Greg Burnham Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 On this thread Greg Burnham said, “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." I completely agree with that, however that doesn’t mean that we should reject scenarios where all the shots actually did come from the back. There is a lot of evidence that there were multiple shooters from the back. It is possible that the shot from the grassy knoll or storm drain was a loud, smoky diversionary shot, to attract attention to the grassy knoll and allow shooters in the TSBD and/or Daltex building to get away. I think it helps to keep an open mind on these issues. Why resort to speculation as to the purpose of alleged shots from the grassy knoll and/or storm drain? That is entirely off topic. We have evidence that either supports, refutes, or is neutral with respect to various conclusions as to the points of origin of the shots responsible for the President's wounds. In this instance, there is compelling evidence that shots originating from both the front and the rear of Kennedy struck their target. When a researcher disregards, misrepresents, omits, or distorts evidence--including witness testimony--that does not conform to his or her pet theory it is intellectually dishonest AT BEST. In response to the following question elsewhere in the thread: "Does Pat Speer cherry-pick witness testimony?" -- You began your reply with: "Well, who doesn't [cherry pick witness testimony]?" I am appalled by your response on several levels. First, while it would be disingenuous for me or anyone to deny that each of us carries some amount of bias, it is also important to note that an honest broker recognizes this potential bias in themselves, rejects it rather than embraces it, and fights to resist it interfering with their pursuit of the truth. Second, while it would be entirely appropriate for me to object to your position regarding "cherry picking" evidence on purely moral and ethical grounds, I prefer to take a more dispassionate approach. Namely, "cherry picking" is a logical fallacy known as Special Pleading, and is therefore not sound reasoning. Third, your having correctly identified and admitted that Pat Speer is guilty of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading, colloquially also known as "cherry picking," is, at the very least, instructive as to how we should judge the soundness of his arguments and/or the reliability of his conclusions. Greg, I'm sure that I'm guilty of cherry picking, but as JFK once said, "You're in there with me." Let’s just take your sentence above: “Why resort to speculation as to the purpose of alleged shots from the grassy knoll and/or storm drain? That is entirely off topic.” I don’t think it is off topic at all. You started this thread called “PatSpeer.com: Fact Check”. Mr. Speer’s web site examines the medical evidence and offers a reconciliation between his interpretation of the medical evidence and two head shots from behind. If you choose to interpret the medical evidence without including any possible trajectory information you’re cherry picking facts: looking at the medical evidence in isolation and ignoring a lot of important facts. That’s cherry picking. You say above that shots from both the front and rear of Kennedy struck their target. Well, why not a shot from the fence corner of the grassy knoll, near Badgeman location? I think I know why you might choose to ignore that inconvenient evidence: because it’s not a shot from the front or the rear but 90 degrees perpendicular: direct to the side of his head. If you look at Z312, a shot from that location into the front of JFK’s head would likely go straight through and hit Jackie. But why not a tangential shot from the fence corner that hits the right occipital parietal area of JFK’s head? That explains almost all of Dr. Clark’s testimony: occipital, parietal AND tangential wound! I bet you still don’t like it. Why? Because you seem to believe that JFK was shot from the front. Now why would you believe that? Perhaps because of JFK’s back and to the left motion in the Zapruder film? I’ll grant you that’s convincing, but do you believe the Z film is entirely authentic? I’ve heard many people who believe a black matte was inserted to hide the blow out, and frames were excised to hide the rearward travel of brain matter. But if you believe the back and to the left is real, but not other aspects of the Z film, you’re cherry picking evidence within the Z film. How can you state that JFK received shots from the front, but then say that trajectories from the storm drain are off topic? They’re not off topic and I’ll tell you why: it’s very hard to make that shot from the front. I really hope you don’t believe Greer shot JFK in the head. Do you? If Greer didn’t shoot him, where did the shot come from? If you believe the throat wound came from a bullet which passed through the windshield, then where did a frontal head shot come from? Not through the exact same windshield hole, I hope? And there is no evidence I’ve seen for two holes through the windshield. So we could try over the windshield, but the chrome divider bar between the driver and passenger cabin is in the way. We could try a sort of side frontal shot, but Kellerman and Connolly are in the way on the right front and Greer, Ms. Connolly and Jackie block a shot from the left front. If you can’t find a reasonable trajectory then your whole hypothesis of a frontal shot goes down the tubes. Take a look at Don Roberdeau’s excellent trajectory maps: http://droberdeau.blogspot.com/1975/03/4-men-of-courage-jfk-assassination.html Here’s another important piece of evidence that you ignore with your frontal shot: CE 567, the nose bullet fragment allegedly found in the front compartment of the limo was tested and found to have human skin tissue on it: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=928&relPageId=9&search=CE_567%20human%20skin%20tissue Many people think that CE 567 and CE 569 are the remains of a bullet which hit the chrome molding near the rear view mirror. So how could they have gotten skin on them? Well, here are three hypotheses: 1) The bullet was fired from behind, richocheted off the top right side of JFK’s head and then hit the chrome strip. This, I believe is Pat Speer’s hypothesis. 