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

[John Crites]

I HATE THAT, MEANT OF COURSE ARRB, DO THAT ALL THE TIME. sorry research community

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dr. Peters:

"A fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (HSCA, I believe)

Hello John

This is a very unusual way for Dr. Peters to have described JFK's head wound, and confirms my belief that Parkland witnesses were living under threat of retribution, should they say too much. At first glance, he appears to be discussing a wound on the top right of JFK's head, and I am sure Pat Speer will jump at the opportunity to point this out. However, the fact of the matter is that the occipital bone is located ENTIRELY at the back of the head, and for the wound to be occipital/parietal, it would have to be far behind the right ear. The observation of cerebellar material places the wound lower in the head, I would believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone

As seen in the above diagrams, the occipital bone is clearly at the back of the head, as well as any juncture between the occipital and parietal bones. Pat Speer also refuses to acknowledge that I pointed out the pointed centre of the occipital bone extends above the level of the ears slightly. This can clearly be seen in the diagrams, as well.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[John Crites]

Are you open to any possibility that there has to be damage somewhat from the back of the ear to the occipital area Robert? I understand where you are coming from stating that the occipital area does extend above the level of the ears slightly and can see that.

You understand ballistics very well. A frangible bullet hitting the president from the right side would have to drag out some of the right side - maybe part of the parietal, via it's exit through the back of the head I would think.

I realize if we go by the testimony, the back of the head seems to be the basis, so there is no question that there was a frontal shot - obviously, but how do we explain some of the conflicting testimony as to parietal? I can go along with you that the DR's were under a lot of pressure to fabricate, and their testimony was still in conflict with what the Warren Report wanted us to believe.

So we know there was a large hole in the back of the head. As for the parietal area? The evidence and opinions go all over the place.

[Don Jeffries]

Because the death of a sitting U.S. president was never honestly investigated, all we can do is speculate about all the maddening inconsistencies left in the extant record. I respect Pat Speer's work, even though I think he's wrong about some key aspects of the assassination. Like Cliff Varnell, I prefer to concentrate on the holes in JFK's clothing, and the other supporting evidence clearly demonstrating that the entrance in the back was far too low to have exited from the throat.

JFK's head wound(s) are impossible to decipher at this point. As I've noted, the autopsy photos appear to contradict what the medical personnel saw at Dallas. And when considering a blowout in the right rear, we have to reconcile that with a shot from knoll area, which would seemingly blow out the left part of the back of the head. And when we combine McClelland's statement about a gunshot wound to the left temple, and Father Huber's remark about seeing a wound over the left eye, we become lost in confusion.

Considering the kind of pathetic autopsy JFK was given, and the fact we know that participants were told not to talk about what went on there, and that evidence was seen being destroyed there, why would we trust in the legitimacy of the photos and x-rays which have been made public? We know now that two of Malcom Perry's colleagues, Dr. Donald Miller and Dr. Robert Artwohl, claimed that Perry had informed them privately that the throat wound was indeed an entry wound, regardless of what he eventually told the Warren Commission. And we know that Secret Service agent Elmer Moore was tasked with getting Perry to change his story, something he later told his friend Jim Gochenaur that he felt remorse about.

JFK's brain was not placed in formalin, and the bullet path was never traced. Then, as we know, the brain was lost. Somehow, it's accepted that the brain of a United States president was just misplaced. The ARRB would later reveal that Secret Service agent James Mastrovito supposedly disposed of JFK's brain matter in....a food processor. How can we trust any "official" part of the medical evidence? Lifton's body alteration theory is so attractive because of all these enduring questions.

No evidence for a shot from the front? Come on, Pat! The best evidence regarding the throat wound, which was later mutilated via the tracheotomy incision, is that it was an entrance wound. Both Dr. Kemp Clark and Dr. Robert Shaw made early, and therefore more credible, statements that the bullet had entered JFK's neck from the front. And the motion of JFK's head backwards has always been one of the key pieces of evidence pointing towards conspiracy.

As I said, I respect Pat's work-and he has done a lot of good work-but I think the only way you can reject all the suggestions of a frontal shot or shots is to trust exclusively in the official medical evidence, which is a mess and contradicts the overwhelming number of eyewitnesses, as well as the film record.

