Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Mr. Homer A. McMahon, Head of the NPIC Color Lab in 1963 stated that after watching the original 16mm film he estimated 6 to 8 shots were fired.

“Homer McMahon consistently claimed that he had enlarged individual frames from the original film, and that he recalled it was a 16 mm wide unslit double 8 home movie. During the first McMahon interview, he stated he was “sure we had the original film,” because “we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation.” McMahon confirmed this recollection of an unslit double 8 home movie with opposing image strips during his in-person interview which was tape recorded on July 14, 1997…”

“…Although McMahon personally thought he saw JFK reacting to 6 to 8 shots fired from at least three directions, he said that the Secret Service agent arrived with his mind made up that only three shots had been fired, and that they all came from the Texas School Book Depository, behind the limousine.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 142
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find Ms. Cranor's criticism of Pat Speer's arguments quite surprising. Ms. Cranor published an excellent article entitled The Third Wound in the Kennedy Assassination Chronicles. In that article she entertained the possibility that a bullet entered near JKF's hairline and travelled down his neck to exit the front of his throat. She also mentions the semicircular bevelled hole near the top of the head which can be seen in the mystery photo and suggests that it is either an exit wound or perhaps a tangential entrance wound. This is almost exactly what Speer describes on his web site; the only difference that I can see is that Ms. Cranor suggests the entrance was below the EOP in the neck, while Pat Speer, relying on the obviously visible EOP hole in the skull in the mystery photo places the entrance exactly where the autopsy doctors first located it. The only other major difference is that Mr. Speer emphasizes the bevelled hole as a tangential entrance wound while Ms. Cranor suggests it could be either a tangential entrance wound or an exit wound. Perhaps there are other differences with respect to the degree of scalp absence but these seem to be secondary considerations.

I appreciate Michael Walton's GIF published above and I'm pleased to see that many researchers are starting to come around to the scenario as outlined by both Ms. Cranor and Mr. Speer.

Millicent Cranor's response to Ollie Curme follows.

=====================================

To Oliver D. Curme:

Thank you for providing – in writing – your unique interpretation of my comments. This is useful to our research. The people I hear from say they have had no problem understanding what I wrote about Pat Speer and they say they find your reaction to it instructive.

What I criticize: Speer’s deceptive methods – not his theories. This post contains only a small sampling of these methods.

My position: Kennedy’s head wound was extensive, and included the top right, side, and back of the head, to an area just above the EOP.

Basis for my position: Statements from qualified witnesses who saw the most.

Speer’s position: The head wound was “primarily a temporal wound.”

Basis for Speer’s position: ( a ) Suspect autopsy photographs and X-rays “authenticated” by a company closely associated with a suspect organization, the CIA; ( b ) misrepresented statements from the autopsy report; ( c ) statements from the least qualified witnesses who saw the least ( d ) misrepresented statements from the most qualified witnesses who saw the most.

It would be pointless to discuss item ( a ). I have already commented on item ( b ) which you apparently did not understand, and so I will give you a sample from items ( c ) and ( d ):

USES LEAST INFORMED WITNESSES

Speer promotes the views of Kenneth Salyer, a Parkland doctor who recently claims, with great confidence, that the wound was confined to the right temple He wasn’t always so confident. (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve)

Is Salyer qualified to say the wound was confined to the right temple only? Take a good look at his more candid remarks made under oath to the Warren Commission. How well did he see the wound? Notice all the qualifiers – other doctors were in the way, they were more close to JFK; he was on the left side -- not on the side of the wound; and he used the words “seemed to be” and “at least from the point of view that I could see him.”

Asked what exactly he saw of the head wound, he said:

"I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that—nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound—cranial wound.” (Vol 6 WCH, p 81)

What was that point of view, and why was it so limiting? It is clear from his response to questions about the throat wound:

“… I think there were a lot of people – a lot of doctors more closely around him… right after I arrived, Dr. Clark and Dr. Grossman also arrived”

“There were a lot of doctors standing around and I didn’t really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.”

Obviously, Kenneth Salyer is not qualified to comment on the full extent of the wound – but you would not learn that from Pat Speer. (Speer also quotes Elm Street witnesses, all of whom saw the more spectacular damage on the top right side of the head – but none of whom ruled out damage in the back. And they all hit the ground right after the head shots were fired, so they were hardly in a position to assess all the damage.)

MISREPRESENTS MOST QUALIFIED PARKLAND DOCTOR

William Kemp Clark, the chief neurosurgeon, was the most qualified of the Parkland doctors, and he obtained the closest look at hole in JFK’s head. From his position behind JFK, he looked through the hole in the skull at the brain. Testifying on the brain damage, he mentioned occipital lobes, parietal lobes, and cerebellum.