2) The bullet was fired from behind and ricocheted off the top of a seat. Less likely to have a richochet off a soft seat. 3) The FBI planted evidence. Now the FBI (or Secret Service) planting evidence is a common device used to get rid of the evidence you don’t want to cherry pick. If it is inconvenient, just say it’s faked or planted. I don’t doubt they faked or planted evidence, but I think an over reliance of fakery to explain away conflicting data is lazy and sloppy. Occam’s razor with a clever explanation that fits the facts without blaming it on the government is a better explanation in my opinion. And I think that Pat Speer has done that with a detailed hypothesis that explains the head wounds and CE 567 without resorting to handwaving: “The bullet came from somewhere.” And there it is: The predictable derailing of the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Curme Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Greg, why is it OK to accuse Pat Speer of cherry picking but not you? Would you prefer this thread to remain focused on criticism of Pat Speer only? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 19, 2016 Author Share Posted February 19, 2016 Greg, why is it OK to accuse Pat Speer of cherry picking but not you? Would you prefer this thread to remain focused on criticism of Pat Speer only? Followed up by the predictable Straw Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 19, 2016 Share Posted February 19, 2016 Question for Pat Speer: Pat, do you mention on your website the fact that nearly every Parkland doctor who saw the head wound stated early on (1963 and 1964) that it was located on the posterior, or right posterior, of Kennedy's head? Yes, of course. That is why Ms. Cranor has slipped into attack mode. In chapter 18c I go through all the so-called back of the head witnesses presented in Groden's book The Killing of the President, and demonstrate that the vast majority of them pointed out a wound location higher on the skull than where Groden (and many if not most CT writers including Lifton, Horne, and Mantik) want us to believe it was located. In chapter 18d, then, i get to the root of the problem, and present the 11-22-63 reports of the Parkland doctors. I show, among other things, that they have been routinely misrepresented by conspiracy writers to reflect a consistency and certainty that wasn't ever there. If you're really interested in this topic, you owe it yourself to give it a read. If you're only sort of interested, however, I'll give you a sample. Here is my section on the enigmatic Dr. Clark, the most qualified Parkland witness, and also the most mysterious. DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 12:20pm to 13:00 hrs Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also. A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well . The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time. He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels. Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound. There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination. The previously described lacerated brain was present. By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me. W. Kemp Clark 22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs - (Note: although Clark describes cerebral and cerebellar tissue on the cart, a number of his colleagues would subsequently come to claim that macerated brain tissue is difficult to distinguish from cerebellar tissue, and that he, as they, could have been mistaken. His statement that “much of the skull appeared gone” is problematic, moreover, for those who try to make the Dallas doctors' descriptions of a wound on the back of the head jive with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos' depiction of a wound on top of the head by speculating that 1) the Dallas doctors did not see the large wound on top of the head because Mrs. Kennedy had put the bones back in place, and 2) the autopsists' closed the flaps on back of the head before the photos could be taken. Clark claimed to see a large hole in the skull, and not a hole between some bone flaps. This supports then that the large head wound was either on top of the head and Clark was mistaken as to its exact location, or on the back of the head, and the films and photos have been faked. I select the first alternative. Clark's March 21, 1964 testimony for the Warren Commission offers some support for this selection. He testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." Still later, Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter referred to this wound as a wound "at the top of the head," and asked if Clark saw any other wounds, and he replied "No sir, I did not." When then asked if his recollections were consistent with the autopsy report's description of an entrance wound slightly above and an inch to the right of the EOP, he replied "Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present." 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. While some might take from this that Clark had sold out, and had testified in opposition to his original report, they would be wrong to do so. Before writing his report, we should remember, Clark had spoken to the press...twice. In the official press conference, he had claimed the wound was "principally on the right side." While speaking to Connie Kritzberg, about an hour later, moreover, he reiterated that it was on the "right rear side." He had never claimed, nor would ever claim, the wound was on the far back of the head, below the top of the ear, in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. This was something many had assumed based upon his mention of cerebellum. But it was never supported by the sum total of his statements. The cerebellum he thought he saw could easily have come from below the hole on the back of the head along with the bullet he thought exploded from below the hole on the back of the head. While some have taken Clark's post 1964 