Pat Speer Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) 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. As the only person on this thread who's taken the time to read my website, Andric has tried to jump in and answer some of the questions. I thank him for that. The fact is, all these questions are OLD questions that I answered long ago. I spent years researching and still more years writing a book in which these questions are answered. I made this book available on my website. I constantly refer people to this book. While this book is not laid out in an encyclopedic way, the chapters are laid out in a manner that should help someone seeking answers find the answers, and the text is searchable. Most of my website is devoted to providing the background information required for one to come to an informed decision. Chapter 16b is the chapter in which most of my own thoughts regarding the head shot are described. Edited January 9, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Touche Robert.... I've read Pat's conclusions... he appears to be defending the medical evidence as authentic and representatvie of the rear hitting shots and the blow out of the frontal bone. It's as if the ARRB never happened. Shot #1.Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 188. Hit Kennedy in back around 190, fell out in limousine. (Possibly a hand-loaded bullet.) From: the sixth floor window of the TSBD. Shot #1 he suggests may have been what becomes CE399... hitting at z190 (hmmm, just the same as what LIFE says that not a single person at NPIC agrees with... ?? Nor could they understand how LIFE arrived at the frames for the 1st or 2nd shot... (see the CIA450 pages from NPIC). They simply do not agree with the conclusions offered by LIFE in ANY respect.. Does Pat forget that CE399 was never in Dallas? That there is no way to get it TO Dallas? and there is no indications anywhere that CE399 came into contact with anything human until Rowley hands it to Todd? There is NO Z224 (or Z222) in ANY scenario... that makes sense to the NPIC. But Z242 is very high on their list.... here are the Zframes the NPIC and LIFE say shots hit their target.... "Shot or shots #2.Approximate firing time: Zapruder frame 222. Hit Kennedy in hairline at frame 224, exited his throat. Connally wounded in his chest, wrist, and thigh. Wounds seem instantaneous, but it seems likely they were created by separate bullets rapid-fired from a semi-automatic weapon. From: most likely the upper floors or roof of the Dal-Tex Building." So those who have actually viewed the film repeatedly tell us that they see no evidence of a shot between 213 and 242... Are they looking at the same film as we are? Z264?? I am posting the first couple pages of the NPIC evidence below to see that determining which frames had shots was a MATH PROBLEM and not a VISUAL one... As you can see below, the "starred" column from the NPIC has the shot sequence 213-242-312 He has the SECOND SHOT from BEHIND, exiting his throat - when that flies in the face of all reality and testimony from those who actually see the wound. ER professionals who know much less about it than you or I or Pat does... idiots charged with saving people's lives under intense pressure requiring the correct triage and treatment of gunshot victims... Obviously PAT would know better what they saw and thought... From an executive meeting we have the following Rankin exchange with Boggs... maybe PAT or ANDRIC can copy/paste that statement from the autopsy report.... in essence, an AUTOPSY REPORT that was changed or destroyed (as there is no reference to this injury as described in the extant report) suggests a fragment thru the neck yet not a bullet... nor another hole higher up... the repeated HOPE that shots were fired from behind other than the back wound (which O'Connor tells us was removed from the intercostal muscles on the right side of the ribcage)... The SS tells of a bullet ledged behind JFK's ear... which the FBI would also acquire (Belmont to Tolson 11/22 learned about DURING the autopsy).. maybe THAT was the throat bullet... Yet to continue to disregard ANY of the reliable evidence in determining the time and location of the shots... ?? Mr. Rankin: Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So that how it could turn, and -- Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length. Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said 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 First off I MUST say that Pat has done amazing work and willingly shares his thoughts and conclusions for all to see (and attack) I simply disagree with the offered conclusions, as does the vast majority of the authenticated evidence (regardless of WHEN the NPIC pages where created, they represent the work of NPIC pros in trying to analyze the film to find evidence of shots hitting their target. There is no justification for wither NPIC or LIFE to have ignored a shot between 213 and 242... there is NO SHOT at 264, unless the frame numbers are terribly off between what they saw and what we have... and even the photos used for Homer's panels jump from 331 to 380-something... NO ONE except the FBI as I posted elsewhere (WCD298), would deal with anything between 331/2 and the end of the film. I for one would love an answer to how the fragments wind up above and suspended in thin air when there is no bullet hole up there and the reliable witnesses prior to USG intervention all state the injury was to the right rear of the skull... and what all the activity and evidence is from behind that fence... Thanks DJ Edited January 9, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Do you see this hole, which is at the 1 0'clock position from the brain matter by the hairline, or not? Pat offers the 3d Morph of the BOH images - I wanted to be sure which spot he was talking about... this is a spot well below the acknowledged "hovering hair" portion of the image... Do YOU see a hole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) and that most every doctor to look at the brain photos going back to the 1960's had specifically ruled out that there was a bullet track heading upwards in the brain starting at this location. Pat... BRAIN