The JFK autopsy doctors revealed a back-of-head missing fragment.

[Keven Hofeling]

17 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Your theory has led you to reverse the direction of one of the shots (after Pat's challenge) , so much for long extensive research? The extant Z film shows what Mr Newman described. If he was wrong then that extends film alteration requirements considerably, and the amount of elicit surgery to the head. 

I don't believe there was time to create a side skull flap and alter the Z film to match said skull flap.  

 

You seem to be interpreting Bill Newman's head wound testimony the same way that Pat Speer and the lone nutters do.

Pat Speer and the lone nutters interpret Bill Newman's first day statement that -- the "gunshot hit the President in the side of the temple" and Newman simultaneously pointing to his temple -- as meaning that the large avulsive head wound was located right at JFK's right temple.

This photograph taken some time after his first day account shows what Newman meant by "in the side of the temple":

 

Later descriptions by Newman would include that he believed JFK's ear had been blown off, indicating that he had seen biological debris blown out of the head, and then after Newman first saw the autopsy photographs, he realized he had been incorrect about the ear being blown off, leading him to realize that the wound had been behind the ear. The hand gestures Newman would make to demonstrate the wound in the 1990's, and more recently at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2016, reveal Newman's evolving understanding that the wound was behind the ear on the back of the head:

The following is Bill Newman demonstrating the wound in the 1990's while saying "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head...":

 

And at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2016 while explaining that he realized after seeing the autopsy photos that JFK's ear had not been blown off: 

 

Notably, the autopsy photographs do not depict the large avulsive head wound as being located at the right temple where Bill Newman pointed during his first day interview:

 

And we have it from no less than Parkland Hospital's Doctor Paul Peters that the INCISION above the right temple at the hairline was not present when the head was inspected in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital, per Peters's commentary in PBS Nova's "Who Shot President Kennedy" in 1988:

 

BUT then when we consult the extant "original" Zapruder film (the following images are from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" struck directly from the extant "original" film) we see what appears to be a saucer plate sized piece of skull blown away from the top of the cranium where Dr. Peters locates an incision in the video above, followed by images of a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead which none of the Parkland or Bethesda witnesses described, and which is not depicted by the autopsy photographs, which I think directly places in dispute the authenticity of both the autopsy photographs and the Zapruder film:

 

The saucer plate sized piece of skull we see blown away from the cranium in Zapruder frame 314 is supposedly supposed to be the same much smaller differently oriented skull fragment we see in the forged back of the head photo here:

 

But in reference to the saucer plate sized slice of skull in Zapruder frame 314 -- does that REALLY appear credible to you?

 

Or might the autopsy photograph version of the skull fragment actually be from the pre-autopsy craniotomy attested to by mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Tech Ed Reed?

 

You had indicated that you didn't think there was time to both create a side skull flap and to alter the Zapruder film to match said skull flap, but aren't you really just pushing the envelope? I mean, does the Zapruder film version of the skull flap and the autopsy photograph version of the skull flap look even remotely similar to one another?

And why do we have all this inconsistency with the Pat Speer and lone nutters version of the side/top version of the head wound, but not so much when it comes to the back of the head wound that is so firmly ingrained into reality by the near unanimous reports of the Parkland Hospital Doctors and Nurses?

Doesn't it tell us anything that the closest witness to the President's head wound, the First Lady, was clearly feeling the margins of the occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of the President's head, and not of what Harrison Livingstone would later describe as "the Blob"...

FIRST LADY JACQUELINE KENNEDY: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top." [June 5, 1964 Warren Commission Testimony]

 

That in the Zapruder film there is a D-Max black patch with sharp edges placed over the location where up to fifty witnesses reported was the location of the large avusive head wound...

 

Or that after all of these years, and despite the mass of countervailing propaganda about the veracity of the Pat Speer/photographic fakery version of the head wound, that when former Secret Service Agent Paul Landis finally went public, he located the large avulsive head wound on the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head?

 

Edited April 7 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Your theory has led you to reverse the direction of one of the shots (after Pat's challenge) , so much for long extensive research? The extant Z film shows what Mr Newman described. If he was wrong then that extends film alteration requirements considerably, and the amount of elicit surgery to the head. 

I don't believe there was time to create a side skull flap and alter the Z film to match said skull flap.  

 

It's fine that you have your own theory, Eddy.

