So is David Lifton's Final Charade just going to be lost to history?

[Tom Gram]

15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

From the foundation that there was a bullet hole just above the rear hairline--to the right of the EOP--as the autopsists and other witnesses said--Pat Speer makes an excellent argument that the huge gaping head wound was not connected to that but caused by a different, tangential shot, not a through-and-through shot with a separate entrance and exit for if that had been the case comparative parallels indicate (Speer cites) that it would not have blown out as much of the skull as a tangential shot would and, in the case of JFK, did.

The autopsists said the rear hairline bullet hole was an entrance wound due to beveling on the inside, but I would like to see that interpretation analyzed. I know Pat Speer accepts that it is an entrance wound with the exit in the throat. But there are several things that seem to me could weigh in favor of reversing that direction, with entrance at the throat and exit at the rear hairline. First, the impressions of nearly everyone who saw the throat bullet hole that it was an entrance. Second, the throat wound was only 3-5 mm, much smaller than the rear hairline 6 x 15 mm, and all else being equal, usually the smaller hole is the entrance, the wider hole is the exit.

Third, from some gunshot articles I have been reading, beveling in skull bone is a usually decisive argument on direction but there are exceptions; in the case of tangential hits there is beveling on both sides, or rather the bullet channels in making a "trough" on one side of the exit hole, from the inside (before beveling on the outside of the exit). But that "trough" on the inside can look like beveling too, which runs counter to the idea that beveling always is on the opposite side of the direction of the bullet. The question is whether the autopsists' 6 x 15 mm bullet hole could have had a "trough" looking like beveling on the inside, with the "oval" hole representing a tangential exit rather than an entrance. 

I was struck in reading Speer's chapter (13) by the analysis of the Clark and HSCA panels. I have come to see that those panels did not "move" the autopsists' rear-hairline bullet hole "up" four inches higher. No. What they did was they simply disappeared or declared nonexistent the autopsists' rear-hairline bullet hole. They then found a new alleged bullet hole at the cowlick, much higher, based on an indeterminate photo and an interpretation of an indeterminate lateral x-ray, both very equivocal in interpretations as necessarily indicating a bullet hole at that location. 

As Speer brings out, nobody had previously noticed any bullet hole at the cowlick before the Clark and HSCA panels newly "found" one there. The Clark and HSCA panels obviously did not have access to the actual skull so were working solely from photos and x-rays. Whether or not they were correct in finding a bullet hole at that location--Speer makes a good argument they were incorrect on that, that it was dried blood in that location--has no connection to whether they were right or wrong in "disappearing" the autopsists' and other witnesses bullet hole near the rear hairline. The cowlick clearly was not what the autopsists saw and measured and reported located as a bullet hole near the rear hairline. 

Then Speer argues the rear-hairline bullet hole is visible in the BOH photo and in the "mystery photo" of inside the skull. Speer goes through how the panels tried to get the autopsists to say they had mistakenly located the rear-hairline bullet hole and that they had really all along seen the one the panels were saying was located at the cowlick (which is pretty ridiculous, really)--but 8 of 9 (or whatever the numbers were) of the rear-hairline bullet hole witnesses refused to agree with that. The only one who did, one time, was autopsy author Hume, after he was threatened to be ripped apart publicly in a hostile cross-examination bringing out other errors he had made in a way that would ruin him professionally, in other words coercion. Humes then said what was wanted re the cowlick location, avoiding the threatened hostile public evisceration of his reputation, but after that Humes repudiated that and returned to his former (and all the others') original location of the rear-hairline bullet hole location as they had all measured and reported.

And troubling, is one of the autopsists, I forget which one, thought he remembered photos being taken of the skull showing that rear-hairline bullet wound, but none survive in the autopsy photos today, as if there may have been intentional "losing" of certain photos.

But back to the entrance versus exit issue of the rear-hairline/near-EOP bullet hole. If it was an entrance (as the autopsists' thought, citing I believe almost entirely beveling on the underside as their reason or evidence for that--but was that true beveling on the underside, or was that a long-trough one-side bevel of a bullet tangentially exiting?) ... if it was an entrance then there are the questions of when was that additional shot from the rear fired, what is the explanation for the small exit hole, and what became of the bullet. 

The other alternative, that it was an exit but the autopsists mistakenly thought it was an entrance, in some ways intuitively seems a better fit with the evidence, if the beveling issue could survive scrutiny and analysis on that point.

The very small entrance at the throat becomes the entrance wound that everyone's first impression of it was.