[Ray Mitcham]

Ref Don's comment about the throat wound being a frontal wound, Dr Donald W Miller's comments are to be found here

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/donald-w-miller-jr-md/jfk-thought-control-and-thought-crimes/

[Pat Speer]

Pat, what is your position on where the head wound was? IYO was it on the top of the head or the side of the head?

That's actually a complicated question. The hole on the skull--where skull was broke off from the intact skull--stretched from the top of the forehead all the way back behind the ear. But the hole of scalp and skull noted both at Parkland and Bethesda was where it is shown in the photos, X-rays, and Z-film--slightly above and in front of the ear.

It is the nature of the wound, and not its precise location, BTW, that is the real issue, IMO. A hole of scalp AND skull is considered an entrance. Those wanting to believe the wound described by Dr. Clark really was on the back of the head miss that simple fact. They are trying to put an entrance wound on the front of the head onto the back of the head.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Dr. Peters:

"A fairly large wound on the right side of the head in the parietal/occipital area. One could see blood and brains, both cerebellum and cerebrum fragments in that wound." (HSCA, I believe)

Hello John

This is a very unusual way for Dr. Peters to have described JFK's head wound, and confirms my belief that Parkland witnesses were living under threat of retribution, should they say too much. At first glance, he appears to be discussing a wound on the top right of JFK's head, and I am sure Pat Speer will jump at the opportunity to point this out. However, the fact of the matter is that the occipital bone is located ENTIRELY at the back of the head, and for the wound to be occipital/parietal, it would have to be far behind the right ear. The observation of cerebellar material places the wound lower in the head, I would believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occipital_bone

As seen in the above diagrams, the occipital bone is clearly at the back of the head, as well as any juncture between the occipital and parietal bones. Pat Speer also refuses to acknowledge that I pointed out the pointed centre of the occipital bone extends above the level of the ears slightly. This can clearly be seen in the diagrams, as well.

The Harper fragment is 2 1/2 inches tall. Unless there was a large hole LOW on the middle of the back of the head, stretching inches below the top of the ears, the Harper fragment was not occipital bone. None of the Parkland witnesses saw a hole in that location. It is incumbent then that people claiming they swear by the statements of the Parkland witnesses also claim the Harper fragment was not occipital bone. That so many CTs will not do so, to me, suggests they really have no interest in what the Parkland witnesses said.

David Lifton once explained it to me. He thought it was okay to assume the Parkland witnesses claiming they saw cerebellum saw cerebellum because the occipital bone was missing LOW on the back of the head. He thought that this trumped whatever they said later or wherever they pointed to when asked where they saw the head wound.

Which brings me to Peters. Peters pointed out the location of the head wound a number of times. He thought it was at the TOP of the back of the head, not LOW on the back of the head between the ears. Yes, he said he saw cerebellum, but he specified, more than once if I recall, that he saw cerebellum when looking DOWN into the skull from above.

As far as retribution, etc... It never happened. Perry was pressured regarding the throat wound, and the tapes and transcripts in which he said the throat wound was an entrance were almost certainly lost on purpose. But the problems with the head wound didn't surface until AFTER the HSCA had come to the conclusion shots had been fired from the front.

That's another point that's often missed. Lifton came to his body alteration theory in 1966, but it took him another 14 or 15 years to get this info to the public. LBJ, Hoover, Dulles, Hoffa, Giancana, Rosselli, etc were all taking dirt naps. Reagan was in office. Reagan himself was a bit of a conspiracy theorist. He picked Richard Schweicker as his VP in 76, and did a Reagan Minute discussing Oswald's mysterious relationship with communists, or some such thing. They could have said whatever they wanted, and for a time they did. At a certain point, however, some of them realized where their standing by their original observations was leading--and that was claims of mass conspiracy. So they backed off.

While some think this was cowardly, I totally disagree.

If you were a policeman and a witness to a fatal traffic accident, and you wrote a report and then testified that the car was hit on the left side, and then someone comes up to you and asks you 20 YEARS LATER where the car was hit, and you say the left side, that does not mean YOU think this proves the crime scene photos showing the car was hit on the right side are fakes. It is up to YOU, not this someone, to determine the likelihood YOU made a mistake, and to decide if you think the crime scene photos are fakes.