However, the topic of this thread is the fact that the autopsy docs revealed a fragment low in the back of the head adjacent to the tiny EOP wound.

If you wish to discuss your dual-blowout wound theory, please do so on another thread.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Horne's position that there was NO gaping hole on the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating one is nonsense.

 

Nope.

Had there been a gaping hole in the side or top of the head, certainly some of the Parkland doctors and nurses would have noticed it. None did. Nearly all of them saw a gaping hole on the back of the head.

Horne is right. Pat and Eddy are wrong.

 

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

There are witnesses such as Newman who saw the side of the head explode...

 

There were extremely few such witnesses, all of whom were the worst witnesses, caught by surprise and getting only a quick glance. They likely didn't notice that, by the time of the head shot, Kennedy had turned his head to the right, and the side of the head they were viewing at that point in time was the BACK of his head.

So they saw a blowout on the back of his head, but thought it was the right side of the head.

All the witnesses who could view the head for a lengthy period of time saw the wound where it really was... on the back of the head.

 

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Now here's a frontal shot theory that makes sense, IMO. It's not my theory, but it's one with which I could agree. 

1. A low-velocity bullet from behind strikes JFK near the EOP and exits his throat. 

 

Impossible. The trajectory would necessitate a gunman floating above the trunk of the limo.

 

 

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

2. A shot from the behind the fence enters near the temple and blasts the top of Kennedy's head off, with the far back of the right side of his skull still attached by the scalp. 

 

Impossible. A Parkland doctor or nurse would have notice such a blowout wound on the top of the head, but none did.

 

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

But no, such a theory would never gain traction because people are hooked on the idea an evil "they" altered the body to conceal the truth of a conspiracy. 

 

We have a photograph of the body alteration:

 

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

6 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

 

 

Thankyou for your detailed post. I have used your visuals above as reference for my reply.

1. Bill Newman described seeing a wound on the SIDE of the head. His location at the scene is essential to this observation. He did not describe a rear headwound or a top of the head blowout. ( He ducked before that happened?)

2. At Bethesda JFK was photograhed with a notch above his eye, after some witnesses described a small hole at this location.( I think this was deliberate body alteration)

3. Paul Landis's interview is so aligned with other Witnesses that I am convinced there was a large rear blowout. I do not propose the side injury witnessed by the Newmans was the sole exit head injury.( I disagree with Pat Speer)

Apologies to Sandy for my alleged infraction in this thread on fragments. I think most others would accept the close relationship between these issues.

[Denny Zartman]

Great work @Keven Hofeling and @Sandy Larsen .

[Pat Speer]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It's fine that you have your own theory, Eddy.

However, the topic of this thread is the fact that the autopsy docs revealed a fragment low in the back of the head adjacent to the tiny EOP wound.

If you wish to discuss your dual-blowout wound theory, please do so on another thread.

 

 

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Nope.

Had there been a gaping hole in the side or top of the head, certainly some of the Parkland doctors and nurses would have noticed it. None did. Nearly all of them saw a gaping hole on the back of the head.

Horne is right. Pat and Eddy are wrong.

 

 

There were extremely few such witnesses, all of whom were the worst witnesses, caught by surprise and getting only a quick glance. They likely didn't notice that, by the time of the head shot, Kennedy had turned his head to the right, and the side of the head they were viewing at that point in time was the BACK of his head.

So they saw a blowout on the back of his head, but thought it was the right side of the head.

All the witnesses who could view the head for a lengthy period of time saw the wound where it really was... on the back of the head.

 

 

Impossible. The trajectory would necessitate a gunman floating above the trunk of the limo.

 

 

 

Impossible. A Parkland doctor or nurse would have notice such a blowout wound on the top of the head, but none did.

 

 

We have a photograph of the body alteration:

 

 

1. The autopsy "doctors" did not say such a thing. Humes specified that it did not happen. Finck  said he recalled no such thing. And Boswell only said such a thing in passing when speaking to the HSCA. (I re-read his ARRB testimony and don't recall his saying as much to them, but wouldn't be surprise if he did.)  As far as Finck, English was his second language, and it's hard to understand what he meant by curvature allowing him to claim the wound was an entrance. He may even have been confused, and was thinking of the curvature on the bone of the triangular fragment, which allowed him to claim the defect on this fragment was an exit. In any event, he never said anything about a piece of bone being brought in to complete the entrance defect.