Clark also described where the large defect was in relation to the entrance wound, which he was told was just above the EOP and 2.5cm to the right of it. Clark said the larger wound was “above such a wound [the entrance] and lateral to it.” (Vol VI WCH, p.25)

The following paragraph shows how Speer completely misconstrues Clark’s testimony. I’m reproducing it here intact, and comment on it further below.

He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP, and more than an inch to its right. Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir." When brought back four days later, and asked about a February 20 article in the French paper L'Express, where it was claimed he'd told the New York Times the first bullet entered at the knot of Kennedy's tie and penetrated Kennedy's chest, and that the second bullet hit "the right side of his head" and caused a "tangential" wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report.

1. “He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP…”

Yes, but because the large wound was also “lateral to it” that means the lower part of it began at a level “just above” the EOP. In other words, LOW

2. “and more than an inch to its right.”

Clark just said it was “lateral” to it – he did not describe the direction. This could mean either to the right -- or to the left of it (as long as it stayed on the right side of the skull). If the lower portion of the defect was a narrow area, it would have fit on either side of the alleged entrance wound.

3. “Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone.”

Well above? Absolutely false. What is unclear is the upper border of the rim, not the lower border.

4. “Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir."

Once again, Speer omits an important qualifier; that the question was posed hypothetically and if Clark “assumed the additional facts I have brought to your attention.”

5. “When brought back four days later…[Clark said] the second bullet hit ‘the right side of his head’ and caused a ‘tangential’ wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report.”

Top right side? Clark never said, nor implied, “top.” He never indicated where the upper border was, though, clearly he was aware that the defect included parietal bone. But Clark did indicate the lowest border was in an area “just above” the EOP. That is certainly low.

Speer also implied Clark just couldn’t remember what he saw since he took no notes in the ER, that when he wrote his report, he somehow imagined the wound had included occipital bone, instead of occipital.

I note that he does not question the memory of Kenneth Salyer, who neither took notes nor even saw the wound very well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am just a bystander in all this. In my review of Horne I said that the medical evidence in this case is such a mess that you can chart out about five different positions on it, ranging from Oswald did it to the Lifton-Horne thesis.

But as I have said several time before, I don't think anyone knows the medical evidence in this case better than Cranor does. I am proud of the fact that she wrote several articles for us at Probe.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My name's on the thread, so I guess I have to keep responding until it runs out of gas. My comments in bold.

Millicent Cranor's response to Ollie Curme follows.

=====================================

To Oliver D. Curme:

Thank you for providing – in writing – your unique interpretation of my comments. This is useful to our research. The people I hear from say they have had no problem understanding what I wrote about Pat Speer and they say they find your reaction to it instructive.

What I criticize: Speer’s deceptive methods – not his theories. This post contains only a small sampling of these methods.

MY RESPONSE: Balderdash! Chapters 18c and 18d--the chapters Ms. Cranor is flipping out over--discuss why I personally have come to believe the autopsy photo of the back of the head is legitimate. It is clearly this position that has upset her to no end. 18c examines the statements of the various eyewitneses to the head wound, and demonstrates that the statements of these witnesses have been spun to suggest the wound was LOW on the back of the head. Even so, I end up concluding that the statements of the witnesses, when taken in sum, suggest a wound further back on the skull than shown in the autopsy photos. In chapter 18d, I discuss reasons why this could be, and review the statements and attitudes of the key Parkland witnesses, most of whom ended up saying they thought the autopsy photos were legit.

My position: Kennedy’s head wound was extensive, and included the top right, side, and back of the head, to an area just above the EOP.

MY RESPONSE: I agree, but with the qualifier that the damaged skull at the back of the head was held together by the scalp. I'm fairly certain, based upon some of her statements, that Ms. Cranor thinks this area was blasted open, and was a gaping hole missing scalp and bone. If so, well, she needs to explain why the Parkland witnesses overwhelmingly described a much smaller wound than the one she describes.

Basis for my position: Statements from qualified witnesses who saw the most.

MY RESPONSE: Well, who decides who's qualified? This smells of cherry-picking. One of the main reasons I ended up siding with the authenticity of the autopsy photos was my reluctant discovery that the witnesses to the shooting itself (The Newmans, Zapruder, Hudson, etc.) overwhelmingly described the head wound as being by the temple, the ear, or right top of the head--where it s depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays. I got a little peeved, moreover, when I realized that these witnesses were deliberately excluded from the lists of witnesses published in the CT literature. Now, this brings me to another point. Ms. Cranor is all up in arms about me leaving some statement or another out of my discussion of the head wounds, but never said anything about the deliberate exclusion by others of some of the key witnesses to the wound, on the arbitrary basis that they weren't qualified. I mean, let's get serious. WIlliam Newman was staring at the back of Kennedy's head when he was shot, and went on TV moments later. He claimed, and his wife confirmed, that the large wound he saw, which he presumed to have been an entrance, was by Kennedy's right ear. And yet, to many CT writers, he's not qualified. Now look who is--Charles Crenshaw--a man who saw Kennedy lying on his back but for a brief moment, who said diddly about the wound for nearly thirty years. Now these writers will tell you that Crenshaw's "qualified" because he was a doctor. But we know better, now don't we? There is no study whatsoever indicating that the same hour memories of laymen are less accurate than the 30 year old memories of doctors, and everything I've ever read, which is quite a bit, on memory and cognition suggests the exact opposite.

