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

[Vince Palamara]

I WILL concede something I have always known- there has been some exaggeration with regard to EVERYONE stating the back of the head was gone, etc. That said, there's an awful lot of smoke there to create a bonfire. Even taking into account Pat's great work:

http://www.patspeer.com/reasontobelieve

I still come away with a fair number of people who said the cerebellum was missing/ disrupted and the occipital/ parietal area was missing AND that the autopsy photos of the back of the head do not add up. The latter day excuses of Giesecke et al should be taken with the same grain of salt used with Grossman and his ilk- could it be that some (a lot?) of these doctors do NOT want to be mixed up in the controversy and want sleeping dogs to lie, DESPITE what they said and wrote in the early days (1963-1964)? Also, the 1992 JAMA article and Posner's interviews need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Even Salyer has gone on the record stating that the autopsy photos are wrong and have been doctored.

McClelland is also quoted in a 1975 Canadian radio documentary (via a short phone call) that he has nothing to add because him and his fellow doctors have been "bugged to death about this"...perhaps some embraced the attention, while others were sick of it?

To quote Pat: "hmmmmm..."

I think Pat is right and WE are right- there has been exaggeration and groupthink, while there is ENOUGH primary source documentation to believe that the right rear of the head was (at least somewhat) missing and the autopsy photos (of the back of the head) do not add up...Pat cleans up a lot of the mess but a fair amount of "dirt" remains. What I really like about the early Parkland statements are the fact that these were written or said before the weight of what they had to convey came into focus (i.e. assassin only from th rear or from the front). The johnny-come-latelys, whether Grossman or Seldin, need to be taken with yet another grain of salt

Edited December 23, 2013 by Vince Palamara

[David Josephs]

144 replies later, nobody in this thread has bothered to discuss the research cited by Speer proving that looking at a human head upside-down (as in the case of any doctor who observed the wound while standing behind JFK's head in Parkland) significantly impairs one's ability to tell the location of features relative to the others. Commenters keep asking Speer why many witnesses placed the head in the occipital region, when they could have easily found out (by reading the website patspeer.com) that Speer explains why he thinks these location estimates were wrong.

Similarly, the findings quoted by Speer proving that people have a symmetry bias (which may explain why some witnesses drew the wound in the exact center of the head) have been quoted by zero people in this thread.

There may be several explanations as to why commenters are ignoring these topics:

1) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it's too long to read.

2) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it was too boring.

3) They are so confident that the location is in the back of the head that they thought, "I don't need to read anything new. I know what happened."

Or a combination of the above.

Simply amazing that anyone can make a case for the people within 0-3 feet of JFK that day (both carrying him from limo to ER and standing at the table - these are Actual ER DOCTORS and NURSES who have actually dealt with gunshot wounds stating this - as opposed to a couple desk jockies with their bosses' bosses' boss standing over them telling them what to do, say, cut, look at, NOT cut, NOT to move or touch.....)

And then to use "cognitive psychology"

What exactly is the POINT here ?

To use ANYTHING we can find to claim those that saw what they saw in DALLAS, were wrong?

That their drawings are wrong

Their statements are wrong

Their photos are wrong....

Pat wrote:

This led me to wonder if the Parkland witnesses weren't mistaken.

I spent several months reading books on cognitive psychology, and communicating with cognitive psychologists.

This led me to conclude that viewing Kennedy while he was on his back had confused a few of the Parkland doctors as to the exact location of his head wound, and that the others--most prominently McClelland--latched onto what those doctors had reported, and made their recollections their own. In other words, I believe they saw a big hole in the middle of some brain-soaked hair, but were unclear where this wound was on Kennedy's head, and that some of them recalled it was behind the ear, and took from this that it was on the back of Kennedy's head, without realizing that "behind his ear" when Kennedy was lying on his back meant top of the head

Mrs Bowron met JFK at the limo and helped him onto the stretcher... His head was NOT laying on a table, She was Not looking at him upside down

Same thing with CLINT HILL... Both are witnesses to JFK's wounds and have nothing at all to do with "cognitive psychology" or him laying on an ER table...

Yet, I guess if one can use forged and fraudulent physical evidence to come to ironclad conclusions rather than the corroborated recollection of those who actually came in contact with the man at the time...

you too can have your own chapter in the WCR charade.

