Sandy Larsen Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 2 hours ago, Pat Speer said: You can repeat this kind of stuff all day long, Sandy, and it will not make it true. Yep, it's true. As I showed again above. 2 hours ago, Pat Speer said: If you put ALL the witness statements regarding the head wound in chronological order you will see that there is by no means a consensus among ALL the witnesses, and that the widespread belief all the early witnesses said the back of the head was blown out is a myth, put together by people selling something. I have now counted the precise number of Parkland doctors and nurses who placed the gaping head wound on the back of the head, and it is a general consensus. Of the 18 Parkland doctors and nurses, 17 said that the wound was on the back of the head. The Parkland doctors and nurses are the best witnesses, especially the nurses given that they had to dress the wound. But, knowing you Pat, you will try to eliminate as many of the best witnesses as you can, and introduce some less convincing Dealey Plaza witnesses who saw the wound for but a split second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 8 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Sandy, you have been one of the publicly harshest critics of Pat Speer's argument, sustained and relentless, dripping with scorn. The reason for that, Greg, is because Pat cherry picks and misinforms massively to make his case. What he does is wrong. The only thing I fight Pat with are evidence and sound arguments. There is nothing wrong with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 16 Share Posted January 16 24 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: https://archive.org/details/jfk-autopsy-photos-hd_202204/Back wound (B%26W 11 %26 12) (uncropped) (JFK Absolute Proof).jpg Would you take a look at the very top of that autopsy photo and say how you interpret it? It's not the BOH photo but it is exactly parallel to the BOH photo and shows where the gaping wound was, and that it was there, on the head of JFK at the moment the BOH photo was taken. It wasn't missing from JFK's head when either of those photos were taken, nor is it necessary to suppose that those photos were altered or forged to remove it. That back-wound photo (of the link just given) was my tipping point in convincing me on this. Greg, Sorry, but I don't see a head wound in that photo that is in any way consistent with what the Parkland doctors and nurses said. And they are the best witnesses as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 16 Author Share Posted January 16 (edited) Oh my. Let me try an analogy. 1. There is a hit and run accident. A pedestrian is dead. A car speeds away. 2. Those at the scene tell the police the vehicle performing the hit and run was a four-door. 3. An abandoned car is found around the corner. It has blood on it and is towed to the police station by a tow-truck crew. 4. The car is then photographed by the police department. A suspect linked to that car is then arrested. 5. The defense attorney notes that the receipt of the tow-truck driver says the car picked up around the corner was a two-door. He then combs the neighborhood, and asks questions of anyone in the area when the car was towed away, and finds more witnesses who will claim the car towed away was a two-door. 6. He presents this as a defense for his client. The car involved in the accident was not my client's car, you see, he drove a four door. This was a two-door. 7. Only...the investigators tasked with inspecting the car say it was a four-door, and the photos of the car in the evidence yard show a four-door, and, egads, the tow truck crew eventually comes to say oh yeah I guess it was a four-door, after being shown the photos. 8. But the defense attorney refuses to budge. Some of the bystanders still insist it was a two-door. So he proposes there was a mass conspiracy--a car switcheroo, or, if not, a cavalcade of fake photos, and lying witnesses testifying to the accuracy of those photos. 9. And his chief witness for all this is...the one member of the tow truck crew who refused to budge once shown the photos, and continues to claim he helped tow away a two-door. 10. Only...this witness wrote a report on the day of the accident, which claimed the vehicle he'd pulled to the police yard was a pick-up truck. It's a mountain made out of molehill by people anxious to prove their client innocent... And it's been a tremendous distraction for decades... As proven once again by this thread... Edited January 16 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 16 Author Share Posted January 16 1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said: The reason for that, Greg, is because Pat cherry picks and misinforms massively to make his case. What he does is wrong. The only thing I fight Pat with are evidence and sound arguments. There is nothing wrong with that. Cherry-picking? You refuse to include the earliest witnesses to the head wound because they didn't say what you want them to say. If that's not cherry-picking, then what is? I ask again. Please make a list of the statements of the head-wound witnesses in chronological order, prior to any testimony was given to the Warren Commission. Here's one you've missed. Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than a week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: Cherry-picking? You refuse to include the earliest witnesses to the head wound because they didn't say what you want them to say. If that's not cherry-picking, then what is? I chose the Parkland doctors and nurses because they are the best blowout wound witnesses. Pat wants to exclude them because they don't agree with his preconceive notion of where he thinks the wound should be. 14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: I ask again. Please make a list of the statements of the head-wound witnesses in chronological order, prior to any testimony was given to the Warren Commission. Since when does ordering witnesses chronologically determine who the best witnesses are? Oh yeah, I know when. When it puts the Dealey Plaza witnesses first. The ones who had only a split second to see blood shooting out of the president's head. These are the worst witnesses for what they saw, but the best for Pat because they place the wound closer to where he thinks it should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said: [Reading Pat's website,] I thought going into it, how is Pat Speer going to reconcile all those witness "back of the head" statements with the BOH photograph? Pat's website -- like this thread of his -- is for those people looking for ways to rationalize away the overwhelming eyewitness testimony indicating that the gaping wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: I chose the Parkland doctors and nurses because they are the best blowout wound witnesses. Pat wants to exclude them because they don't agree with his preconceive notion of where he thinks the wound should be. Since when does ordering witnesses chronologically determine who the best witnesses are? Oh yeah, I know when. When it puts the Dealey Plaza witnesses first. The ones who had only a split second to see blood shooting out of the president's head. These are the worst witnesses for what they saw, but the best for Pat because they place the wound closer to where he thinks it should be. Oh my. I present all the witnesses on my website, including many latter-day Parkland witnesses. You refuse to present ANY plaza witnesses, or even Parkland witnesses like Burkley, Jacks, Giesecke, and Salyer, in your posts. Heck, you didn't even know that McClelland was a left temple witness, and a right side of the head witness, well before he became a back of the head blow-out witness. And yet you continue trying to sell to others what was misleadingly sold to you. Now, I'm sorry you were misled. But that's no excuse for spreading a myth... As far as placing the witnesses in chronological order...of course that's the best way to sort through the nonsense. None of the Parkland witnesses said anything, or wrote down anything, regarding the wounds, prior to the press conference held by Perry and Clark. And only a few wrote down anything prior to the publication of an article in a medical journal, that would have been widely circulated within the hospital. And beyond those few, only a few more testified to the Warren Commission. The bulk of the Parkland witnesses cited by CTs today, e.g. Crenshaw, Bell, and so on, made no mention of a blow out wound prior to the publication of Best Evidence--a best seller positing that the low back of the head was blown out--in 1980. And yet, even then, very few signed off on the wound's being as low on the back of the head was presented therein. And, besides, your notion of what constitutes a "best witness" is badly mistaken. Numerous studies have shown that supposed experts are MORE likely to make certain kinds of mistakes than non-experts, due to their mistaken impression feeling more familiar to them, seeing as they've seen so many things of a similar nature. For example...a sports analyst on TV says he remembers watching a game in which the Cowboys lost when their quarterback threw five interceptions. To which, a guest on his show responds...no no no, that was the only game I ever went to--it was my son's sixth birthday, and I remember distinctly that it was six interceptions. Who is more likely to be right? The "expert" who has seen hundreds of games? Or the fan who saw but one? Studies suggest the fan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Pat's website -- like this thread of his -- is for those people looking for ways to rationalize away the overwhelming eyewitness testimony indicating that the gaping wound was on the back of Kennedy's head. My discussion of the back of the head wound takes up less than 10% of my website. It was never my intention to dive into this nonsense, as I am friends with some its strongest proponents. But make no mistake. It's nonsense. And I thought I should offer thinking people an alternative. Don't you? I mean, do you think it's wise for conspiracy theorists wishing to debate lone-nutters to have no idea that the earliest witnesses said nothing about a blow-out wound on the back of the head, and universally described a wound on the side of the head? I mean, how could that not be important? Edited January 17 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) 2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said: [The Dealey Plaza witnesses] are the worst witnesses for what they saw... Far and away the #1 best "Dealey Plaza witness" was the Bell & Howell movie camera being held by Abraham Zapruder. That camera isn't lying to us or misrepresenting President Kennedy's head wound. That Bell & Howell camera is clearly telling us that the President's large "blow-out" head wound was most definitely NOT anywhere in the BACK of the head: Also See: Edited January 17 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) On 1/15/2024 at 5:23 PM, Pat Speer said: Okay, let's be specific. As the wound at the top of the head in this photo correlates with the wound as seen in other photos, do you think this photo was forged to match the other photos, or that they are all forgeries? Sorry for the delay Pat, Over the years,I have heard people comment and show how this picture has been forged/photoshopped. Knowing what I know after all of these years...this picture don't even come close to passing my eye test.My goodness,I'm honestly surprised that it is in the collection. Edited January 17 by Michael Crane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Michael Crane said: Sorry for the delay Pat, Over the years,I have heard people comment and show how this picture has been forged/photoshopped. Knowing what I know after