Pat Speer Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hey Pat, Did the Clark Panel mention 2 wounds to the head which is what you state is the case? So you cannot agree with them, if they didn't cause they would be lying - covering up evidence if your theory is correct. And didn't Stringer say there was an entrance wound in the occipital area? Please correct me if I'm wrong but where did he say anything about another bullet entrance in the cowlick area? The medical case is a government cover up cause nothing syncs 100% between the witnesses and the photos - ever. I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time. I No, they did not mention 2 wounds. They pretended the wound described by the autopsy doctors was really 4 inches away, on a different bone, where NO ONE saw a bullet entrance. Now, some CTs have tried to claim that they were both right and that there were 2 entrances on the back of the head, and thus a conspiracy. But that still relies on the incredibly weird supposition that the autopsy doctors failed to note a wound in an obvious location that was far more likely to create the exit wound where the doctors claimed there was an exit wound. As far as Stringer...NONE of the autopsy participants signed off on the cowlick entrance...and YET...every TV show mentioning the medical evidence from the late '70's until this past year's NOVA presented the cowlick entrance as the one true entrance. IF CTs had screamed about this to the high hills, instead of stomping their feet and chanting that all the evidence is fake, I suspect, they'd have had a lot more success, as far as winning scientists, historians, and journalists, to their side. As far as "I will take the back of the head citizen witnesses over the federal government every time" that sounds well and good, until you realize that there are plenty of side and/or top of the head citizen witnesses, including one named Mrs. John F. Kennedy. I was referring to the witnesses that say there was a back of the head exit wound to the government's version that there was no exit wound in the back of the head, just a small entrance wound in one of two places - depends on who's covering up. I cannot explain enough that we have 2 opinions from the government and their lone nut followers as to the head wounds, long after the HSCA ended (see the ARRB testimony, or JAMA,1992 for example). I consider MS Kennedy a back of the head witness, and definitely not a part of the government when she testified to the WC. And her testimony does not validate the autopsy photos either . I don't consider Mrs. Kennedy a back of the head witness. Her words and testimony are actually quite supportive of the autopsy photos an x-rays. First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy (11-29-63 interview with Theodore White, notes released 5-26-95, and subsequently published in the September 1995 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles) “They were gunning the motorcycles; there were these little backfires; there was one noise like that; I thought it was a backfire. Then next I saw Connally grabbing his arm and saying no no no nonono, with his fist beating—then Jack turned and I turned—all I remember was a blue gray building up ahead, then Jack turned back, so neatly; his last expression was so neat; he had his hand out, I could see a piece of his skull coming off; it was flesh colored not white—he was holding out his hand—and I can see this perfectly clean piece detaching itself from his head; then he slumped in my lap.” (When describing the immediate aftermath of the shots) "All the ride to the hospital, I kept bending over him saying, "Jack, Jack, can you hear me, I love you, Jack." I kept holding the top of his head down trying to keep the..." (When describing her husband's condition upon arrival at the hospital) "From here down"--and here she made a gesture indicating her husband's forehead--"his head was so beautiful. I'd tried to hold the top of his head down, maybe I could keep it in...I knew he was dead." (Note found among White's type-written notes on his 11-29-63 interview with Mrs. Kennedy, as reported in the 5-28-95 Boston Globe) "I have left out of my transcript one or two matters so delicate I could not commit to paper." (11-29-63 interview with Theodore White as presented in The Making of the President 1964, published 1965. Although White, in his foreword, acknowledged the help of another motorcade witness, Malcolm Kilduff, it's clear his account was built at least in part upon his interview of Mrs. Kennedy.) "He had just turned easily, but with grace and precision as was his style, to wave at the Texans who cheered--when the sound rapped above the noise. It was a blunt crack, like a motorcycle backfiring (which is what his wife thought it was), followed in about five seconds by two more; then, suddenly, the sniper's bullets had found their mark and John Fitzgerald Kennedy lay fallen, his head in his wife's lap." (4-7-64, 5-4-64, 5-7-64, 5-8-64, and 7-20-64 interviews with William Manchester, as represented in The Death of a President, 1967) (On the first shot) "Jacqueline Kennedy believed it was a motorcycle noise." (On Connally's screaming) "Jacqueline Kennedy heard him. In a daze she wondered 'Why is he screaming?' Already she had started to turn anxiously to her husband." (On the final shot) "The First Lady, in her last act as First Lady, leaned solicitously toward the President. His face was quizzical. She had seen that expression so often, when he was puzzling over a difficult press conference question. Now, in a gesture of infinite grace, he raised his right hand, as though to brush back his tousled chestnut hair. But the motion faltered. The hand fell back empty. He had been reaching for the top of his head. But it wasn't there any more." (Manchester's narration for the immediate aftermath of the shots) "Leaning toward her husband Jacqueline Kennedy has seen a serrated piece of his skull--flesh-colored--not white--detach itself. At first there is no blood. And then, in the very next