2. You missed my point. Horne has no wounds on the head outside a small bullet entrance by the EOP (which did not exit, for which the bullet was never found) a small bullet wound by the temple (which was not seen at Parkland), a small entrance on the forehead (which was not seen at Parkland), a blowout from the temple bullet low on the middle the back of the head (which was only half seen at Parkland, and which left no beveling on the Harper fragment), and an exit from the left side of the back of the head (which was not seen at Parkland.) In short he has three entrances and two exits on Kennedy's skull--with but ONE HALF of one of the wounds being observed at Parkland. Now, Mantik has told you the frontal fragment was blasted from the head, and that a large skull defect on the top of the head did exist at Parkland, but went unobserved. So he has three entrances and three exits, of which but ONE HALF of one of the wounds (1/12th of the wounds) on the skull was noticed at Parkland. So, no, the claim there was no wound on the top right side of the head, because if there'd been one it would have been observed at Parkland, is complete and utter nonsense...according to the two main proponents of wound alteration--Horne and Mantik. 

3. And that's not even to mention that witnesses such as Baxter, Perry and Salyer DID specify early on, before they could possibly know what was shown in the autopsy photos, that there was a bone flipped out on the side of the head--a wound that runs counter to Horne's claim there was no such damage prior to Humes' creating as much. 

4. And that's not even to mention that Horne claims Ed Reed witnessed Humes performing this pre-autopsy surgery, when Reed specified that he saw Humes cutting on the frontal area AFTER the x-rays had been taken, and these x-rays show the defect on top of the head, and wing of bone on the side of the head...the wounds Horne claims were created by Humes. 

It's gibberish. 

[Sandy Larsen]

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

1. The autopsy "doctors" did not say such a thing.

 

Of course they did! Are you incapable of reading? Here is just one sample that proves I'm right (copied from the OP):

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"     (Source: HSCA rec # 180-10093-10430. Agency file # 002071, p. 6.)

 

What part of "a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" don't you understand? A fragment was brought in that fit low on the back of the head. And the fragment completed the half of the entry wound that had been missing.

You're in denial Pat.

 

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

2. You missed my point. .... So, no, the claim there was no wound on the top right side of the head, because if there'd been one it would have been observed at Parkland, is complete and utter nonsense.

 

I think that everybody (beside you) knew I was talking about large exit wounds when I said that such a wound would have been noticed by the Parkland doctors and nurses. Naturally small entrance wounds could have gone unnoticed. Indeed, I myself believe small entrance wounds went unnoticed at Parkland.

 

43 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

4. And that's not even to mention that Horne claims Ed Reed witnessed Humes performing this pre-autopsy surgery, when Reed specified that he saw Humes cutting on the frontal area AFTER the x-rays had been taken, and these x-rays show the defect on top of the head, and wing of bone on the side of the head...the wounds Horne claims were created by Humes. 

It's gibberish. 

 

Horne's "gibberish" -- as you put it -- is earth-shattering brilliant compared to the nonsense you proclaim.

 

[Pat Speer]

5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of course they did! Are you incapable of reading? Here is just one sample that proves I'm right (copied from the OP):

Boswell as reported by Purdy, HSCA:

"Regarding the head wound, Dr. Boswell said the wound was fairly low in the back of the head and that the bone was completely gone above the entry wound. He said that during the autopsy, a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head"     (Source: HSCA rec # 180-10093-10430. Agency file # 002071, p. 6.)

 

What part of "a piece of skull fragment was brought in which included a portion which corresponded to the missing half of the entry wound in the head" don't you understand? A fragment was brought in that fit low on the back of the head. And the fragment completed the half of the entry wound that had been missing.

You're in denial Pat.

 

 

I think that everybody (beside you) knew I was talking about large exit wounds when I said that such a wound would have been noticed by the Parkland doctors and nurses. Naturally small entrance wounds could have gone unnoticed. Indeed, I myself believe small entrance wounds went unnoticed at Parkland.

 

 

Horne's "gibberish" -- as you put it -- is earth-shattering brilliant compared to the nonsense you proclaim.

 

1. A large bone fragment was blasted off the skull and lay dangling on the side of the head, and was witnessed by a number of Parkland witnesses. Were they hallucinating? And, if not, was Horne correct to claim there was no parietal wounds at the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating such a wound? 

2. And if your answer is yes--that Horne is correct--can you explain how this surgery was conducted without being observed by Jenkins--who has claimed since forever that no such surgery occurred at Bethesda? 

