnesses thought three shots had been fired, but almost no one on this forum believes three shots were fired. I believe they should re-consider their faith in the accuracy of the Parkland witnesses as well.

I mean, let's look at it again.

1) the Dealey witnesses described a wound by the temple, where it would subsequently be shown on the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and X-rays. The Parkland witnesses described this wound, but placed it further back on the head. Now, which is more likely? That the Parkland witnesses were mistaken about the exact location? Or that the Newmans and Zapruder just so happened to imagine a wound where it would later be moved on the fake Zapruder film, autopsy photos and x-rays?

2) should one conclude that the Zapruder film, autopsy photos and x-rays are indeed fakes one should either explain why "they" would fake evidence suggesting more than one shooter had been firing upon Kennedy, or be willing to argue that this evidence actually suggests but one shooter, in which case one would be placed in the awkward position of defending the conclusions of the WC and HSCA. And yet, oddly, no one I know insisting the Parkland witnesses were right and that the medical evidence is fake are willing to claim this evidence actually suggests there was one shooter firing from behind.

What's up with that? Does everyone here really believe the evidence was faked to show a conspiracy? I don't get it.

[Pat Speer]

My responses in bold.

The tangential wounds shown in the photos are CLEARLY only on the surface of the skulls. You can CLEARLY see the path of the bullet as it creates a furrow in the skull bone. That is why they are known as "guttering" wounds.

Look at case 20. That furrow runs considerably into the skull cavity, Robert.

These wounds are NOTHING like what was described in the back of JFK's head.

WRONG. Clark said he thought it was a tangential wound. He thought it from the first, and brought it up on his testimony because he wanted us to know what he thought. Your whole argument rests upon his expertise. Are you really calling him an incompetent?

This wound was CLEARLY described as a circular wound with bone material blasted outwards.

NOT in the early statements your argument relies upon. The circular hole blah blah blah came later AFTER the witnesses had been shown the "McClelland" drawing and TOLD this was what McClelland and Clark observed. (And don't even bring up Robinson--he was describing the wound he saw at the end of the autopsy.) Clark, it bears repeating, said he thought it was a tangential wound--which suggests he saw signs of entrance and exit, and not "a circular wound with bone material blasted outwards."

Explain to us, keeping in mind that the back of JFK's head would have been squarely facing a sniper on the 6th floor, how JFK could have suffered a tangential bullet entrance wound 2.5 cm. to the right of the external occipital protuberance.

Explain to me why you refuse to read my extensive writings on this subject and still have no idea what I'm talking about. The EOP entrance is NOT the entrance to the tangential wound by the temple. How could it be? It is a separate bullet wound. That's right. Two head wounds. Proof there was more than one shooter.

P.S. If it was a tangential wound, resembling the ones depicted in your photos, why does it not appear in the autopsy back of head photos, Pat? You can't have it both ways here. Was there or was there not a large, gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head, whether an exit wound or tangential strike, as explained by Dr. Clark?

I'm not the one trying to have it both ways, Robert. I have presented my findings on this forum dozens of times over the years, and have discussed them at five assassination conferences as well. There was NO large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head; it was several inches forward of that location, where it was observed by the Dealey witnesses, and depicted in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays. No, it is those subscribing to the "back of the head" religion who want to have it both ways. They want us to believe the Parkland witnesses could not be mistaken, but assume they were mistaken and that the wound was really LOW on the back of the head. And they want us to believe these witnesses were brave truth-tellers in 1964, and then again in 1978, when talk of conspiracy was everywhere, but turned chicken years later, when gasp...NOVA and Gerald Posner scared them into...pretending they could have been mistaken.

[Pat Speer]

Massive wound at the back of his head’

Immediately after JFK’s death, the Parkland Hospital medical team went public with their conclusion that the wound they observed in the occipital range of his head near the right ear, a wound most described as being the size of a grapefruit, was an exit wound.

At the Parkland Hospital press conference held one hour and 15 minutes after JFK had been pronounced dead, Dr. Malcolm Perry, one of the attending physicians in the emergency room, and Dr. Kemp Clark, a neurosurgeon who also attended to JFK in the emergency room, attributed the cause of death to a massive wound at the back of his head.

The two physicians knew almost nothing about the facts of the assassination and were cautious about making deductions from the medical evidence.

Clark exhibited caution when he told a reporter that “the head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.”