silence as confirmation he believed the fatal shot exited from the far back of Kennedy's head, furthermore, a more complete look at the record suggests Clark believed theories holding as much to be foolish and ill-informed. In the early 1970's, Clark served as a consultant for single-assassin theorist John Lattimer, and helped Lattimer develop a scientific and "innocent" explanation for Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement in the Zapruder film. Lattimer eventually discussed his relationship with Clark. In a 10-23-75 letter to researcher Emory Brown, he bragged "The brain surgeon who examined the President at Parkland is a good friend of mine and I have discussed the head wound with him at some length, and he sees no discrepancy between what he found at Parkland Hospital and what the autopsy photographs reveal." Now, Clark was very much alive at the time of Lattimer's letter, and it's pretty silly to believe Lattimer would lie about such a thing if it could come back and bite him. Particularly when subsequent statements by Clark suggest he wasn't lying... A November 22, 1983 UPI article, (found in the Ellensburg Daily Record), boasts an interview with Clark, in which he claims "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." This was, strikingly, less than a year after Clark at first expressed interest in looking at the autopsy photos in David Lifton's possession, and then refused to even open the envelope containing these photos when Lifton arrived at his office. In 1997, moreover, Clark once again broke his silence, and granted an interview with former Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter. It follows, then, that Clark was no friend of conspiracy theorists, and that he'd picked his side on the matter--the side inhabited by John Lattimer and Arlen Specter. Well, for me, it's hard to believe he'd have done this if he'd actually felt certain Kennedy's head wound was an occipital wound oozing cerebellum. But the reader may wish to think otherwise. Wow. I'm not a fast enough reader to keep up with you, Pat. I just wanted to know if you inform your readers what the Parkland doctors said. Early on, like 1963 and 1964. I skimmed what you wrote looking for quotes from Dr. Clark that disagree with his statements indicating the head wound was on the right poseterior of the skull. Here is what I first came up with. [Dr. Clark] testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." This leaves the distinct impression that Clark changed his testimony from back-of-the-head to top-of-the-head. And that Perry had agreed with him How could that be, I thought. So I checked it out. Here's the testimony I found: Dr. CLARK - All right. Let me check what I remember Dr. Perry said at the first press conference. He was asked if the neck wound could be a wound of entrance or appeared to be a wound of exit, and Dr. Perry said something like "possibly or conceivably," or something of this sort. Mr. SPECTER - And, did he elaborate as to how that projectory would have been possible in that press conference? Dr. CLARK - He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head. Mr. SPECTER - But that was a possible trajectory under the circumstances? Dr. CLARK - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - How would that have been postulated in terms of striking specific parts of the body? Dr. CLARK - Well, on a speculation, this would mean that the missile would have had to have been fired from below-- upward or that the President was hanging upside down. Look at that, Pat. Dr. Clark is NOT making any statement at all about a top-of-the-head wound. He is telling Specter that Dr. Perry had to agree with one of the reporter who, through gestures, was indicating the path the bullet would have to take. Not only did Dr. Clark not make the statement your excerpt implies, he goes on to say that the "missile would have had to have been fired from below -- upward or that the President was hanging upside down." I wouldn't call that an endorsement of the top-of-head idea... would you? This is very misleading Pat. It reminds me of stuff I've seen on McAdams' site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) Question for Pat Speer: Pat, do you mention on your website the fact that nearly every Parkland doctor who saw the head wound stated early on (1963 and 1964) that it was located on the posterior, or right posterior, of Kennedy's head? Yes, of course. That is why Ms. Cranor has slipped into attack mode. In chapter 18c I go through all the so-called back of the head witnesses presented in Groden's book The Killing of the President, and demonstrate that the vast majority of them pointed out a wound location higher on the skull than where Groden (and many if not most CT writers including Lifton, Horne, and Mantik) want us to believe it was located. In chapter 18d, then, i get to the root of the problem, and present the 11-22-63 reports of the Parkland doctors. I show, among other things, that they have been routinely misrepresented by conspiracy writers to reflect a consistency and certainty that wasn't ever there. If you're really interested in this topic, you owe it yourself to give it a read. If you're only sort of interested, however, I'll give you a sample. Here is my section on the enigmatic Dr. Clark, the most qualified Parkland witness, and also the most mysterious. DATE AND HOUR 22 Nov 1963 12:20pm to 13:00 hrs Called by EOR while standing in (illegible) Laboratory at SWMS. Told that the President had been shot. I arrived at the EOR at 1220 - 1225 and .The President was bleeding profusely from the back of the head. There was a large (3 x 3cm) amount of cerebral tissue present on the cart. There was a smaller amount of cerebellar tissue present also. A tracheostomy was being performed by Drs. Perry, Baxter and McClelland. Exam of the President showed that an endotracheal tube was in place and respiratory assistance was being given by Dr. Akins and Jenkins. The pupils were dilated, fixed to light and his eyes were deviated outward and the right one downward as as well . The trach was completed and I adjusted the endotracheal