P.S. You have 1 of 3 doctors claiming something, and claiming it for the first time 14 years after the fact, and you take from this that ALL the doctors claimed this, when one said it wasn't so, and the third said he had no recollection of such a thing. That's not exactly rock solid, now is it? And when you add in that the FBI and others and Boswell himself (initially) said it was the exit defect that was matched up at the autopsy, well, it's clear your emperor has no clothes.  

Edited April 8 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

18 hours ago, Keven Hofeling said:

 

You seem to be interpreting Bill Newman's head wound testimony the same way that Pat Speer and the lone nutters do.

Pat Speer and the lone nutters interpret Bill Newman's first day statement that -- the "gunshot hit the President in the side of the temple" and Newman simultaneously pointing to his temple -- as meaning that the large avulsive head wound was located right at JFK's right temple.

This photograph taken some time after his first day account shows what Newman meant by "in the side of the temple":

 

Later descriptions by Newman would include that he believed JFK's ear had been blown off, indicating that he had seen biological debris blown out of the head, and then after Newman first saw the autopsy photographs, he realized he had been incorrect about the ear being blown off, leading him to realize that the wound had been behind the ear. The hand gestures Newman would make to demonstrate the wound in the 1990's, and more recently at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2016, reveal Newman's evolving understanding that the wound was behind the ear on the back of the head:

The following is Bill Newman demonstrating the wound in the 1990's while saying "...I can remember seeing the side of the President's ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and the red and just bit and pieces of flesh exploding from the President's head...":

 

And at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2016 while explaining that he realized after seeing the autopsy photos that JFK's ear had not been blown off: 

 

Notably, the autopsy photographs do not depict the large avulsive head wound as being located at the right temple where Bill Newman pointed during his first day interview:

 

And we have it from no less than Parkland Hospital's Doctor Paul Peters that the INCISION above the right temple at the hairline was not present when the head was inspected in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital, per Peters's commentary in PBS Nova's "Who Shot President Kennedy" in 1988:

 

BUT then when we consult the extant "original" Zapruder film (the following images are from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" struck directly from the extant "original" film) we see what appears to be a saucer plate sized piece of skull blown away from the top of the cranium where Dr. Peters locates an incision in the video above, followed by images of a cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead which none of the Parkland or Bethesda witnesses described, and which is not depicted by the autopsy photographs, which I think directly places in dispute the authenticity of both the autopsy photographs and the Zapruder film:

 

The saucer plate sized piece of skull we see blown away from the cranium in Zapruder frame 314 is supposedly supposed to be the same much smaller differently oriented skull fragment we see in the forged back of the head photo here:

 

But in reference to the saucer plate sized slice of skull in Zapruder frame 314 -- does that REALLY appear credible to you?

 

Or might the autopsy photograph version of the skull fragment actually be from the pre-autopsy craniotomy attested to by mortician Tom Robinson and Bethesda Tech Ed Reed?

 

You had indicated that you didn't think there was time to both create a side skull flap and to alter the Zapruder film to match said skull flap, but aren't you really just pushing the envelope? I mean, does the Zapruder film version of the skull flap and the autopsy photograph version of the skull flap look even remotely similar to one another?

And why do we have all this inconsistency with the Pat Speer and lone nutters version of the side/top version of the head wound, but not so much when it comes to the back of the head wound that is so firmly ingrained into reality by the near unanimous reports of the Parkland Hospital Doctors and Nurses?

Doesn't it tell us anything that the closest witness to the President's head wound, the First Lady, was clearly feeling the margins of the occipital-parietal wound on the right side of the back of the President's head, and not of what Harrison Livingstone would later describe as "the Blob"...

FIRST LADY JACQUELINE KENNEDY: "I was trying to hold his hair on. From the front there was nothing -- I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on. .... I could see a piece of his skull sort of wedge-shaped, like that, and I remember that it was flesh colored with little ridges at the top." [June 5, 1964 Warren Commission Testimony]

 

That in the Zapruder film there is a D-Max black patch with sharp edges placed over the location where up to fifty witnesses reported was the location of the large avusive head wound...

 

Or that after all of these years, and despite the mass of countervailing propaganda about the veracity of the Pat Speer/photographic fakery version of the head wound, that when former Secret Service Agent Paul Landis finally went public, he located the large avulsive head wound on the right side of the back of President Kennedy's head?