Speer’s position: The head wound was “primarily a temporal wound.”

MY RESPONSE: This is not true. The quote Ms. Cranor provides comes from my summary of Kenneth Salyer's testimony. Hmm... Cherry-picking.... Taking words out of context... Isn't this the "crime" of which I've been accused? Physician, heal thyself.

Basis for Speer’s position: ( a ) Suspect autopsy photographs and X-rays “authenticated” by a company closely associated with a suspect organization, the CIA;

MY RESPONSE: I hope Ms. Cranor realizes that the vast majority of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses have also "authenticated" the photos, and that her close ally David Mantik has long insisted that the x-rays are those of Kennedy, but with a white patch added on the side view, and a 6.5 mm fragment added on the A-P view. As for myself, I am 99.99% convinced the autopsy photos and x-rays prove there was more than one shooter. As a consequence, I strongly doubt they're fake.

( b ) misrepresented statements from the autopsy report;

MY RESPONSE. Within the next few days, when things aren't so heated, I'll probably re-read chapter 18c and see if I did in fact misrepresent the autopsy report. As of today, I suspect Ms. Cranor is simply aghast that anyone could come to a different conclusion than herself, and is flailing.

( c ) statements from the least qualified witnesses who saw the least

MY RESPONSE: This smells like another dig at the Newmans, Douglas Jackson, Hurchel Jacks, etc.

( d ) misrepresented statements from the most qualified witnesses who saw the most.

MY RESPONSE: This is something I try to avoid. I'll see what she has to say.

It would be pointless to discuss item ( a ). I have already commented on item ( b ) which you apparently did not understand, and so I will give you a sample from items ( c ) and ( d ):

USES LEAST INFORMED WITNESSES

Speer promotes the views of Kenneth Salyer, a Parkland doctor who recently claims, with great confidence, that the wound was confined to the right temple He wasn’t always so confident. (http://www.patspeer.com/chapter18b%3Areasontobelieve)

Is Salyer qualified to say the wound was confined to the right temple only? Take a good look at his more candid remarks made under oath to the Warren Commission. How well did he see the wound? Notice all the qualifiers – other doctors were in the way, they were more close to JFK; he was on the left side -- not on the side of the wound; and he used the words “seemed to be” and “at least from the point of view that I could see him.”

Asked what exactly he saw of the head wound, he said:

"I came in on the left side of him and noticed that his major wound seemed to be in his right temporal area, at least from the point of view that I could see him, and other than that—nothing other than he did have a gaping scalp wound—cranial wound.” (Vol 6 WCH, p 81)

What was that point of view, and why was it so limiting? It is clear from his response to questions about the throat wound:

“… I think there were a lot of people – a lot of doctors more closely around him… right after I arrived, Dr. Clark and Dr. Grossman also arrived”

“There were a lot of doctors standing around and I didn’t really get to observe the nature of the wound in the throat.”

Obviously, Kenneth Salyer is not qualified to comment on the full extent of the wound – but you would not learn that from Pat Speer.

MY RESPONSE: This is a strange charge. I present the comments of a number of witnesses in chapters 18c and 18d, and Salyer receives no special treatment. I most certainly never claim he had x-ray vision while everyone else was blind, or some such thing. I first discuss Salyer because Groden presented a photo of Salyer pointing to the side of his head and claimed he was pointing to the back of his head. I later discuss Salyer while discussing what the Parkland witnesses actually said and believed as opposed to what many if not most CT writers claim they said and believed. Salyer was a surprise guest at the most recent Lancer Conference. He sat in a room full of CTs and told them there was no wound on the far back of the head. David Mantik was in the front row. He had just told the audience that there was a wound LOW on the back of the head, between the ears. He either fell asleep or pretended to sleep while Salyer was talking. In any event, he could not have been pleased with Salyer's surprise appearance. I suspect that's why Ms. Cranor finds my inclusion of Salyer so offensive.

(Speer also quotes Elm Street witnesses, all of whom saw the more spectacular damage on the top right side of the head – but none of whom ruled out damage in the back. And they all hit the ground right after the head shots were fired, so they were hardly in a position to assess all the damage.)