Either way, it’s clear the two doctors considered the gaping hole at the back of JFK’s skull to have been an exit wound and the bullet hole observed in JFK’s neck to have been an entrance wound.

Dr. Charles Carrico, a surgeon doing his residency at Parkland Hospital at the time, was the first physician to treat JFK in the emergency room. In his testimony to the Warren Commission, Carrico described JFK’s head wound in questioning from assistant counsel Arlen Specter, who later served 30 years in the U.S. Senate:

Dr. Robert McClelland, a surgeon on the staff of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, was giving a lecture at Parkland Hospital when JFK was brought into the emergency room.

Dr. Carrico: [JFK’s head wound] was a 5- by 51-cm defect in the posterior skull, the occipital region. There was an absence of the calvarium or skull in this area, with shredded tissue, brain tissue present and initially considerable slow oozing. Then after we established some circulation there was more profuse bleeding from the wound.

Mr. Specter: Was any other wound observed on the head in addition to this large opening where the skull was absent?

Dr. Carrico: No other wound on the head.

Summoned to the emergency room, McClelland arrived after the tracheotomy had been given. Putting on surgical gloves, McClelland also observed a massive wound to the back of JFK’s head.

He testified to the Warren Commission that through that wound, “you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that possibly a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out.”

McClelland’s testimony shows that the emergency room doctors were more concerned with trying to save the president’s life than trying to figure out how he had been shot.

“The initial impression that we had was that perhaps the wound in the neck, the anterior part of the neck, was an entrance wound and that it had perhaps taken a trajectory off the anterior vertebral body and again into the skull, exiting out the back, to produce the massive injury in the head,” he testified.

“However, this required some straining of the imagination to imagine that this would happen, and it was much easier to explain the apparent trajectory by means of two bullets.”

Dr. Crenshaw’s account

Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D., one of the physicians attending JFK at Parkland has continued to insist the wound to JFK’s head was a front-entry wound – a story Crenshaw told in his book “JFK: Conspiracy of Silence” that was published in 1992 and republished this year without change under the title, “JFK Has Been Shot: A Parkland Hospital Surgeon Speaks Out.”

Crenshaw wrote:

The basic logic of gunshot wounds apply: entrance wounds tend to be small, bullet-size holes, as the Parkland Hospital emergency room physicians observed in JFK’s neck wound before the incision was made for the tracheotomy. Exit wounds tend to be larger, such as the grapefruit-sized, gaping wounds the Parkland Hospital emergency room physicians observed in the back of JFK’s head.

I walked to the President’s head to get a closer look. His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater – an empty cavity. All I could see there was mangled, bloody tissue. From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum. The wound resembled a deep furrow in a freshly plowed field. Several years later when I viewed slow-motion films of the bullet striking the President, the physics of the head being thrown back provided final and complete confirmation of a frontal entry by the bullet to the cranium.

Crenshaw’s testimony was so damaging to the Warren Commission’s conclusion that those who maintain Oswald was the lone assassin have attacked him. The American Medical Association claimed in a press conference held in New York City on May 19, 1992, that Crenshaw was not n Parkland Hospital’s Trauma Room One at the time emergency treatment was provided to President Kennedy.

Crenshaw sued the AMA, winning in 1994 an out-of-court monetary settlement that ended the case, substantiating Crenshaw’s claim.

The Warren Commission did not call Crenshaw to testify.

Source of material.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/rare-zapruder-footage-multiple-jfk-assassins/

Once again. It is the right description but in the wrong location.

Riddle me this. Would a blow-out wound on the back of the head, an exit wound for a bullet entering on the front of the head, look like a furrow?

Edited December 31, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

[Ray Mitcham]

My responses in bold.

These wounds are NOTHING like what was described in the back of JFK's head.

WRONG. Clark said he thought it was a tangential wound. He thought it from the first, and brought it up on his testimony because he wanted us to know what he thought. Your whole argument rests upon his expertise. Are you really calling him an incompetent?

Sorry Pat, but Clark didn;t say that. He said"“the head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.”

[Andric Perez]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

Edited December 31, 2013 by Andric Perez

[Robert Prudhomme]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

Perhaps you would like to show me, in Dr. Clark's WC Testimony, where Dr. Clark testifies that the large, gaping wound he saw in JFK's head (tangential or exit or otherwise) was anywhere but the right rear of JFK's head.

Pat Speer seems unwilling or incapable of performing this simple task. Perhaps you can do this for me?

