David Josephs Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 So Pat... when do you actually refute the evidence posted? Removal of a brain at Autopsy - easy enough to follow... The lines thru the skull/brain... they in the wrong place? You CAN differentiate these wounds from wounds NOT caused by a bullet? right? You have the head shots all coming from the rear... can you make that work on the illustrations I provided based on the autopsy and Humes' notes or do you find this all to be self-evident and not needing an explanation....? Why do you ignore an hour-and-a-half worth of activity... documented activity... ? CAn you address these? - whose xrays are being developed as Jackie and Bobby are entering Bethesda? and if JFK, how did he get to the morgue ahead of the ambulance carrying the casket? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) My responses in bold. So Pat... when do you actually refute the evidence posted? Removal of a brain at Autopsy - easy enough to follow... That the scalp was peeled back, that skull fell to the table, and that the brain was then pulled out is the official story. That there was damage to the underside of the brain is the official story. This story has been spun in different ways over the years by both LNers and CTs, but what I look at is is this: IF the medical evidence had been an organized cover-up, wouldn't the official story and official evidence align with the single-assassin conclusion? Then why doesn't it? The lines thru the skull/brain... they in the wrong place? I would agree that they are in the wrong place for a bullet entering at the back of the head and exploding from the top. I don't think either of us can say they are in the wrong place for a tangential wound. If you've found some research along these lines, please send me a link. You CAN differentiate these wounds from wounds NOT caused by a bullet? right? Once again, it seems you accept that some sort of pre-autopsy occurred, and filter everything through that prism. IMO, the pre-autopsy is nonsense, pure and simple. You have the head shots all coming from the rear... can you make that work on the illustrations I provided based on the autopsy and Humes' notes or do you find this all to be self-evident and not needing an explanation....? Make what work? I suppose you think you've aligned all the wounds with a shot from the knoll. Oh, please. You don't even have an exit wound on the back of the head. Why do you ignore an hour-and-a-half worth of activity... documented activity... ? Perhaps I need to read Horne again, but all I saw was embarrassing cherry-picking. As stated, he has Robinson see an orange-sized hole on the back of the head before the autopsy, and Robinson's co-worker, who'd traveled with Robinson and sat with Robinson, see an orange-sized hole on the back of the head at the end of the autopsy. He also has Saundra Spencer see and develop photographs that nobody took. Except perhaps Robert Knudsen, who no one remembered being at the autopsy and who Horne never interviewed. So why does he believe Knudsen was there? Because Joe O'Donnell, a demented person known to make crazy claims about the Kennedy family--including that he'd taken the famous photo of John-John saluting his dad, and that he'd edited the Zapruder film for Jackie Kennedy--told him so. And he does this without verifying even one bit of O'Donnell's story. CAn you address these? - whose xrays are being developed as Jackie and Bobby are entering Bethesda? Probably nobody's. Do you really think people's memories 15 years on from an event can be trusted? and if JFK, how did he get to the morgue ahead of the ambulance carrying the casket? He didn't. This is all nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to believe what you like, but I don't believe "they" would go to all the trouble you think they went to and create a body of evidence that still points to more than one shooter. Now, it seems apparent that you think the body of evidence suggests a single-shooter using Oswald's rifle firing from behind. I would be glad to show you why you're wrong on another thread...if you're willing to admit as much. Edited January 20, 2014 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 "Probably nobody's. Do you really think people's memories 15 years on from an event can be trusted?" This is an hilarious comment from you, Pat, as you are the one claiming Clint Hill's memory about the head wound has improved over the last ten years, about an event that occurred 50 years ago. Keep 'em coming, Pat. You're keeping everyone amused, if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 My responses in bold. "Probably nobody's. Do you really think people's memories 15 years on from an event can be trusted?" This is an hilarious comment from you, Pat, as you are the one claiming Clint Hill's memory about the head wound has improved over the last ten years, about an event that occurred 50 years ago. I made no such claim. Clint Hill NEVER pointed out the location of the wound until 10 years ago. If he had pointed to the far back of his head, and confirmed Crenshaw, you would say he was obviously telling the truth, and that his latter-day CLARIFICATION of his imprecise testimony was important new evidence. But it didn't go your way, so you instead claim his most recent statements are worthless. I've asked it before and I'll ask it again: why do you believe there is an active cover-up of the medical evidence NOW that didn't exist in 1964, when Hill and the Parkland witnesses were allowed to say whatever they wanted about the head wound? Please please please explain this to me. Who coached Hill to say the wound was above the right ear in 2004, and where was this person (or agency) in 1964? Keep 'em coming, Pat. You're keeping everyone amused, if nothing else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 The same people that moved the entrance wound from the EOP to the cowlick. Where were they in 1964? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crites Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 What he reported right after the assassination and what he testified to was a back of the head wound.That's what he saw......................................................... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Now, it seems apparent that you think the body of evidence suggests a single-shooter using Oswald's rifle firing from behind. I would be glad to show you why you're wrong on another thread...if you're willing to admit as much. I find it interesting that those who are attacking Pat Speer's conclusions are overlooking this point. Pat makes a great point that, even as the Warren Commission concluded that there was but one assassin, the evidence they have in their report fails to support that conclusion. Again...as Pat has asked...why would the government fake evidence that, upon examination, doesn't support the conclusions they want to support? I've come to believe that the evidence, as flawed as you may believe it is, STILL supports the conclusion that more than one shooter may have been involved. So if the government [or whomever you blame] wants you to believe the lone-gunman theory, why does their evidence--if it's faked--show something different? Edited January 20, 2014 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 So Pat... when do you actually refute the evidence posted? Removal of a brain at Autopsy - easy enough to follow... That the scalp was peeled back, that skull fell to the table, and that the brain was then pulled out is the official story. That there was damage to the underside of the brain is the official story. This story has been spun in different ways over the years by both LNers and CTs, but what I look at is is this: IF the medical evidence had been an organized cover-up, wouldn't the official story and official evidence align with the single-assassin conclusion? Then why doesn't it? Please follow Pat… the conspiracy was to CREATE documents for history along with xrays and photos that ON THE SURFACE suggests a single shot from behind after the evidence of what actually happened is obliterated, hidden as best as possible… It was not one, two or ten bullets but the saw and scalpel of HUMES which caused the damage recorded in the documents… but you have to understand autopsy procedures and physiology and not trust that what the WCR says is authentic. Said this before Pat… all the evidence shows is a cover-up and conspiracy… the conclusion WAS a single-assassin while the evidence proves otherwise… it TRIES to align with the single assassin theory… but does not…. That appears a very naïve question Pat, given all the work you’ve done The lines thru the skull/brain... they in the wrong place? I would agree that they are in the wrong place for a bullet entering at the back of the head and exploding from the top. I don't think either of us can say they are in the wrong place for a tangential wound. If you've found some research along these lines, please send me a link. Then please look again… you have lacerations the entire length of the TOP, MIDDLE and BOTTOM of the brain/skull… the brain stem is not a “left or right” thing… yet it was entirely severed… there is a FURROW cut deep into the right side of the skull... not a bullet path.. a FURROW.. A brain does not magically become detached from the skull and skull from scalp Pat… nothing just PEELS AWAY… you really need to review the 90 slide autopsy link I offered and learn a bit about the process… You CAN differentiate these wounds from wounds NOT caused by a bullet? right? Once again, it seems you accept that some sort of pre-autopsy occurred, and filter everything through that prism. IMO, the pre-autopsy is nonsense, pure and simple. Yet you don’t offer anything to refute ANY of the evidence related to it… why is that? How are x-rays of JFK taken when the casket is in the ambulance out front?How do the SS/FBI wheel in a casket at 7:17,when JFK’s x-rays are being processed?Is every one from the morgue as recorded in the ARRB as wrong as all the people you believe are wrong in Dallas? You have the head shots all coming from the rear... can you make that work on the illustrations I provided based on the autopsy and Humes' notes or do you find this all to be self-evident and not needing an explanation....? Make what work? I suppose you think you've aligned all the wounds with a shot from the knoll. Oh, please. You don't even have an exit wound on the back of the head. Then look yet again Pat… I offered detailed images, carefully labeled by the source and me… I even posted that the front right shot created the hole in the right rear via a fragment which left particles where we see them today at the top of the skull, while any trail from right front to right rear was REMOVED BY HUMES… the brain is not even the original Pat… there are no sections taken… all the evidence that would prove that