MY RESPONSE: This is incredibly weak, IMO. First of all, Ms. Cranor acknowledges that these witnesses did in fact see damage at the top right side of the head. I thank her for that. But she then inserts that none of them ruled out damage in the back. Well, what does that mean? Does it mean that none of them presumed to know the condition of the skull beneath the scalp? If so, I agree. But if it means that she thinks Bill and Gayle Newman, who were staring at the back of Kennedy's head from a distance of what? 20 feet or so, failed to see a large blow-out wound on the back of Kennedy's head because they were so distracted by the explosion by his ear, I beg to differ. That's just desperate, IMO. As far as the claim "they all hit the ground" after the head shots, well, that's just an exaggeration. I seem to remember one witness who saw the head wound through a viewfinder, and continued to focus on Kennedy until the limo disappeared under the overpass.

MISREPRESENTS MOST QUALIFIED PARKLAND DOCTOR

William Kemp Clark, the chief neurosurgeon, was the most qualified of the Parkland doctors, and he obtained the closest look at hole in JFK’s head. From his position behind JFK, he looked through the hole in the skull at the brain. Testifying on the brain damage, he mentioned occipital lobes, parietal lobes, and cerebellum.

Clark also described where the large defect was in relation to the entrance wound, which he was told was just above the EOP and 2.5cm to the right of it. Clark said the larger wound was “above such a wound [the entrance] and lateral to it.” (Vol VI WCH, p.25)

The following paragraph shows how Speer completely misconstrues Clark’s testimony. I’m reproducing it here intact, and comment on it further below.

He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP, and more than an inch to its right. Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone. Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir." When brought back four days later, and asked about a February 20 article in the French paper L'Express, where it was claimed he'd told the New York Times the first bullet entered at the knot of Kennedy's tie and penetrated Kennedy's chest, and that the second bullet hit "the right side of his head" and caused a "tangential" wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report.


1. “He had thereby claimed the wound he examined was entirely above the EOP…”

Yes, but because the large wound was also “lateral to it” that means the lower part of it began at a level “just above” the EOP. In other words, LOW

MY RESPONSE: My point was that the wound described by Clark was not the wound depicted in the McClelland drawing (which encompasses the EOP entrance) nor the wound pushed by Mantik (at the center of the back of the skull).

2. “and more than an inch to its right.”

Clark just said it was “lateral” to it – he did not describe the direction. This could mean either to the right -- or to the left of it (as long as it stayed on the right side of the skull). If the lower portion of the defect was a narrow area, it would have fit on either side of the alleged entrance wound.

MY RESPONSE: My understanding is that "lateral to it" means "toward the nearest side," which in this case would be the right side. If he'd meant to the left, or back toward the middle, he would have said "medial to it"

3. “Well, this would be well above and to the right of where so many theorists propose the wound to have been located. It would, in fact, rule out the Harper fragment's being occipital bone.”

Well above? Absolutely false. What is unclear is the upper border of the rim, not the lower border.

MY RESPONSE: I was thinking about the McClelland drawing. The wound described by Clark was incompatible with the drawing.

4. “Clark was then asked if his observations were consistent with the autopsy report's conclusion of a bullet entering near the EOP, and "exiting from the center of the President's skull." He replied: "Yes, sir."

Once again, Speer omits an important qualifier; that the question was posed hypothetically and if Clark “assumed the additional facts I have brought to your attention.”

5. “When brought back four days later…[Clark said] the second bullet hit ‘the right side of his head’ and caused a ‘tangential’ wound of both entrance and exit, furthermore, Clark disagreed with its characterization of his statements regarding the first bullet, but said nothing about its characterization of the second. In sum, then, while Clark's report and testimony suggest he saw a wound on the back of the head, a closer look at his testimony shows he was agreeable that this wound was at the top right side of the head, and consistent with the wound described in the autopsy report.”

Top right side? Clark never said, nor implied, “top.” He never indicated where the upper border was, though, clearly he was aware that the defect included parietal bone. But Clark did indicate the lowest border was in an area “just above” the EOP. That is certainly low.

MY RESPONSE: Clark never voiced disagreement with the autopsy protocol. As an experienced surgeon, he almost certainly knew that autopsy protocols are sometimes at odds with the recollections of emergency room personnel, and that that was why they had autopsies in the first place. In any event, subsequent to his testimony, he tried to avoid contact with the research community. He did provide assistance to Dr. Lattimer, however, and complained to a journalist about conspiracy writers out to make a buck by stirring up controversy. You may think he buddied up to Lattimer and denounced CT writers (presumably Livingstone and Lifton) because he was scared or a xxxx, but I think that's unjustified. Clark testified as to his recollections. His impression that the large head wound was a tangential wound is incredibly important, IMO. But that doesn't mean that his recollection of the wound's location should be taken as gospel.

