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

[Pat Speer]

Are you so uneducated that you would quote Paul Peters as referring to "occipital/parietal" and show a photo of him with his hand almost on his forehead?

Do you know where the junction of the occipital and parietal bones is? Hint: the words "back of head" should give you a strong clue.

You argue just like the LN trolls I used to debate with at Duncan's forum. They have the same warped logic as you.

Look again, Robert. I'm sorry I'm winning the argument, and that that makes you wanna cry "wolf"! But pretending I'm lying about Peters by pretending he's not pointing to the occipital-parietal area on the slide is just bizarre. Perhaps you looked at Custer and thought you were looking at Peters.

Go to youtube and watch some Peters interviews and you will see what I mean. They guy always pointed to the TOP of the back of the head, not low on the back of the head.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Still the back of the head though, right? How does a bullet entering the back of the head create a large gaping wound in the back of the head?

BTW, you're not "winning" anything, unless you think that influencing the young and the mentally challenged with your nonsense equates to "winning" something.

The basic thing wrong with the WC findings includes the autopsy report. We are asked to believe that JFK was shot in the back of the head with a long thick walled round nosed full metal jacket bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps and from six storeys up, that entered JFK's head just to the right of the external occipital protuberance; a point very low in the back of JFK's head.

In the real world, JFK would have had an exit wound under his nose.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Robert Prudhomme

[Vince Palamara]

I like what Jenkins allegedly told Posner: "I never did say occipital!"

Pat, what is your take on all the medical people who specifically called the area that was missing the occipital area?

This thread is a bummer: seems Pat has bebunked all the back-of-the-head witnesses. I am waiting for a thread claiming the smoke on the knoll was cigar smoke...

[Vince Palamara]

Does everyone agree that Pat has debunked all the witnesses who said occipital and that they must have all meant temporal LOL?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Someone put LSD in the Parkland coffee machine that day. I think Pat has been into the same stuff.

[John Crites]

I heard from a lone loonie once that the scope being mounted correctly actually helped Owsald.

I thought I was on that LSD when I heard that one,


Anyway, in March 1994, Dr. peters wrote a letter to reasearcher Brad Parker (I pulled this from the Lancer Website)
http://www.jfklancer.com/Peters.html


Here Goes,

"In spite of many of his colleagues, who have chosen to change their descriptions of the head wound by appearing in JAMA and Case Closed, Dr. Peters maintains that his original opinion is essentially correct. The massive injury involved "the outer portion of the occipital area and part of the parietal area of the skull. I have not changed my mind. The review of the autopsy findings at the National Archives 25 years after the injury merely reinforces my statement which I gave to the Warren Commission. I told them there was a 7 cm. (at least) hole in the occipitoparietal region " (letter to the author). Interestingly, the autopsy findings to which he was referring should have reflected a thirteen centimeter wound to the right temporoparietal skull (WCR 538-546). One is left only to speculate as to what Dr. Peters observed in the National Archives which reinforces his description of an injury which directly contradicts the autopsy findings".

In my opinion,
I am sure Pat would agree that there is too much testimony, too many reliable statements from the most reliable people proving beyond a reasonable doubt as to a wound in the back of the head. Pat should get back to blasting the lone loonies and the so called medical experts like Baden that he has done so well in the past.

And finally, any statement supposedly made to Posner should not be considered to have any validity, I don't care where it originated from. .

[Pat Speer]

Still the back of the head though, right? How does a bullet entering the back of the head create a large gaping wound in the back of the head?

BTW, you're not "winning" anything, unless you think that influencing the young and the mentally challenged with your nonsense equates to "winning" something.

The basic thing wrong with the WC findings includes the autopsy report. We are asked to believe that JFK was shot in the back of the head with a long thick walled round nosed full metal jacket bullet, with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps and from six storeys up, that entered JFK's head just to the right of the external occipital protuberance; a point very low in the back of JFK's head.

In the real world, JFK would have had an exit wound under his nose.