The trajectory would work with a shot from the storm drain. A storm drain shooter would have to have fired a handgun on practical grounds for space reasons. I have read that .22's were favored by professional assassins because they were quieter and easier to silence. On the other hand there were reports that an unexplained .45 bullet was found in the north knoll grass. Perhaps a storm drain shooter fired a .45 pistol, and the .45 bullet found was from that shot exiting near JFK's rear hairline.

The only timing window of opportunity for such a storm drain shot--which would be a perfect assassin's shot--would be just after the Z312-313 head shot, not before, and there is a whole literature of jiggle analysis as well as witnesses hearing shots close together at the end that support another shot after Z313, about 3/4 of a second later; perhaps this was it. At that timing and limousine location there is no windshield in the way of the shot, and JFK is leaned back and to the left lessening the discrepancy between trajectory and bullet path going up the neck and out near the rear hairline of the head.

And what happened to the bullet is no longer a problem with the rear-hairline being an exit since it either is the .45 bullet possibly found, or else some other bullet that ended up outside of the limousine, but does not need to be found inside the limo.

Cliff is skeptical that a T1 right transverse process could be damaged by a bullet in transit from the throat to a rear-hairline exit. I am not expert enough to know whether that is a real or illusory objection. I would be swayed if Cliff could cite convincing expert testimony on this point but am not willing to simply take Cliff's word for that on its own.  

As is well known there was no dissection of the neck to find where the throat bullet track "went", but I recall something about it did go "upward" in direction from the throat. And then there is mortician Robinson's testimony claiming he saw a probe inserted in the autopsists' rear-hairline bullet hole which he says he saw come out at the throat wound. If true--Robinson insisted it was--that would be decisive and end all argument on this. However that testimony of Robinson was decades later and no one else directly corroborated it to my knowledge, which seem to be major objections to considering that possible confirmation. 

I would be interested if someone knows of a concise, single article (or book chapter) which directly and in an informed way refutes or falsifies this line of analysis--the notion of a connection between the autopsists' near-rear-hairline bullet hole and throat wound.

I’ve read Pat’s online book, and we’re on the same page that the alleged cowlick entrance is a definite fabrication, and that Pat has a strong case that the EOP entrance is not connected with the large head wound. 

The “tunneling” and interior beveling described by the autopsy doctors are characteristic of an entrance, and I haven’t seen any evidence suggesting the EOP wound could be an exit. Hunting ammo can create large, explosive entrance wounds and small exits, so I suppose it’s not impossible that the EOP wound could be an exit from a GK shot or something, but absent additional evidence I think the EOP wound should be accepted as an entrance.

Your theory about a throat shot from below and EOP exit is interesting, but all the evidence I’m aware of points to the EOP wound being an entrance, so that seems like a tricky case to make. 

My interest in the head wounds is focused on two main questions: 1) Is there a possible wounding scenario in which Pat’s theories and the medical evidence overall can be reconciled with a single shot to the EOP from the 6th floor window; and 2) what is the probability of that scenario actually happening compared to Pat’s theory of two headshots?

The reason I’m interested in those two questions specifically is simple: if the answer to 1) is truly and unequivocally “no”, Pat is correct that the extant medical evidence legitimately proves conspiracy in the JFK case. The head wound location debate instantly becomes irrelevant. 

Pat obviously gets a lot of flak for the head wound location thing. I don’t really understand why those advocating for the further-back location don’t take the same type of approach: If you think the extant autopsy materials truly support a single shooter from above and behind, prove it. Pat has a point that it’s hard to believe anyone would alter autopsy photos to reflect clear-cut evidence of two headshots, so the best way to refute Pat’s theories is to, well, actually refute them. Reposting Parkland statements over and over gets us nowhere. 

Pat’s medical arguments are compelling and well-documented, but like everything else in this case there is plenty of ambiguity. I’ve read some newer wound ballistics literature not cited by any EOP lone-assassin theorist for example describing a plausible mechanism for the high fragment trail, plus  other credible potential counterarguments to some of Pat’s head wound theories e.g. the in-skull trajectory issue. 

As of right now, I agree with Pat that a tangential wound and separate EOP entrance is the most probable scenario to explain JFK’s (extant) head wounds, but I’m not totally convinced it’s the only possible scenario. A case for conspiracy based on the official head wounds alone needs to be as robust as possible; so I think it’s worth the effort to approach Pat’s arguments from the opposing viewpoint and look for ways to make a single shot work.

