Michael Crane Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Interesting entry wound location from Boswell shown here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 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? WELL?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Curme Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 It's easy to be a cynic and say all the autopsy photos and X-rays are faked. But those that due have the burden of explaining the fakes. How do you account for the intact scalp in the back of the head photo? By saying that there was an orange sized hole but the skin was a large intact flap? Or by claiming it's a different body? I think it is more reasonable to start with the existing autopsy evidence and see to what degree it is consistent with the observations by the autopsy and Bethesda doctors and observers. Given the vagaries of eyewitness testimony, nothing will ever be 100% consistent with everyone's recollections, but I think Pat has done a great job pulling all the evidence together in such a way that it explains most of the observations. Before attacking the post, I would encourage you to read his much deeper analysis at PatSpeer.com. To address Robert Prudhomme's questions, an EOP entrance does not imply the exit at the top of the head and one head wound. The open skull autopsy photo shows two skull wounds, a presumed entrance near the EOP and bevelled half hole, presumably an exit, heading the opposite direction a few inches above it. You could argue that the bullet changed directions 180 degrees, but I think it is more logical to assume there were two head shots: one which entered low near the EOP and another tangential, or gutter wound, which hit the front right side of his head and exited near the top rear. See Pat's chapter 16b. The two shot hypothesis is consistent with the autopsy doctor's brain observations of two different bullet tracks, although it contradicts their conclusions. See: https://home.comcast...ield/riley.html https://home.comcast...eld/riley2.html Given what we know about what happened at Bethesda, it seemed like a chaotic rush job, as opposed to an exercise planned well in advance. Given that situation, isn't it easier to assume that the Bethesda doctors honestly reported most of their observations, but then changed the conclusion of their report to match the political pressure, than to assume that they spent hours photographing and X-raying decoy corpses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 (edited) I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA.... "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA David, Just how hard would it be to take a picture of an altered picture? I myself,don`t believe this to be the case.I honestly feel that the HSCA was not being truthful in their statement. Edited October 10, 2015 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 It's easy to be a cynic and say all the autopsy photos and X-rays are faked. But those that due have the burden of explaining the fakes. How do you account for the intact scalp in the back of the head photo? By saying that there was an orange sized hole but the skin was a large intact flap? Or by claiming it's a different body? I think it is more reasonable to start with the existing autopsy evidence and see to what degree it is consistent with the observations by the autopsy and Bethesda doctors and observers. Given the vagaries of eyewitness testimony, nothing will ever be 100% consistent with everyone's recollections, but I think Pat has done a great job pulling all the evidence together in such a way that it explains most of the observations. Before attacking the post, I would encourage you to read his much deeper analysis at PatSpeer.com. To address Robert Prudhomme's questions, an EOP entrance does not imply the exit at the top of the head and one head wound. The open skull autopsy photo shows two skull wounds, a presumed entrance near the EOP and bevelled half hole, presumably an exit, heading the opposite direction a few inches above it. You could argue that the bullet changed directions 180 degrees, but I think it is more logical to assume there were two head shots: one which entered low near the EOP and another tangential, or gutter wound, which hit the front right side of his head and exited near the top rear. See Pat's chapter 16b. The two shot hypothesis is consistent with the autopsy doctor's brain observations of two different bullet tracks, although it contradicts their conclusions. See: https://home.comcast...ield/riley.html https://home.comcast...eld/riley2.html Given what we know about what happened at Bethesda, it seemed like a chaotic rush job, as opposed to an exercise planned well in advance. Given that situation, isn't it easier to assume that the Bethesda doctors honestly reported most of their observations, but then changed the conclusion of their report to match the political pressure, than to assume that they spent hours photographing and X-raying decoy corpses? Are you a spokesman for Pat Speer? I don't quite follow your explanation. On one hand, you are placing the burden of proof on those disagreeing with the autopsy conclusions, regarding the large exit wound just above and to the right of the EOP. Then, in the next paragraph, you state this, "The open skull autopsy photo shows two skull wounds, a presumed entrance near the EOP and bevelled half hole, presumably an exit, heading the opposite direction a few inches above it." I've looked at the back of head autopsy photo many times and, try as I might, I cannot see an exit wound "a few inches" above a location near the EOP. Perhaps you could define for us what you mean by "a few inches". I don't give a damn how much of a "chaotic rush job" the autopsy was. If they could find a quarter inch entrance wound near the EOP, they certainly had no trouble finding an orange sized exit wound just above it. P.S. The so called "bevelled half hole" was actually a quarter inch hole, and a skull fragment brought in to Humes had the matching half for that hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Prudhomme Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 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? WELL??