Pat Speer Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said: Keven has done that. The best Plaza witnesses were mostly back-of-head witnesses, just like the Parkland witnesses. 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. 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. LOL. You've proved nothing, Sandy, beyond how desperate you are to believe something you were conned into believing. So let's go back. Please define your criteria in picking your witnesses. Must one be a doctor? Why? And what is your time limit for accepting their statements? Are doctors who made some sort of claim supporting that the back of the head was blown out inherently "better" witnesses than those who witnessed the actual impact on the President? Why? And for how long? You certainly can't believe that a doctor who only saw the President for a few seconds who had been exposed to books and videos claiming the back of the head was blown out is an inherently better witness--25, 30, 40, 50, 60--years after the fact, than people who were looking at the back of the head from 20 feet away at the time of the shooting, who then reported what they saw on television...or in statements over the following days. Or can you? And, if so, why? Why would you defer to the Johnny-come-lately witnesses? And avoid like the plague the statements of the first witnesses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 This is Pat Speer's own graphic, and the photos within it amazingly contradict what he claims! None of these witnesses are pointing to a gaping wound at the top of the head. They are all clearly pointing to the back of the head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 2 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said: 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. Mantik says the eyes of he, Horne, and Grodon agree that there is no stereo effect on a certain area in the BOH area, indicative of photo tampering. But the HSCA expert panel say they checked that and their eyes saw the opposite. (512) Because pairs of stereo pictures may be seen in three dimensions, such photographs add depth to the perception of the photographed scene in much the same way as a pair of human eyes, separated from one another in space, can perceive depth. In viewing stereo pairs of photographs through a stereoscope, one eye views one picture and the other eye views the second picture. As a result, the eyes, coupled with the visual image processes of the brain, are able very readily to perceive any differences between the two pictures. Such differences in the scene between the two pictures tend literally to "pop out at you." No differences of this kind were [seen?] by the panel in stereo pairs of Kennedy's head, top of his head, the large skull defect, the [back?] of the head, back wound or the anterior neck wound. In this way, photographs of each of Kennedy's wounds were effectively authenticated. (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/authaut.htm) Here is a direct contradiction on a matter of observational fact: who is to be believed? Have any mainstream high-reputation forensic experts in photography stated on the record that their eyes see the same thing as claimed by these CT luminaries? I'm not opposed to a rigorous argument for photo tampering if there is actual forensic evidence for it vetted by mainstream authorities, but I see a bright yellow flag of caution when the only ones who are reported to see these things in photos are those heavily invested in theories supported by that seeing. Of course that can cut both ways. But without impugning Dr. Mantik's sincerity, his word alone on this is not good enough, nor are Horne and Grodon endorsements sufficient. To make this argument effective, there needs to be viewings by top-tier established-reputation experts, with perhaps some "blindness" built into a testing design (if possible), and transparency as to full reporting of findings and expert responses. That kind of study would get somewhere. Otherwise this is hard for an outside observer to distinguish from Rorschach Inkblot genre argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 (edited) 45 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Dr. Mantik says the eyes of he, Horne, and Grodon agree that there is no stereo effect on a certain area in the BOH area, indicative of photo tampering. But the HSCA expert panel say they checked that and their eyes saw the opposite. (512) Because pairs of stereo pictures may be seen in three dimensions, such photographs add depth to the perception of the photographed scene in much the same way as a pair of human eyes, separated from one another in space, can perceive depth. In viewing stereo pairs of photographs through a stereoscope, one eye views one picture and the other eye views the second picture. As a result, the eyes, coupled with the visual image processes of the brain, are able very readily to perceive any differences between the two pictures. Such differences in the scene between the two pictures tend literally to "pop out at you." No differences of this kind were [seen?] by the panel in stereo pairs of Kennedy's head, top of his head, the large skull defect, the [back?] of the head, back wound or the anterior neck wound. In this way, photographs of each of Kennedy's wounds were effectively authenticated. (https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/infojfk/jfk6/authaut.htm) Here is a direct contradiction on a matter