The biggest obstacles I see currently to a plausible lone assassin EOP solution are the back-and-to-the-left motion and skull fragments launching into the air at high speed in the Z-film. 

All current work on the alleged “jet effect” is questionable at best - that’s being generous - and for the most part like Nick Nalli’s latest calculus-heavy bogus attempt totally irrelevant to real-world wound ballistics, let alone Dealey Plaza. The fragment launching also seems highly indicative of an impact, but I haven’t read enough on wound ballistics of the head to really know if that’s as devastating as it seems to a “traditional” exit scenario. 

Edited February 10 by Tom Gram

[Cliff Varnell]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Here is what Bennett wrote on the day of the shooting.

Please note that Pat does not address the fact that JFK balled his fists in front of his throat at the beginning of the shooting sequence.  Pat would have us believe that JFK suffered a shallow wound in his back and reacted by holding his fists in front of his throat, remaining mute and immobile for 6 seconds without calling out in pain, or warning the others, or ducking down. 

Pat also believes that the top of JFK's back was 4 inches below the bottom of the clothing collars, but that's a separate discussion.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

(notes written on 11-22-63, 24H541-542) "We made a left hand turn and then a quick right. The President's auto moved down a slight grade and the crowd was very sparse. At this point I heard a noise that immediately reminded me of a firecracker. I immediately, upon hearing the supposed firecracker, looked at the boss's car. At this exact time I saw a shot that hit the boss about 4 inches down from the right shoulder.

What part of "at this exact time I saw" does Pat not understand?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A second shoot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the boss's head.

Note that when Bennett uses the phrase "the second shoot [sic]" he"s referring to the head shot.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I immediately hollered to Special Agent Hickey, seated in the same seat, to get the AR-15. I drew my revolver and looked to the rear and to the left--high left--but was unable to see any one person that could have rendered this terrible tragedy." 

Note that he says he saw "a shot that hit", and not that he saw the actual impact of the shot.

Note that Pat ignores the "at this exact time I saw" context and chooses to spin Bennett's statement instead.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

As one cannot actually see "a shot,"

One can actually see the impact of a shot. 

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

the possibly exists he meant to say "THAT a shot had hit."

That's not what he clearly wrote -- again, what part of "at this exact time" does Pat not grasp?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

This is supported, moreover, by his next sentence, in which he describes the shot hitting the President in the head as the "second shoot."

What?  Supported how?  The first noise he heard he identified as a firecracker, not a firearm report.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Note also that he loves the word immediately and uses it repeatedly. This is not an articulate person. 

Gratuitous witness bashing.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And here is what someone--(probably a secretary)--typed up the next day.

(11-23-63 report, 18H760) “The motorcade entered an intersection and then proceeded down a grade. At this point the well-wishers numbered but a few, the motorcade continued on down this grade en route to the trade mart. At this point I heard what sounded like a firecracker. I immediately looked from the right/crowd/physical area and looked towards the President who was seated in the right rear seat of his limousine open convertible, At the moment I looked at the back of the President I heard another firecracker noise and saw the shot hit the President about four inches down from the right shoulder.

What part of "at the moment" does Pat not grasp?  Clearly, Bennett heard the firecracker noise and saw the shot strike the back.  How much more clear does this have to be?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

A second shot followed immediately and hit the right rear high of the President’s head.  I immediately hollered “he’s hit” and reached for the AR-15 located on the floor of the rear seat. Special Agent Hickey had already picked-up the AR-15. We peered towards the rear and particularly the right side of the area. I had drawn my revolver when I saw SA Hickey had the AR-15. I was unable to see anything or one that could have fired the shoots.”

The text of his Secret Service report does not read "shoots" -- it reads "shots."  Why does Pat misrepresent what's in the report?

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Note that here--after word had gotten out that there were three shots, not two--Bennett is supposedly specifying that he heard a second shot and saw it hit the President.

More egregious spin.  Bennett's account clearly indicates he didn't identify the earlier firecracker noise as a firearm report..  

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, did he actually write this--or was this something typed up by a secretary from his notes and approved by one of his superiors?

More spin.  Note that Pat routinely employs this type of rhetoric when witness statements are inconvenient to his pet theories.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And here is what he had to admit to the Warren Commission. 

(Signed statement in the 5-5-64Secret Service report on the behavior of the presidential detail on the night before the shooting, 18H682) "I arrived at the Press Club about 12:30 A.M. and joined agents at a table...I had two beers, thanked the hostess for the club's hospitality and departed about 1:30 A.M....I arrived at The Cellar about 1:40 A.M. and had two grape fruit drinks. I departed The Cellar at approximately 3:00 A.M. and went directly to the hotel." (Note: Bennett reported for duty at 7:20 A.M.)

