The EOP Entrance revealed

[Pat Speer]

While I admire Mr. Speer's research and tenacity, for the life of me I can't understand why he continues to put stock in the fake autopsy photographs and x-rays.

From ARRB Testimony of FBI Agents O'Neill and Sibert, known up-close witnesses to the JFK autopsy:

•MR. GUNN: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as 'wound of

entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42.

•BY MR. GUNN Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy?

•Francis O'Neill: This looks like it's been doctored in some way.

•Q : But do you see anything that corresponds in Photograph No. 42 to what you observed during the night of the autopsy?

•James Sibert: No. I don't recall anything like this at all during the autopsy. There was much -Well, . the wound was more pronounced. And it looks like it could have been reconstructed or something, as compared with what my recollection was...

So while I am reasonably sure that I will not convince Mr. Speer (or Mr. Von Pein) that these photos lack veracity, those of you newer to the case should realize these photos are not true representations of the back of JFK's head.

Thanks for demonstrating what I'm up against, Al. You took the statements of two seniors, who were trying to remember what they saw more than 30 years earlier, and used this to imply the autopsy photos and medical evidence are fake...and that the body really showed NO entrance wound by the EOP, just a large exit wound. (That is what you're doing, right?)

Only this misrepresents what Sibert and O'Neill actually believed. Both men believed a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exploded out the top of the head. That is what they were told happened during the autopsy, and that is what they believed happened until their dying days. Their job was to observe the autopsy. And neither of them saw any body alteration, or recalled any discussion of shots from the front, etc. They were not conspiracy theorists. While the autopsy photos shown them decades after the shooting failed to correspond to their memories of Kennedy's wounds, their memories of Kennedy's wounds did not convince them the shot came from the front or any such thing. O'Neill, in fact, made numerous references to an entrance wound low on the back of the head, in the location described in the autopsy report.

There are reasons I came to believe the autopsy photos and x-rays are legit, and the way people twist the words of Sibert, O'Neill, Robinson, Boswell, Stringer, Ebersole, etc, is one of them.

We have been through this before:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21535&page=3

so there is no need to repeat it here.

The referenced thread includes drawings from ARRB testimony of numerous eye-witnesses and includes the contemporaneous observations of Parkland doctors. Yes, Pat, I believe the autopsy photos are fakes. So I believe that whether there was or was not an EOP entrance, or a shot from the front for that matter, cannot then be answered using the fake evidence.

Interesting that you imply that I am twisting the words of Sibert and O'Neill by directly quoting them. Yes, they believe Oswald acted alone. Yes, they believe three shots from the back hit JFK -- not the WC 2 shots -- as declared by Humes (an evasive xxxx if there ever was one). Still, when confronted with the autopsy photos during their ARRB testimony, they were at a loss since the photos clearly didn't match what they saw. In my opinion, as loyal career FBI men, they just couldn't make the leap that the federal government was covering up the truth in the assassination of their president. You imply that somehow as "seniors" their memories were faulty. I believe that as true "Oswald-did-it-alone" believers, it gives their testimony weight since they had no agenda.

For those new to the case, read the contemporaneous reports of the Parkland doctors who treated JFK. There was a large hole in the back of his head with cerebellar tissue dripping out. Again, for the life of me, I do not see how any other conclusion can be drawn. It is unfortunate that some of the Parkland doctors equivocated when faced with fraudulent autopsy results, Secret Service pressure, etc. But that is what happened.

I will leave this thread now to those who want to pursue their studies of these photos. As I said Pat, I admire your tenacity and much of your research.