In this case, MOST of the key witnesses claiming they saw a wound on the far back of the head deferred to the accuracy of the autopsy photos when shown them. It is offensive, in my opinion, to assume these people were lying, or scared or intimidated, whatever. There was a conflict in the evidence. They stepped up and said "my bad, I probably made a mistake." No one standing on the outside could possibly know how certain they'd been to begin with, and how easy or hard it was for them to admit they made a mistake.

[Pat Speer]

Because the death of a sitting U.S. president was never honestly investigated, all we can do is speculate about all the maddening inconsistencies left in the extant record. I respect Pat Speer's work, even though I think he's wrong about some key aspects of the assassination. Like Cliff Varnell, I prefer to concentrate on the holes in JFK's clothing, and the other supporting evidence clearly demonstrating that the entrance in the back was far too low to have exited from the throat.

JFK's head wound(s) are impossible to decipher at this point. As I've noted, the autopsy photos appear to contradict what the medical personnel saw at Dallas. And when considering a blowout in the right rear, we have to reconcile that with a shot from knoll area, which would seemingly blow out the left part of the back of the head. And when we combine McClelland's statement about a gunshot wound to the left temple, and Father Huber's remark about seeing a wound over the left eye, we become lost in confusion.

Considering the kind of pathetic autopsy JFK was given, and the fact we know that participants were told not to talk about what went on there, and that evidence was seen being destroyed there, why would we trust in the legitimacy of the photos and x-rays which have been made public? We know now that two of Malcom Perry's colleagues, Dr. Donald Miller and Dr. Robert Artwohl, claimed that Perry had informed them privately that the throat wound was indeed an entry wound, regardless of what he eventually told the Warren Commission. And we know that Secret Service agent Elmer Moore was tasked with getting Perry to change his story, something he later told his friend Jim Gochenaur that he felt remorse about.

JFK's brain was not placed in formalin, and the bullet path was never traced. Then, as we know, the brain was lost. Somehow, it's accepted that the brain of a United States president was just misplaced. The ARRB would later reveal that Secret Service agent James Mastrovito supposedly disposed of JFK's brain matter in....a food processor. How can we trust any "official" part of the medical evidence? Lifton's body alteration theory is so attractive because of all these enduring questions.

No evidence for a shot from the front? Come on, Pat! The best evidence regarding the throat wound, which was later mutilated via the tracheotomy incision, is that it was an entrance wound. Both Dr. Kemp Clark and Dr. Robert Shaw made early, and therefore more credible, statements that the bullet had entered JFK's neck from the front. And the motion of JFK's head backwards has always been one of the key pieces of evidence pointing towards conspiracy.

As I said, I respect Pat's work-and he has done a lot of good work-but I think the only way you can reject all the suggestions of a frontal shot or shots is to trust exclusively in the official medical evidence, which is a mess and contradicts the overwhelming number of eyewitnesses, as well as the film record.

It's important that we realize the difference between emergency room doctors and forensic pathologists. An emergency room doctor forms an impression as to entrance and exit wounds, while a pathologist comes to a conclusion. Perry most certainly never concluded the throat wound was an entrance. It APPEARED to be one. He didn't waver on this in his testimony, or ever. He always insisted that it appeared to be an entrance. That doesn't mean he'd concluded it was an entrance, and LIED later when he said it could have been an exit wound.

Most emergency room physicians, we can only hope, have some humility about these matters. Their impressions are frequently at odds with the conclusions of pathologists--which is why we have pathologists.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

From John Crites:

"A frangible bullet hitting the president from the right side would have to drag out some of the right side - maybe part of the parietal, via its exit through the back of the head I would think."

Hello John

This is a very good point you make here, and one of the basic talking points LN's have used for years to deny the possibility of a shooter on the Grassy Knoll. The truth of the matter is, not all bullets are created equal and, under identical conditions, different types of bullets will do different things.

