Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer's website- outstanding (interesting Salyer question, though)


Vince Palamara
 Share

Recommended Posts

First, let me say that Pat Speer's website is very informative and-dare I say it- entertaining; great stuff. In fact, Pat is someone I unabashedly admire. I may be an expert on the Secret Service angle of the case (and above-average on the medical side) but Pat is a savant--a genius---with regard to the entire case! If DVP ever has you disillusioned, go to Pat's website: it totally debunks, 100 percent, anything DVP writes.

That said, one thing intrigues me.

http://www.patspeer.com/the-onslaught

November 16 entry-"Only one Parkland doctor is interviewed, Dr. Kenneth Salyer. Salyer describes the large head wound as an "obvious severe injury of the right head and cranium." This sidesteps, of course, that most of his colleagues initially believed the wound was on the back of the head."

I thought Sayler is now being trumpeted about as the final truth on JFK's head wound ?

Also- the doctors are on record as having picked up the head and having inspected the head wound at Parkland, so the blood-all-rushed-to-the-rear excuses are lame. See my latest book.

Vince

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with Vince. I've always been impressed with Pat's level of commitment and dedication he put into his site. I've read it several times, especially those times where I'm looking for something new on the JFK case, can't find and just revert back to his site. I especially love the way he completely exposed Dale Myers' hilariously bad 3D animation sequence for the fraud it (and he) are, yet every single time Myers appears somewhere, he just has to pose in front of his bright and shiny Emmy award.

I've worked in multimedia development for 28 years and I have 3 awards too that sit on my desk. Yes, I'm proud that my work has been recognized but I don't pose holding them in holiday or vacation photos :)

Anyway, there are some things I don't agree with on Pat's site, for example, he believes that shots were fired before John Kennedy disappears behind the freeway sign. I, on the other hand, believe that no shots were fired until you first see Kennedy appear from behind the sign. But as the saying goes, we can agree to disagree.

But a great site by Pat and great videos he produced too. I'd love to take Pat's content and create a brand new visually interesting website for him :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur with Vince. I've always been impressed with Pat's level of commitment and dedication he put into his site. I've read it several times, especially those times where I'm looking for something new on the JFK case, can't find and just revert back to his site. I especially love the way he completely exposed Dale Myers' hilariously bad 3D animation sequence for the fraud it (and he) are, yet every single time Myers appears somewhere, he just has to pose in front of his bright and shiny Emmy award.

I've worked in multimedia development for 28 years and I have 3 awards too that sit on my desk. Yes, I'm proud that my work has been recognized but I don't pose holding them in holiday or vacation photos :)

Anyway, there are some things I don't agree with on Pat's site, for example, he believes that shots were fired before John Kennedy disappears behind the freeway sign. I, on the other hand, believe that no shots were fired until you first see Kennedy appear from behind the sign. But as the saying goes, we can agree to disagree.

But a great site by Pat and great videos he produced too. I'd love to take Pat's content and create a brand new visually interesting website for him :)

visually interesting? Z313 is "visually interesting." The question is: WHO and WHY?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, let me say that Pat Speer's website is very informative and-dare I say it- entertaining; great stuff. In fact, Pat is someone I unabashedly admire. I may be an expert on the Secret Service angle of the case (and above-average on the medical side) but Pat is a savant--a genius---with regard to the entire case! If DVP ever has you disillusioned, go to Pat's website: it totally debunks, 100 percent, anything DVP writes.

That said, one thing intrigues me.

http://www.patspeer.com/the-onslaught

November 16 entry-"Only one Parkland doctor is interviewed, Dr. Kenneth Salyer. Salyer describes the large head wound as an "obvious severe injury of the right head and cranium." This sidesteps, of course, that most of his colleagues initially believed the wound was on the back of the head."

I thought Sayler is now being trumpeted about as the final truth on JFK's head wound ?

Also- the doctors are on record as having picked up the head and having inspected the head wound at Parkland, so the blood-all-rushed-to-the-rear excuses are lame. See my latest book.

Vince

Sorry, Vince, I was away for the holidays.

While I believe Salyer is correct about the location of the large head wound being on the top right side of the head, as opposed to the far back of the head, I would never say the recollections of any one or two or three or ten or fifteen witnesses are the "final truth" on the head wound. There are those, however, who claim "all" the Parkland witnesses noted a wound on the far back of the head. Well, this is a horrible lie, and always has been, and Salyer is the living proof of it. So, in that regard, he is an important witness. But no, by no means is he the final word.

So then why did I criticize a TV program for featuring Salyer, and having him describe the head wound? Well, the point of my chapters on "The Onslaught" was to note and record bias where detected in the media's response to the 50th anniversary of the assassination. And presenting Salyer as the sole Parkland witness without noting that many of his colleagues had a different interpretation of the wounds was a clear example of bias, IMO. I tried to be even-handed on this issue. There was another program that had a mix of CT and LN talking heads, but allowed Groden to claim without challenge that he'd talked to 80 eyewitnesses to Kennedy's body--all of whom said the wound was on the back of the head. Well, I scored this one as having a CT bias.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...