I agree that the conclusions reached by the doctors were incorrect, and quite possibly politically inspired. But I believe their descriptions of the wounds were accurate, in part because I believe their descriptions strongly suggest there was more than one shooter.

First, there's the back wound. For many years people assumed a wound 14 cm below the mastoid placed it where it was depicted in the Rydberg drawings. My research and videos prove this to be untrue, and that 14 cm below the mastoid is on the back, precisely where the wound was depicted on the face sheet. Well, this, in turn proves there was a cover-up in 1966 and 1967 when the doctors were paraded before the press, first saying that the accurate location was as presented by the measurements, and then ultimately crumbling and saying the Rydberg drawings were accurate. Specter, too, played coy on this issue. After admitting that he looked at a photo of the back wound, he offered that it showed a wound consistent with the measurements. Well, he was pulling a lawyer trick. He KNEW the measurements placed it on the back, but that people assumed they placed it at the base of the neck, and was relying on their ignorance.

So, yeah, the autopsy report proves the subsequent lies of the doctors (under the direction of the Justice Department) and Specter (under God knows who's direction).

The same is true with the head wound, IMO. It would be highly unusual for a full metal jacketed bullet to create a small entrance low on the back of the head, and then explode out the top of the head, leaving a gaping hole of both scalp and skull, even if the head was titled forward. Full metal jacketed bullets don't create large exits of both scalp and skull. The supposed exit was almost certainly a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. This is supported, moreover, by the supplemental autopsy's description of the brain. No wound track from the EOP to the frontal lobe was noted. This so bothered the Clark Panel, in fact, that they conjured up a pretend entrance at the top of the head.

So, here, once again, the description of the wounds in the autopsy report was problematic for the single-gunman theory, and led to much hanky panky.

If the descriptions in the report had been lies, I would think they'd have been better lies, that would not have led to so much re-appraisal and deception.

Now, do I think it's possible something was left out of the report? Yes. I think it's possible the doctors probed the back of the head wound and found it came out in the throat. I can't say it's my theory, because I don't swear by it, but it supports my theory, and two witnesses to the autopsy (Lipsey and Robinson) independently said they saw this occur.

[Pat Speer]

Does everyone agree that Pat has debunked all the witnesses who said occipital and that they must have all meant temporal LOL?

When I think about this issue, I always go back to what a prominent cognitive psychologist told me. She said that the key to understanding incorrect groupthink was not in assuming people remember things incorrectly in a uniform manner, but that some of them perceive it incorrectly to begin with, and then pass this on to others.

McClelland is Exhibit A convincing me this was what happened. He first indicated it was a wound to the left side, then the right side, then the back of the head behind the ear, then the whole right side of the head, etc. The man was like a sponge.

[Cliff Varnell]

First, there's the back wound. For many years people assumed a wound 14 cm below the mastoid placed it where it was depicted in the Rydberg drawings. My research and videos prove this to be untrue, and that 14 cm below the mastoid is on the back, precisely where the wound was depicted on the face sheet.

Pat, since the hole in the shirt is 5.75 inches below the top of the collar how could that location be 14cm below the mastoid?

Do the math. And if you posit JFK's shirt riding up the burden of proof is on you to show how that could have happened.

Otherwise, you're just pet-theorizing into the wind...

Now, do I think it's possible something was left out of the report? Yes. I think it's possible the doctors probed the back of the head wound and found it came out in the throat. I can't say it's my theory, because I don't swear by it, but it supports my theory, and two witnesses to the autopsy (Lipsey and Robinson) independently said they saw this occur.

Right.

JFK started to react to throat trauma 6 seconds before he suffered a wound to his throat.

The Zombie Theories that never die...

[Pat Speer]

I heard from a lone loonie once that the scope being mounted correctly actually helped Owsald.