photos from the autopsy... the evidence related to the Brain, like the autopsy, is that neither are authentic... neither are original... and neither has to do with what happened to JFK. So these are the photos you use as supporting evidence? What convinces YOU that the photos showing the brain you are using to describe JFK is indeed JFK's brain? You make the same surprised comments about what we read in the autopsy report... as if THAT accurately describes what happened in Dallas as opposed to what HUMES did to the skull.... Why do you accept so much evidence ...evidence that was created to leave its mark on history and tell a story that BECOMES about a lone shooter high and to the rear... in favor of of it being reflective of the situation.... I just don't get it... Edited January 9, 2014 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. A. Copeland Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I don't understand why anyone would be quick to use the "xray photos" and autopsy records which extremely questionable at the very least. If there was a coverup of the shot pattern and activity in Dallas I can't understand why anyone would believe that the (as Lifton nicely calls it) "diagram of the shooting" would just be casually and conveniently shown to the public... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 and that most every doctor to look at the brain photos going back to the 1960's had specifically ruled out that there was a bullet track heading upwards in the brain starting at this location. Pat... BRAIN photos from the autopsy... the evidence related to the Brain, like the autopsy, is that neither are authentic... neither are original... and neither has to do with what happened to JFK. So these are the photos you use as supporting evidence? What convinces YOU that the photos showing the brain you are using to describe JFK is indeed JFK's brain? You make the same surprised comments about what we read in the autopsy report... as if THAT accurately describes what happened in Dallas as opposed to what HUMES did to the skull.... Why do you accept so much evidence ...evidence that was created to leave its mark on history and tell a story that BECOMES about a lone shooter high and to the rear... in favor of of it being reflective of the situation.... I just don't get it... I'll spell it out again. I decided to put all the alterationist stuff aside to see what the evidence shows. It suggests there was more than one shooter. Always did. Always will. It didn't make a lot of sense to me that "they" would fake up a bunch of evidence that suggests more than one shooter, so I have no problem believing the medical evidence is authentic. Feel free to believe whatever you like. It should be noted, moreover, that one of the great ironies on this issue is that in order to make the alteration they so heartily believe in seem probable, many alterationists are willing to push that the evidence, when taken at its face, suggests one shooter firing from behind. Is that what you believe? If so, I would be glad to discuss that with you on another thread, if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 David You asked what kind of bullet would leave such a trail of microscopic particles. Look at this page, and then go to their "Products" section, and then the "Technology" section. http://drtammo.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 If you are referring to Frank Oneill as one of your alterationists Pat, you gotta know something wrong's going on there.I'm sorry, he saw a crater in the back of the head and literally refused to admit that what he saw was not the official government version.In essence, he metaphorically closed his eyes, and covered his ears and said Oswald did it, Oswald did it.Foolish, Insane, damaging type of patriotism. But you do have one there, definitely. Who else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Jeffries Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Pat, There are many things about this case that make no sense. Certainly, it seems illogical for conspirators to alter films or JFK's body, when plenty of evidence can be seen in the extant film record to demonstrate shots were fired from the front, and the holes in JFK's clothing alone prove the official story is impossible. You might just as well ask why they didn't just plant the Carcano on the 6th floor initially, instead of a German Mauser. It seems to make little sense to do that as well, but the evidence is what it is. Boone and Weitzman did not both identically "mistake" a German weapon for an Italian one, that has "Made in Italy" stamped on it. Why was the bullet planted to implicate Oswald- CE399 -in nearly pristine condition? Wouldn't astute conspirators try to make it look more realistic? But again, it obviously was planted. I remain on the fence about David Lifton's body alteration theory, but it's undeniable that everything about JFK's autopsy violated standard procedures. You are right to argue that there is clear evidence of conspiracy without factoring in any fake autopsy photos or x-rays, or any alteration of the body or the film record. But there is no rational reason to trust in the validity of those photos and x-rays, when everything we know about the autopsy suggests it was a sham and a central part of the cover up, and when it portrays JFK's head in a manner that no one seems to have described. Trusting the medical evidence in this case is extremely naive, imho. Humes, Boswell and Finck weren't just innocent doctors, trying to do their best in a difficult situation. They were quite clearly following orders, and agreeing to an impossible scenario. At times in their testimony, their reluctance reveals itself, but ultimately they presided over one of the most disgraceful autopsies ever performed. You are essentially giving them a historical stamp of approval with your present position. Edited January 10, 2014 by Don Jeffries Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Dave There was a very rare "exploding" bullet issued to Italian troops only during the First World War that was known as an "observation" bullet. Massed volley firing at great distances (1000 yards plus) was still a common military