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 Mr. Prudhomme, go to YouTube and pull up the Z-film. Concentrate on the film AFTER Z-313. Watch the various positions of JFK's head. Now assume, for the sake of this little exercise, that the head wound Pat Speer is talking about, actually occurred as he says it did. At what point could a shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD enter JFK's skull at the lower hairline and exit through the top of the head? I suggest such a wound could NOT have been from a bullet fired from the 6th floor. So help me try to figure where such a shot could have originated. Sure, it would've been from behind the limo...but since JFK didn't fall either straight forward, or slightly to the right, then the shot would also have to had been fired from somewhere to the right of the limo. Suspend your disbelief for a brief moment. Given the nature of the wound as described by Mr. Speer... do we agree that this is the ONLY way such a scenario is possible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Curme Posted October 11, 2015 Share Posted October 11, 2015 It looks like Robert and Mark and I are in at least partial agreement. Robert sees the beveled hole (presumably of exit) in the open cranium photo, and on page one of this post you can see the EOP hole below it, by perhaps a few inches; it's hard to tell exact distances in a photo such as that. I'm sorry if you felt I was speaking for Pat Speer; I am just excited by his research and wanted those who are interested to read more of his analysis on his web site. With respect to the burden of proof issue, it's not important if people just want to argue. But if you want to uncover the truth of the assassination, I feel it's important to explain the evidence. It is certainly possible that the back of head photo was a photo of a painting, but I think that painting would be extremely hard to execute, because we have two back of head photos (See Extreme Close Up gif: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster) How would an artist draw all those hairs from slightly different perspectives? With respect to Mark's question, the EOP bullet seems to have taken a straight track across the bottom of the brain and ended up in back of the eye socket. Not sure where that shooter was; it depends on when he was hit, which we don't know. Maybe Daltex building at Z 313, just before the frontal shot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 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. A) the list on your website is just what i'm looking for. um, i don't know about you, but it's pretty obvious to me that some of these people are describing where the bullet struck the Pres (Kilduff's words at the time of that photo make this very clear) and others are describing a more visible gaping wound. the fact that some use a single finger strengthen this idea. so i see little discrepancy in these myriad pics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 12, 2015 Share Posted October 12, 2015 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. from 18b ...As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the right temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound. And not only them, but Malcolm Kilduff himself. A 10-26-77 article found in the Michigan City News-Dispatch reveals that upon his arrival at Parkland Hospital, Kilduff observed Kennedy’s head wound, and that, according to Kilduff “His head was just a mass of blood...It looked like hamburger meat." While the location of the wound observed by Kilduff is far from clear, it seems likely that, if he felt it was somewhere other than the right temple, he would have questioned Burkley's claim it was by the temple. This is supported, moreover, by Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head." No offense, Pat, but - that's some real serious irresponsible and illogical writing. I'm not quite sure how you get from one assumption to another. but i still respect the energy you put in, just maybe not so much your conclusions... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 13, 2015 Share Posted October 13, 2015 I disagree, Ron. And so did the HSCA.... "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." -- HSCA David, Just how hard would it be to take a picture of an altered picture? I myself,don`t believe this to be the case.I honestly feel that the HSCA was not being truthful in their statement. Relying on the veracity of the HSCA is a lot like relying on that of the Priests in Salem, Massachusetts. Sure, there are those who still wish to see if witches can float, but for the most part they're placed at the kid's table when the adults come over. And ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted October 13, 2015 Author Share Posted October 13, 2015 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. from 18b ...As Dr. Burkley had seen Kennedy in the Dallas emergency room and was later to tell the HSCA that Kennedy’s wounds didn’t change between Dallas and Bethesda, the site of the