I thought I was on that LSD when I heard that one,

Anyway, in March 1994, Dr. peters wrote a letter to reasearcher Brad Parker (I pulled this from the Lancer Website)

http://www.jfklancer.com/Peters.html

Here Goes,

"In spite of many of his colleagues, who have chosen to change their descriptions of the head wound by appearing in JAMA and Case Closed, Dr. Peters maintains that his original opinion is essentially correct. The massive injury involved "the outer portion of the occipital area and part of the parietal area of the skull. I have not changed my mind. The review of the autopsy findings at the National Archives 25 years after the injury merely reinforces my statement which I gave to the Warren Commission. I told them there was a 7 cm. (at least) hole in the occipitoparietal region " (letter to the author). Interestingly, the autopsy findings to which he was referring should have reflected a thirteen centimeter wound to the right temporoparietal skull (WCR 538-546). One is left only to speculate as to what Dr. Peters observed in the National Archives which reinforces his description of an injury which directly contradicts the autopsy findings".

In my opinion,

I am sure Pat would agree that there is too much testimony, too many reliable statements from the most reliable people proving beyond a reasonable doubt as to a wound in the back of the head. Pat should get back to blasting the lone loonies and the so called medical experts like Baden that he has done so well in the past.

And finally, any statement supposedly made to Posner should not be considered to have any validity, I don't care where it originated from. .

I discuss Peters on my website, and have posted that information on this forum. Peters, as McClelland, tried to have it both ways. He has insisted that the wound he saw was on the back of the head, and that the back of the head photo--which he assumes was authentic--somehow concealed this wound.

If you read my chapters on this issue, you will find that I readily admit that the statements of the Parkland witnesses, on average, suggest the wound was on the back of the head--at the TOP of the back of the head, in a location almost equidistant between where the wound is shown on the McClelland drawings and where it is shown in the autopsy photos.

The greater point of these chapters, moreover, is not to convince conspiracy theorists believing the wound was on the back of the head to suddenly follow my lead and accept the authenticity of the autopsy photos, but to--if they truly do believe the Parkland witnesses, as claimed--stop pretending these witnesses said the wound was LOW on the back of the head...and that the Harper fragment is occipital bone.

As presented on my website, and as presented at the Wecht conference in Pittsburgh, I am nearly certain the Harper fragment is the key to understanding what happened, and that we can only understand what happened when we let go of the clearly incorrect notion it was occipital bone.

[John Crites]

Pat, to get away from the back of the head wound, but this has somewhat do with your above statement, when Specter made the (what if) description of the neck wound for Perry to describe if it could be an exit wound,

(here is it in part)

"the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process" ------

My question to you is (and info pertaining to this is probably in your website),

had Specter already seen the autopsy photos and the president's clothing before he took Perry's testimony and hence, prior to making that statement?

[Pat Speer]

First, there's the back wound. For many years people assumed a wound 14 cm below the mastoid placed it where it was depicted in the Rydberg drawings. My research and videos prove this to be untrue, and that 14 cm below the mastoid is on the back, precisely where the wound was depicted on the face sheet.

Pat, since the hole in the shirt is 5.75 inches below the top of the collar how could that location be 14cm below the mastoid?

Do the math. And if you posit JFK's shirt riding up the burden of proof is on you to show how that could have happened.

Otherwise, you're just pet-theorizing into the wind...

Now, do I think it's possible something was left out of the report? Yes. I think it's possible the doctors probed the back of the head wound and found it came out in the throat. I can't say it's my theory, because I don't swear by it, but it supports my theory, and two witnesses to the autopsy (Lipsey and Robinson) independently said they saw this occur.

Right.

JFK started to react to throat trauma 6 seconds before he suffered a wound to his throat.

The Zombie Theories that never die...

Let's see if this makes sense...

5.75 inches is a little over 14 cm. If one matches the hole on the clothes with the hole on the back as measured, the top of the jacket collar should be a little above the bottom tip of the mastoid. This supposes, of course, that the jacket was flattened out like a ruler. Well, it wasn't flattened out, it conformed to Kennedy's shoulders, and was even bunched up a little. This means that for the measurements to be confirmed, the top of the jacket would have to be at or just below the level of the mastoid in the photos taken just before the shooting.