More gratuitous witness bashing.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And here is what he is purported to have told the FBI.

(1-30-78 interview with HSCA investigator, file # 180-10082-10452) “He remembers hearing what he hoped was a firecracker. He then heard another noise and saw what appeared to be a nick in the back of President Kennedy’s coat below the shoulder. He thought the President had been hit in the back…he believes the first and second shots were close together and then a longer pause before the third shot…he does not recall any agents reacting before the third shot. He believes he called out to no one in particular, after the third shot, 'he's been hit'.… he believes he saw the nick in the President’s coat after the second shot.” 

This account does not square with his contemporaneous statement -- he picked up his AR-15 as did Agent Hickey.  In his contemporaneous notes he heard a "bang...bang-bang": shooting sequence, which the FBI turned around.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So here, according to the FBI, in a report no one was to see or even know about for some time after, Bennett claimed he did not see the shot itself, which only makes sense, but looked up and noticed a hole in the President's coat. This leaves open that this hole was created by the first bullet. 

Bennett made NO such claim.  In his contemporaneous accounts he saw "at this exact time" and "at the moment" the shot hit.

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

He is not a star witness for any theory, IMO, 

There are no star witnesses in Pat Speer's universe since everyone who saw the wounds got it wrong.

Edited February 10 by Cliff Varnell

[Tom Gram]

19 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Pat would have us believe that JFK suffered a shallow wound in his back and reacted by holding his fists in front of his throat, remaining mute and immobile for 6 seconds without calling out in pain, or warning the others, or ducking down.

Disclaimer: I don’t actually remember this that well, nor am I anything remotely approaching an expert on anatomy or the JFK medical evidence, but I remember reading a while back that there are nerve clusters around the location of the back wound that control movement of the shoulder, elbow flexion, fist balling, etc. and was curious if trauma to those nerves could potentially cause the type of reaction seen in the Z-film. I remember being struck by how close the relevant nerve/clusters were to the back wound, whereas other nerves controlling movements not seen in the Z-film were significantly further away - but again this was a minute ago so I could be way off here. 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Disclaimer: I don’t actually remember this that well, nor am I anything remotely approaching an expert on anatomy or the JFK medical evidence, but I remember reading a while back that there are nerve clusters around the location of the back wound that control movement of the shoulder, elbow flexion, fist balling, etc. and was curious if trauma to those nerves could potentially cause the type of reaction seen in the Z-film.

May I respectfully suggest you do the research first before chiming in?  The shallow back wound was in the soft tissue to the right of T3.  What nerve clusters?

[Cliff Varnell]

According to this, the spinal nerves relating to hand and arm movement are cervical, not thoracic.

https://briggschiropracticclinic.com/vital-connections/

[Cliff Varnell]

Pat’s pet theories regarding the back and throat wounds are entirely dependent on a T1 (the top of his back) four inches below the bottom of the clothing collars.

The absurdity of this view should be apparent to all.

[Pat Speer]

13 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Pat’s pet theories regarding the back and throat wounds are entirely dependent on a T1 (the top of his back) four inches below the bottom of the clothing collars.

The absurdity of this view should be apparent to all.

Yes, Cliff. 

1. T-1 is not at the top of the back but two inches or so below it--exactly where it is shown to be in the photos.

2. The wound's being in this location corresponds to the autopsy measurements, as it places the wound equidistant from  the shoulder tip and bottom of the head. 

3. The wound's being in this location was a HUGE problem for the WC--which encouraged the doctors to create a drawing in which the wound was moved upwards two inches...so that the single-bullet theory could be supported,

4. The wound's being in this location was also a HUGE problem for the Clark Panel--which made out that a wound 14 cm below the bottom of the head would still be inches above the throat wound--a supposition that made JFK's head out to be twice the size of its actual size

5. The wound's being in this location was also a HUGE problem for the HSCA--whose medical panel corrected the WC and Clark Panel's nonsense...and claimed that well, maybe JFK was hit while leaned over behind the sign in the Z-film and then sat back up again. Now, this of course would never pass muster with the public. And, besides, the HSCA's acoustics and photography panels had suggested JFK was hit BEFORE going behind the sign in the film. So how did the HSCA's staff get around this? Well, Blakey hired a trajectory "expert" to figure out the bullet's path through JFK BEFORE he went behind the sign in the film, and gave him permission to move the wounds to make everything align. And he did so. He moved the T-1 wound back up to the base of the neck--essentially where the WC placed it. And this even though the medical panel had claimed this was incorrect. And he did so because the single-bullet theory absolutely positively does not work with the wound at T-1. 