tube a little bit. Blood was present in the oral pharynx. Suction was used to remove this. Levine Catheter was passed into the stomach at this time. He was (illegible) that I (illegible) no carotid pulse. I immediately began closed chest massage. A pulse was obtained at the carotid and femoral pulse levels. Dr. Perry then took over the cardiac massage so I could evaluate the head wound. There was a large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone at brief examination. The previously described lacerated brain was present. By this time an EKG was hooked up. There was no electrical activity of the heart and no respiratory effort - He was pronounced dead at 1300 hrs by me. W. Kemp Clark 22 Nov 1963 1615 hrs - (Note: although Clark describes cerebral and cerebellar tissue on the cart, a number of his colleagues would subsequently come to claim that macerated brain tissue is difficult to distinguish from cerebellar tissue, and that he, as they, could have been mistaken. His statement that “much of the skull appeared gone” is problematic, moreover, for those who try to make the Dallas doctors' descriptions of a wound on the back of the head jive with the Zapruder film and autopsy photos' depiction of a wound on top of the head by speculating that 1) the Dallas doctors did not see the large wound on top of the head because Mrs. Kennedy had put the bones back in place, and 2) the autopsists' closed the flaps on back of the head before the photos could be taken. Clark claimed to see a large hole in the skull, and not a hole between some bone flaps. This supports then that the large head wound was either on top of the head and Clark was mistaken as to its exact location, or on the back of the head, and the films and photos have been faked. I select the first alternative. Clark's March 21, 1964 testimony for the Warren Commission offers some support for this selection. He testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." Still later, Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter referred to this wound as a wound "at the top of the head," and asked if Clark saw any other wounds, and he replied "No sir, I did not." When then asked if his recollections were consistent with the autopsy report's description of an entrance wound slightly above and an inch to the right of the EOP, he replied "Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present." 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. While some might take from this that Clark had sold out, and had testified in opposition to his original report, they would be wrong to do so. Before writing his report, we should remember, Clark had spoken to the press...twice. In the official press conference, he had claimed the wound was "principally on the right side." While speaking to Connie Kritzberg, about an hour later, moreover, he reiterated that it was on the "right rear side." He had never claimed, nor would ever claim, the wound was on the far back of the head, below the top of the ear, in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing. This was something many had assumed based upon his mention of cerebellum. But it was never supported by the sum total of his statements. The cerebellum he thought he saw could easily have come from below the hole on the back of the head along with the bullet he thought exploded from below the hole on the back of the head. While some have taken Clark's post 1964 silence as confirmation he believed the fatal shot exited from the far back of Kennedy's head, furthermore, a more complete look at the record suggests Clark believed theories holding as much to be foolish and ill-informed. In the early 1970's, Clark served as a consultant for single-assassin theorist John Lattimer, and helped Lattimer develop a scientific and "innocent" explanation for Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement in the Zapruder film. Lattimer eventually discussed his relationship with Clark. In a 10-23-75 letter to researcher Emory Brown, he bragged "The brain surgeon who examined the President at Parkland is a good friend of mine and I have discussed the head wound with him at some length, and he sees no discrepancy between what he found at Parkland Hospital and what the autopsy photographs reveal." Now, Clark was very much alive at the time of Lattimer's letter, and it's pretty silly to believe Lattimer would lie about such a thing if it could come back and bite him. Particularly when subsequent statements by Clark suggest he wasn't lying... A November 22, 1983 UPI article, (found in the Ellensburg Daily Record), boasts an interview with Clark, in which he claims "The only regret I have is that I'm constantly bothered by a bunch of damn fools who want me to make some kind of controversial statement about what I saw, what was done, or that he is still alive here on the 12th floor of Parkland Hospital or some foolish thing like that. Since these guys are making their money by writing this kind of provocative books, it annoys me, frankly." This was, strikingly, less than a year after Clark at first expressed interest in looking at the autopsy photos in David Lifton's possession, and then refused to even open the envelope containing these photos when Lifton arrived at his office. In 1997, moreover, Clark once again broke his silence, and granted an interview with former Warren Commission attorney Arlen Specter. It follows, then, that Clark was no friend of conspiracy theorists, and that he'd picked his side on the matter--the side inhabited by John Lattimer and Arlen Specter. Well, for me, it's hard to believe he'd have done this if he'd actually felt certain Kennedy's head wound was an occipital wound oozing cerebellum. But the reader may wish to think otherwise. Wow. I'm not a fast enough reader to keep up with you, Pat. I just wanted to know if you inform your readers what the Parkland doctors said. Early on, like 1963 and 1964. I skimmed what you wrote looking for quotes from Dr. Clark that disagree with his statements indicating the head wound was on the right poseterior of the skull. Here is what I first came up