autopsy, Kilduff’s statements are a clear indication that the large head wound depicted in the autopsy photos is in the same location as the large head wound seen at Parkland Hospital. That no one at the time of Kilduff's statement had noted a separate bullet entrance anywhere on Kennedy's head, moreover, suggests that Burkley had seen but one wound, a wound by the right temple, exactly where Newman and his wife had seen a wound. And not only them, but Malcolm Kilduff himself. A 10-26-77 article found in the Michigan City News-Dispatch reveals that upon his arrival at Parkland Hospital, Kilduff observed Kennedy’s head wound, and that, according to Kilduff “His head was just a mass of blood...It looked like hamburger meat." While the location of the wound observed by Kilduff is far from clear, it seems likely that, if he felt it was somewhere other than the right temple, he would have questioned Burkley's claim it was by the temple. This is supported, moreover, by Kilduff's subsequent statements to Gary Mack, in which he confirmed that when he pointed to his temple during the 11-22-63 press conference he was pointing to, in Mack's words, "where the big hole was on Kennedy's head." No offense, Pat, but - that's some real serious irresponsible and illogical writing. I'm not quite sure how you get from one assumption to another. but i still respect the energy you put in, just maybe not so much your conclusions... What's irresponsible about it? A lot of CTs assume that when Kilduff pointed towards his temple he was pointing to the location of a small entrance wound that led to a large exit wound on the back of the head. That's hogwash. 1. No one at Parkland had noticed such a wound. 2. Kilduff specifically denied he was pointing out such a wound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 (edited) 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. o o o 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. o o o The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm (Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.) Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time. It's obvious to me that initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence over time. It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable witnesses when it comes to the wounds they see. Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination. The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe. Edited October 15, 2015 by Sandy Larsen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 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. o o o 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. o o o The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm (Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.) Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time. It's obvious to me that -- on average -- initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence. It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable ones when it comes to the wounds they saw. Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination. The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe. Thank you, Sandy, for getting my point. That's what i'm looking to compile, strictly a comparison of testimonies of where anyone saw what kind of wound, knowing good and well that the vast majority will show [i dunno, what do you think?] and that the initial impressions would carry more weight than the 'filtered' impressions. and thanks for the link. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Nall Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 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. o o o 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. o o o The best, most comprehensive list I've seen of medical professionals who witnessed the gaping head wound is the one written by Dr. Aguliar in his 1994 article titled "John F. Kennedy's Fatal Wounds: The Witnesses and Interpretations from 1963 to the Present: http://www.assassinationweb.com/ag6.htm (Maybe it covers other wounds as well... I don't recall.) Nearly all 46 of these Parkland and Bethesda witnesses initially described the gaping hole as being located at the right rear of the head. Though a number of them changed their minds later on, for example after viewing the autopsy photos. (Who wouldn't, after seeing the back-of-head autopsy photo? Oh yeah... the ones with true conviction, those who place more value in integrity than in "going along." IMO) Aguliar's list documents when and how these witnesses changed their testimony over time. It's obvious to me that -- on average -- initial testimony is more likely to describe the truth than is later testimony, given that it can be colored by external influence. It's also obvious to me that medical professionals would be highly reliable ones when it comes to the wounds they saw. Because of these factors I determined some time ago that the gaping hole indeed must have been where most the medical professionals placed it. And that anything or anybody suggesting otherwise is suspect. Therefore, the autopsy doctors must be wrong, and the back of head photo must be wrong. For me that's a hell of a lot easier to believe than 40 medical professionals being wrong, especially given the extremely suspicious nature of the assassination. The autopsy doctors are wrong because they followed the orders of corrupt superior officers. The back-of-head photo is wrong because it has been altered or fabricated. Neither of these statements is hard for me to believe. wow. great resource for some obscure stuff. thanks again. 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