So, no, Cliff, the T-1 wound is not a WC creation or a LN creation of any kind. It is clear-cut proof of more than one shooter and the fact so many went to such great lengths to conceal this is clear-cut proof of a cover-up.

So...why are you in such denial? Because your pet theory--that the photos were faked to conceal that a wound was in a location suggesting more than one shooter--is made silly by the photos themselves--which show a wound in a location suggesting more than one shooter? 

Quit wasting everyone's time.

 

 

 

[Cliff Varnell]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, Cliff. 

1. T-1 is not at the top of the back but two inches or so below it--exactly where it is shown to be in the photos.

Your knowledge of human anatomy is abysmal.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/back-anatomy#interactive-model

• The cervical spine: The cervical spine is the top part of the spine. It runs from the neck to the upper back. It consists of seven vertebrae. The cervical spine protects the nerves connecting to the brain, allowing the head to move freely while supporting its weight.
• The thoracic spine: The thoracic spine is the middle part of the spine, connecting the cervical and lumbar spine. It has 12 vertebrae. The thoracic spine helps keep the body upright and stable. </q>

T1 is the top of the back.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

2. The wound's being in this location corresponds to the autopsy measurements, as it places the wound equidistant from  the shoulder tip and bottom of the head. 

Since those measurements were written in pen — one of several violations of autopsy protocol — they were not taken at the autopsy.  The rest of the face sheet was properly filled out in pencil and signed off as verified in pencil.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

3. The wound's being in this location was a HUGE problem for the WC--which encouraged the doctors to create a drawing in which the wound was moved upwards two inches...so that the single-bullet theory could be supported,

So what?

Just because it wasn’t consistent with the SBT didn’t make it true.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

4. The wound's being in this location was also a HUGE problem for the Clark Panel--which made out that a wound 14 cm below the bottom of the head would still be inches above the throat wound--a supposition that made JFK's head out to be twice the size of its actual size

Irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

5. The wound's being in this location was also a HUGE problem for the HSCA--whose medical panel corrected the WC and Clark Panel's nonsense...and claimed that well, maybe JFK was hit while leaned over behind the sign in the Z-film and then sat back up again.

Irrelevant.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Now, this of course would never pass muster with the public. And, besides, the HSCA's acoustics and photography panels had suggested JFK was hit BEFORE going behind the sign in the film. So how did the HSCA's staff get around this? Well, Blakey hired a trajectory "expert" to figure out the bullet's path through JFK BEFORE he went behind the sign in the film, and gave him permission to move the wounds to make everything align. And he did so. He moved the T-1 wound back up to the base of the neck--essentially where the WC placed it. And this even though the medical panel had claimed this was incorrect. And he did so because the single-bullet theory absolutely positively does not work with the wound at T-1. 

Irrelevant.  The T3 back wound debunks the SBT at a glance, so we don’t need self-aggrandizing pet theorists to microanalyze it for us.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So, no, Cliff, the T-1 wound is not a WC creation or a LN creation of any kind. It is clear-cut proof of more than one shooter and the fact so many went to such great lengths to conceal this is clear-cut proof of a cover-up.

See above.

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

So...why are you in such denial?

So why are you so ill-informed about basic human anatomy and proper autopsy protocol?

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Your knowledge of human anatomy is abysmal.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/back-anatomy#interactive-model

• The cervical spine: The cervical spine is the top part of the spine. It runs from the neck to the upper back. It consists of seven vertebrae. The cervical spine protects the nerves connecting to the brain, allowing the head to move freely while supporting its weight.
• The thoracic spine: The thoracic spine is the middle part of the spine, connecting the cervical and lumbar spine. It has 12 vertebrae. The thoracic spine helps keep the body upright and stable. </q>

T1 is the top of the back.

Since those measurements were written in pen — one of several violations of autopsy protocol — they were not taken at the autopsy.  The rest of the face sheet was properly filled out in pencil and signed off as verified in pencil.

So what?

Just because it wasn’t consistent with the SBT didn’t make it true.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.

Irrelevant.  The T3 back wound debunks the SBT at a glance, so we don’t need self-aggrandizing pet theorists to microanalyze it for us.

See above.

So why are you so ill-informed about basic human anatomy and proper autopsy protocol?