Speer also implied Clark just couldn’t remember what he saw since he took no notes in the ER, that when he wrote his report, he somehow imagined the wound had included occipital bone, instead of occipital.

I note that he does not question the memory of Kenneth Salyer, who neither took notes nor even saw the wound very well.

MY RESPONSE: Unlike most researchers, who pick one or two favorite witnesses, and then argue that they couldn't be wrong, I question the memory of all the eyewitnesses. That is why I include the statements of so many of them on my website.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat - I think that Mr. Graves asked a pertinent question. Ultimately the only reason that a correct analysis of the wounds matters is if it helps us construct the details of the shooting. I'm not trying to derail the conflicting opinions being argued here about how to read the medical info or disinfo we have. But the only thing that really matters to me is who did it and why. I don't suspect any hidden agenda from you or Greg. But would you both do me/us the courtesy of briefly summarizing your findings as they relate to the kill zone - where did shots originate, how many shooters, the sequence of shots. Please....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't case dispersion on Pat Speer's motivations, and there is no question he's put a great deal of effort into researching this case. However, he is wedded to a contrarian theory on the head wound(s) and source of shots. Milicent Cranor has done a thorough job of demonstrating this.

No matter how many times Pat denies it, those of us who have been studying the evidence for decades are perfectly aware of what the Dallas medical personnel said. They described the same kind of massive blow-out to the back of the head, and this is something that is contradicted by the autopsy photos and x-rays. Either all those professionals were identically wrong, or the photos and x-rays are illegitimate. Given what we know regarding the destruction of evidence, distortion of evidence, lost evidence, mishandling of evidence, and the nature of the bogus autopsy itself, it is extremely naive to trust in the validity of those photos and x-rays.

If I understand correctly, Pat believes all the shots came from behind. This again contradicts everything we see in the films (JFK's reaction, witnesses flooding the knoll area, etc.) and most of the eyewitness testimony. Warren Commission critics have always relied to a great extent on the eyewitness testimony. This is in large measure due to the fact that all of the "evidence" used against Oswald was hopelessly tainted, by chain-of-possession problems alone. There was nothing normal, nothing proper, about the autopsy at Bethesda. This makes the initial descriptions from the Parkland doctors all the more important. Without their testimony, there is no massive hole in the back of JFK's head, and no entrance wound to the throat. Their testimony was absolutely crucial, and far more credible than anything that came out of Bethesda.

Trusting in the validity of the medical evidence leaves a great deal of powerful arguments out of the critical arsenal. So does accepting the HSCA's higher location for the back wound. There is no need to backtrack here. The mainstream media is not going to admit there was a conspiracy just because we swallow some of their bogus "evidence." Why senselessly dilute the debate? The evidence is overwhelming that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat - I think that Mr. Graves asked a pertinent question. Ultimately the only reason that a correct analysis of the wounds matters is if it helps us construct the details of the shooting. I'm not trying to derail the conflicting opinions being argued here about how to read the medical info or disinfo we have. But the only thing that really matters to me is who did it and why. I don't suspect any hidden agenda from you or Greg. But would you both do me/us the courtesy of briefly summarizing your findings as they relate to the kill zone - where did shots originate, how many shooters, the sequence of shots. Please....

I present a possible scenario in chapter 20. http://www.patspeer.com/chapter20%3Aconclusionsandconfusions%3A

Unlike Ms. Cranor, who seems to think that anyone who disagrees with her is some sort of scam artist, I recognize that people can come to different conclusions when looking at the same body of evidence. I don't believe that truth is relative, however, and feel quite certain that one can come to recognize facts when looking at a diverse collection of conflicting witness statements, etc. I suspect that this is at the center of her problem with me. In chapter 18c, I examine the statements of many of those viewing the head wound. There are two facts, IMO, that can be derived from such a study. One is that the eyewitnesses, when taken in sum, described a wound further back on the skull than is suggested by the autopsy photos. Two is that most CTs have been fooled into thinking this wound was low on the back of the head, in the location of the wound in the so-called McClelland drawing.

Now, from what I can gather, Ms. Cranor agrees that the McClelland drawing is inaccurate. This makes her sudden attack on me (regarding material available online for what? 5-6 years, at least) surprising. When one looks back on Ms. Cranor's history, however, it becomes less surprising. Her work was championed at an early stage by Dr. James Fetzer and Dr. David Mantik, with whom I've had my differences. In Assassination Science, they used her dubious claim of having once viewed an alternative version of the Zapruder film as evidence the film as we know it today was altered. I suspect, then, that Ms. Cranor sill feels loyal to them and that Dr.s Fetzer and Mantik are lurking somewhere in the back of all this.