with. [Dr. Clark] testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." This leaves the distinct impression that Clark changed his testimony from back-of-the-head to top-of-the-head. And that Perry had agreed with him How could that be, I thought. So I checked it out. Here's the testimony I found: Dr. CLARK - All right. Let me check what I remember Dr. Perry said at the first press conference. He was asked if the neck wound could be a wound of entrance or appeared to be a wound of exit, and Dr. Perry said something like "possibly or conceivably," or something of this sort. Mr. SPECTER - And, did he elaborate as to how that projectory would have been possible in that press conference? Dr. CLARK - He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head. Mr. SPECTER - But that was a possible trajectory under the circumstances? Dr. CLARK - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - How would that have been postulated in terms of striking specific parts of the body? Dr. CLARK - Well, on a speculation, this would mean that the missile would have had to have been fired from below-- upward or that the President was hanging upside down. Look at that, Pat. Dr. Clark is NOT making any statement at all about a top-of-the-head wound. He is telling Specter that Dr. Perry had to agree with one of the reporter who, through gestures, was indicating the path the bullet would have to take. Not only did Dr. Clark not make the statement your excerpt implies, he goes on to say that the "missile would have had to have been fired from below -- upward or that the President was hanging upside down." I wouldn't call that an endorsement of the top-of-head idea... would you? This is very misleading Pat. It reminds me of stuff I've seen on McAdams' site. Clark and Perry suspected the bullet entering the neck exited from the back of the head. His use of the words "top of the head," then indicate he thought the wound was on the top of the back of the head. Perhaps my approach is too nuanced. In chapter 18d I explain my reasons for suspecting the autopsy photos are legit, and it's not because Dr. Clark changed his testimony, if that's what you think. Clark's description of the wound as extending into the parietal area indicates it was on the right rear top of the head. As demonstrated, he also made several references to the top of the head in his testimony. I never intended to imply that he had changed his testimony, and had moved the wound from the back of the head to the top of the head, if that's what you think. His job was to report his recollections. He did. The problem is that some--perhaps most--Kennedy researchers swallowed Groden's claim the Parkland witnesses supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, hook, line, and sinker. The McClelland drawing depicts the wound as residing entirely on the back of the head, inches away from the top of the head. The main objective behind my writing of chapters 18c and 18d was to get people to stop claiming the McClelland drawing was an accurate depiction of Kennedy's wound., As Ms. Cranor and others have raced right past the McClelland drawing, and have chosen to believe I'm twisting words to try to make it look like Clark was describing a wound ONLY on the top of the head, it appears I've had some success in that area. Edited February 20, 2016 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Burnham Posted February 20, 2016 Author Share Posted February 20, 2016 Here is a reply to Pat Speer from Millicent Cranor: ====================================== Pat Speer has been busy hawking his own dubious wares as well as those of a notorious dis-informant. I shall respond briefly. SPEER: “In the early 1970's, Clark served as a consultant for single-assassin theorist John Lattimer, and helped Lattimer develop a scientific and "innocent" explanation for Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left movement in the Zapruder film. CRANOR: John K. Lattimer, MD ingratiated himself with the Powers That Be by writing informercials for the Warren Commission -- rather trashy articles based on pseudoscience that appeared in journals with low standards, or in the "Historical" sections of the better journals. (These sections bypassed peer review.). For just a few simple but striking examples, please see my article, Big Lie About a Small Wound. (It concerned Governor Connally’s back wound.) Now, let’s see what -- according to Speer -- Kemp Clark is supposed to have said to Lattimer about an “innocent” explanation for Kennedy’s back-and-to-the-left movement as observed on the Zapruder film. What did Clark say publicly – that we can confirm? And why doesn't Speer provide a reference? From Lattimer’s article in Resident and Staff Physician, May 1972 issue: “Some other explanation seemed more likely for the President’s major sideways lurch to the left, with its slight backwards component. It seemed to the author [Lattimer], after consultation with neurosurgeon Kemp Clark, who had declared the President dead, that the prime speculative possibility would be the opisthotonos-like reaction of the body, often seem immediately after acute, severe cerebral injuries, because of the massive downward discharge of nerve impulses.” Can you see what’s wrong with the above statement? He is not quoting Clark. Nor does he even paraphrase Clark as having said any such thing. All he does is hint! “It seemed to the author (himself), after consultation with…” So the reader is supposed to think Clark said it. Don’t you think if Clark said any such thing, Lattimer would have quoted him directly? And what about all the other neurosurgeons and neurologists at Lattimer’s disposal in the New York area and beyond? Why do you suppose he could not find a single specialist on the subject to give him the quote he wanted? *** And here again (below) is Speer trying to twist Kemp Clark’s words so they appear to limit the head wound to the “top” right side: SPEER: “…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.” CRANOR: The choice is not top versus back – the wound extended from the top to the back on the right side, according to Clark (and others). The lowest border of the defect was as