For someone who has done the JFK community so well over the years - to have this discussion over the PARKLAND people being wrong about the headwound seems at least to me as you taking 10 years and 20 steps off your analysis.

Pat - so Bowron and Hill were also wrong? The NURSE does not know the difference between the BACK and TOP of the head ??? and the SS agent has no clue either.

You next going to prove how CE339 exited JFK's throat and got to Rowley's office?

Clint Hill sees JFK laying with the BACK AND RIGHT SIDE OF HIS HEAD FACING HIM DIRECTLY

Mr. SPECTER. What did you observe as to President Kennedy's condition on arrival at the hospital?

Mr. HILL. 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.

Mr. SPECTER - Will you describe as specifically as you can the head wound which you have already mentioned briefly?

Dr. CARRICO - Sure.This was a 5- by 7 1-cm (sic) 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 this 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.

[John Crites]

I always felt the easiest proof of an exit wound to the back of our President's head was in volume 7 of the HSCA report.

Instead of admitting to the collaboration of the exit wounds by so many witnesses present at Parkland and Bethesda, the authors, aka the government, chose to lie as evidenced below:

"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors. They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds

In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs; none had differing accounts." (Volume VII, HSCA)

.

All the proof that is needed.

[Robert Prudhomme]

LOL Yup, John, who would've thought the ARRB would come along someday and actually demand to see the contents of those 26 interviews, instead of just taking the HSCA's word for what was in them?

[Pat Speer]

I WILL concede something I have always known- there has been some exaggeration with regard to EVERYONE stating the back of the head was gone, etc. That said, there's an awful lot of smoke there to create a bonfire. Even taking into account Pat's great work:

http://www.patspeer.com/reasontobelieve

I still come away with a fair number of people who said the cerebellum was missing/ disrupted and the occipital/ parietal area was missing AND that the autopsy photos of the back of the head do not add up. The latter day excuses of Giesecke et al should be taken with the same grain of salt used with Grossman and his ilk- could it be that some (a lot?) of these doctors do NOT want to be mixed up in the controversy and want sleeping dogs to lie, DESPITE what they said and wrote in the early days (1963-1964)? Also, the 1992 JAMA article and Posner's interviews need to be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Even Salyer has gone on the record stating that the autopsy photos are wrong and have been doctored.

McClelland is also quoted in a 1975 Canadian radio documentary (via a short phone call) that he has nothing to add because him and his fellow doctors have been "bugged to death about this"...perhaps some embraced the attention, while others were sick of it?

To quote Pat: "hmmmmm..."

I think Pat is right and WE are right- there has been exaggeration and groupthink, while there is ENOUGH primary source documentation to believe that the right rear of the head was (at least somewhat) missing and the autopsy photos (of the back of the head) do not add up...Pat cleans up a lot of the mess but a fair amount of "dirt" remains. What I really like about the early Parkland statements are the fact that these were written or said before the weight of what they had to convey came into focus (i.e. assassin only from th rear or from the front). The johnny-come-latelys, whether Grossman or Seldin, need to be taken with yet another grain of salt

I would agree. Vince, that even with the disagreements among the Parkland witnesses, and the changing of their stories over time, one can not just readily dismiss what so many of the witnesses had to say. Which is why I didn't...

I WEIGHED what they had to say against a number of other probabilities

!) that the Dealey witnesses saying they saw an explosion and/or hole on the side or top of Kennedy's head were all mistaken...in a uniform fashion...hours before ANY of the Parkland witnesses had written anything down.

2) that Mrs. Kennedy and Clint HIll (who is not a back of the head witness, by the way) would also be mistaken.

3) that the Zapruder film suggesting a second shooter was faked.

4) that the autopsy photos suggesting more than one shooter were faked.

5) that the face sheet and measurements proving the back wound was moved was faked to hide the existence of a large wound on the back of the head.

6) that Arlen Specter, who worked so hard to keep the lie about the back wound hidden, would know nothing about the hiding of the back of the head wound, and would allow the Parkland witnesses to spew all sorts of stuff about the back of the head and cerebellum.

I just don't buy that all this occurred. It is much easier, based upon what I learned about human memory and perception, for me to believe some of the Parkland witnesses were mistaken, and that some of the others were under the influence of those who were mistaken.