shot was obliterated… That you can look at all those images and still post that simply shows me you are not bothering to address the images or the post honestly and sincerely… The lines thru the image I offered were constructed from the descriptions offered by HUMES and the autopsy report… I am asking you to use the same reports and YOUR CONCLUSIONS and draw the same lines and relate them to the medical evidence. Still amazed me that you do not understand the xrays not only contradict each other, but the photos as well… THEY CANNOT EXIST TOGETHER… they are mutually exclusive… Get it? Why do you ignore an hour-and-a-half worth of activity... documented activity... ? Perhaps I need to read Horne again, but all I saw was embarrassing cherry-picking. As stated, he has Robinson see an orange-sized hole on the back of the head before the autopsy, and Robinson's co-worker, who'd traveled with Robinson and sat with Robinson, see an orange-sized hole on the back of the head at the end of the autopsy. He also has Saundra Spencer see and develop photographs that nobody took. Except perhaps Robert Knudsen, who no one remembered being at the autopsy and who Horne never interviewed. So why does he believe Knudsen was there? Because Joe O'Donnell, a demented person known to make crazy claims about the Kennedy family--including that he'd taken the famous photo of John-John saluting his dad, and that he'd edited the Zapruder film for Jackie Kennedy--told him so. And he does this without verifying even one bit of O'Donnell's story. A tactic Pat? You bring in everyone YOU think is mistaken.. Offer conclusions based on what? You read Knudson’s testimony… you know he left his family for a couple days at this time… You question Spencer which nonsensical statements without proof, backing or even a simple link to the pages in your massive work that explains WHY you state these things…. Are you so afraid of backing up your conclusions with evidence that you just don’t?. One has to be wary of an explanation that requires 50 pages to explain, within each of your chapters, yet the author does not seem to like to link to this work in support of these conclusions. Just plain bad form Pat… the number of “citizens” you distrust versus the number of USG military & related personnel you believe hook-line-and-sinker is astounding… CAn you address these? - whose xrays are being developed as Jackie and Bobby are entering Bethesda? Probably nobody's. Do you really think people's memories 15 years on from an event can be trusted? Grasping at straws now – DVP would be proud of you. and if JFK, how did he get to the morgue ahead of the ambulance carrying the casket? He didn't. This is all nonsense as far as I'm concerned. Feel free to believe what you like, but I don't believe "they" would go to all the trouble you think they went to and create a body of evidence that still points to more than one shooter. This response remains piss-poor as always Pat. Incredulity on your part, without a rebuttal worthy of a grammar school child is but a wall to hide behind. You cannot refute away the evidence that makes all your work moot… so you dismiss it as folly… What a surprise. This is not about BELIEF Pat… but evidence. Evidence you cannot refute or accept while you continue to stump about the sky being red. Accepting the evidence as proof of activity in DP requires you connect those dots… and you don’t Pat… you barely even have dots to connect… Now, it seems apparent that you think the body of evidence suggests a single-shooter using Oswald's rifle firing from behind. I would be glad to show you why you're wrong on another thread...if you're willing to admit as much. Please do not misquote and misstate my conclusions as your own. The BODY OF EVIDENCE suggests a complete obliteration of the evidence which would tell a true and accurate story of Dealey Plaza. The follow-up physical evidence was CREATED to confuse… it cannot be used for anything but illustration of the cover-up… and you’ve bought into it completely. Pat – you have an audience HERE.. we are talking about YOUR conclusions of the head wounds and Bethesda results HERE… Show us where I am wrong about HUMES’ work on the head…. that the detailed medical jargon describes a bullet wound... and illustrate as I have...What were the FBI and SS doing at 7:17 with the casket? and the steel one at 6:35?Why are the wounds so terribly different between Parkland and the autopsy evidence?Why do you not address the two Brain issue?Why do you cherry-pick the ARRB so badly? Just post links to your work - surely you know your own work to be able to post links to its most pertinent arguments…. so that the rest of us do not have to hunt around... why have the body of work if not to refer to it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Hello Mark I'm not quite sure what you mean by the government evidence supporting more than one shooter. Their latest version seems pretty straightforward; an entrance wound in the cowlick and a large exit wound on the right forward side of the head. What part of that would suggest two shooters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andric Perez Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Mr. Joseph, as a person who has done a lot of research on ballistics, what is your opinion regarding the possibility that one frangible or hollow point bullet caused both one teeny tiny entrance hole to the right temple and a large exit wound on the