The most basic bullet, and the most predictable, is a very long, round nosed, full metal jacket bullet, such as the 162 grain 6.5mm Carcano bullet, travelling at a lower speed range imparted by a muzzle velocity of around 2200 fps and hitting its target within a range of 100 yards. As I have pointed out before, the 6.5 Carcano is unique amomg 6.5mm calibre rifles. Its rifling grooves are somewhat deeper, meaning that it shoots a bullet .268" in diameter as opposed to the .264" diameter bullet fired from other 6.5mm calibre rifles. Translated, the jacket walls of the 6.5mm Carcano bullet are thicker than the jacket walls of any other 6.5mm rifle bullets.

It is well known that the 6.5mm Carcano was dubbed the "humanitarian rifle" by Italian troops. However, this was not a reflection on its accuracy. Rather, the bullet was so stable (and sturdy) it often went straight through its victims, without breaking up, and left an exit hole not much bigger than the entrance hole. The joke amongst the troops was that at least it was possible to shoot more than one person with the same bullet, sometimes three if you were lucky.

In comparison, look at a modern full metal jacket (FMJ) bullet such as the 5.56mm NATO bullet fired from the AR15 or the M16. This is a much shorter bullet than the 6.5mm Carcano and leaves the muzzle at the outrageous speed of 3200 fps. Not only is the bullet much shorter, causing it to de-stabilize on impact at these high speeds, the tip of the bullet is pointed instead of rounded like the 6.5mm Carcano. While a round nose on a stable bullet will often "punch" its way through matter, a high speed short pointed bullet has a tendency to tumble on impact. The results are devastating, and there is nothing "humanitarian" about them.

Getting away from FMJ bullets, the next types of bullets are soft point and hollow point. There are also many other types of controlled expansion bullets but there is not enough room here to discuss them all.

The soft point bullet's copper alloy jacket does not extend all the way to the forward tip of the bullet. Rather, the tip has exposed lead. On impact, there is nothing holding the copper alloy jacket at the tip together and it will begin to peel back, pulling the lead with it. As shooters say, the bullet "expands" and becomes much greater in diameter than the original bullet. The greater the expansion, the more matter it damages passing through its victim and the quicker it slows down; often not exiting at all. Most importantly, though, is that the expansion is not always equal on all sides and the expanded bullet is not nearly as aerodynamic as the original bullet. Translation: An FMJ bullet will often travel a very straight path through a body while a soft tipped bullet, due to its expansion, is not nearly so predictable.

Finally, we have the hollow point bullets, followed by fragmenting bullets and frangible bullets. The hollow points, which actually have a hollow point on the tip, open up and expand into a mushroom shape more readily than a soft point bullet will, thereby stopping quicker in a wound and inflicting greater damage. Fragmenting bullets are similar to hollow points but usually have deeper and larger openings and often thinner jacket walls. To improve ballistics, this large nose cavity is often filled with a plastic tip to allow the bullet to fly through the air better. Fragmenting bullets are designed to break up into many small pieces on impact and are often fired at high muzzle velocities to enable this. As you will see further in my story, there is often a fine line between a fragmenting and a hollow point bullet.

Frangible bullets are something else altogether. They are often made of tiny fragments held together by a weak binding, or from tiny lead balls in a thin copper alloy jacket, held together by some binding agent that will shatter on impact. Whatever the construction, a frangible bullet turns almost to powder when it impacts anything solid. For this reason, they are used in combat training to prevent ricochets and by armed security agents on aircraft to prevent stray bullets from doing further damage to the aircraft. They are touted by some manufacturers as the ultimate expanding bullet, and can have devastating results, but often, on larger game, they disintegrate on impact with the surface of the animal and do not penetrate far enough to do any serious damage.

Before I try to explain how a bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll can exit the right rear of JFK's head, let me share a handloading/hunting experience with you. A number of years ago, I owned what I thought was the perfect deer rifle. It was a Winchester Model 70 chambered to shoot the .308 calibre cartridge (7.62x51mm NATO) with a 4x scope mounted on it. I had bought it used and, after correcting a problem it had with a warped forestock that caused it to shoot progressively higher and to the right with each shot, I found it to be a very accurate rifle when sighted in to be accurate at 200 yards.