low as a point “just above” the EOP. Clark did say part of the wound was lateral to the entrance. Do the following passages suggest Clark said the wound was “at the top right side of the head”? “This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.” Vol 6 WCH, pg. 20 “…the loss of cerebellar tissue would probably have been of minimal consequence in the performance of his duties. The loss of the right occipital and probably part of the right parietal lobes would have been of specific importance.” Vol 6 WCH, pg. 26 When Pat Speer talks about a “closer look” at anything – why not use your own eyes? And since Speer rarely seems to provide references and links so that you can use your own eyes, here’s a good place to start: History Matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Geez, it just doesn't stop, does it, Greg? So now I'm hawking the wares of Lattimer? That's as loopy as it gets. While Ms. Cranor and others have written some solid stuff on Lattimer, I doubt anyone has been as critical of him as myself. Here's a sampling: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 o o o Clark's March 21, 1964 testimony for the Warren Commission offers some support for this selection. He testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." Still later, Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter referred to this wound as a wound "at the top of the head," and asked if Clark saw any other wounds, and he replied "No sir, I did not." When then asked if his recollections were consistent with the autopsy report's description of an entrance wound slightly above and an inch to the right of the EOP, he replied "Yes, in the presence of this much destruction of skull and scalp above such a wound and lateral to it and the brief period of time available for examination--yes, such a wound could be present." 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. o o o Wow. I'm not a fast enough reader to keep up with you, Pat. I just wanted to know if you inform your readers what the Parkland doctors said. Early on, like 1963 and 1964. I skimmed what you wrote looking for quotes from Dr. Clark that disagree with his statements indicating the head wound was on the right poseterior of the skull. Here is what I first came up with. [Dr. Clark] testified: "I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed." Later, however, when discussing Dr. Perry's initial description of the throat wound as an entrance wound, he said "Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head." Yes, he said "top of his head." This leaves the distinct impression that Clark changed his testimony from back-of-the-head to top-of-the-head. And that Perry had agreed with him How could that be, I thought. So I checked it out. Here's the testimony I found: Dr. CLARK - All right. Let me check what I remember Dr. Perry said at the first press conference. He was asked if the neck wound could be a wound of entrance or appeared to be a wound of exit, and Dr. Perry said something like "possibly or conceivably," or something of this sort. Mr. SPECTER - And, did he elaborate as to how that projectory would have been possible in that press conference? Dr. CLARK - He did not elaborate on this. One of the reporters with gestures indicated the direction that such a bullet would have to take, and Dr. Perry quite obviously had to agree that this is the way it had to go to get from there to the top of his head. Mr. SPECTER - But that was a possible trajectory under the circumstances? Dr. CLARK - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - How would that have been postulated in terms of striking specific parts of the body? Dr. CLARK - Well, on a speculation, this would mean that the missile would have had to have been fired from below-- upward or that the President was hanging upside down. Look at that, Pat. Dr. Clark is NOT making any statement at all about a top-of-the-head wound. He is telling Specter that Dr. Perry had to agree with one of the reporter who, through gestures, was indicating the path the bullet would have to take. Not only did Dr. Clark not make the statement your excerpt implies, he goes on to say that the "missile would have had to have been fired from below -- upward or that the President was hanging upside down." I wouldn't call that an endorsement of the top-of-head idea... would you? This is very misleading Pat. It reminds me of stuff I've seen on McAdams' site. Clark and Perry suspected the bullet entering the neck exited from the back of the head. His use of the words "top of the head," then indicate he thought the wound was on the top of the back of the head. Perhaps my approach is too nuanced. In chapter 18d I explain my reasons for suspecting the autopsy photos are legit, and it's not because Dr. Clark changed his testimony, if that's what you think. Clark's description of the wound as extending into the parietal area indicates it was on the right rear top of the head. As demonstrated, he also made several references to the top of the head in his testimony. I never intended to imply that he had changed his testimony, and had moved the wound from the back of the head to the top of the head, if that's what you think. His job was to report his recollections. He did. The problem is that some--perhaps most--Kennedy researchers swallowed Groden's claim the Parkland witnesses supported the accuracy of the McClelland drawing, hook, line, and sinker. The McClelland drawing depicts the wound as residing entirely on the back of the head, inches away from the top of the head. The main objective behind my writing of chapters 18c and 18d was to get people to stop claiming the McClelland drawing was an accurate depiction of Kennedy's wound., As Ms. Cranor and others have raced right past the McClelland drawing, and have chosen to believe I'm twisting words to try to make it look like Clark was describing a wound ONLY on the top of the head, it appears I've had some success in that area. Pat, I'm not influenced by either Groden or the drawing attributed to McClelland. I *do* get information from Dr. Aguilar's List of Wound Witnesses. I've found it to be a reliable resource. It is well written and includes the history of changing testimonies. It includes only Parkland and Bethesda witnesses, which totals 46 people. What I'd like to do is explore Dr. Clark's testimony and see if he really did accept the top of the head idea. Or more specifically, if he took seriously the idea of the wound not being in the rear at all. So far I have not seen that. You say, "Clark and Perry suspected the bullet entering the neck exited from the back of the head." Yes, that is my understanding. But then you say, "His use of the words "top of the head," then indicate he thought the wound was on the top of the back of the head." Please tell me where, in his testimony, the top of the head location is his idea... not Perry's or Specter's. Actually it would be useful to also see Perry's view on this. (BTW, he apparently changed his testimony sometime between 1978 and 1992.