A brief response

Al writes: "Still, when confronted with the autopsy photos during their ARRB testimony, they were at a loss since the photos clearly didn't match what they saw." See, that's the problem. the photos didn't match what they remembered seeing. Most people differentiate--particularly when looking back from thirty years on--what they remember seeing from what they saw. And there's a reason for this. Our memories are crap. It's been proven over and over again. When commenting on his experiences with the ARRB, Jeremy Gunn--the man who interviewed Sibert and O'Neill--said the most important thing he learned is that people's memories are faulty, and that the clarity or strength of their memories has no correlation with the accuracy of their memories. Now, everyone knows this. Everyone knows that when Grandma, or Granddad, or your wife, or your five-year old son, insists that Christmas was on a Friday last year, or that Aunt Phoebe wore a pink dress to the wedding, when the photos show her to have been wearing a light blue pantsuit, that they are simply mistaken. Nobody invents some scenario whereby all the calendars have been switched, or all the photos have been faked. And yet that's what we have in the Kennedy case. Some witnesses' memories are at odds with the photographic evidence. But rather than accept that as the fact of life it is--and was always going to be--we have people proposing bizarre scenarios so these almost certainly faulty memories can be accurate, and we can have a conspiracy.

Well, the irony I'm exposing is that the now supposedly suspect photographic evidence pointed towards a conspiracy all along.

Occam's razor, anyone?

Edited October 9, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Of course, though, Pat, your "conspiracy" still points to a shooter from the rear, and, of course, we cannot completely rule out Oswald as the shooter.

Business as usual.

[Robert Prudhomme]

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

[Tom Neal]

Well, the irony I'm exposing is that the now supposedly suspect photographic evidence pointed towards a conspiracy all along.

Pat,

After reading all of the above posts, I'm a bit confused as to where you stand today on the major issues involved, so I'm unsure how to 'take' some of your comments. Before I reply, would you mind answering a couple of quick questions?

Q1: Do you agree that as of today, both Parkland and Bethesda doctors are in agreement that there was a large hole in the back of JFK's head?

Q2: Do you agree that the Bethesda autopsy photo(s) depict an intact back of head?

Thanks,

Tom

[Mark Knight]

Mr. Prudhomme, I think you're missing a VERY crucial point.

If what Mr. Speer is correct...and there was indeed an entrance wound at the hairline, going upwards into the skull...at what point would an "Oswald" have been able to shoot at a downward angle and make the bullet turn upward and exit through the top of the head?

In other words...how far forward would JFK's upper torso have been for this to occur? From the 6th-floor TSBD window, it would had to have been a point at which JFK's head was nearly between his knees.

So at what point in the Z-film would this have occurred?

Try looking at the information THIS way...and you'll see the single shooter from the rear vanish before your very eyes.

[Robert Prudhomme]

Mr. Prudhomme, I think you're missing a VERY crucial point.

If what Mr. Speer is correct...and there was indeed an entrance wound at the hairline, going upwards into the skull...at what point would an "Oswald" have been able to shoot at a downward angle and make the bullet turn upward and exit through the top of the head?

In other words...how far forward would JFK's upper torso have been for this to occur? From the 6th-floor TSBD window, it would had to have been a point at which JFK's head was nearly between his knees.

So at what point in the Z-film would this have occurred?

Try looking at the information THIS way...and you'll see the single shooter from the rear vanish before your very eyes.

I agree with you, Mark. I'm just waiting for Pat to tell us the shot had to come from somewhere near ground level and, even then, there is no way it could exit anywhere near the top of JFK's head.

[Mark Knight]

I think an EOP entrance would confirm a shot after Z313...and it would've had to have come from somewhere lower than the 6th floor of ANY building.

I just watched a slow-motion version of the Z-film. After Z-313, JFK's body falls to the left in the limo. For a shot to enter on the right side of the hairline near the EOP, the shooter WOULD have to be behind JFK...but the shot couldn't have elevated much over the level of the Grassy Knoll...and for Jackie not to have been hit, I don't see that shot occurring before Z369 or so.

That's just MY interpretation...and that's assuming the shooter responsible for the EOP entrance wound was NOT hiding in the storm drain.

