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

[Pat Speer]

The HSCA, in the 1970's, conducted interviews with all of the autopsy witnesses at Bethesda, yet never released the contents of the interviews. Rather, the HSCA chose to lie to the public by saying all of those interviewed felt the autopsy photos gave an accurate portrayal of JFK's head wounds. It was not until the ARRB released the contents of these interviews that it was discovered the witnesses did not think the photos accurate at all.

And now you are quoting the HSCA to us when speaking about JFK's head wounds, Pat. Haven't you heard the news? The HSCA was exposed as frauds.

You're flogging a dead horse here, Pat.

Non-sequitur.

The HSCA made statements in its report that were in opposition to its witness interviews.

Virtually everyone takes from this that the writer of the report lied, and that the witness interviews were accurate.

But now you're saying that we should ignore the witness interviews when they include things you don't like.

You can't have it both ways.

[Pat Speer]

And there was a police photographer who photographed the crash scene...and created photos showing the crash to have occurred at...Elm and Maple.

Except that the photos were not prepared according to proper police protocol, and as it turns out the photos cannot be tracked back to the police photo lab because the lady at the police photo lab who was supposed to have developed the photos says these photos are not the ones she developed....Such photos would not be accepted in court, Pat.

I believe this is incorrect.

The HSCA concluded they were prima facie inadmissible -- the burden of proof on the prosecution attempting to enter such.

Please cite one example of autopsy photos or crime scene photos being disallowed because ONE person involved in the chain of custody didn't recognize them decades later.

You can't establish the Fox 5 photo as a JFK autopsy photo. You don't know who took it, you don't know who developed it, and there's nothing in the photo to indicate that the subject was JFK.

Proper autopsy protocol was not followed, there's no chain of possession, and Fox 5 itself was singled out as particularly deficient.

And you tout this crap as determinative , Pat?

To enter a photo into evidence, Cliff, all it takes is for someone to say they took the photo, and someone to say the photo represents what they saw. Ta-da!

[Pat Speer]

This is the drawing made by McClelland of the large wound in 1988, in "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." The image as shown in Speer's website is so bright that no details can be made out, at least in my computer; so I increased the contrast. Please discuss what you see.

To give proper credit, I'm pretty sure I found this image in a post by Anthony Marsh.

[Robert Prudhomme]

This may be true, Pat, but where did the overwhelming majority of the Bethesda witnesses place the large wound in JFK's head, once the HSCA was no longer able to suppress their interviews?

[Cliff Varnell]

And there was a police photographer who photographed the crash scene...and created photos showing the crash to have occurred at...Elm and Maple.

Except that the photos were not prepared according to proper police protocol, and as it turns out the photos cannot be tracked back to the police photo lab because the lady at the police photo lab who was supposed to have developed the photos says these photos are not the ones she developed....Such photos would not be accepted in court, Pat.

I believe this is incorrect.

The HSCA concluded they were prima facie inadmissible -- the burden of proof on the prosecution attempting to enter such.

Please cite one example of autopsy photos or crime scene photos being disallowed because ONE person involved in the chain of custody didn't recognize them decades later.

You can't establish the Fox 5 photo as a JFK autopsy photo. You don't know who took it, you don't know who developed it, and there's nothing in the photo to indicate that the subject was JFK.

Proper autopsy protocol was not followed, there's no chain of possession, and Fox 5 itself was singled out as particularly deficient.

And you tout this crap as determinative , Pat?

To enter a photo into evidence, Cliff, all it takes is for someone to say they took the photo, and someone to say the photo represents what they saw. Ta-da!

And this is your rationale for promoting degraded evidence??

The HSCA wasn't so sanguine, Pat.

Emphasis added:

Not all the critics of the Warren Commission have been content to point out the obvious deficiencies of the

autopsy photographs as scientific evidence. Some have questioned their very authenticity.