Unlike you, Cliff, I did my homework. The back is not just the underlying bones but the overlying musculature. And the wound in the photo is inches down from the top of the shoulder muscles. 

Besides...I think you've acknowledged many times now that a wound at T-1 is inconsistent with the SBT.

So WHY THE HECK would "they" move the wound there?

Because they thought it would be funny to make Specter et al on down scramble to come up with some bs reason to believe the bullet exited the neck through the throat wound? They did it for giggles? And they did it within hours of the photos being taken?

Or are you gonna tell us from your comfy chaise that James Fox was in on it, too? That he leaked faked photos to Crouch to fool us into thinking the SBT didn't work...because...because...you have deemed it so?

"Their" faking photos to show a conspiracy makes no freakin' sense...

Edited February 11 by Pat Speer

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

May I respectfully suggest you do the research first before chiming in?  The shallow back wound was in the soft tissue to the right of T3.  What nerve clusters?

It’s a legitimate question Cliff. I stumbled on a few articles a while ago, and don’t remember them that well. I was hoping as someone who has supposedly studied the back wound in-depth that you might know something about this, or have at least have ruled it out already. The musculocutaneous, axillary, radial, ulnar and median nerves all branch out from the C5-T1 area, but what’s interesting IMO is that they curve downward and cluster together below the shoulder line right by the spine -  pretty damn close to the wound in the back wound autopsy photo - like within millimeters of the first rib according to the following diagram:

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/brachial-plexus-injuries

Even if you’re correct that the wound was lower than what is reflected in the photos, is it not worth considering that an impact, including a shallow impact, from a bullet to the general area of the nerves that control essentially all the motor responses we see in the Z-film could have something to do with JFK’s reaction? Have you studied concussion trauma to nerves from gunshot wounds to the back in-depth? Would indirect trauma close enough to the spine trigger similar reactions on both sides of a patient? These are things that seem worth investigating for anyone interested in JFK’s reaction in the Z-film.

The SBT and exact wound location are secondary if not irrelevant to this specific line of inquiry.  I’m curious about what is possible and what is not possible from a medical perspective, and if those possibilities can be reconciled in any way with the Z-film.

Other than the bogus Thorburn business, I do not recall seeing any research on nerve trauma as a potential source of JFK’s shoulder, elbow, and hand flexion, and a quick Google search yields several cases on involuntary spasming and contractions from peripheral nerve trauma. I do not know if there’s a way to connect any of those dots to the JFK case, but it seems like it’s worth looking into, IMO. 

Edited February 11 by Tom Gram

[Cliff Varnell]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Unlike you, Cliff, I did my homework.

You offer no reason to take your word for it.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The back is not just the underlying bones but the overlying musculature. And the wound in the photo is inches down from the top of the shoulder muscles. 

So what?  The vertebra is the “correct and only way to locate the back wound” according to Dr. Finck.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Besides...I think you've acknowledged many times now that a wound at T-1 is inconsistent with the SBT.

That doesn’t make a wound there a fact.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So WHY THE HECK would "they" move the wound there?

To blow smoke over the fact the wound was at T3, a practice to which you are devoted.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Because they thought it would be funny to make Specter et al on down scramble to come up with some bs reason to believe the bullet exited the neck through the throat wound? They did it for giggles? And they did it within hours of the photos being taken?

They were flying by the seat of their pants because the original plan to blame a commie conspiracy went awry when the patsy was captured alive.

I wish I had a dollar for every time this has been explained to you.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Or are you gonna tell us from your comfy chaise that James Fox was in on it, too?

There is no chain of possession for the Fox 5 autopsy photo.  I’d like to have a dollar for every time this has been explained to you.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

That he leaked faked photos to Crouch to fool us into thinking the SBT didn't work...because...because...you have deemed it so?

You rely on evidence the HSCA described as “especially deficient” in evidentiary value.  You bash witnesses who’s clear statements debunk the nonsense you push, and you don’t know basic human anatomy or autopsy protocol.  Did I leave anything out?

Edited February 11 by Cliff Varnell

[Greg Doudna]

22 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’ve read Pat’s online book, and we’re on the same page that the alleged cowlick entrance is a definite fabrication, and that Pat has a strong case that the EOP entrance is not connected with the large head wound. 

(…)

My interest in the head wounds is focused on two main questions: 1) Is there a possible wounding scenario in which Pat’s theories and the medical evidence overall can be reconciled with a single shot to the EOP from the 6th floor window; and 2) what is the probability of that scenario actually happening compared to Pat’s theory of two headshots?