[Pat Speer]

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

I'll try to keep it brief. The Parkland witnesses viewed Kennedy while he was lying flat on his back and saw a gaping hole in the scalp and bone. They thought this was at the back of the top of the head, and on the right side. They placed this wound, on average, about 2 1/2 inches back of where it can be seen on the autopsy photos and x-rays. They also placed this wound, on average, about two inches upwards of where it is depicted on the so-called McClelland drawing. When one views the back of the head photos as a gif file, such as those found on my website, moreover, one can see that the rear-most part of the back of the head in the photos flapped open from the front, whereby the wound would appear slightly larger and further back on the skull to those viewing Kennedy while he was lying flat on his back. For me, this explains a lot. When one adds in that very few got a good look at the wound, and would defer, if only subconsciously, to what Clark told the press on the afternoon of the shooting, and that Clark was quite possibly confused a bit by the rotation of the body on the table, well, then, it's easy for me to believe that Clark was mistaken as to the exact location of the wound, and that others followed suit.

As far as Bethesda, now, that's a different story. The statements of these witnesses have been misrepresented, by and large, by writers trying to shut down David Lifton's theory of body alteration...by claiming the wounds observed at Bethesda were the same as those at Parkland. I discuss this in detail over the latter half of chapter 18c. Many if not most of the Bethesda "back of the head" witnesses described a large defect on the back of the head. A number of them specified that this large defect became apparent after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. Well, guess what? That's what the doctors said from day one. That's the official story. And yes, in this instance I have some hands-on experience on this issue. James Jenkins showed up at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference to take questions and relate what he observed during the autopsy. I spoke to him several times, and observed him speak to crowds on three separate occasions. He was crystal clear on this point: the back of the head appeared to be intact, but the skull was like a shattered egg beneath the skin. Well, this confirmed my impression. A few days later, however, Doug Horne pumped out an article telling everyone Jenkins had said there was a big hole on the back of the head. It's like a religion, I suppose.

So, in short, Lifton is right. There is a divide between what people remember seeing at Parkland and what people remember seeing at Bethesda. Now, I think there's a logical reason for this. That the autopsy photographs and x-rays so clearly suggest there was more than one shooter convinces me this is so.

But, should one choose to disagree, well, golly, go ahead. Only don't tell me I'm wasting my time in looking at the official evidence, and proving that it doesn't show what we've been told it shows. Let's let history be the judge of that.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

Pat

A few questions for you:

Do you believe the head shot came from the SE corner of the 6th floor of the TSBD?

Can you explain why the skull bone at the back of JFK's skull would be shattered, if that is where the bullet entered?

Can you explain how a shot entering as low as the EOP could apparently, as you tell us, exit the top of JFK's head?

[Pat Speer]

Well, the irony I'm exposing is that the now supposedly suspect photographic evidence pointed towards a conspiracy all along.

Pat,

After reading all of the above posts, I'm a bit confused as to where you stand today on the major issues involved, so I'm unsure how to 'take' some of your comments. Before I reply, would you mind answering a couple of quick questions?

Q1: Do you agree that as of today, both Parkland and Bethesda doctors are in agreement that there was a large hole in the back of JFK's head?

Q2: Do you agree that the Bethesda autopsy photo(s) depict an intact back of head?

Thanks,

Tom

A1: The Parkland doctors believed, on average, that there was a hole on the right side of the head above and behind the ear involving part of the back of the head. The Bethesda doctors, and their assistants, said there was a much larger wound starting forward of this location, and extending both to and rearward of this location after the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. So, no, they didn't describe the wound in the same manner. There is a 2 to 2 1/2 discrepancy, IMO. Which I write off as an understandable mistake on the part of the Parkland witnesses.

A2. The autopsy photos and x-rays depict an intact back of the head, in that there is no gaping hole through the scalp. When one studies the gif files I've added to chapter 13 and chapter 18d of patspeer.com, however, I think it is clear that there was both a bone flap at the back of the top of the head, and a small bullet entrance near the EOP, exactly as described in the autopsy protocol.