I got into handloading my own cartridges in a big way and began experimenting with different powder loads, different types of powder and different types and weights of bullets. Eventually, I came across a 110 grain .30 calibre hollow point "varminter" bullet that could be loaded into my .308 cartridges. Where I live, the deer are not overly large in size and can often be shot at ranges under 100 yards. While a shot through the lungs is the safest and surest way to kill a deer, we often found, with such a small target, a lot of meat in the front quarters and backstrap ended up getting damaged and had to be discarded. A head shot seemed like a much better idea but did not have the kill guarantee of a lung shot. So, I thought, why not a hollow point bullet for maximum expansion within the deer's head?

Well, I'm here to tell you the idea worked just as I thought it would. In fact, it worked so well, when I ran out of hollow point bullets I didn't buy any more of them. The results were simply too obscene. As I said, there is a fine line between a fragmenting and a hollow point bullet. While these bullets penetrated the deers' skulls well enough, making only a tiny .308" entrance hole, they literally came to pieces once inside the skull; often making more than one exit hole and totally disgusting anyone who saw the deer later.

This is the point I wanted to make, in answer to your question. While FMJ and soft point bullets will usually have exit wounds coaxial with their entrance wounds, head shots made with hollow point and fragmenting bullets (and possibly frangible bullets) will not necessarily perform in the same way. Often, these bullets will not even exit, and the so called "exit wounds" seen are caused by the build up of hydraulic pressure within the skull seeking a vent through a weak spot where two of the skull bones (ie. occipital/parietal) are seamed together.

Do you see now how it is possible for a bullet fired from the Grassy Knoll to cause a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Edited December 18, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Robert Prudhomme]

"In this case, MOST of the witnesses claiming they saw a wound on the far back of the head deferred to the autopsy photos when shown them. It is offensive, in my opinion, to assume these people were lying, or scared or intimidated, whatever. There was a conflict in the evidence. They stepped up and said, "My bad, I probably made a mistake." No one standing on the outside could possibly know how certain they'd been to begin with, and how easy or hard it was for them to admit they made a mistake."

Just one minor problem with your thinking here, Pat. If the witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda had, in equal numbers, randomly put the large head wound all over JFK's head (ie. face, back, high, low, top, forward, back, etc.), your logic might have some credence to it.

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?

Think it might have been a conspiracy??

Edited December 18, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Ray Mitcham]

Because the death of a sitting U.S. president was never honestly investigated, all we can do is speculate about all the maddening inconsistencies left in the extant record. I respect Pat Speer's work, even though I think he's wrong about some key aspects of the assassination. Like Cliff Varnell, I prefer to concentrate on the holes in JFK's clothing, and the other supporting evidence clearly demonstrating that the entrance in the back was far too low to have exited from the throat.

JFK's head wound(s) are impossible to decipher at this point. As I've noted, the autopsy photos appear to contradict what the medical personnel saw at Dallas. And when considering a blowout in the right rear, we have to reconcile that with a shot from knoll area, which would seemingly blow out the left part of the back of the head. And when we combine McClelland's statement about a gunshot wound to the left temple, and Father Huber's remark about seeing a wound over the left eye, we become lost in confusion.

Considering the kind of pathetic autopsy JFK was given, and the fact we know that participants were told not to talk about what went on there, and that evidence was seen being destroyed there, why would we trust in the legitimacy of the photos and x-rays which have been made public? We know now that two of Malcom Perry's colleagues, Dr. Donald Miller and Dr. Robert Artwohl, claimed that Perry had informed them privately that the throat wound was indeed an entry wound, regardless of what he eventually told the Warren Commission. And we know that Secret Service agent Elmer Moore was tasked with getting Perry to change his story, something he later told his friend Jim Gochenaur that he felt remorse about.

JFK's brain was not placed in formalin, and the bullet path was never traced. Then, as we know, the brain was lost. Somehow, it's accepted that the brain of a United States president was just misplaced. The ARRB would later reveal that Secret Service agent James Mastrovito supposedly disposed of JFK's brain matter in....a food processor. How can we trust any "official" part of the medical evidence? Lifton's body alteration theory is so attractive because of all these enduring questions.

No evidence for a shot from the front? Come on, Pat! The best evidence regarding the throat wound, which was later mutilated via the tracheotomy incision, is that it was an entrance wound. Both Dr. Kemp Clark and Dr. Robert Shaw made early, and therefore more credible, statements that the bullet had entered JFK's neck from the front. And the motion of JFK's head backwards has always been one of the key pieces of evidence pointing towards conspiracy.