[Andric Perez]

144 replies later, nobody in this thread has bothered to discuss the research cited by Speer proving that looking at a human head upside-down (as in the case of any doctor who observed the wound while standing behind JFK's head in Parkland) significantly impairs one's ability to tell the location of features relative to the others. Commenters keep asking Speer why many witnesses placed the head in the occipital region, when they could have easily found out (by reading the website patspeer.com) that Speer explains why he thinks these location estimates were wrong.

Similarly, the findings quoted by Speer proving that people have a symmetry bias (which may explain why some witnesses drew the wound in the exact center of the head) have been quoted by zero people in this thread.

There may be several explanations as to why commenters are ignoring these topics:

1) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it's too long to read.

2) They didn't read Speer's chapter because they thought it was too boring.

3) They are so confident that the location is in the back of the head that they thought, "I don't need to read anything new. I know what happened."

Or a combination of the above.

If I stand on my head and my big toe is bleeding, are you going to tell everyone I have a nosebleed?

Please, do not insult our intelligence.

The research cited by Speer dealt with distances between features within the face, which are inches away from each other.

The doctors' opinions differ by inches. By using toe-to-nose distances (feet away from each other) as an example, you are the one who attempts to insult our intelligence. The Strawman fallacy comes to mind:

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position." Link http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Edited December 24, 2013 by Andric Perez

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Sarcasm is lost on fools and little children."

~~ author unknown ~~

[Andric Perez]

"Sarcasm is lost on fools and little children."

~~ author unknown ~~

A bad analogy is not sarcasm.

[David Josephs]

"The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position."

Interesting you should state this Andric... the FBI was notorious for creating STRAW MAN docs from the evidence gathered....

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=329093

This is the UNSIGNED UNCORRORATED report of the FBI interview with Bonnie Ray Williams stating he was on the 6th floor from 12:00 to 12:03.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It was after I had left the sixth floor, after I had eaten the chicken sandwich. I finished the chicken sandwich maybe 10 or 15 minutes after 12. I could say approximately what time it was.

Mr. BALL. Approximately what time was it?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Approximately 12:20, maybe.

Mr. BALL. Well, now, when you talked to the FBI on the 23d day of November, you said that you went up to the sixth floor about 12 noon with your lunch, and you stayed only about 3 minutes, and seeing no one you came down to the fifth floor, using the stairs at the west end of the building. Now, do you think you stayed longer than 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am sure I stayed longer than 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. Do you remember telling the FBI you only stayed 3 minutes up there?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do not remember telling them I only stayed 3 minutes.

Mr. BALL. And then on this 14th of January 1964, when you talked to Carter and Griffin, they reported that you told them you went down to the fifth floor around 12:05 p.m., and that around 12:30 p.m. you were watching the Presidential parade. Now, do you remember telling them you went down there about 12:05 p.m.?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I remember telling the fellows that--they asked me first, they said, "How long did it take you to finish the sandwich?" I said, "Maybe 5 to 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes." Just like I said here. I don't remember saying for a definite answer that it was 5 minutes.

Whereas in reverse, we have the FBI report of McWatters stating that BELIEVES the man he picked up around Poydras/Elm takes the bus to "south of Saner Ave in Oak Cliff"

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=351

"SOUTH OF SANER" is at least 3 miles south of 10th and Patton and 4 miles south of Oswald's room...

Mr. McWATTERS - Between Poydras and Lamar, in other words, because I stayed stopped there for, I guess oh, 3 or 4 minutes anyway before I made any progress at that one stop right there and that is where the gentleman got off the bus. In fact, I was talking to the man, the man that come out of the car; in other words, he just stepped up in the door of the bus, and was telling me that what he had heard over his radio and that is when the lady who was standing there decided she would walk and when the other gentleman decided he would also get off at that point.

I am curious though...

WHAT do you think changes in this case if everyone who says the BACK of the head COULD have meant the TOP, the RIGHT REAR, the TOP RIGHT or any other such place Pat would like it to mean?

Are we back at discussion whether the BETHESDA wounds were the same as the PARKLAND wounds - or what?

Thanks

DJ

Edited December 24, 2013 by David Josephs

[Vince Palamara]

What a monster (of confusion) I have created with this thread LOL!

I decided to wash my hands of any spin, pro or con, and look at the credentials of the witnesses and exactly what they (originally) said and wrote, despite any decades-later waffling and so forth by some (depending on the interviewer's bias [Posner, JAMA], their own fatigue in dealing with this stuff [Jenkins, Baxter, Giesecke, Perry], the confusing autopsy photos [Peters], etc.)