 

Yikes. Believe it or not there are ACTUAL witnesses to the back of the head being missing. So why do you keep pretending  Bill Newman was one of them? He saw ONE wound on Kennedy's head by the ear. And it wasn't a splash of blood with the a gigantic explosion of skull and bone coming out the other side. It was an explosion on the right side of the head. 

These are actual quotes from Newman.

We didn't realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet hit him.

we seen him get shot in the side of the head.

I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head.

At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head.

(When asked about a drawing in which he depicted the fatal bullet's striking Kennedy by his ear) "That's what I saw. The way he was hit, it looked like he had just been hit with a baseball pitch, just like a block of wood fell over his... (When it was pointed out to him that he was moving his head backwards and to the left, and his drawing had depicted a wound by the ear) "In my opinion the ear went."

(When asked again if his impression was that the bullet entered the side of the head) "Right. Right. My thoughts were that the shot entered there and apparently the thoughts of the Warren Commission were that the shot came out that side.” 

that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off… I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, 

 just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car

I can remember seeing the side of the President’s ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and red and just bits and pieces of flesh exploding from the President’s head. 

he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. 

I remember seeing the side of his head come off. I could see the white and then all of a sudden the red...

 (When asked if it hit him in the temple) "It appeared yes right in this area here (as he motions to his right temple) on the side of his head" 

 I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish 

 It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. 

I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The only basis I had for that was what I visually saw:  the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off.

I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. 

I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off."

It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off

 I knew most definitely that was a gunshot and the side of his head blew off, you could see the white matter and the red and he fell across the seat 

 I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. I could see a mass of white and then the blood and fragments.

I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head fly off,

Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off

Seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the president go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction, it gave me the sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind me

 the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

11 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Yikes. Believe it or not there are ACTUAL witnesses to the back of the head being missing. So why do you keep pretending  Bill Newman was one of them? He saw ONE wound on Kennedy's head by the ear. And it wasn't a splash of blood with the a gigantic explosion of skull and bone coming out the other side. It was an explosion on the right side of the head. 

These are actual quotes from Newman.

 

We didn't realize what happened until we seen the side of his head, when the bullet hit him.

we seen him get shot in the side of the head.

I was looking directly at him when he was hit in the side of the head.

At that time he heard the bullet strike the president and saw flesh fly from the President’s head.

(When asked about a drawing in which he depicted the fatal bullet's striking Kennedy by his ear) "That's what I saw. The way he was hit, it looked like he had just been hit with a baseball pitch, just like a block of wood fell over his... (When it was pointed out to him that he was moving his head backwards and to the left, and his drawing had depicted a wound by the ear) "In my opinion the ear went."

(When asked again if his impression was that the bullet entered the side of the head) "Right. Right. My thoughts were that the shot entered there and apparently the thoughts of the Warren Commission were that the shot came out that side.” 

that is when the third shot was fired and it hit him in the side of the head right above the ear and his ear come off… I observed his ear flying off, and he turned just real white and then blood red, 

 just as the President's car got directly in front of me, the President was probably fifteen feet away, Boom, and the side of his ear flew off, and justa, bits and pieces flew off. I can remember seeing just a white flash, and then the red, and the President fell across the car

I can remember seeing the side of the President’s ear and head come off. I remember a flash of white and red and just bits and pieces of flesh exploding from the President’s head. 

he got nearer to us, and, bam, a shot took the right side of his head off. His ear flew off. 

I remember seeing the side of his head come off. I could see the white and then all of a sudden the red...

 (When asked if it hit him in the temple) "It appeared yes right in this area here (as he motions to his right temple) on the side of his head" 

 I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. There was black matter and then grayish 

 It appeared to me that it hit him on the side of the head, as the side of his head came off. 

I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The only basis I had for that was what I visually saw:  the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off.

I can remember seeing the side of President Kennedy's head come off, and I thought his ear came off. 

I was kinda dumbfounded to hear these people saying that, when just minutes earlier I'd seen the side of his head come off."

It was the visual impact that it had on me more so than the noise--seeing the side of the President's head blow off

 I knew most definitely that was a gunshot and the side of his head blew off, you could see the white matter and the red and he fell across the seat 

 I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head blow off. I could see a mass of white and then the blood and fragments.