Voila! The measurements of the hole on the clothes and hole on the back are consistent with one another.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Pat, to get away from the back of the head wound, but this has somewhat do with your above statement, when Specter made the (what if) description of the neck wound for Perry to describe if it could be an exit wound,

(here is it in part)

"the bullet striking him at an angle of declination of approximately 45 degrees, striking the President on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process" ------

My question to you is (and info pertaining to this is probably in your website),

had Specter already seen the autopsy photos and the president's clothing before he took Perry's testimony and hence, prior to making that statement?

No. By his own admission, he saw the photo on May 24, 1964. While it's tempting to assume we shouldn't trust him on this, this admission is, in fact, incredibly damaging. He submitted his chapters in which he said the wound was on the back of the neck 10 days or so later, and took testimony on June 4 from Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley in which they pretended the chalk mark used in the May 24 re-enactment came courtesy CE 386, a drawing showing the wound to be at the base of the neck.

Well, this was not a coincidence. Kelley was the one to show Specter the photo proving the wound was on the back, and here they were pretending the chalk mark used in the re-enactment was at the base of the neck, while failing to enter any photos of this chalk mark into evidence. Hmmm...

I discussed Specter's obvious deceptions at great length in Dallas. The crowd was quite receptive.

[Cliff Varnell]

First, there's the back wound. For many years people assumed a wound 14 cm below the mastoid placed it where it was depicted in the Rydberg drawings. My research and videos prove this to be untrue, and that 14 cm below the mastoid is on the back, precisely where the wound was depicted on the face sheet.

Pat, since the hole in the shirt is 5.75 inches below the top of the collar how could that location be 14cm below the mastoid?

Do the math. And if you posit JFK's shirt riding up the burden of proof is on you to show how that could have happened.

Otherwise, you're just pet-theorizing into the wind...

Now, do I think it's possible something was left out of the report? Yes. I think it's possible the doctors probed the back of the head wound and found it came out in the throat. I can't say it's my theory, because I don't swear by it, but it supports my theory, and two witnesses to the autopsy (Lipsey and Robinson) independently said they saw this occur.

Right.

JFK started to react to throat trauma 6 seconds before he suffered a wound to his throat.

The Zombie Theories that never die...

Let's see if this makes sense...

5.75 inches is a little over 14 cm. If one matches the hole on the clothes with the hole on the back as measured, the top of the jacket collar should be a little above the bottom tip of the mastoid.

The shirt, Pat.

The bullet hole in the shirt is 5.75 inches below the top of the shirt collar -- which rested well below the mastoid process.

You are claiming that JFK's shirt collar rode into his hairline. It didn't

Here's JFK on Houston St. with his jacket elevated a fraction of an inch. It soon dropped to expose the shirt collar.

.

This supposes, of course, that the jacket was flattened out like a ruler. Well, it wasn't flattened out, it conformed to Kennedy's shoulders, and was even bunched up a little. This means that for the measurements to be confirmed, the top of the jacket would have to be at or just below the level of the mastoid in the photos taken just before the shooting.

Voila! The measurements of the hole on the clothes and hole on the back are consistent with one another.

Another Zombie that refuses to die...

Pat, your argument is specious, to put it kindly.

The jacket dropped in Dealey Plaza. The shirt wasn't bunched up at all.

How could the fabric of his jacket INDENT in this photo if there were a couple inches of bunched up shirt fabric underneath?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Cliff Varnell

[John Crites]

Who was responsible for telling him to fabricate? do we know for sure?

Pat, I am sure they were very receptive. I once heard an audio of him (Specter) at the 2003 Pittsburg conference - a crowd pleaser as well. It should be assassination 101. I got his Passion for truth (truth?), and he comes across to me in the book as if no one can investigate the things he puts in writing. For insistence, saying more or less; Humes's excuse for burning his notes is a revelation that came out for his book. Of course the major media sucked it right up.

Anyway, so the famous pic here - before the testimony with Perry?