My verdict?

I am back to where I was BEFORE I started pondering all of this...sort of LOL. I DO believe the vast majority of these qualified doctors and nurses, as well as the many Bethesda witnesses (and even some Dealey Plaza witnesses) are correct in their assessment that the wound was occipital-parietal, NOT just occipital and not just parietal, while several DID say/ write things that confound any attempt to make this a unanimous consensus...a consensus, yes, but there HAS been some exaggeration when people say "EVERY doctor said" blah blah blah; a little hyperbole there. I also wonder if the wound expanded in size via tampering (not strict alteration, per se) and/ or skull pieces caving in during transit of the body and so forth(both Livingstone ideas).

Jerrol Custer, whom I interviewed on video twice (11/22/91 for Livingstone ["High Treason 2"] and March 1998 for William Law ["In The Eye of History"]) , is a textbook example of a corrupted and jaded witness...corrupted by a fellow researcher filling his head with silly ideas (the late Tom Wilson) and jaded because he was struggling financially and wanted to "make a big score", to quote him directly. Thus, he began to "remember" things differently. Still, his earlier statements are valuable. One must weigh and consider evidence.

The back/ front issue is silly in this respect: can one argue that Jackie was really sitting in the FRONT seat if one looked at the limo from the other side?? I respect questioning evidence and one's (initial) thoughts on the case, but, alas, the majority of the statements from the WC and HSCA era (and, in some cases, beyond) still hold up. There are simply TOO many statements made by these witnesses to believe that they really meant side or top for the back. Yes, Groden spun the issue a lot. But, as I said earlier, even HUMES wrote in the autopsy report that the wound extended into the OCCIPITAL area! Uh, that is not frontal.

Sorry, Angry Andric LOL

Edited December 25, 2013 by Vince Palamara

[Pat Speer]

What a monster (of confusion) I have created with this thread LOL!

I decided to wash my hands of any spin, pro or con, and look at the credentials of the witnesses and exactly what they (originally) said and wrote, despite any decades-later waffling and so forth by some (depending on the interviewer's bias [Posner, JAMA], their own fatigue in dealing with this stuff [Jenkins, Baxter, Giesecke, Perry], the confusing autopsy photos [Peters], etc.)

My verdict?

I am back to where I was BEFORE I started pondering all of this...sort of LOL. I DO believe the vast majority of these qualified doctors and nurses, as well as the many Bethesda witnesses (and even some Dealey Plaza witnesses) are correct in their assessment that the wound was occipital-parietal, NOT just occipital and not just parietal, while several DID say/ write things that confound any attempt to make this a unanimous consensus...a consensus, yes, but there HAS been some exaggeration when people say "EVERY doctor said" blah blah blah; a little hyperbole there. I also wonder if the wound expanded in size via tampering (not strict alteration, per se) and/ or skull pieces caving in during transit of the body and so forth(both Livingstone ideas).

Jerrol Custer, whom I interviewed on video twice (11/22/91 for Livingstone ["High Treason 2"] and March 1998 for William Law ["In The Eye of History"]) , is a textbook example of a corrupted and jaded witness...corrupted by a fellow researcher filling his head with silly ideas (the late Tom Wilson) and jaded because he was struggling financially and wanted to "make a big score", to quote him directly. Thus, he began to "remember" things differently. Still, his earlier statements are valuable. One must weigh and consider evidence.

The back/ front issue is silly in this respect: can one argue that Jackie was really sitting in the FRONT seat if one looked at the limo from the other side?? I respect questioning evidence and one's (initial) thoughts on the case, but, alas, the majority of the statements from the WC and HSCA era (and, in some cases, beyond) still hold up. There are simply TOO many statements made by these witnesses to believe that they really meant side or top for the back. Yes, Groden spun the issue a lot. But, as I said earlier, even HUMES wrote in the autopsy report that the wound extended into the OCCIPITAL area! Uh, that is not frontal.

Sorry, Angry Andric LOL

Let's go back to square one, then. There is no real disputing that the majority of the Parkland witnesses made statements suggesting the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. On average, however, the majority of these witnesses suggested it was at the TOP of the back of the head, and NOT low on the back of the head. Since this is true, then, for one to honestly claim they BELIEVE these witnesses, one must also admit that the Harper fragment was NOT occipital bone.