These theorists suggest that the body shown in at least some of the photographs is not President Kennedy,

but another decedent deliberately mutilated to simulate a pattern of wounds supportive of the Warren

Commissions' interpretation of their nature and significance. As outlandish as such a macabre proposition

might appear, it is one that, had the case gone to trial,might have been effectively raised by an astute defense

anxious to block the introduction of the photographs as evidence. In any event, the onus of establishing the

authenticity of these photographs would have rested with the prosecution.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Amen, Cliff.

[Andric Perez]

I realize it is not the popular yet I am going with the theory that ZFILM was at least partially filmed at 48fps if not entirely so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable...

Earlier in the thread, Mr. Ward gave up on his Zapruder-alteration views upon learning that McClelland said that watching the Zapruder Film is what made him turn into a CT.

Ward had to throw either his altertionist views or McClelland under the bus, and he chose the former. Do you still maintain that the film was both "quickly and easily" removed unwanted elements in order to bolster the lone-nutter theory, while at the same time convincing McClelland of the opposite?

Edited January 4, 2014 by Andric Perez

[David Josephs]

I realize it is not the popular yet I am going with the theory that ZFILM was at least partially filmed at 48fps if not entirely so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable...

Earlier in the thread, Mr. Ward gave up on his Zapruder-alteration views upon learning that McClelland said that watching the Zapruder Film is what made him turn into a CT.

Ward had to throw either his altertionist views or McClelland under the bus, and he chose the former. Do you still maintain that the film was both "quickly and easily" removed unwanted elements in order to bolster the lone-nutter theory, while at the same time convincing McClelland of the opposite?

Ward Wrote:

McClelland has since found himself at odds with official versions of what happened at Dealey Plaza. He says he was troubled immediately with the wounds. While the one to the President’s neck seemed to come from behind and was likely the work of Lee Harvey Oswald, it appeared the fatal shot to the back of the President’s head was an exit wound. And later when he closely examined the classic Abraham Zapruder film, he decided there had to be a second gunman. “That he (Kennedy) was shot from the front, from the picket fence,” adjoining the plaza.

McClelland knows this runs counter to the accepted, lone gunman reports, but he claims we will likely never know just what happened that day.

I do not see how this statement is in conflict with anything... He felt the wound he saw was an exit wound... it is obvious from the ZFilm that a shot was fired from the right front... which has been "explained" as jet-effect or muscle spasms, etc... since a good number of the frames surrounding 313 were removed to hide the ejecta from the back of the head... what was left was covered via plate painting... How is McC thrown under the bus by not agreeing with alteration here Andric? or Mr Ward for that matter.... there are too many problems with the zfilm in a number of areas for it NOT to be altered... including its current condition at the archives... there is nothing on that film that proves it as an original, THE original 0183... nothing. the film FROM its original form has been heavily altered... whether it was refilmed and replaced.. I believe so and very, very early that weekend...

So the conflict is ???

Edited January 4, 2014 by David Josephs

[Andric Perez]

David Joseph said it is obvious from the ZFilm that a shot was fired from the right front... which has been "explained" as jet-effect or muscle spasms, etc... since a good number of the frames surrounding 313 were removed to hide the ejecta from the back of the head... what was left was covered via plate painting... How is McC thrown under the bus by not agreeing with alteration here Andric? or Mr Ward for that matter.... there are too many problems with the zfilm in a number of areas for it NOT to be altered... including its current condition at the archives... there is nothing on that film that proves it as an original, THE original 0183... nothing. the film FROM its original form has been heavily altered... whether it was refilmed and replaced.. I believe so and very, very early that weekend...

So the conflict is ???

You said the film was made at the speed you specified "so that an alteration could be done quickly and easily to remove whatever may be objectionable," yet at the same time you believe that the film clearly shows a shooter from the right front.

But isn't a shooter from the right from one of the most--if not the most--, "objectionable" things imaginable to the alleged film fakers? How could the alteration have been done "easily" if the presence of a shooter from this position was "obvious" (in your opinion) at the end?

