10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

[Robert Prudhomme]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that the perspective this photo is taken from is actually quite misleading? JFK's head is tilted back quite severely, and this has the effect of shortening the neck; making the entrance wound appear much closer to the scalp line and, hence, higher on the neck (the area of C7/T1).

However, in the photo, we can make out the outline of the scapula (shoulder blade) adjacent to the entrance wound, and even the crested top of the scapula, which appears to be slightly higher than the entrance wound.

If we look at this anatomical diagram, this location actually puts the level of the entrance wound at thoracic vertebra T3; exactly where the death certificate said it was.

The thoracic vertebrae are distinguishable from the cervical (neck) vertebrae by the fact you can see the ends of the ribs attached to the thoracic vertebrae. Vertebra T3 is the 3rd one down from the neck with ribs attached to it.

Looks like about T 8 to me. it's below the bottom point of the scapula. the scapula extends from T2 to T7 and it's slightly below that.

You're joking, right?

[Robert Prudhomme]

[Glenn Nall]

There have been a lot of words posted on this thread regarding what Pat Speer has concluded. Many of you are castigating Mr. Speer for using the evidence we were given by the WC, claiming that the evidence doesn't accurately represent the truth.

But let's look at this from a different angle.

What Pat Speer has done is to take the evidence we were given--flawed or not--and use it to show that, even with their own evidence, the conclusions of the WC are unsupportable. Mr. Speer has educated himself in many different areas of anatomy and physiology, and other areas of scientific analysis, and used that knowledge to show that the conclusions of the WC are dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst.

What a back-assward way to approach the evidence.

Mark, it would be one thing for Pat Speer to declare that even with their own fraudulent evidence the WC conclusions are untenable -- but Pat insists the improperly prepared autopsy evidence is infallible!

How many violations of autopsy protocol were involved in the BOH photo and the written-in-pen "measurements"?

More than a half-dozen!

Does it make sense to declare such evidence infallible when it is repeatedly contradicted by the physical evidence, the witness testimony, and the properly prepared medical documents?

Please explain the logic here, Mark, because I know Pat can't.

Mark, this is another waste of air. You gave it an admirable attempt, but to no avail. He'll be insulting Pat's family next...

don't waste your time.

The only person on this thread who has tried to make this personal is YOU.

If you can't argue a fact why do you post at all?

YOU are the type of person this Forum tried to lose -- all you do is xxxxx personalities.

fabulously untrue. I simply speak my mind to arguers. Mark tried to inject some civility into your discourse, to no avail. You couldn't see it.

i don't tr*ll, i block arguers and rude people. I boycotted and then blocked Mr Von Pein because he didn't know how to be civil and still argue, as neither do you. If this had been me you're attacking, i'd have already blocked you, too.

I didn't make it personal. it was personal when you began your attack A WEEK AGO.

[Cliff Varnell]

Glenn, if you can't tell the difference between a critique of someone's ideas and a personal attack -- what business do you have here?

Pat Speer has repeatedly stated JFK had a wound in his back at T1.

This is incorrect. JFK was provably shot in the back at T3 -- a major distniction

To attack this mis-information about the T3 back wound with a fact-based argument is what this forum is all about.

Funny how you never bring anything of substance to the discussion, Glenn...

[Pat Speer]

A simple question, Cliff: is the back wound on the Fox 5 photo below or above the level of Kennedy's throat wound?

T3 is well below the throat wound -- obviously!

I fail to see the value in discussing a wound that never existed.

When are you going to demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar dropped into an elevated position?

How predictable. It appears to me that you know full well that the wound in that photograph is below the level of the throat wound, and that this makes the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion darned near impossible, if not totally impossible.

And it appears to me that you know full well that it makes no sense to most people that "they" would fake evidence which proves there was more than one shooter. So you avoid this like the plague.

Well, this suggests to me that you and I are quite different kinds of punk rockers, Cliff. I am more like the Clash--I have an agenda--showing how the evidence is at odds with the single-assassin conclusion. And you are more like the Sex Pistols--spreading chaos and anarchy for its own sake.

I like both bands, Cliff. But playing "Anarchy on the U.K Education Forum" every fourth song has gotten a bit tedious, no?