I can recall seeing the side of President Kennedy's head fly off,

Ten, 12 feet in front of us, the third shot rang out, and that's when the side of his head flew off

Seeing the side of the President's head blow off, seeing the president go across the car seat into Mrs. Kennedy's lap, in her direction, it gave me the sensation that the shots were coming from directly behind me

 the third shot rang out, and the side of President Kennedy's head blew off (as he says this he reaches for his temple). We seen the brain matter and the blood fly off.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

Yikes. Believe it or not there are ACTUAL witnesses to the back of the head being missing. So why do you keep pretending  Bill Newman was one of them? He saw ONE wound on Kennedy's head by the ear. And it wasn't a splash of blood with the a gigantic explosion of skull and bone coming out the other side. It was an explosion on the right side of the head.

Mr. Speer, you should be well aware by now that it is due to your misguided and misleading emphasis on Bill Newman as definitive evidentiary proof that JFK's large avulsive head wound was on the top or the side of his head that we are forced to revisit his testimony, and the testimony of various other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses again and again. 

With regard to Newman's testimony in particular, it is a testament to your lack of formal training in the assessment of the probative value and weight of official reports and testimonial evidence that you prioritize these Dealey Plaza lay witnesses as being key substantiation for your wacky hypothesis that the two superior classes of witnesses -- the law enforcement professionals and medical professionals who reported the large occipital-parietal wound -- fell victim to an inexplicable case of mass hallucinations pertaining to the large head wound on the day of the assassination.

It is precisely because of that large body of unassailable testimonial and documentary evidence that we know that Bill Newman saw indications of TWO head wounds on the President's head, and that he witnessed indications of biological debris being blown out of the occipital parietal wound on the right side of the back of the President's head. It is true that Bill Newman is not sure of this given that he only had a fleeting glance during a high stress situation, but we can be sure of this due to the existing cumulative evidence regarding the true nature of President Kennedy's wounds, chiefly from those two superior classes of witnesses, the law enforcement professionals and medical professionals who reported the large occipital-parietal head wound.

Even though Bill Newman didn't accurately perceive what he witnessed that day, we can and should interpret his observations in the context of the existing cumulative testimonial and documentary evidence.

Bill Newman witnessed the bullet impacting and entering the President's head at the right temple, just as was reported by the Assistant Physician to the President, Dr. George Burkley, to Acting White House Press Secretary, Malcolm Kilduff, who reported the same to the world at the Parkland Hospital press conference; as well as according to Bethesda autopsy witnesses Paul O'Connor, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson.

 

In addition to seeing the bullet impact the President's right temple, Bill Newman witnessed blood, brain and skull being blown out of the back of the President's head, but due to the split-second glance he had in the highly traumatic context of the situation, it instead appeared to Newman that he had seen the President's ear and the side of his head blown off; but objectively speaking, we know that Newman was actually seeing the same thing as Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney, the driver of the Secret Service follow up car described seeing to researcher Vince Palamara -- "...it was the right rear part of his head...because that's the part I saw blow out, the piece blow out..." -- and what Secret Service Agent Clint Hill told Arlen Specter under pains and penalties of perjury: 

"...The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered in blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

 

Bill Newman himself acknowledged during his presentation at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2016 that when he first saw the autopsy photographs, he realized that JFK's ear had not in fact been blown off, which was an explicit acknowledgment that his first day observations of the head wound had been distorted. But that Bill Newman, himself, realized that is immaterial, as the accuracy of his perceptions, and his own understanding of what he had seen, is outweighed by the much greater probative value and evidentiary weight of the testimony and reports of the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses, which for any reasonable factfinder or jury, taking the cover-up into consideration, would conclusively establish that there was a small entry wound in the President's right temple, and a large blow out wound on the right side of the back of the President's head.

 

I state that Bill Newman is demonstrating the back of the head wound because, although Newman's doesn't clearly understand it himself, or at least does not clearly articulate it, the back of the head wound is what objectively existed on the ground in real time, that day in 1963. It may also be that Newman is conflating the two wounds; but even though that may be the case, what really matters is the objective reality of those two wounds as established by finder(s) of fact, whether by Judge or by Jury, weighing ALL of the evidence in the context of its appropriate probative value and evidentiary weight. 

 

Additionally, as it pertains to what Bill Newman understands about his own observations of JFK's head wound, whether consciously or not, I consider it to be highly significant that after seeing the autopsy photographs and learning that the President's ear had not in fact been blown off, when gesturing to his own head in the 1990's while describing what he had seen, he demonstrated that the portion of the President's head he saw blown off was behind the ear, in the back of the head, which is confirmed and corroborated by the vast body of other substantiating evidence, such as the testimony and reports of the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses, which is far more important than Newman's testimony in its own right.