The reason I’m interested in those two questions specifically is simple: if the answer to 1) is truly and unequivocally “no”, Pat is correct that the extant medical evidence legitimately proves conspiracy in the JFK case. The head wound location debate instantly becomes irrelevant. 

(…)

Pat’s medical arguments are compelling and well-documented, but like everything else in this case there is plenty of ambiguity. I’ve read some newer wound ballistics literature not cited by any EOP lone-assassin theorist for example describing a plausible mechanism for the high fragment trail, plus  other credible potential counterarguments to some of Pat’s head wound theories e.g. the in-skull trajectory issue. 

As of right now, I agree with Pat that a tangential wound and separate EOP entrance is the most probable scenario to explain JFK’s (extant) head wounds, but I’m not totally convinced it’s the only possible scenario. A case for conspiracy based on the official head wounds alone needs to be as robust as possible; so I think it’s worth the effort to approach Pat’s arguments from the opposing viewpoint and look for ways to make a single shot work.

The biggest obstacles I see currently to a plausible lone assassin EOP solution are the back-and-to-the-left motion and skull fragments launching into the air at high speed in the Z-film. 

First point, does there even exist today a EOP/rear hairline bullet hole LN theorist, even though that was the Warren Report’s position? If you can name anyone today who holds to the Warren Report position on that, and also believes the Warren Report conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin, I would be interested to know the names. Not even Bugliosi or David von Pein defend or hold to the Warren Report on that part of the WR’s conclusions. 

Second, on arguments against a LN/EOP bullet hole attached to the gaping head wound being possible (i.e. against the WC interpretation that no known LNer today holds), here are two more in addition to what you name:

The autopsists’ 6 x 15 mm measurement of the bullet hole in the skull bone is incompatible with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. Bone does not shrink, and, if that measurement is accurate, that bullet therefore cannot have come from the Mannlicher-Carcano. Given that other evidence does indicate one or more shots came from the Mannlicher-Carcano, therefore, it follows: more than one shooter.

And second, the trajectory of EOP to exit at the gaping head wound just is a great stretch to consider plausible for a JFK sitting upright. Which is why all WR defenders abandoned the WR on this point, became critics or opponents of the WR on this point—decided that a mere item of evidence, the autopsists’ report of a simple fact as to a particular bullet wound’s location, was to be dismissed out of existence and declared nonexistent, presto, just like that.

A mere simple fact reported by the autopsists, accepted by the WC, and without any contrary evidence other than that it does not agree with the LN interpretation, was declared out of existence because it conflicted with the LN interpretation. 

Edited February 11 by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

First point, does there even exist today a EOP/rear hairline bullet hole LN theorist, even though that was the Warren Report’s position? If you can name anyone today who holds to the Warren Report position on that, and also believes the Warren Report conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin, I would be interested to know the names. Not even Bugliosi or David von Pein defend or hold to the Warren Report on that part of the WR’s conclusions. 

Second, on arguments against a LN/EOP bullet hole attached to the gaping head wound being possible (i.e. against the WC interpretation that no known LNer today holds), here are two more in addition to what you name:

The autopsists’ 5 x 16 mm measurement of the bullet hole in the skull bone is incompatible with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano bullet. Bone does not shrink, and that bullet therefore cannot have come from the Mannlicher-Carcano. Given that other evidence does indicate one or more shots came from the Mannlicher-Carcano, therefore, it follows: more than one shooter.

And second, the trajectory of EOP to exit at the gaping head wound just is a great stretch to consider plausible for a JFK sitting upright. Which is why all WR defenders abandoned the WR on this point, became critics or opponents of the WR on this point—decided that a mere item of evidence, the autopsists’ report of a simple fact as to a particular bullet wound’s location, was to be dismissed out of existence and declared nonexistent, presto, just like that.

A mere simple fact reported by the autopsists, accepted by the WC, and without any contrary evidence other than that it does not agree with the LN interpretation, was declared out of existence because it conflicted with the LN interpretation. 

Agreed. There are two facts about the head wound that upset me to my core. The first is that they moved the location of the head wound to fit the single-assassin scenario, and the media failed to notice. And the second is that they changed the interpretation of the mystery photo from its depicting an entrance on the back of the head to its depicting an exit on the front of the head. This is absolute bs of the highest order. And yet the media has never explained this to the pubic. Maybe they think it's too complicated. Maybe they think it's too gory. But my suspicion has long been that the AMA is every bit as powerful as the CIA when it comes to domestic matters, and that no major media outlet wants to call the competence and integrity of the nation's doctors into question. 