[Don Jeffries]

Pat, of course the back wound on the Fox photo is lower than the throat wound, but the location best supported by the evidence is even lower, and thus demolishes the official shooting scenario more effectively.

The only evidence for the higher back location is highly suspect, because it also shows the intact back of JFK's head. I know you discount all the medical people who reported seeing a huge blowout in the back of JFK's head, but not that many researchers (outside of LNers) do.

[Robert Prudhomme]

As the T1 vertebra is below the level of JFK's throat wound, it may seem to be a small matter to most readers whether the bullet entered JFK's back at the level of T1 vertebra or T3 vertebra. In fact, it makes a great deal of difference.

At the level of T1, a bullet entering JFK's back 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline has a very good chance of just missing the top of JFK's right lung.

At the level of T3, a bullet entering JFK's back 1.5-2 inches to the right of the spinal midline has nowhere to go but into the top of JFK's right lung.

As there was no exit wound on the front of JFK's chest, and as I believe the myth of the shallow entrance wound on JFK's back to be a physical impossibility, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from this is the bullet that entered JFK's back was a frangible bullet that completely disintegrated to metal powder a couple of inches into JFK's right lung, coming to a complete halt at this point and not exiting the front of his chest.

The same type of bullet(s) entered JFK's skull, and their disintegration explains the trail of dust like metal particles seen on x-rays of JFK's skull.

While the public might believe a full metal jacket bullet could disintegrate into dust inside of JFK's skull (another physical impossibility) there is no way even the most gullible member of the public would accept such disintegration of a FMJ bullet in a lung.

As LHO would not have had access to frangible bullets, it was necessary to cover up the true nature of the back wound. Should the nature of the back wound, and the bullet that caused it become known, the investigation into the source of these frangible bullets would lead directly to either the Army or the CIA.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Cliff Varnell]

A simple question, Cliff: is the back wound on the Fox 5 photo below or above the level of Kennedy's throat wound?

T3 is well below the throat wound -- obviously!

I fail to see the value in discussing a wound that never existed.

When are you going to demonstrate how JFK's jacket collar dropped into an elevated position?

How predictable.

When you aren't misrepresenting the clothing evidence you are ignoring it.

How predictable...

It appears to me that you know full well that the wound in that photograph is below the level of the throat wound, and that this makes the single-bullet theory and single-assassin conclusion darned near impossible, if not totally impossible.

Pat, this is utterly irrelevant.

It couldn't be more irrelevant.

The back wound was at T3 -- provably.

Why are you taking something obvious and turning it into something marginally debatable?

I don't get it.

We're waaaaay beyond the SBT, Pat.

And it appears to me that you know full well that it makes no sense to most people that "they" would fake evidence which proves there was more than one shooter.

Here is where you are making a fatal assumption.

You put yourself into the minds of the conspirators and declare your reasoning infallible.

How do you know the conspirators weren't winging it, operating under a time constraint with no chance for micro-analysis?

How do you know they didn't WANT to ultimately prove conspiracy?

You assume the cover-up was competent.

That's the root flaw of your study -- you have the presumed competency of the cover-up as your subtext.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

As LHO would not have had access to frangible bullets, it was necessary to cover up the true nature of the back wound. Should the nature of the back wound, and the bullet that caused it become known, the investigation into the source of these frangible bullets would lead directly to either the Army or the CIA.

Why would the conspirators want to inflict upon JFK a back wound the nature of which it would be necessary to cover up? Why not just shoot him in the back with a FMJ bullet?

[Robert Prudhomme]

As LHO would not have had access to frangible bullets, it was necessary to cover up the true nature of the back wound. Should the nature of the back wound, and the bullet that caused it become known, the investigation into the source of these frangible bullets would lead directly to either the Army or the CIA.

Why would the conspirators want to inflict upon JFK a back wound the nature of which it would be necessary to cover up? Why not just shoot him in the back with a FMJ bullet?

A FMJ bullet likely would have gone straight through JFK's chest and caused little damage. The same bullet also stood a good chance of going through his skull and making a lot less damage than the bullet(s) that actually hit his skull.

Frankly, I don't really believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back in the first place. I believe all shots were aimed at his head, and the one that entered his back missed.