Another question. Why did McClelland --with all his alleged expertise on gunshot wounds-- have to wait for the Zapruder film to conclude that more than one shooter was involved, if the drawing commissioned Josiah Thompson's drawing of McClelland's wound description is correct? I mean, doesn't the drawing show a huge wound at the back of the head? And if we couple the drawing with the alleged small wound McClelland saw in the left temple (and if we assume he meant "right temple,") shouldn't that information alone be an obvious indication to him that at least 2 shooters were involved? Or did McClelland think (prior to watching the film) that the small entrance was an exit and the huge wound was an entry?

Edited January 4, 2014 by Andric Perez

[Don Jeffries]

Pat and Andric, you have a lot more faith in the authenticity of the evidence, and especially the medical evidence, than many of us do. What about that inexcusably shoddy autopsy causes you to trust in the validity of the photos and x-rays? The reason why some believe in body alteration, or film alteration, is because the wounds that we see in those photos and x-rays appear to contradict the bulk of the eyewitness testimony (especially at Parkland) and/or the film record.

We know that this autopsy of a United States president was woefully incomplete. They not only failed to section the brain, per protocol, they managed to misplace it, to such a degree that is just written off as "lost." How many times has that happened to anyone? We know that Humes burned the first autopsy report and his notes in his home fireplace. How often has that happened? We know that the Secret Service confiscated Stringer's autopsy film, and purposefully ruined Riebe's. Again, how many times does this happen?

We know that Sibert and O'Neill signed that mysterious receipt for "a missile removed by Commader James J. Humes" and that Burkley turned a receipt for this "missile" over to the Treasury Department. We know that Perry was pressured into changing his impressions of the entrance wound to the throat, and that Drs. Clark and Shaw also sated publicly that JFK had an entrance wound in his throat. We know from Boswell's original autopsy face sheet that the back wound was precisely where the bullet holes in JFK's clothing show it to be, but instead we are expected to believe this medical professional was just "estimating" where the wound in a United States President was. Funny how his "estimate" just happened to correspond exactly to where the holes in the clothing are, and where Burkley located it on the death certificate. Maybe Burkley was another of the countless "mistaken" witnesses.

Believing in the validity of the autopsy photos and x-rays is to dismiss all the evidence that contradicts them. Given the nature of the autopsy and the still ongoing cover up, this is hopelessly naive, imo, to put it kindly.

[Andric Perez]

I'd like to ask for clarification from anyone here who read Dr. Crenshaw's books, "Conspiracy of Silence," (1992) and "Trauma Room 1," (2001) which was a re-print of the former .

The McAdams website states that in the first book, Conspiracy of Silence, Crenshaw says about JFK's head wound: "Pg 86: "His entire right cerebral hemisphere appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater, an empty cavity."

But I browsed through Trauma Room 1 and could not find the quote above. Instead, I found a very similar one: "Pg 67: The right occipital parietal portion of his brain appeared to be gone. It looked like a crater--an empty cavity." Link

The two possibilities are: 1) McAdams is misquoting the first book, or 2) Crenshaw downplayed the non-occipital portion of the wound for his convenience the second time around. "Right occipital parietal portion" can be spun to be mostly occipital, and only a bit parietal; however, "entire right cerebral hemisphere" is a different story.

Is it 1 or 2?

Edited January 5, 2014 by Andric Perez

[Robert Prudhomme]

Why not just read the first book yourself and find out?

[Andric Perez]

Why not just read the first book yourself and find out?

Unlike Trauma Room 1, the first book is not available online. It would be much faster if a person who owns the book (or has read it) types the answer here, instead of me buying it because Prudhomme wants me to. Then again, I understand why you may not be in a rush to find out the answer.

Edited January 5, 2014 by Andric Perez

[Andric Perez]

Don't play games with us. You wouldn't be doing this if you didn't already know the answer.

I highly suspect what the answer is but I don't know it. Any comments on the answer itself?

Edited January 5, 2014 by Andric Perez

[Robert Prudhomme]

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ..............................................................................................................................