instant, there is nothing but blood spattering her, the Connallys, Kellerman, Greer, the upholstery, Clint running up behind, the curb alongside." (6-5-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 5H178-181, unedited) “the car was very slow and there weren’t very many people around…I was looking to the left. I guess there was a noise, but it didn’t seem like any different noise really because there is so much noise, motorcycles and things. But then suddenly Governor Connally was yelling, “Oh, no, no, no”…I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to the right. And all I remember is seeing my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned to look at him, I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top. I remember thinking he just looked as if he had a slight headache. And I just remember seeing that. No blood or anything. And then he sort of did this (indicating), put his hand to his forehead and fell in my lap. And then I just remember falling on him and saying, “Oh no, no, no,” I mean, “Oh my God, they have shot my husband.” And “I love you, Jack,” I remember I was shouting. And just being down in the car with his head in my lap. And it just seemed an eternity. You know, then, there were pictures later on of me climbing out the back. But I don't remember that at all." (When asked if she remembered Secret Service Agent Clint Hill's climbing onto the limo after she climbed out the back.) "I don't remember anything. I was just down like that. And finally I remember a voice behind me, or something, and then I remember the people in the front seat, or somebody, finally knew something was wrong, and a voice yelling, which must have been Mr. Hill, "Get to the hospital," or maybe it was Mr. Kellerman, in the front seat. But someone yelling. I was just down and holding him. I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on.” (When asked how many shots were fired) “Well there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed like a stuck pig. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. But I heard Governor Connally yelling and that made me turn around, and as I turned to the right my husband was doing this (indicating with hand at neck). He was receiving a bullet. And those are the only two I remember.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Pat - a few posters including myself would like you to clarify something - from where exactly do you think the fatal head shot originated? Does your sleuthing on the wounds lead to a conclusion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 "And then he sort of did this (indicating), put his hand to his forehead and fell in his lap." Perhaps I've been viewing the wrong Zapruder film, Pat, but mine does not show this "hand to his forehead" sequence. Be a good chap and tell us which frames this occurs in, would you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) "And then he sort of did this (indicating), put his hand to his forehead and fell in his lap." Perhaps I've been viewing the wrong Zapruder film, Pat, but mine does not show this "hand to his forehead" sequence. Be a good chap and tell us which frames this occurs in, would you? "And then he sort of did this (indicating), put his hand to his forehead and fell in his lap." Perhaps I've been viewing the wrong Zapruder film, Pat, but mine does not show this "hand to his forehead" sequence. Be a good chap and tell us which frames this occurs in, would you? Perhaps Zapruder wasn't standing to the left of JFK, where he could have kept track of his left hand (if he took his left hand to the forehead). Perhaps JFK's forehead was partially covered by stuff coming off his head; and perhaps this was one of the blurriest groups of frames in the Zapruder film as his camera shook significantly. Now you be a good chap and go find that back-of-the-head wound in the film. Edited January 10, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Andric... It's right there, under the magic marker square that was painted in to cover the wound... prettu amazing how we see what appears to be straight lines across the top and down each side of that black square... Tell you what Andric... how about you proving where 0183 was from about 9pm friday until Stolley picks up a film cannister with who knows what inside... or explaining the Phillips memo which contradicts the SS and Zapruder as to where copies were... How about the 16mm version Homer et al works on after it is brought in on Sunday... versus the 8mm - different briefing boards - film from Sat night that has disappeared to history? Or the movement of JFK's head between 157 and 158... Greer between 302 and 303... the lack of 0183 on this "authentic, original film" What we SEE is not the only evidence - but here you go as you ask... no matter what the exposure or contrast, the same dark areas on Jackie or JC do not result in what looks like a black square hovering over the head... YES the generation and version are not top quality... if you can find a version of the frame where this does not appear, please post.... Thanks btw - in many of the frames between 320 and 360 we can see the effect on the rest of the head... yet I think this image tells all that we need about the authenticity of the zfilm.... the frames that had to be left in were still not acceptable... so some were fixed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Davies Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 David, It is obvious that the person developing the film was eating a piece of well done toast that fell in front of JFK's head. I mean, what else could an objective person think? Keep up the good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Thanks Ken... yet what really chaps me is that the supposed HOLLYWOOD 7 has amazing versions of these frames and the expertise to back the obvious conclusion.. Why are we not seeing this most obvious of alterations in poster size at a press conference with Stone, and any and all others who can lend credibility to it??? What are "they" waiting for? DJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Palamara Posted January 9, 2014 Author Share Posted January 9, 2014 David- impressive. I normally HATE the Z-film-is-altered issue with a purple passion LOL (I have since 1996 [seems like this was a big deal during '96-'03ish with Fetzer, Jack White, et al]). Pending any "wet blankets" from Andric, Pat, or someone else- impressive. On the face of it, the best example I have seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Where did Jackie say she saw the above pic - exactly like that?" I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing --- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." I will get disagreements of course, but I'm feel she saw a back of the head opening. On top of that, she did happen to dive out of the car to retrieve a part of the head. that's a frontal shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 "Hand to forehead...I suppose it must have been his left hand" (WC testimony) - immediately previous to Z-313, Jackie seems to be pulling JFK's left hand down to get a better look at his face. Curiouser and curiouser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Will Pat Speer ever tell us where he thought the fatal head shot originated from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Robert, I think we are all in agreement of the obvious frontal shot. The debate evolves around the exit wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Will Pat Speer ever tell us where he thought the fatal head shot originated from? By now, we all know that Pat Speer has a website. Even the exact chapter dealing with his opinion about the source of the shots was linked to previously in this thread. Here it is again: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A I understand that it takes a great deal of effort for some to grab a mouse and click on a link, but the effort is worthwhile in my opinion. Prudhomme, earlier you wanted me to go out and buy Crenshaw's book or travel to my nearest library because I did not know its contents. I assure you that visiting a website is way easier and practical. Shot #3. Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 310-311. Hit Kennedy near the temple at frame 313. Bullet fragmented. One piece of its core seems to have continued on to chip the concrete near Tague around 319. From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD Edited January 9, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Andric, are you now a spokesperson for Pat Speer? I do not think it unreasonable to ask Pat to state his beliefs on the origin of the head shot(s) here on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Thanks Vince.... It would be one thing if, with the manipulation of the image, the rest of the blacks got crushed like that... but they don't. If anyone has a bigger and better version of that frame I would greatly appreacite an email with the file attached at full size and resolution... Regarding the EXIT... Is it possible to have removed a trail of particles similar to those on the xray that would have led to the lower right rear? I ask since it is obvious the bullet hitting him in the right temple area completely fragmented to a level beyond that which is possible from a FMJ bullet at that speed... The bullet speed of the MC is simply not high enough to cause the fragmentation we see in the xray... even at 3200+fps we do not get a micro dust trail of particles.. Since the throat was never properly opened during the autopsy... is it possible for a shot there to blow out the lower back of the head? While the temple shot simply adds to the damage? Those particles on the xray are very puzzling. Could the reason we do not have the neck region in either of these xrays (or any xray I have seen) be becuase there WAS a trail of particles from the throat wound to the rear blow-out and when HUMES destroyed the evidence he simply could not remove all the particles? Dr. Mantik's conclusion that the blow out area is artificially covered in the copied xrays and the removal of most if not all the brain matter that may ahve held these perticels and shown this path is the reason why the brain had to disappear. TOO MANY WITNESSES describe and draw a hole in the right rear... Bone was missing from this spot, not only avulsed OUT... there is obviously something being hidden at the right temple... the LEFT side of the skull is pretty messed up too by this time... again, another conflict... The xrays and photos not only conflict, but are mutually exclusive. Where from behind could a shot have entered to leave those fragments and leave a wound as seen at Parkland? It couldn't. EVERYONE in DALLAS, the SS and the FBI all put the wound at the right rear... everything from the storming out with the body of JFK is a stage play... I doubt there are more than a handful of authentic pieces of evidence related to the medical situation... and nothing that would reveal what actually happened. KNOWLEDGE : The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,[3] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. "True" seems to be the only stumbling block here... yet according to history, the WCR is knowledge whose "truth" has been vigorously defended for over 50 years. In the absence of another justified and believed TRUTH... well you get it... DJ Dr. PERRY - Yes. Once the transverse incision through the skin and subcutaneous tissues was made, it was necessary to separate the strap muscles covering the anterior muscles of the windpipe and thyroid. At that point the trachea was noted to be deviated slightly to the left and I found it necessary to sever the exterior strap muscles on the other side to reach the trachea.I noticed a small ragged laceration of the trachea on the anterior lateral right side. I could see the endotracheal tube which had been placed by Dr. Carrico in the wound, but there was evidence of air and blood around the tube because I noted the cuff was just above the injury to the trachea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now