So why strike now, you might ask? Well, last year, Dr. Mantik sought to end debate about the Harper fragment once and for all. He claims it was blown out from low on the back of Kennedy's head, from between his ears. Well, to me, this is ludicrous. Not only is this at odds with the recollections of the witnesses viewing Kennedy's head wound (as Ms. Cranor acknowledges), but it is at odds with anatomy 101. Here it is again.

mantikssemantics.jpg

Now imagine that you've spent decades studying the medical evidence, and that this study has led you to conclude a particular piece of bone derived from a particular area of Kennedy's skull, and that this proves the fatal shot came from the front.

And then some wise-ass without any letters after his name (who has proved you wrong in the past) comes along and posts the above image, which demonstrates, beyond any doubt, that the bone you claim is occipital bone bears no resemblance to the occipital bone. Now, this would make you angry, correct? And want to fight back, correct? Only you have no real response because the bone you claim is occipital bone does not in any way resemble occipital bone. So what do you do? You've already written a negative review of this guy's website, and published it on the website of a friend and ally who won't allow a response. So what do you do?

You reach out to some of your long-time co-horts, such as Greg Burnham and "Mili" Cranor, and ask their help in discrediting this wise-ass.

That's my latest conspiracy theory, anyhow. It's hard to say for sure since Ms. Cranor won't reveal the names of those who've begged her to expose me. But that's okay.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat - I think that Mr. Graves asked a pertinent question. Ultimately the only reason that a correct analysis of the wounds matters is if it helps us construct the details of the shooting. I'm not trying to derail the conflicting opinions being argued here about how to read the medical info or disinfo we have. But the only thing that really matters to me is who did it and why. I don't suspect any hidden agenda from you or Greg. But would you both do me/us the courtesy of briefly summarizing your findings as they relate to the kill zone - where did shots originate, how many shooters, the sequence of shots. Please....

I can summarize the kill zone in a nutshell for you here. And I know that Pat and others are going to disagree with me but that's perfectly fine - it's a matter of what they see and what I see. But anyway...
The kill zone starts - and IMO nothing beforehand in the way of shots - right as JFK appears again from behind the sign in the Zapruder film. Throughout the motorcade - and you can see it in other films and photos - JFK was basically waving, he'd drop his hand mid-air, he'd fluff his hair, and he'd wave again. He did this throughout the entire motorcade.
And the Z-film shows him doing it again - he's looking over to his left while fluffing his hair; the group of ladies on the right side and in front of the freeway sign yelled out, "Mr. President over here." He heard that, quickly looked over to his right at them, and waved. Then his right arm just kind of stops in mid-air. My hunch tells me he - and Connally too - both noticed the open umbrella - perhaps they're a little puzzled by it. But his mid-air arm is now almost resting on the car when he reappears when BAM - the first shot hits him in the throat and his arms jerk toward his neck, then BAM - the back shot hits him. You can clearly see this as the force from the back shot jerks his body quickly backward, then forward.
Then, BAM - Connally takes his shot or shots. Then, 4 1/2 seconds later, the "flurry of shells" that Kellerman described come in, slamming into the back of the head, then the front. Somehow - and someone wildly - fired the shot way down, the one that kicked up debris and nicked Tague's cheek. We also have another missed shot that hits the chrome in the car, the one where the bullet nose was found in the front of the car.
That's pretty much the gist of it. Keep in mind - and you can see this in the film - it's all happening in real time. The yelling, the waving, the smiles, the parade noises. Everything is smooth and calm before the sign reappearance.
Take note that I say above "IMO nothing beforehand in the way of shots." What this means is why would the shooters hurriedly fire before the kill zone? They would have been taking an enormous risk firing earlier because there were men, women, and children around. One stray bullet could have injured these people. Notice in photos and films - and I've always found this "interesting" - the crowds quickly thin out after the freeway sign. There were a lot fewer people around at that point compared to further up on Elm and their chance for success would be much better to keep it within that six-second area.
In my opinion, Josiah Thompson had it right way back in 1967 with Six Seconds in Dallas.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Speer,

MY RESPONSE: Well, who decides who's qualified? This smells of cherry-picking. One of the main reasons I ended up siding with the authenticity of the autopsy photos was my reluctant discovery that the witnesses to the shooting itself (The Newmans, Zapruder, Hudson, etc.) overwhelmingly described the head wound as being by the temple, the ear, or right top of the head--where it s depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays

Not the wound, Pat. The witnesses you quote, all (except Zapruder) describe the shot not the wound.

Bill Newman (Clay Shaw trial)

I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. Now, it is my opinion at the time --

(Affidavit.)

By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head.

Gayle Newman (Clay Shaw trial)

A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear.

(Affidavit)

Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head.

Emmett Hudson (Warren Commission)

Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.

Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Zapruder describes the wound but not the position.

