Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier

[Greg Doudna]

On 3/30/2024 at 9:19 AM, Pat Speer said:

Well, we're largely agreed on this, Sandy. But it should be noted that in 1968 the Justice Dept. convened a secret panel to address the trajectory problem, and this panel relocated the entrance wound after looking at the photos, but without talking to the doctors, or even being shown the 1966 inventory of the photos written by the doctors. This was the Clark Panel. The HSCA Panel, which was put together nine years later, and was comprised of close colleagues and/or former students of the Clark Panel's de facto leader, Russell Fisher, merely confirmed the Clark Panel's findings re the cowlick entrance. 

But that's not to let them off the hook. The HSCA Panel had access to both the doctors' original inventory of the photos, and the doctors themselves, but nevertheless spent much of their time trying to convince the doctors they were wrong, as opposed to trying to understand why their pal Russell Fisher would move a wound to a location where no one saw a wound. 

Now, Dr. Wecht was a member of this panel, and I have asked him about this. And he has insisted that these men, including his good friend Dr. Baden, were not lying, but were blinded by...confirmation bias. It was unthinkable to them that 1) Russell Fisher could be wrong and Dr. Humes right, 2) there were in fact two bullet entries on the skull and thus a conspiracy, and 3) a bullet could enter low and exit high without leaving a noticeable path through the brain. So the only way to make this work was to claim the autopsy doctors (along with a number of other witnesses) were incorrect, and had misidentified an entrance hole high on the skull with an entrance hole four inches lower, and not only that, but that a photo originally described as showing a bullet entrance on the back of the skull actually showed a bullet exit on the front of the skull.

It boggles the mind. It's cognitive dissonance on parade. 

Of course, we see similar parades on this forum every day. 

From my experience in the world of contested interpretations of archaeological and radiocarbon dating data Dr. Wecht’s explanation makes sense.

A subtle point though. I wonder if it is quite precise to say the Clark and HSCA panels “moved the entrance wound higher” as if it was an issue of correct position of the same wound under discussion. Idiomatically the wording may be sorta OK but I wonder if that is exactly what was going on. 

As I read it, they were not talking about a dispute over the location of the same autopsists’ EOP wound. They were rather claiming to have discovered a new wound (at the cowlick), missed by the autopsists. And, separate issue, they were claiming the autopsists’ EOP wound did not exist. Two distinct issues. It was not a claim that the autopsists saw the cowlick wound, then the autopsists mislocated that cowlick wound by mistake near the EOP. 

Pat do you think that is an accurate or inaccurate clarified reading of what the Clark and HSCA panels were saying? 

Edited April 9 by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

30 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

From my experience in the world of contested interpretations of archaeological and radiocarbon dating data Dr. Wecht’s explanation makes sense.

A subtle point though. I wonder if it is quite precise to say the Clark and HSCA panels “moved the entrance wound higher” as if it was an issue of correct position of the same wound under discussion. Idiomatically the wording may be sorta OK but I wonder if that is exactly what was going on. 

As I read it, they were not talking about a dispute over the location of the same autopsists’ EOP wound. They were rather claiming to have discovered a new wound (at the cowlick), missed by the autopsists. And, separate issue, they were claiming the autopsists’ EOP wound did not exist. Two distinct issues. It was not a claim that the autopsists saw the cowlick wound, then the autopsists mislocated that cowlick wound by mistake near the EOP. 

Pat do you think that is an accurate or inaccurate clarified reading of what the Clark and HSCA panels were saying? 

Oh, no, Greg. They moved (re-interpreted) the wound location. The cowlick was not a separate wound--it was where they claimed the wound described in the autopsy report REALLY resided. The Clark Panel even gave the same measurements for this wound as the one described in the autopsy report (which I prove to be a lie on my website). While the HSCA did re-interpret the wound's measurements as well as its location, they still pretended the red spot in the cowlick was almost an inch from the midline of the skull (which I prove to be a lie on my website).

Incredibly, moreover, in order to pull off this switcheroo, they had to claim the photo the doctors initially claimed showed the bullet entrance on the back of the head, really showed a bullet exit on the front of the head. 

It's a travesty, IMO. While a lot of people are drawn to this case because of the political intrigue, or the spy v spy stuff, it is the bald-faced brazen movement of the wound locations that sucked me down this rabbit hole. I just can't fathom how and why journalists and historians, let along members of the medical profession, let them get away with it. And still only pretend to give a crap...

[Greg Doudna]

14 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Oh, no, Greg. They moved (re-interpreted) the wound location. The cowlick was not a separate wound--it was where they claimed the wound described in the autopsy report REALLY resided. The Clark Panel even gave the same measurements for this wound as the one described in the autopsy report (which I prove to be a lie on my website). While the HSCA did re-interpret the wound's measurements as well as its location, they still pretended the red spot in the cowlick was almost an inch from the midline of the skull (which I prove to be a lie on my website).