tactic in the First World War. This explained the rear sights of many WWI infantry rifles that could be elevated to shoot great distances. For example, the British .303 Enfields of WWI had an adjustable rear sight with an extreme setting of 1700 yards (one mile!) The idea was that if a massed volley of bullets was fired at an extreme distance at a large group of people, a percentage of the bullets had a good chance of finding a target. The trick was knowing the range to the target(s), in order to elevate your rear sight to the proper setting. The "observation" bullet was a round nosed hollow point bullet, and inside this bullet was a firing pin, detonator and explosive charge. The firing pin was set off by impact with something hard, and when the bullet hit the ground near your 1000+ yard target, the ensuing small explosion would mark your point of impact and tell you how much to adjust your rear sight by. These "observation" rounds were never intended to be used to damage targets. The amount of explosive material it is possible to fit inside a 6.5 mm bullet is rather small but, on the other hand, once inside someone's skull, could contribute significantly to the damaging effect of the bullet. Edited January 10, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 I don't understand why anyone would be quick to use the "xray photos" and autopsy records which extremely questionable at the very least. If there was a coverup of the shot pattern and activity in Dallas I can't understand why anyone would believe that the (as Lifton nicely calls it) "diagram of the shooting" would just be casually and conveniently shown to the public... The x-rays and autopsy photos have never been shown the public, B.A. They were locked up and hidden away. A few bits were published in 1978 by the HSCA, which concluded there was a probable conspiracy. But most of what you've seen has come from two sources: James Fox, a Secret Service agent tasked with copying the autopsy photos, who made himself a set, and allowed this set to be copied starting around 1980, and Robert Groden, a photographic consultant to the HSCA, who illicitly copied some of the photos in the HSCA's possession. No law suit was ever brought against them because to do so the government would have to admit the photos were authentic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Pat, There are many things about this case that make no sense. Certainly, it seems illogical for conspirators to alter films or JFK's body, when plenty of evidence can be seen in the extant film record to demonstrate shots were fired from the front, and the holes in JFK's clothing alone prove the official story is impossible. You might just as well ask why they didn't just plant the Carcano on the 6th floor initially, instead of a German Mauser. It seems to make little sense to do that as well, but the evidence is what it is. Boone and Weitzman did not both identically "mistake" a German weapon for an Italian one, that has "Made in Italy" stamped on it. Why was the bullet planted to implicate Oswald- CE399 -in nearly pristine condition? Wouldn't astute conspirators try to make it look more realistic? But again, it obviously was planted. I remain on the fence about David Lifton's body alteration theory, but it's undeniable that everything about JFK's autopsy violated standard procedures. You are right to argue that there is clear evidence of conspiracy without factoring in any fake autopsy photos or x-rays, or any alteration of the body or the film record. But there is no rational reason to trust in the validity of those photos and x-rays, when everything we know about the autopsy suggests it was a sham and a central part of the cover up, and when it portrays JFK's head in a manner that no one seems to have described. Trusting the medical evidence in this case is extremely naive, imho. Humes, Boswell and Finck weren't just innocent doctors, trying to do their best in a difficult situation. They were quite clearly following orders, and agreeing to an impossible scenario. At times in their testimony, their reluctance reveals itself, but ultimately they presided over one of the most disgraceful autopsies ever performed. You are essentially giving them a historical stamp of approval with your present position. You don't have to trust the evidence, Don. But acknowledge it for what it is: evidence of a conspiracy. Alterationists took a wrong turn, IMO. They decided to try and debunk the evidence without actually figuring out what it showed. The large head wound is the classic example. A large wound missing scalp and skull is NOT an exit wound. The HSCA FPP, which knew this to be the case, opted to pretend the scalp on this wound was not missing. Conspiracy theorists COULD have seized upon this and showed the media how the HSCA FPP was ignoring the autopsy report AND the statements of the Parkland witnesses to push a single-shooter conclusion, but no, they NAIVELY thought the HSCA FPP was above such hi-jinks, and assumed the large head wound was an exit, and this in turn led them to assume the Parkland witnesses (who at one time seemed to think the wound was on the back of the head) were correct, and the body and/or autopsy photos were altered. No grand conspiracy was needed. The body showed evidence of a conspiracy. The autopsy report was twisted one way. The Clark Panel was twisted another. The HSCA FPP yet another. No one needed to fake anything. Not when you have doctors willing to twist what they claim to see to fit what needs to be seen. Edited January 10, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 10, 2014 Share Posted January 10, 2014 "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." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think that's pretty grand, in fact amazing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 **YAWN** BTW, Pat, you never did get around to telling us where you figured the head shot(s) came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 11, 2014 Share Posted January 11, 2014 LOL John! Amazing, yes; in fact, DAMNED amazing, I daresay. A pity it turned out to be just another lie in a great series of lies. 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