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 More on Lattimer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 More Lattimer: So, once again, Ms. Cranor is projecting onto me what she wants me to be--some sort of WC apologist. Well, I do apologize, all the time, only not for the WC, but for the behavior of my fellow CTs, now including her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Here is a reply to Pat Speer from Millicent Cranor: SPEER: “…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.” CRANOR: The choice is not top versus back – the wound extended from the top to the back on the right side, according to Clark (and others). Oh, I get it. If indeed Dr. Clark does talk about the "top of the head," maybe what he means is the upper portion of the wound since it is both parietal and occipital. Maybe the "top of the head" is the parietal portion of the wound, with it extending up to, say, the cowlick area. I really want to see what Clark himself said to understand what he meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Thanks for the apology Ollie. I was offended, but I'd already forgotten about it by the time I read your post here. I don't hold a grudge. I had assumed "cherry picking" is a derogatory remark, as I'd only heard it used that way. But it apparently isn't in America. It is in the UK, though. Let me ask you... when you said "I think his head wound explanation (at least as I understand it) is consistent with all of the statements of Dr. Clark which you cited which emphasize an occipital/parietal wound," were you referring to Pat Speer's "head wound explanation?" Because if you were, I'll have to take a second look at it. My understanding of it is that it is in no way consistent with Dr. Clark's statements. Where do you believe Pat places the wound in his theory/explanation? Thanks Sandy. I won't attempt to speak for Mr. Speer, but rather give you my interpretation that I took away after reading his web site several times. The Rosetta stone for me is Chapter 13: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter13%3Asolvingthegreatheadwoundmyster When properly oriented, the mystery skull photo clearly shows a small round hole by the EOP, and a beveled half circle near the crown of the skull. The Back of Head photos also show a small scalp hole which generally corresponds with the EOP skull hole. There is a complete absence of skull in the mystery photo above and to the right of the EOP hole which corresponds with Dr. Clark's testimony where he said the defect was above and lateral to a proposed EOP inshoot. The defect seen in the mystery photo appears to be a defect predominantly in parietal bone, extending into occipital bone. If the bone fragments were missing from back there, one would have a very clear view of the occipital and parietal lobes. I think the cerebellum would be more difficult to see from the top/back of this skull so that might pose a problem for the hypothesis. There are two ways to get around that: it's very reasonable to conclude there was a small amount of cerebellar tissue excuding from the EOP inshoot. Or, I've heard the argument that sometimes macerated cortical tissue looks like cerebellar tissue but I don't know if that holds water. I believe Mr. Speer would prefer to think that the intact back of head photo is authentic. I think if the scalp were intact, just torn, then maybe the scalp was retracted and allowed them to see into the skull defect. Alternatively, I could go with photo alteration of the Back of Head photos. There was perhaps a 17x10cm area of missing bone at Bethesda and maybe at Parkland, with scalp and skull disruptions well beyond that. If the missing bones were more toward the back of the head then the theory fits with the Parkland witnesses. If the missing bones were more toward the front then it doesn't. Note that one of the large bone fragments 10x6.5 cm retrieved from the limousine was brought into the autopsy room late in the evening. It was reported to have a matching semicircular notch and fitted in next to the vertex hole in the mystery photo. This skull fragment is towards the back in the head, so maybe the opening through which the Parkland doctors viewed the brain was indeed rearward. Thanks for writing that Ollie. Okay, I get it that Pat (probably) doesn't allow for a large wound in the back. And that there is a wound just to the right of the EOP that is hard to see without adjusting the contrast on the BOH photos. But I'm having trouble following what you say because I don't know what the mystery photo is. I do see a photo that's hard to understand, and I think it's the one you're talking about. When I look at it I get the feeling I'm looking down into the base of a cranium, through the spinal column. Is that it? I see that Pat has posted it a number of times, but I see no descriptions of what I'm looking at. You say the skull is missing on the right side in the photo, but I see not skull on the left either... or front or back. And I certainly can't make out any defects. It would be nice had Pat drawn some arrows and labeled them One other thing... it seems you didn't describe any shots. I guess one shot went in through the EOP hole. What about the other hole... the big one. Was it supposedly a tangential one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 [...] 