Incredibly, moreover, in order to pull off this switcheroo, they had to claim the photo the doctors initially claimed showed the bullet entrance on the back of the head, really showed a bullet exit on the front of the head. 

It's a travesty, IMO. While a lot of people are drawn to this case because of the political intrigue, or the spy v spy stuff, it is the bald-faced brazen movement of the wound locations that sucked me down this rabbit hole. I just can't fathom how and why journalists and historians, let along members of the medical profession, let them get away with it. And still only pretend to give a crap...

OK I’m corrected, thanks Pat. It just sounds wacky that autopsists could be claimed to err on a description of a location of a wound of that magnitude. 

[Gil Jesus]

18 hours ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Oh my! Arnold told the FBI on 11/26/63 that she thought she saw a fleeting glimpse of Oswald through the front door when she was standing outside to view the motorcade. This was a few minutes before 12:15 per her estimate. She told the FBI a few months later that she left the building about 12:25 (without mentioning a possible Oswald sighting).

That's one heck of a solid 12:25 sighting you've got there!

I notice that you neglected to add that her FBI statement said that her "fleeting glimpse" was of Oswald "standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse located on the first floor". Her detailed description of Oswald's exact location indicates more than a fleeting glimpse. She had to have seen him for at least a few seconds.

You also failed to mention that it was in her sworn affidavit that she stated that she left the building at 12:25. The difference is obvious: an FBI report vs. a sworn statement hand-written by the attestee and given under the penalties of perjury. The affidavit is then typed out, read and signed by the attestee. Her affidavit indicates that she both read and signed the typewritten final version.

But you Lone Nutters would rather give more weight to an FBI report over a sworn statement because it supports your narrative that Oswald was the assassin.

So why would she write out by hand, read and attest to leaving the building at 12:25, when the truth was ( according to you people ) that she left "a few minutes before 12:15" ?

Because she didn't leave at 12:15, she left at 12:25.

The FBI altered her statement of 11/26 to reflect something less than the truth. They took a positive identification and reduced it to a "fleeting glimpse". They altered the time she said she left the building from 12:25 to "a few minutes before 12:15 ". 

The FBI did that. Why ? Because they needed Oswald in that window at 12:30. He couldn't be on the first floor after 12:25 and be the shooter. They knew that because both elevators were tied up on the fifth floor and there wasn't enough time to climb the stairway from the first to the sixth floor.

So they altered her statement of 11/26/63 to reflect that she had "caught a fleeting glimpse of Oswald" on the first floor "a few minutes before 12:15". That would have given Oswald plenty of time to get to the sixth floor.

In order to find the true time she left the building, we have to ask the question: Did the witness ever confirm either time to other people ? And if so, which time did she confirm, 12:15, or 12:25 ?

The evidence shows that she never confirmed 12:15 as the time she left the building, but DID confirm the 12:25 time.

She confirmed that 12:25 time in an interview with reporter Earl Golz. ( Golz interview, 9/26/78 ) 

So if she left the building at 12:25 and she "caught a fleeting glimpse" of Oswald  AFTER she was outside the building, she had to have seen him some time between 12:25 and 12:30. 

The FBI knew that Carolyn Arnold saw Oswald on the first floor after 12:25 and that's why she was left off the list of witnesses called to testify to the Warren Commission.

It's not rocket science.

Edited April 10 by Gil Jesus

[Mark Ulrik]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

I notice that you neglected to add that her FBI statement said that her "fleeting glimpse" was of Oswald "standing in the hallway between the front door and the double doors leading to the warehouse located on the first floor". The detail in that description indicates more than a fleeting glimpse. She had to have seen him for at least a few seconds.

And I notice that you ignored the "she thought" part. You seem to be more certain that it was Oswald than she was. Btw, I've always wondered how long it takes to catch a fleeting glimpse, but the number of words used to describe the experience is hardly a reliable indicator.

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

You also failed to mention that it was in her sworn affidavit that she stated that she left the building at 12:25. The difference is obvious: an FBI report vs. a sworn statement hand-written by the attestee and given under the penalties of perjury. The affidavit is then typed out, read and signed by the attestee. Her affidavit indicates that she both read and signed the typewritten final version.

The ostensible Oswald sighting isn't mentioned in the signed statement. Now what?

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

But you Lone Nutters would rather give more weight to an FBI report over a sworn statement because it supports your narrative that Oswald was the assassin.

You can save your sanctimonious BS. You loved the FBI report when it mentioned that (she thought) she caught a glimpse of Oswald. You even used it to pretend that the sighting was a lot more solid than it was.

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

So why would she write out by hand, read and attest to leaving the building at 12:25, when the truth was ( according to you people ) that she left "a few minutes before 12:15" ?

Vagaries of memory? The FBI report is dated 4 days after the event and the signed statement almost 4 months after.

The remainder of your post is almost pure speculation and not worth commenting on.