all of these years...this picture don't even come close to passing my eye test.My goodness,I'm honestly surprised that it is in the collection. So you think all the photos are fake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Crane Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Pat Speer said: So you think all the photos are fake? No,but I would have to see each and everyone of them to give an opinion. Some of the pictures in the morgue are quite drastic. I hope that they are not accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keven Hofeling Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 3 hours ago, Michael Crane said: Sorry for the delay Pat, Over the years,I have heard people comment and show how this picture has been forged/photoshopped. Knowing what I know after all of these years...this picture don't even come close to passing my eye test.My goodness,I'm honestly surprised that it is in the collection. Dr. David Mantik on Stereoscopic Testing of the "Original" JFK Back of the Head Autopsy Photographs at the National Archives https://youtu.be/A7bgTvZBmcA Dr. David Mantik subjected the "original" back-of-the-head autopsy photographs to stereoscopic testing at the National Archives and found that there is a soft matte insert covering the occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, thus we are dealing with photographic forgery in these photographs.... Dr. David Mantik wrote: "...While at the National Archives, I performed stereo viewing of the autopsy photographs [8]. This is possible because each view is represented by two separate photographs, taken close together in time and space. Such a pair is what makes stereo viewing possible. I performed this procedure for the original generation of photographs (4” x 5” transparencies), for the color prints, and also for the black and white copies. I did this for many of the distinct views in the collection. But the bottom line is this: the only abnormal site was the back of the head—it always yielded a 2D image, as if each eye had viewed precisely the same image. Of course, that would have been expected if someone (illicitly in a dark room) had inserted the same image into that anatomic site for each member of the photographic pair. I discussed this issue with Robert Groden, who served as the photographic consultant for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during 1976-1979. He concurred with my observations, i.e., only the back of the head looked abnormal during his stereo viewing for the HSCA. Although the large posterior hole is often cited as evidence for a frontal shot, a second issue, perhaps equally as important, should not be overlooked: the severe discrepancy between the photographs and the witnesses—all by itself— strongly suggests manipulation of this photograph. In other words, whoever altered this photograph likely recognized that the large posterior defect loudly proclaimed a frontal shot, so much so in fact, that it became critical to cover that hole. Pathologist J. Boswell (many decades later) speculated that the scalp had merely been stretched so as to cover the hole. In fact, to have done so, and to have succeeded so seamlessly, would have defeated the sole purpose of the photographs, which presumably was to capture reality. If ever a photograph existed of this large defect, then that one has disappeared. Some witnesses do recall seeing such a photograph immediately after the autopsy, and we know (from the autopsy photographer himself) that other autopsy photographs have disappeared. Furthermore, we know from Boswell’s sketch on a skull model, that the bone under this apparently intact scalp was in fact missing [9]. So which is more decisive: missing scalp—or missing bone? Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." 'JFK ASSASSINATION PARADOXES: A PRIMER FOR BEGINNERS' Journal of Health Science & Education | David W. Mantik, MD https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf Mantik DW (2018) JFK Assassination Paradoxes: A Primer for Beginners. J Health Sci Educ 2: 126. _____________________________ DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE NOW AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF INTERVIEW (46:19 - 49:51) AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS CUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): Others adhering to the hypothesis about the concealment of JFK's head wound in the back of the head autopsy photographs being accomplished by manipulation of the scalp have changed their minds and concluded instead that the photographs are fraudulent. Dr. David Mantik's stereoscopic testing of the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, which found that there is a soft matte insertion over the occipital-parietal wound in these photos, is a strong indication that the back of the head autopsy photographs have been altered. Doug Horne is among those who have changed their minds as the result of Dr. Mantik's testing. When the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses were first shown the bootleg autopsy photographs, they reacted in shock, and disavowed them. By the time of the 1988 NOVA PBS-TV program ["Who Shot President Kennedy?" https://youtu.be/SL9orid231c ], some of the Parkland doctors who had had some time to find ways to rationalize away the discrepancy between their eye-witness observation and the autopsy photographs, they did exactly that for PBS/Nova, opining that JFK's skull had been manipulated in such a way as to create the false appearance that the back of JFK's head was intact. Dr. David Mantik described it as follows: "...Some have argued that the Parkland physicians have authenticated this photograph, and that we should therefore accept its authenticity. However, what they said was more like this: If the scalp had been stretched in this fashion, then they could not take issue with that photograph. Absent such a peculiar maneuver, however, they were dubious. Their doubt was further accentuated in a very recent documentary: “The Parkland Doctors” [10]. Seven Parkland physicians met to discuss their recollections. They were profoundly troubled by autopsy images of the posterior scalp. To describe these images, they readily used words like “manipulated” and “altered.”