[Cliff Varnell]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

In regards to the Fox 5 photo they were flying blind. They didn't know where to put the back wound.

The "posterior wound" is given many different locations in the fake evidence -- two different locations in the autopsy report alone!

The Fox 5 autopsy photo is worthless.

Pat, your claim that the top of JFK's shirt collar was level with his mastoid process is total nonsense.

You're relying on a lateral-view-optical-illusion to press that claim.

[David Josephs]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

Perhaps you would like to show me, in Dr. Clark's WC Testimony, where Dr. Clark testifies that the large, gaping wound he saw in JFK's head (tangential or exit or otherwise) was anywhere but the right rear of JFK's head.

Pat Speer seems unwilling or incapable of performing this simple task. Perhaps you can do this for me?

Dr. CLARK - The President was lying on his back on the emergency cart. Dr. Perry was performing a tracheotomy. There were chest tubes being inserted. Dr. Jenkins was assisting the President's respirations through a tube in his trachea. Dr. Jones and Dr. Carrico were administering fluids and blood intravenously. The President was making a few spasmodic respiratory efforts. I assisted. in withdrawing the endotracheal tube from the throat as Dr. Perry was then ready to insert the tracheotomy tube . I then examined the President briefly.

My findings showed his pupils were widely dilated, did not react to light, and his eyes were deviated outward with a slight skew deviation.

I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed. There was considerable blood loss evident on the carriage, the floor, and the clothing of some of the people present. I would estimate 1,500 cc. of blood being present.

<snip>

Dr. CLARK - All right. Let me check what I remember Dr. Perry said at the first press conference. He was asked if the neck wound could be a wound of entrance or appeared to be a wound of exit, and Dr. Perry said something like "possibly or conceivably," or something of this sort.

Mr. SPECTER - And, did he elaborate as to how that projectory would have been possible in that press conference?

Dr. CLARK - He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head.

This comment has to do with the bullet ENTERING the throat and EXITING out the back/top of the head... It was a REPORTER'S question on what MIGHT have happened...

Since nothing was done to examine the neck or back wounds it is indeed very possible that the throat wound along with the right temple shot - but that it was from the throat wound that the lower back of JFK's head is blown out.

Yet good old Arlen wants to make sure it's in the record... the word "TOP" appears only twice, once here when describing the course of the throat shot FROM THE FRONT

and the other is this:

Mr. SPECTER - Now, you described the massive wound at the top of the President's head, with the brain protruding; did you observe any other hole or wound on the President's head?

Dr. CLARK - No, sir; I did not.

No sir, he did NOT say anything about the TOP of the head... and when it comes right down to it... who else really matters? who else was close enough to the head wound in DALLAS and saw it clearly who says it was at the TOP of the head

Hill?

Bowron?

McClelland?

PAT - is there anyone anywhere from Dallas who testifies to ANYTHING resembling the forged lateral xray? ie "I saw the entire top, front of his skull open up"

If you were to read the autopsy results - again - we find Humes describing the complete laceration of the TOP fo the brain matter attached to the TOP of the skull

along with the laceration of an area just above th base of the brain stem and top of the spinal column... in other words this one bullet supposedly created all the correct incisions for a craniotomy... destroying most of the RIGHT hemisphere while completely removing the connecting tissue to the skull on the ENTIRE left side, top and base of the brain... now THAT's a magfic bullet!

Clearly visible in the above described large skull defect and exuding

from it is lacerated brain tissue which on close inspection proves to

represent the major portion of the right cerebral hemisphere. At this

point it is noted that the falx cerebri is extensively lacerated with

disruption of the superior saggital sinus

In addition, there is a laceration of the

corpus callosum extending from the genu to the tail. Exposed in this

latter laceration are the interiors of the right lateral and third

ventricles.

Intersting that Boswell put NOTHING on the frontal view of the Face on the Descriptive Sheet... there is simply no way that what Humes/Boswell describes is the condition of JFK at PARKLAND...

The TOP of the head may have ultimately been removed, but not by the shots in DP, but at the hands of HUMES in Bethesda.

Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy.

Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head.

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes.

Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed.

Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this?

Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed.

Mr. SPECTER. All right.

[David Josephs]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

1. The ONLY thing the film and autopsy evidence reveals is a conspiracy to cover-up the actual wounds and results... there is NOTHING of evidentiary value in determining what occurred in DP on those films that can be stated definitively.