Zapruder (Clay Shaw Trial)

A: I saw the head practically open up and blood and many more things, whatever it was, brains, just came out of his head.

(Warren Commisssion)

I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat - I think that Mr. Graves asked a pertinent question. Ultimately the only reason that a correct analysis of the wounds matters is if it helps us construct the details of the shooting. I'm not trying to derail the conflicting opinions being argued here about how to read the medical info or disinfo we have. But the only thing that really matters to me is who did it and why. I don't suspect any hidden agenda from you or Greg. But would you both do me/us the courtesy of briefly summarizing your findings as they relate to the kill zone - where did shots originate, how many shooters, the sequence of shots. Please....

Hi Paul,

While it would take an article sized post for me to completely answer your question, let me simply speak to a few points. Accepting the notion that all shots originated from behind Kennedy is but the very first and most important step in concluding that Oswald could have possibly acted alone. Without that fundamental premise there is no "Oswald was the lone gunman" argument. Even though the lone gunman conclusion has been destroyed several times over in many different ways by many different persons, the fact that a concerted, well orchestrated, plan existed to fabricate evidence in support of that preordained conclusion is profound in the big scheme of things. For if the conclusion is false--that all shots originated from the rear--then the medical evidence was deliberately tampered with for the purpose of obstructing justice. It also strongly indicates how high up the military chain of command the "pre-planning of the cover-up" reached. If the military colluded in a conspiracy to obstruct justice in the murder investigation of its own Commander-in-Chief, such a scenario reveals a lot more to us about the nature and scope of this conspiracy.

It eliminates "Plan B" suspects, such as, the mob, the anti-Castro Cubans, and many others who had no control over the military.

Dealey Plaza was the setting chosen for an ambush in a military operation. Bethesda was the setting for the destruction and/or fabrication of evidence in deference to obstruction of justice pursuant to a military coup d' e`tat.

How we view and approach the entire case should be significantly impacted by this information.

Edited by Greg Burnham
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Speer,

MY RESPONSE: Well, who decides who's qualified? This smells of cherry-picking. One of the main reasons I ended up siding with the authenticity of the autopsy photos was my reluctant discovery that the witnesses to the shooting itself (The Newmans, Zapruder, Hudson, etc.) overwhelmingly described the head wound as being by the temple, the ear, or right top of the head--where it s depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays

Not the wound, Pat. The witnesses you quote, all (except Zapruder) describe the shot not the wound.

Bill Newman (Clay Shaw trial)

I caught a glimpse of his eyes, just looked like a cold stare, he just looked through me, and then when the car was directly in front of me, well, that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off. Now, it is my opinion at the time --

(Affidavit.)

By this time he was directly in front of us and I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head.

Gayle Newman (Clay Shaw trial)

A: Yes, sir, that shot when it happened, the President's car was directly in front of us and it was about a lane's width between us, it wasn't in the lane next to the curb it was in the middle lane, and at that time he was shot in the head right at his ear or right above his ear.

(Affidavit)

Just about the time President Kennedy was right in front of us, I heard another shot ring out, and the President put his hands up to his head. I saw blood all over the side of his head.

Emmett Hudson (Warren Commission)

Mr. LIEBELER - You say that it was the second shot that hit him in the head; is that right?

Mr. HUDSON - Yes; I do believe that - I know it was.

Mr. LIEBELER - You saw him hit in the head, there wasn't any question in your mind about that, was there?

Mr. HUDSON - No, sir.

Zapruder describes the wound but not the position.

Zapruder (Clay Shaw Trial)

A: I saw the head practically open up and blood and many more things, whatever it was, brains, just came out of his head.

(Warren Commisssion)

I heard a second shot and then I saw his head opened up and the blood and everything came out and I started--I can hardly talk about it [ the witness crying].

As stated, I go through the Dealey Plaza witnesses in chapter 18c, and show how they overwhelmingly placed the wound on the right side of the head, by the temple or ear. They were not describing a small entrance wound which could be hidden by the hair that some presume existed. They were describing a big splash of blood and brain, which erupted from the location it erupts from in the Zapruder film.

Not to toot my own horn, because in this case (at least) I'm not, but it shouldn't have taken 20 years or so for someone (like me) to come along and list the statements of these witnesses, and note that they were much more consistent than the so-called Parkland witnesses. This should have been part of the discussion from the beginning.

But no, people had books to sell, and theories to push, and listing the statements of these witnesses would have created a problem. A big one, in my opinion.

corrobaratorsorcollaborators.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't case dispersion on Pat Speer's motivations, and there is no question he's put a great deal of effort into researching this case. However, he is wedded to a contrarian theory on the head wound(s) and source of shots. Milicent Cranor has done a thorough job of demonstrating this.