Here is a slide in which I present the long lost bullet hole by the EOP. It's much clearer in the gif files, IMO, but this will give you an idea of what I'm talking about.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

Pat's make-believe bullet hole is way more than "2.5 cm. to the right of the EOP", and it looks like it's BELOW the EOP, not "slightly above the EOP".

But, then too, I guess I can't gripe TOO much when it comes to measurements, since I'm convinced the autopsy doctors screwed up the entry location by 4 inches.

Edited October 10, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Pat's make-believe bullet hole is way more than "2.5 cm. to the right of the EOP", and it looks like it's BELOW the EOP, not "slightly above the EOP".

But, then too, I guess I can't gripe TOO much when it comes to measurements, since I'm convinced the autopsy doctors screwed up the entry location by 4 inches.

Keep throwing me fastballs, David, and I'll keep hitting 'em out of the park.

Take another look at the More Light slide. The bullet hole in the back of the head photos is right where the doctors depicted it in the Rydberg drawing, The reason why you think this hole is "way more than an inch "from the EOP is the same reason it took me so long to notice this hole...and that's that we were lied to by Dr. Baden, and told the red spot was an inch from the midline, as measured at autopsy. This simply isn't true, as proved here:

Edited October 10, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Robert Prudhomme]

"Mr. Hill - The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was covered in blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

[Glenn Nall]

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite.

Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists.

I imagine it would be a lot like holding 26 NYYankees World Series rings in one hand, and say 3 of those of say, The Cubs and then listening to the myriad YHers come up with hundreds of reasons why, well, some of them are really fake, and that others don't count, and how many Yankees were in fact way too unqualified to have played well enough... and these Yankees weren't actually Forensics Baseball players, so THEIR rings don't count - ...

And I'm like !!! , "But David, I'm holding 26 Rings! You're holding 3!!"

[Pat Speer]

And your "faulty memory" theory doesn't hold water, either.

If every witness saw something different on JFK (ie. large wound on the left front of the head, large wound on the right side of the head, large wound on the top of the head, no large wound at all, etc.) I could see your point. However, the vast majority of Parkland and Bethesda witnesses "mistakenly" saw a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head that involved occipital bone.

How do you explain all of these witnesses mistakenly seeing roughly the same thing? How do you explain the first day medical reports by Parkland surgeons all pointing toward a large gaping wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Something i'd love to know: I wonder what the ratio would be - of all legitimate observers - who describe, in general terms, a "large wound" to the in the rear to those who say say the basic opposite.

Wonder if there's an organized list of these two lists.

I imagine it would be a lot like holding 26 NYYankees World Series rings in one hand, and say 3 of those of say, The Cubs and then listening to the myriad YHers come up with hundreds of reasons why, well, some of them are really fake, and that others don't count, and how many Yankees were in fact way too unqualified to have played well enough... and these Yankees weren't actually Forensics Baseball players, so THEIR rings don't count - ...

And I'm like !!! , "But David, I'm holding 26 Rings! You're holding 3!!"

If you're asking if there's a comprehensive list available of everyone seeing Kennedy after the shooting, and what they recalled of his head wounds, the answer would be no. The closest thing to that is chapters 18c and 18d of my website. Those pushing that there was a wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and that the autopsy photos are fake, routinely ignore a number of the best witnesses, and prop up a number of witnesses who are totally unreliable. But there remain a number of credible witnesses for a wound on the back of the head. This creates a quandary. This is why it takes two chapters to explain my position on the matter.

Here's an example of something that is overlooked by most holding that the wound was really on the back of the head. While they love to flash those photos of witnesses taken 20-30 years after the fact, in which they point to the back of their head, they rarely acknowledge that the first witnesses unanimously pointed to a location on the front of the head.

Edited October 10, 2015 by Pat Speer