[Ron Ecker]

Frankly, I don't really believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back in the first place. I believe all shots were aimed at his head, and the one that entered his back missed.

That certainly makes sense. Also it's pretty cowardly to shoot a man in the back. Real men aim for the head.

[Cliff Varnell]

Frankly, I don't really believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back in the first place. I believe all shots were aimed at his head, and the one that entered his back missed.

That certainly makes sense. Also it's pretty cowardly to shoot a man in the back. Real men aim for the head.

I suspect every shot was precise.

This is the First-Shot-Paralytic Scenario, as opposed to the First-Shot/Kill-Shot Scenario.

The first shot was perfectly placed in the throat, the second shot was a square hit, and then the multiple head shots.

First shot paralytic, second shot toxin, third volley for good measure.

The second shot had to be a kill shot, and it didn't miss at all.

Or so I suspect.

Otherwise, you have nothing but missed shots and short loads 'til the head shot/s....

Edited August 12, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Ron Ecker]

I suspect every shot was precise.

This is the First-Shot-Paralytic Scenario, as opposed to the First-Shot/Kill-Shot Scenario.

The first shot was perfectly placed in the throat, the second shot was a square hit, and then the multiple head shots.

First shot paralytic, second shot toxin, third volley for good measure.

The second shot had to be a kill shot, and it didn't miss at all.

Or so I suspect.

Otherwise, you have nothing but missed shots and short loads 'til the head shot/s....

If you think the first shot was paralytic as would be the case with an umbrella paralytic dart gun, don't you think it's quite a coincidence that at that moment on the sidewalk nearby a man was fiddling around with an open umbrella?

[Robert Prudhomme]

Frankly, I don't really believe anyone intended to shoot JFK in the back in the first place. I believe all shots were aimed at his head, and the one that entered his back missed.

That certainly makes sense. Also it's pretty cowardly to shoot a man in the back. Real men aim for the head.

I suspect every shot was precise.

This is the First-Shot-Paralytic Scenario, as opposed to the First-Shot/Kill-Shot Scenario.

The first shot was perfectly placed in the throat, the second shot was a square hit, and then the multiple head shots.

First shot paralytic, second shot toxin, third volley for good measure.

The second shot had to be a kill shot, and it didn't miss at all.

Or so I suspect.

Otherwise, you have nothing but missed shots and short loads 'til the head shot/s....

I maintain that the "short shot" was a fabrication, and that it could not have occurred. If you can prove me wrong, show me your math.

[Pat Speer]

Pat, of course the back wound on the Fox photo is lower than the throat wound, but the location best supported by the evidence is even lower, and thus demolishes the official shooting scenario more effectively.

The only evidence for the higher back location is highly suspect, because it also shows the intact back of JFK's head. I know you discount all the medical people who reported seeing a huge blowout in the back of JFK's head, but not that many researchers (outside of LNers) do.

When one studies the timeline, Don, it seems obvious that there was no cover-up of the head wound location in the early days of the shooting, when Fox made his copies. By early '64, however, the back wound location was known to be a problem. It was then and only then that the Rydberg drawings were created in which the back wound was now a base of the neck wound.

While one might say Fox was part of the plot, and that he leaked the photos to Crouch to sell that there was no wound on the back of the head, it seems mighty strange that these same photos would prove the WC lied about the back wound location. I don't buy it.

While Cliff and yourself might think the government faked evidence which proved there had been more than one shooter, I don't find that credible at all. My study of the evidence indicates that, while some of the physical evidence against Oswald obtained by the DPD may have been phonied up, the evidence obtained by the Feds is legit, only misrepresented and lied about. Take for example, the wound ballistics tests. They showed that Kennedy's and Connally's wounds could only be replicated by a sub-sonic bullet. But Specter and Olivier spun it into their supporting the single-bullet theory. And this is not an isolated incident. Take, as another example, the May 24 re-enactment. The re-enactment did not support the SBT. So Kelley told Specter the jump seat was 6 inches inboard of the door when it was only 2 and a half. And Specter pretended the chalk mark used during the re-enactment was at the base of the neck, where the wound is shown in the Rydberg drawings. He then got Shaneyfelt to say the trajectory approximated this position. In short, they didn't need to fake anything. They just lied.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Pat Speer