No matter how many times Pat denies it, those of us who have been studying the evidence for decades are perfectly aware of what the Dallas medical personnel said. They described the same kind of massive blow-out to the back of the head, and this is something that is contradicted by the autopsy photos and x-rays. Either all those professionals were identically wrong, or the photos and x-rays are illegitimate. Given what we know regarding the destruction of evidence, distortion of evidence, lost evidence, mishandling of evidence, and the nature of the bogus autopsy itself, it is extremely naive to trust in the validity of those photos and x-rays.

If I understand correctly, Pat believes all the shots came from behind. This again contradicts everything we see in the films (JFK's reaction, witnesses flooding the knoll area, etc.) and most of the eyewitness testimony. Warren Commission critics have always relied to a great extent on the eyewitness testimony. This is in large measure due to the fact that all of the "evidence" used against Oswald was hopelessly tainted, by chain-of-possession problems alone. There was nothing normal, nothing proper, about the autopsy at Bethesda. This makes the initial descriptions from the Parkland doctors all the more important. Without their testimony, there is no massive hole in the back of JFK's head, and no entrance wound to the throat. Their testimony was absolutely crucial, and far more credible than anything that came out of Bethesda.

Trusting in the validity of the medical evidence leaves a great deal of powerful arguments out of the critical arsenal. So does accepting the HSCA's higher location for the back wound. There is no need to backtrack here. The mainstream media is not going to admit there was a conspiracy just because we swallow some of their bogus "evidence." Why senselessly dilute the debate? The evidence is overwhelming that JFK was killed by a conspiracy.

Thank you, Don. You've demonstrated once again why my creation of chapters 18c and 18d was necessary.

The key section of your post reads as follows:

"No matter how many times Pat denies it, those of us who have been studying the evidence for decades are perfectly aware of what the Dallas medical personnel said. They described the same kind of massive blow-out to the back of the head, and this is something that is contradicted by the autopsy photos and x-rays. Either all those professionals were identically wrong, or the photos and x-rays are illegitimate. Given what we know regarding the destruction of evidence, distortion of evidence, lost evidence, mishandling of evidence, and the nature of the bogus autopsy itself, it is extremely naive to trust in the validity of those photos and x-rays."

I'll now respond to each line.

"No matter how many times Pat denies it, those of us who have been studying the evidence for decades are perfectly aware of what the Dallas medical personnel said." MY RESPONSE: no matter how many times you claim you know what these people said, you continue to operate in a bubble, seemingly oblivious to the fact that all of the key participants accepted the authenticity of the autopsy photos and x-rays, and that some of them actually befriended Dr. John Lattimer, who devoted decades to proving Oswald acted alone.

"They described the same kind of massive blow-out to the back of the head, and this is something that is contradicted by the autopsy photos and x-rays." MY RESPONSE: this is not true. Some of the doctors thought the wound was on the side or top of the head. Salyer, for one, said it was on the side. Giesecke, for one, said it was on top. McClelland, of course, famously said it was a wound to the left temple. You are also wrong to say they uniformly thought it was a blow-out wound. A "blow-out" wound is an exit wound. Dr. Clark, the most qualified man in the room, said he thought the wound was a tangential wound. A tangential wound is a wound of both entrance and exit. It is a big sloppy mess. It is not a "blow-out" wound.

"Either all those professionals were identically wrong, or the photos and x-rays are illegitimate." MY RESPONSE: you're printing the legend. The witnesses were not nearly as consistent as claimed.

"Given what we know regarding the destruction of evidence, distortion of evidence, lost evidence, mishandling of evidence, and the nature of the bogus autopsy itself, it is extremely naive to trust in the validity of those photos and x-rays." MY RESPONSE: You avoid that the photos and x-rays were never supposed to be made public. You also avoid (like the plague) that I don't "trust"the validity of the photos and x-rays, but suspect they are legitimate, seeing as they fail to show what's been claimed of them, and are clear-cut evidence for a conspiracy.

This is the most powerful argument there is. The evidence demonstrates a conspiracy. Period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with all this is that the records are so incomplete.

In fact, there were photos missing that even the autopsy doctors admitted to !

So, in 1966-67, the Justice Department set up a phony review of the records.

They got the doctors to sign off on it, and the official photographer Stringer.

But guess what? They knew they were lying in signing a statement they said the inventory was complete. In fact, Stringer admitted to this before Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB. When Gunn asked him why he knowingly supported a lie, Stringer said, words to the effect: You go along to get along. When Gunn said, well not everyone does that, Stringer shot back, well, but they don't last long.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point that came out during the ARRB: Stringer says he shot no basilar views of the brain.

Yet, there are such shots in the Archives today.

Who shot them if Stringer did not?

And Stringer said he saw cerebellum. (See Horne IARRB,Vol I pgs. 41, 43, quoting this transcript)

Edited by James DiEugenio
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...