..." https://escires.com/articles/Health-1-126.pdf Doug Horne had reached the same conclusion during his tenure with the ARRB. In his book "Inside the ARRB" as well as in his Press Statement of May 15, 2006, Doug Horne expressed doubt about claims that the back of the head autopsy photographs of JFK have been altered to conceal the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound in the back of JFK's head, speculating instead that JFK's scalp had been manipulated in the photos to conceal the back of the head wound. Ten years later, after Dr. David Mantik had conducted stereoscopic analysis on the original autopsy photographs at the National Archives on nine separate occasions, and thereby detected that there is a soft matte insert placed over the occipital-parietal wound in the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head, Doug Horne announced that he had changed his opinion, and now accepts the evidence that the original autopsy photos of the back of JFK's head are in fact altered. Doug Horne announced his change of opinion during a joint appearance with Dr. David Mantik on Brent Holland's "Night Fright" podcast. The transcript of the relevant dialogue is below, and the video has been queued for you in advance via the following link: https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 DOUGLAS HORNE ANNOUNCED THAT HE AGREES WITH DR. DAVID MANTIK’S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT DOCTORED AUTOPSY PHOTOGRAPHS DURING JOINT INTERVIEW OF HIMSELF AND DR. MANTIK BY BRENT HOLLAND ON DECEMBER 9, 2016 (SEE FOLLOWING TRANSCRIPT OF 46:19 - 49:51 OF INTERVIEW AND NOTE THAT VIDEO IS QUEUED TO RELEVANT PORTION AT 46:19 [ https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 ]): …BRENT HOLLAND: “…How did they cover up those photos David? How did they, you know, because there is a photo that I use all the time?... Dr. McClelland has made a hand sketch of the back of JFK’s head and he shows approximately where the hole in the back of JFK’s head is, which is the lower right quadrant folks, and there is an autopsy photo that is supposed to be the back of JFK’s head that shows it fully intact. Your speculation on that David? DAVID MANTIK: Well I took along a stereo viewer to the archives to look at these images. The reason I did that is because if that particular area was faked in to cover up a hole, and it was faked in the same way on two partner images, then I would not see a 3-d effect, and that’s exactly what I saw. Robert Groden -- who is much more of a photographic expert than I am – and I have had discussions about that and he tells me exactly the same thing. BRENT HOLLAND: Is that right? Robert Groden show’s in the archive as well folks. Okay, what’s your speculation Doug? DOUGLAS HORNE: Well I now agree with Dr. Mantik. At the time I wrote my book – it was 2009 – I leaned toward the likelihood that the back of the head photos showed intact scalp because a lot of the scalp might have been dramatically re-arranged, ya know, carefully cut away from the cranium, and re-arranged, and just held in place for three minutes while they took pictures to try to prove there was no hole in the back of the head. But I respect what Dr. Mantik did with his stereoscopic viewer, and the problem is that the Review Board didn’t think to do that. And unfortunately, I think Jeremy Gunn and I were in the mode of trusting the HSCA. The HSCA wrote that its photographic consultant panel viewed the autopsy photographs stereoscopically and didn’t notice any problems. DAVID MANTIK: I discussed this particular issue with Robert Groden who was there. He made it very clear to me that Robert Blakey had no idea what stereoscopic viewing was all about… BRENT HOLLAND: Really?! DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …He was totally ignorant about it…. DOUGLAS HORNE: Wow! DAVID MANTIK: …And Robert’s observations totally agreed with mine… BRENT HOLLAND: So there you have corroboration. DAVID MANTIK: …They just, they just made it up. They had to. What else could they do. If they said something else the game would be up. This was a critical juncture to them. They had, they had to make a choice. DOUGLAS HORNE: The whole game of the HSCA was to blame Oswald for all of the wounds. And, uh, they had to admit there had been a frontal shot because the acoustic science forced them into saying that. But they still wanted to have their cake and to eat it too, and so they said Oswald still killed the president and wounded the governor, and that no one else did, and that the shot from the front missed. Robert Blakey is responsible for all that. Him and Michael Baden…” https://youtu.be/Y7Vr0ne96yg?t=2779 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 8 hours ago, Pat Speer said: You refuse to present ANY plaza witnesses ... Keven has done that. The best Plaza witnesses were mostly back-of-head witnesses, just like the Parkland witnesses. 8 hours ago, Pat Speer said: You refuse to present ... Parkland witnesses like Burkley, Jacks, Giesecke, and Salyer, in your posts. I listed all the known Parkland doctors and nurses. So, of course I listed Drs. Giesecke and Salyer. Burkley wasn't a Parkland doctor. Dr. Jacks? Unknown. 8 hours ago, Pat Speer said: Heck, you didn't even know that McClelland was a left temple witness, and a right side of the head witness, well before he became a back of the head blow-out witness. The reason I didn't know that is because it's not true. It's one of your misrepresentations that I I've already proved to be false. 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