2. n/a

3. Got to leave that to Robert... didn't realize he thought there was only one shooter - is that actually the case?

4. Because he was shot in the right temple... it's the ONLY thing that explains the trail of particles left which could not be removed by HUMES before 8pm

If you can Pat - please explain how either the WCR or HSCA entry points leaves a trail of particles ABOVE the path of the bullet when - if shot from the front and hitting the right temple you have a perfectly logicaly explanation for them..

Thanks Pat

DJ

Do you completely discount Hill and Kellerman's testimony along with Bowron and everyone else at Parkland who only see a large hole at the back of his head?

And maybe also explain how both the very TOP and very BOTTOm of the brain is virtually surgically cut by this ONE bullet leaving debris as far from the base of the brain as is possible..

[Pat Speer]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

Perhaps you would like to show me, in Dr. Clark's WC Testimony, where Dr. Clark testifies that the large, gaping wound he saw in JFK's head (tangential or exit or otherwise) was anywhere but the right rear of JFK's head.

Pat Speer seems unwilling or incapable of performing this simple task. Perhaps you can do this for me?

Non-sequitur. I repeat over and over that I believe Dr. Clark described the wound accurately, but recalled its exact location inaccurately, and you keep stomping your feet demanding that I prove he didn't describe the wound inaccurately! WHAT?

Please go back and read my posts again. I have been consistent from the outset of this thread, and have been consistent in the many similar threads over the years in which I repeated this exact same argument with Fetzer and Lifton, among others...

[Pat Speer]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

1. The ONLY thing the film and autopsy evidence reveals is a conspiracy to cover-up the actual wounds and results... there is NOTHING of evidentiary value in determining what occurred in DP on those films that can be stated definitively.

2. n/a

3. Got to leave that to Robert... didn't realize he thought there was only one shooter - is that actually the case?

4. Because he was shot in the right temple... it's the ONLY thing that explains the trail of particles left which could not be removed by HUMES before 8pm

If you can Pat - please explain how either the WCR or HSCA entry points leaves a trail of particles ABOVE the path of the bullet when - if shot from the front and hitting the right temple you have a perfectly logicaly explanation for them..

Thanks Pat

DJ

Do you completely discount Hill and Kellerman's testimony along with Bowron and everyone else at Parkland who only see a large hole at the back of his head?

And maybe also explain how both the very TOP and very BOTTOm of the brain is virtually surgically cut by this ONE bullet leaving debris as far from the base of the brain as is possible..

it's with some dismay I realize that you've failed to understand what I've long been pushing, on this forum and on my website. If you had you'd realize that the argument the bullet broke up upon entry at the supposed exit by the temple, creating the appearance of a trail of fragments inconsistent with the WC's and HSCA's entrance wound location on the back of the head, is MY argument. It's been part of my presentations going back to 2004, and it was a big part of my recent presentation at the Wecht conference in Pittsburgh.

The trail of fragments proves two head shots, IMO.

[Andric Perez]

I've addressed all your points, Robert. Let's see if you can address mine.

1. Do you think the film and autopsy evidence suggests more than one shooter?

2. If yes, well then why would "they" fake this evidence to suggest more than one shooter?

3. If no, well then please explain which take on the medical evidence you think suggests there was but one shooter, the autopsy report, or the report of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel?

4. Why do you think the Newmans, Zapruder, and Burkley thought the wound was by the temple? I mean what are the odds that the recollections of the wound location by not one, not two, not three, but FOUR witnesses would be recorded before the Parkland witnesses uttered a peep about the wound location, or wrote down a word, and that they all would by some amazing coincidence confirm the location of the wound in the Zapruder film, autopsy photos, and x-rays--which you claim are fakes? I mean, really, what are the odds?

The Zapruder film alteration theory is one unintended casualty in this thread. Mr. Ward already stated that his views on film alteration have "evolved", when confronted about the fact that McClelland credits the film for his transformation from a "lone nut" theory supporter to a conspiracy theorist. Prudhomme needs some time to make the case for alteration without undermining McClelland's credibility. Please give him time.

Perhaps you would like to show me, in Dr. Clark's WC Testimony, where Dr. Clark testifies that the large, gaping wound he saw in JFK's head (tangential or exit or otherwise) was anywhere but the right rear of JFK's head.

Is it Speer's position that Clark placed the wound in a place other than the right-rear in his WC testimony? If so, please quote him.

Edited January 1, 2014 by Andric Perez