lower back of the head? Edited January 20, 2014 by Andric Perez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Hello Mark I'm not quite sure what you mean by the government evidence supporting more than one shooter. Their latest version seems pretty straightforward; an entrance wound in the cowlick and a large exit wound on the right forward side of the head. You are confusing their CONCLUSIONS with their EVIDENCE. Just because they CONCLUDE that there was an entrance at the cowlick doesn't mean that the EVIDENCE supports an entrance wound at the cowlick. We all need to pay more attention to what is SEEN in the existing evidence, and not in the "translations" or CONCLUSIONS that accompany that evidence. What part of that would suggest two shooters? Apparently you've been too busy shouting down Pat Speer to actually pay attention to what he's been saying. MY opinion is...based upon what I know about the case...that, even if JFK was hit by three bullets from behind...the third bullet would have hit him right alongside James Altgens...and if it was fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD, it's more likely to have been fired from the southWEST window. A shot from the southEAST window at that point would likely not have missed Jackie. BUT a shot fired at that point--AFTER the shot at Z312--would be likely to have entered at JFK's hairline, and have caused BOTH the damage witnesses at Parkland described AND have made Jackie's statement about trying to hold the top of JFK's head on ring true. THAT is what the existing evidence is showing ME. I also think some of the autopsy photographs were made as they were NOT to clear things up, but to further hide the truth. I don't think they were faked; I think they were merely "manipulated" to support conclusions that may not have been the truth. I also believe that Chris Davidson is on the right track about how the survey data was altered and misrepresented in order to support fallacious conclusions...but that's a different thread. Edited January 20, 2014 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Andric, I'll take that question, if Mr. Josephs passes on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Hello Mark I'm still having trouble with this. Are you saying a shot from behind at z312, plus another shot from the SW of the TSBD following this? And which hairline are you referring to? If you are saying shots from behind to the back of JFK's head, how does this account for a large wound in BOH, as seen at Parkland? If I have misunderstood what you are saying, please be patient with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) I'm saying that, if Altgens was correct, and a shot hit JFK in the head just as JFK reached Altgens' position, JFK had already been hit at Z312. At that point, JFK's body was falling far forward and to the left...Jackie was on the trunk...and Clint Hill was trying to get on the trunk. A shot that hit JFK at this point, from the southEAST window of the TSBD, would have been impossible to make without hitting Jackie or Hill...but if the shot came from the southWEST window, it would possibly have occurred as Altgens said. [i tend to believe that Altgens was telling the truth.] Now...suppose that this bullet entered under the skin at the hairline, just above the collar...and destroyed occipital bone and parietal bone as it passed through the skull, which had already been weakened by the shot at Z312. This would explain the damage descriptions made by the personnel at Parkland, but would ALSO make the description of the folks who saw the side of the head above and behind the ear blown away at Z312 correct as well. Especially if there was a flap of skin that would cover the Z312 damage in the Parkland ER. And it would make John and Nellie Connally's statements about being splattered by blood and brain matter from the LAST shot make more sense, because that didn't occur from what we see at Z312. You see, I tend to believe that the eyewitnesses weren't lying on November 22. And I believe that Jackie wasn't lying about trying to hold the top of his head together, either. I just believe that no one realized the full extent of the damage to JFK's skull early on. And by the time the autopsy occurred, since the original autopsy notes were burned, we'll never know the full truth of what occurred at the autopsy. If JFK actually WAS hit with a 3rd shot in a manner similar to what I've proposed, then Gerald Ford could say there was a rear neck wound and still sleep at night; it's just that the neck wound that actually occurred was NOT the neck wound he put into the WC report. As far as the autopsy photos go...I fully believe that they were made as they were in order to deceive anyone who came across them. I think it was more of a matter of obfuscation than alteration. BUT...if what I propose is true...then the November 22 witnesses were all telling the truth, as they knew it. And no matter whether you believe in a Grassy Knoll gunman or not, it would prove that, even if ALL the shots originated from the 6th floor of the TSBD--and I'm NOT saying they did, because I don't know that for sure--the last shot HAD to have come from the southWEST window, NOT the southEAST window. Now...does this make a little more sense? Edited January 21, 2014 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 I see what you are saying now. Let me think it over for a while. 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