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. [...] read the above as: we were young and wanted a career in medicine. End of story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Curme Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 (edited) From Sandy Larson: Okay, I get it that Pat (probably) doesn't allow for a large wound in the back. And that there is a wound just to the right of the EOP that is hard to see without adjusting the contrast on the BOH photos. But I'm having trouble following what you say because I don't know what the mystery photo is. I do see a photo that's hard to understand, and I think it's the one you're talking about. When I look at it I get the feeling I'm looking down into the base of a cranium, through the spinal column. Is that it? I see that Pat has posted it a number of times, but I see no descriptions of what I'm looking at. You say the skull is missing on the right side in the photo, but I see not skull on the left either... or front or back. And I certainly can't make out any defects. It would be nice had Pat drawn some arrows and labeled them One other thing... it seems you didn't describe any shots. I guess one shot went in through the EOP hole. What about the other hole... the big one. Was it supposedly a tangential one? Ollie's response: OK, let's start with Michael Walton's Excellent GIF he posted on page 2 of this thread: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view This GIF superimposes the BOH photo with the mystery photo. Now they weren't necessarily taken from the exact same perspective, but I think it's good enough to show the idea. Michael has circled the beveled half circle in the skull near the vertex or cowlick which in Mr. Speer's interpretation is the impact point of a bullet coming from the back and producing a tangential wound near the top right part of the head. In Ms. Cranor's article The Third Wound, she interprets this as either a tangential wound or the outshoot from a frontal shot. An important point to note here is that a piece of skull bone immediately adjacent to the beveled half circle measuring 10x6.5 cm (4 x 2.5 inches) together with two smaller fragments were found in the limousine and brought to the autopsy where it was determined that the 10x6.5 cm fragment had a matching half circle which fit with the half circle you can see by the vertex. This indicates to me that the bone up there was missing. So the issue in my mind is: If there was missing bone up there, which perhaps extended all the way down to the right rear margins of the defect as shown in the mystery photo, would that have afforded the Parkland doctors a view of occipital and parietal lobes? In other words, does the wound placement we see in the mystery photo allow for Parkland wound observations? I think it does. Take a look at a graphic from Pat Speer's Chapter 13: BOHcompwithovals.jpg You can see the EOP inshoot hole circled in both the skull and the scalp, exactly where the autopsy doctors located it. There are more and bigger photos in Pat Speer's Chapter 13 that visualize this. The large skull defect begins, as Dr. Clark testified, above and lateral to the proposed EOP entrance wound. If the bone there was missing at Parkland, like the bone just above it by the half circle beveled hole, then that's low enough to afford a view of the occipital and parietal lobes and for Dr. Clark to assess the damage therein. With respect to shot trajectories, Mr. Speer, and perhaps Ms. Cranor, both have suggested that the shot that entered low in the hairline traveled down the neck and out the front of the neck. Mr. Speer has that shot going in the EOP inshoot hole which can be seen in both the skull and scalp. Ms. Cranor proposed that that shot may have bypassed the skull and just traveled down the neck, but I believe she made that proposal prior to Mr. Speer's discovery of the visible EOP wound. Mr. Speer has a long discussion of tangential (or gutter) wounds in his chapter 16b: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter16b%3Adigginginthedirt These wounds are like a ricochet, the bullet hits, travels a short way along or through the surface and then flies off again. As Dr. Clark describes in his testimony, tangential wounds often generate far more trauma to the brain than a bullet which passes through the brain because the broken skull pieces act like secondary missiles and can cause extensive brain damage. See: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35&search=kemp_clark+tangential#relPageId=31&tab=page As I mentioned in a reply to Greg Burnham, the hypothesis of a tangential shot hitting the top of JKF's head from the rear has another piece of supporting evidence, which is the presence of skin tissue in one of the bullet fragments found in the front compartment of the limousine: CE 567, the nose bullet fragment allegedly found in the front compartment of the limo was tested and found to have human skin tissue on it: http://www.maryferre...man skin tissue Many people think that CE 567 and CE 569 are the remains of a bullet which hit the chrome molding near the rear view mirror. So how could they have gotten skin on them? Well, here are three hypotheses: 1) The bullet was fired from behind, richocheted off the top right side of JFK’s head and then hit the chrome strip. This, I believe is Pat Speer’s hypothesis. 2) The bullet was fired from behind and ricocheted off the top of a seat. Less likely to have a richochet off a soft seat. 3) The FBI planted evidence. Edited February 20, 2016 by Ollie Curme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Curme Posted February 20, 2016 Share Posted February 20, 2016 Greg, why is it OK to accuse Pat Speer of cherry picking but not you? Would you prefer this thread to remain focused on criticism of Pat Speer only? Followed up by the predictable Straw Man. Definition of Straw Man: a weak or imaginary argument or opponent that is set up to be easily defeated. OK, Greg. Go ahead and knock down that argument. 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