[Stu Wexler]

Greg:  Larry Sturdivan, who is not only an LNer but probably the most qualified LNer on the subject (wound ballistics specialist) believes in an EOP entrance. I believe he brought a few LNers along for the ride. I think John Canal was  pro-EOP even before Larry S but they interacted quite a bit. John was a weird variation of an LNer (he believed Oswald was a lone, deranged shooter but that Ruby killed LHO as part of a mob conspiracy.

Larry Sturdivan (with whom I have had sharp disagreements on other matters) and Canal both argued that the low entering bullet somehow ricocheted or changed directions upwards within the skull. Tough to believe, but again, Sturdivan requires some additional level of refutation, imo, as he is a wound ballistics expert. A biased one, mind you.

I do think there a few key issues here that require shoring up from Pat's side.  One has been brought up:  my problem with the EOP to throat damage, which dates back to Tink Thompson's argument of a bone fragment-caused throat wound, is that JFK appears to be in a quasi-choking position from Z230+.  It also requires that some rear entering bullet only penetrates a few inches.  I know Pat and others try and addess this but even a BB pellet travels farther than this purported Dealey Plaza back shot when it is fired into ballistics gelatin.  Is exotic bullet + brachial plexus reaction really that less far fetched than the SBT? I would strongly at least encourage Pat (and he has indicated he would pursue it) and others to get independent experts to support this scenario.

I also think we have to think critically about why so many experts placed a wound at the cowlick. My understanding it is because of radiating fracture lines being located where we find the controversial 6.5ish milimeter roundish metal fragment.  Now Larry Sturdivan I believe argues that (a) radiating fracture lines don't always signify a point of entrance and (b) the fragment is some sort of coincidental unrelated artifact from the Xray plate.  To which most would say (a) it usually is and (b) what a coincidence in terms of size and shape and (c) wow, what an even bigger coincidence that a and b are both consistent with a gunshot.  I do not recall how Pat deals with (a) but he argues (b) has been widely misinterpreted as a rear situated fragment but one that is really located near the front.  This is even more in need of expert verification, perhaps, than the assertion re the back wound issue.  Multiple different individuals from widely different perspectives, areas of specialization, etc. have looked at those X-rays. I know of none who claim what Pat claims re: the 6.5mmish fragment. They literally all were fooled, at independent times. Again LN and CT alike. Mike Griffith has pointed out some of the practical problems even from a lay-person in asserting this kind of mistake. I very much hope Pat gets expert support from *someone* for that assertion re the fragment.

Now this "fragment" is highly problematic from a wound ballistics standpoint. I got Larry Sturdivan to admit that even before he became an EOP enthusiast. Multiple other ballistics experts argue that a fragment like that, from a direct bullet strike and even possibly from a ricochet, is borderline impossible. It implies some kind of tampering, given its location and coincidental size. And Mantik and Chesser have verified each other's density work that also points to some kind of tampering.  I go back and forth on it.

Anyway, this shows an even greater imperative of Pat's work getting outside verification. That is not an insult to Pat. Quite the opposite. He has some of the most thorough and innovative thinking on this case and presents one of the best counter proposals. But it needs expert support, imo.

Stu

Edited February 11 by Stu Wexler

[Cliff Varnell]

 

4 hours ago, Stu Wexler said:

I do think there a few key issues here that require shoring up from Pat's side.  One has been brought up:  my problem with the EOP to throat damage, which dates back to Tink Thompson's argument of a bone fragment-caused throat wound, is that JFK appears to be in a quasi-choking position from Z230+. 

Tink pooh-poohs the throat entrance because even a .22 would transit the soft tissue of the neck.  

The JFKA Master Expert Class (as well as the US gov’t and the commercial media) ignores the “general feeling” of the autopsists that JFK was hit with at least one “exotic” round which dissolved in the body.

Just such technology was developed for the CIA’s MKNAOMI program which delivered paralytics and toxins that dissolved in the body.

The indifference and at times hostile regard for this Autopsists’ Scenario among the JKFA Expert Master Class is tragic IMO.

JFK acted paralyzed, frozen mute for 6 seconds.  The wound in his throat was in soft tissue, no exit no bullet recovered.

The failure of the JFKA Expert Master Class to show the slightest interest in the only hard lead in the case is mystifying.  

Going on 27 years posting on line I’ve grown so deeply jaded I sometimes think annual JFKA conferences shouldn’t be held in Pittsburg or Dallas, but in a town which truly appreciates collective distraction.

Langley, VA.