I noticed some years back that almost no one will do this--that very few "researchers" really believed the Parkland witnesses and that many just say they do so they can claim the wound was low on the back of the head and proved a shot came from the front. That's problem #1--that most people claiming the Parkland witnesses could not possibly be mistaken are hypocrites and that they personally believe they were mistaken. Many, in fact, believe the key witnesses to later say they'd been mistaken are liars, or worse. So much for "supporting" the Parkland witnesses...

I listed some of the other problems in a recent post, Here they are again, albeit a bit more fleshed out

To believe the Parkland witness claiming the wound was on the back of the head were correct, means that one must also believe

!) the Dealey witnesses saying they saw an explosion and/or hole on the side or top of Kennedy's head were all mistaken...in a uniform fashion...hours before ANY of the Parkland witnesses had written anything down.

2) Mrs. Kennedy and Clint HIll (who is not a back of the head witness, by the way) were/are also mistaken.

3) the Zapruder film showing a hole in front of the ear in the location described by the Dealey witnesses but nevertheless suggesting a second shooter was faked.

4) the autopsy photos showing a hole in front of the ear in the location described by the Dealey witnesses but nevertheless suggesting more than one shooter were faked.

5) the face sheet and measurements proving the back wound was moved but showing no exit wound on the back of the head was faked.

6) Arlen Specter, who worked so hard to keep the lie about the back wound hidden, would know nothing about the hiding of the back of the head wound, and would allow the Parkland witnesses to spew all sorts of stuff about the back of the head and cerebellum.

As stated, I spent months reading up on human cognition and conferring with cognitive psychologists before I satisfied myself the Parkland witnesses were wrong.

[Andric Perez]

P.S. The Babushka Lady saw matter coming from the back of JFK's head.

It is true. The mysterious and controversial Babushka lady made that claim many years after JFK was killed. Anyway, What did other pre-Parkland witnesses say? (no cherrypicking).

Edited December 25, 2013 by Andric Perez

[Andric Perez]

From Pat Speer:

"The line I've highlighted is not remotely true."

Care to elaborate?

Here's the line:

HOWEVER, the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, WITHOUT any communication between them, miraculously all placed the large gaping head wound at the BACK of JFK's head. What a frickin' coincidence, eh, Pat?

All? If you've been following the thread on Groden's new book, you'll see that he's been caught trying to pass off a still shot from Stone's JFK as a previously unseen autopsy photo. His work with the "back of the head" witnesses was almost as misleading.

The flip flops depicted in the picture above show how we should never disregard cognitive science, which has shown how people's recollections can change over time. It's as if Peters, Custer and O'connor were supporters of the Speer theory (left) and the back-of-the-head theory at the same time! (right).

Edited December 25, 2013 by Andric Perez

[Robert Prudhomme]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmFdfvDT6GQ

[Vince Palamara]

From Pat Speer:

"The line I've highlighted is not remotely true."

Care to elaborate?

Here's the line:

HOWEVER, the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, WITHOUT any communication between them, miraculously all placed the large gaping head wound at the BACK of JFK's head. What a frickin' coincidence, eh, Pat?

All? If you've been following the thread on Groden's new book, you'll see that he's been caught trying to pass off a still shot from Stone's JFK as a previously unseen autopsy photo. His work with the "back of the head" witnesses was almost as misleading.

The flip flops depicted in the picture above show how we should never disregard cognitive science, which has shown how people's recollections can change over time. It's as if Peters, Custer and O'connor were supporters of the Speer theory (left) and the back-of-the-head theory at the same time! (right).

In the above photos, Peters is clearly showing the back of the head to be gone. Both the Peters and the Custer photos are from the very same interview.

I think the problem is that several witnesses ARE both back-of-the-head witnesses and side witnesses, especially O'Connor, Humes, and Custer. What do these three have in common? They are from BETHESDA- this is where Horne thinks there was manipulation/ alteration to make the wound more obtuse/ larger.

It would seem this thread, in entirety, proves two things:

1) Not all the witnesses agreed unanimously and some hyperbole is in effect;

2) the work of Lifton, Horne, and even Livingstone is corroborated.

Instead of "remember the Alamo", REMEMBER HUMES- he ALSO said the wound involved the occipital area in the autopsy report agreed upon by Finck, Boswell, etc

Edited December 25, 2013 by Vince Palamara