As I said, I respect Pat's work-and he has done a lot of good work-but I think the only way you can reject all the suggestions of a frontal shot or shots is to trust exclusively in the official medical evidence, which is a mess and contradicts the overwhelming number of eyewitnesses, as well as the film record.

It's important that we realize the difference between emergency room doctors and forensic pathologists. An emergency room doctor forms an impression as to entrance and exit wounds, while a pathologist comes to a conclusion. Perry most certainly never concluded the throat wound was an entrance. It APPEARED to be one. He didn't waver on this in his testimony, or ever. He always insisted that it appeared to be an entrance. That doesn't mean he'd concluded it was an entrance, and LIED later when he said it could have been an exit wound.

Most emergency room physicians, we can only hope, have some humility about these matters. Their impressions are frequently at odds with the conclusions of pathologists--which is why we have pathologists.

Pat, I wonder what you have to say about Dr Miller's recent article.

Dr Donald W Miller

Dr. Perry publicly changed his view of the neck wound for the Warren Commission after a Secret Service Agent came to Dallas, threatened him, and coerced him to testify that it was an exit wound. In 1970, that Agent, Elmer Moore, confessed to a friend that he had acted “on orders from Washington.” He regretted that he had “badgered Dr. Perry into making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck.” As ordered, he said, “I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we’d get our heads cut off.” The friend he admitted this to was (appropriately enough) a University of Washington graduate student named Jim Gochenaur.

Thirteen years later, Dr. Perry and I performed surgery on a patient with a thoracoabdominal aneurysm. I removed the thoracic, or chest part of the aneurysm, and Dr. Perry, the abdominal part. When the residents were closing the incisions Malcolm and I sat together alone in the surgeons’ lounge drinking coffee. Dr. Perry had always refused to discuss the Kennedy assassination, but that night, after we had been operating together for many hours on a complex case, I once again asked him about it. This time,

Perry told me that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was, in fact, unquestionably a wound of entrance.

A year later, when called to testify to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) Dr. Perry once again publicly supported the government’s single-bullet-theory official truth and agreed with the committee that the bullet wound in the neck must be an exit wound, explaining that the wound was so small that he had initially mistaken it for an entrance wound. But in 1986, Dr. Perry told another physician, Dr. Robert Artwohl, that it was in fact an entrance wound.

[John Crites]

Below we have the Testimony of Doctor Peters in 1964. Of course There are plenty of statements , recollections , opinions, contradictions, and changes of heart after the fact from all the witnesses - and it sure muddies up the case, but there is just too much sworn testimony as to a hole in the back of the head.

Mr. SPECTER - What did you notice in the occiput?
Dr. PETERS - It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area.
Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any holes below the occiput, say, in this area below here?
Dr. PETERS - No, I did not and at the time and the moments immediately following the injury, we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound, and it is a known fact that high velocity missiles often have a small wound of entrance and a large wound of exit, and I'm just giving you my honest impressions at the time.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Ray and John

Very good arguments, but I am sure Mr. Speer will point out the flaws in your thinking for you.

[Cliff Varnell]

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?

Everyone who saw the head wound "got it wrong."

Everyone who saw the throat entrance wound "got it wrong."

Everyone who saw the low back entrance "got it wrong."

Wow, Pat...How about those JFK wounds -- everyone who saw them got it wrong in the same way!

In the world of JFK experts only other JFK experts get it right.

[John Crites]

Cliff,

The FBI report to this day differs from the Warren Report.

Warren Commission members were not in agreement - especially Russell.

The Connallys did not agree with the shooting sequence - especially Nellie.

The FBI agents at the autopsy did not agree to the shooting sequence.

Some Secret Service agents disagreed as to where the shots came from.

Most of them still went with the Oswald alone theory meaning they lied or lied to themselves.

Not only does the HSCA differ from the WC, but so do all of the other agencies connected to the assassination have some different variations as to their facts pertaining to the assassination.

There is no consensus as to what happened from the government agencies except of course, LHO did at all by his self which is so pitiful in itself.

We all know there was a shot from the front, so can there be some differences of opinion as to how big and where the hole was in the back of the head, since there seems to be so many variations from the witnesses - not as much in testimony but in recollections over the years?