of observational fact: who is to be believed? Have any mainstream high-reputation forensic experts in photography stated on the record that their eyes see the same thing as claimed by these CT luminaries? I'm not opposed to a rigorous argument for photo tampering if there is actual forensic evidence for it vetted by mainstream authorities, but I see a bright yellow flag of caution when the only ones who are reported to see these things in photos are those heavily invested in theories supported by that seeing. Of course that can cut both ways. But without impugning Dr. Mantik's sincerity, his word alone on this is not good enough, nor are Horne and Grodon endorsements sufficient. To make this argument effective, there needs to be viewings by top-tier established-reputation experts, with perhaps some "blindness" built into a testing design (if possible), and transparency as to full reporting of findings and expert responses. That kind of study would get somewhere. Otherwise this is hard for an outside observer to distinguish from Rorschach Inkblot genre argument. In chapter 18d, as you know, I present a morph of the two color back of the head photos published by Groden This makes it clear Groden and Mantik were full of hooey. The back of the head does not give the same appearance in the two photos. It is not a matte. And this is a fact. Edited January 17 by Pat Speer 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: This is Pat Speer's own graphic, and the photos within it amazingly contradict what he claims! None of these witnesses are pointing to a gaping wound at the top of the head. They are all clearly pointing to the back of the head. If only you weren't serious... 1. I never said these witnesses were all pointing to the top of the head. 2. I never said the witnesses cited by Groden were a convincing case for anything, outside Groden's gross misrepresentation of the evidence. To be clear, O'Connor and Custer were pointing out the rearmost part of the wound seen at Bethesda after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, only to have Groden take a frame from his video of them and pretend it was the location of the large defect seen at the beginning of the autopsy. 3. The point of this slide was that far from supporting that the wound was low on the back of the head, and observed by people at both Parkland and Bethesda, these photos are a mish-mash that, if anything, suggests the wound was not low on the back of the head. 4. When I first posted this slide online, most were annoyed. But not just with me. Thompson was annoyed that people were attacking me instead of looking at the photos and realizing, yeah, he's right, they're not pointing to the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. And Fetzer was annoyed that Groden was misrepresenting witness recollections to make it look like the body wasn't altered between Parkland and Bethesda. After which I reminded him that was the point of Gary Aguilar's chapter in Fetzer's book Murder in Dealey Plaza. After which he disavowed Gary's chapter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 32 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Dr. Mantik says the eyes of he, Horne, and Grodon agree that there is no stereo effect on a certain area in the BOH area, indicative of photo tampering. But the HSCA expert panel say they checked that and their eyes saw the opposite. Why you take at face value anything reported in the second coverup -- namely the HSCA -- is beyond me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 33 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: In chapter 18d, as you know, I present a morph of the two color back of the head photos published by Groden This makes it clear Groden and Mantik were full of hooey. The back of the head does not give the same appearance in the two photos. It is not a matte. And this is a fact. Actually Pat looking at your chapter online I see that for the first time—I read your chapters in paper printouts which do not show gifs! And very interesting about the rearmost part of the gaping wound being a moveable flap at the top of the back of the head, shown by your gif. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Doudna Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) On 1/17/2024 at 3:51 AM, Sandy Larsen said: Why you take at face value anything reported in the second coverup -- namely the HSCA -- is beyond me. I prefer to think of it as judgements of “weight”, not (in all cases) “face value”. Please don’t put words into mouths. I give weight to mainstream authorities who have reputation and experience in areas outside of my own expertise, yes. Edited January 19 by Greg Doudna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy Larsen Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 4 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said: Why is it your putdowns of mainstream expertise reminds me of cult talk? The HSCA furthered the coverup that the WC began. Anything that came from it should be viewed with suspicion. You seem to be unaware of this, which frankly is surprising. An obvious example is how they took the EOP (external occipital protuberance) entrance wound as seen by Humes and moved it up to the cowlick. Do you think an honest investigation would do that? And they took the T-3 level wound in the back and moved it up to the base of the neck. So that the SBT would at least look a little bit okay. Jeez! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Gram Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said: Actually Pat looking at your chapter online I see that for the first time—I read your chapters in paper printouts which do not show gifs! And very interesting about the rearmost part of the gaping wound being a moveable flap at the top of the back of the head, shown by your gif. Boswell explained what they’re doing in those photos in his ARRB deposition: Q. I'd like to ask you a question first about the scalp, although that's not the center of the photograph, and ask you whether the scalp had been pulled up in any way in order to keep any flaps from hanging down over the back. I don't know if that question was-- A. Yes, I understand. Q. Maybe if we could look at that photograph in conjunction with one from the third view. A. Where the flap is coming down? Q. Yes. A. I know this--the flap is stretched forward here, because if this fell back down--with him in this sort of recumbent position, yes, this scalp would fold down and cover this wound. Q. So you're saying that on the fourth view, which are the photographs that are in your hand right now, the scalp has been pulled back and folded back over the top of the head in a way different from the way that they appeared in the third view, the superior view of the head? A. Yes. Q. Is that fair? A. In the previous one, it was permitted just to drop. In this one, it's pulled forward up over the forehead, toward the forehead. Q. Who, if you recall, pulled up the scalp for the photograph to be taken? A. There are about three of us involved here, because there are two right hands on that centimeter scale. I think that I probably was pulling the scalp up. The damage appears to extend quite a bit further back in the top of head photos, and the scalp flaps are clearly visible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 2 hours ago, Pat Speer said: In chapter 18d, as you know, I present a morph of the two color back of the head photos published by Groden This makes it clear Groden and Mantik were full of hooey. The back of the head does not give the same appearance in the two photos. It is not a matte. And this is a fact. There is a flap of scalp being held in place here by a hand. Where is this flap still attached (ie hinged) to the rest of the scalp? Is the hinge down low near the eop or is the hinge higher near the top of the ruler? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 2 hours ago, Gerry Down said: There is a flap of scalp being held in place here by a hand. Where is this flap still attached (ie hinged) to the rest of the scalp? Is the hinge down low near the eop or is the hinge higher near the top of the ruler? I was working with the back wound photo last night, and tried to match the head wound apparent at the top to the black and white photo of the back of the head. And from doing this it seems clear Boswell was correct. I had long said the morphs of the back of the head photos prove the top of the back of the head was a flap, but hadn't thought to use the back wound photo to prove this. In any event, here's a preliminary match up. I think from this you can see that the hand in the back of the head photo is pulling the flap up, and that the "hole" in the back wound photo extends an inch to two inches further back than it does in the back of the head photo--which was taken I believe to demonstrate the wound by the EOP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerry Down Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 25 minutes ago, Pat Speer said: I was working with the back wound photo last night, and tried to match the head wound apparent at the top to the black and white photo of the back of the head. And from doing this it seems clear Boswell was correct. I had long said the morphs of the back of the head photos prove the top of the back of the head was a flap, but hadn't thought to use the back wound photo to prove this. In any event, here's a preliminary match up. I think from this you can see that the hand in the back of the head photo is pulling the flap up, and that the "hole" in the back wound photo extends an inch to two inches further back than it does in the back of the head photo--which was taken I believe to demonstrate the wound by the EOP. So the flap of scalp that Boswell is holding up in the BOH photo (on the left) has fallen into JFKs head in the photo which shows JFKs back wound (on the right)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted January 17 Author Share Posted January 17 (edited) 4 hours ago, Gerry Down said: So the flap of scalp that Boswell is holding up in the BOH photo (on the left) has fallen into JFKs head in the photo which shows JFKs back wound (on the right)? From looking back at the gifs of the back of the head photos and comparing them to the back wound photo, I think you are correct, in that the scalp flap is drooped forward into the defect in the back wound photo, but stretched out and partially obscuring the defect in the back of the head photos. Edited January 17 by Pat Speer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Coleman Posted January 17 Share Posted January 17 (edited) So, in a nutshell - multiple hospital oddbods indicate a back of head injury…. ….yet Mantik has seen a ‘matte insert’ on his Stereotron 2000….. …that definitely isn’t visible in the animated gif? Two of these three are wrong? Edited March 19 by Sean Coleman 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