 

And if you are so troubled by my efforts to counter your use of inferior witness testimony -- such as that of Bill Newman and other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses -- to assert the utterly absurd proposition that the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses mass hallucinated their observations about President Kennedy's right temple and back of the head wounds, maybe you should consider discontinuing your practice of putting the cart before the horse by attempting to invalidate the reports and testimonial evidence of the witnesses with the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight using the confused testimony of those Dealey Plaza lay witnesses who had only split second glances at the wounds in the midst of a highly stressful crisis situation. It only serves to emphasize, highlight and underscore your lack of formal training about how to correctly assess the probative value and evidentiary weight of official reports and testimonial evidence, as well as being completely futile as it merely serves to reveal that you are attempting to perpetrate an agenda upon us that insults our intelligence.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Keven Hofeling said:

Pat Speer wrote:

Mr. Speer, you should be well aware by now that it is due to your misguided and misleading emphasis on Bill Newman as definitive evidentiary proof that JFK's large avulsive head wound was on the top or the side of his head that we are forced to revisit his testimony, and the testimony of various other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses again and again. 

With regard to Newman's testimony in particular, it is a testament to your lack of formal training in the assessment of the probative value and weight of official reports and testimonial evidence that you prioritize these Dealey Plaza lay witnesses as being key substantiation for your wacky hypothesis that the two superior classes of witnesses -- the law enforcement professionals and medical professionals who reported the large occipital-parietal wound -- fell victim to an inexplicable case of mass hallucinations pertaining to the large head wound on the day of the assassination.

It is precisely because of that large body of unassailable testimonial and documentary evidence that we know that Bill Newman saw indications of TWO head wounds on the President's head, and that he witnessed indications of biological debris being blown out of the occipital parietal wound on the right side of the back of the President's head. It is true that Bill Newman is not sure of this given that he only had a fleeting glance during a high stress situation, but we can be sure of this due to the existing cumulative evidence regarding the true nature of President Kennedy's wounds, chiefly from those two superior classes of witnesses, the law enforcement professionals and medical professionals who reported the large occipital-parietal head wound.

Even though Bill Newman didn't accurately perceive what he witnessed that day, we can and should interpret his observations in the context of the existing cumulative testimonial and documentary evidence.

Bill Newman witnessed the bullet impacting and entering the President's head at the right temple, just as was reported by the Assistant Physician to the President, Dr. George Burkley, to Acting White House Press Secretary, Malcolm Kilduff, who reported the same to the world at the Parkland Hospital press conference; as well as according to Bethesda autopsy witnesses Paul O'Connor, James Jenkins, Jerrol Custer and Tom Robinson.

 

In addition to seeing the bullet impact the President's right temple, Bill Newman witnessed blood, brain and skull being blown out of the back of the President's head, but due to the split-second glance he had in the highly traumatic context of the situation, it instead appeared to Newman that he had seen the President's ear and the side of his head blown off; but objectively speaking, we know that Newman was actually seeing the same thing as Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney, the driver of the Secret Service follow up car described seeing to researcher Vince Palamara -- "...it was the right rear part of his head...because that's the part I saw blow out, the piece blow out..." -- and what Secret Service Agent Clint Hill told Arlen Specter under pains and penalties of perjury: 

"...The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered in blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head."

 

Bill Newman himself acknowledged during his presentation at the Sixth Floor Museum in 2016 that when he first saw the autopsy photographs, he realized that JFK's ear had not in fact been blown off, which was an explicit acknowledgment that his first day observations of the head wound had been distorted. But that Bill Newman, himself, realized that is immaterial, as the accuracy of his perceptions, and his own understanding of what he had seen, is outweighed by the much greater probative value and evidentiary weight of the testimony and reports of the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses, which for any reasonable factfinder or jury, taking the cover-up into consideration, would conclusively establish that there was a small entry wound in the President's right temple, and a large blow out wound on the right side of the back of the President's head.

 

I state that Bill Newman is demonstrating the back of the head wound because, although Newman's doesn't clearly understand it himself, or at least does not clearly articulate it, the back of the head wound is what objectively existed on the ground in real time, that day in 1963. It may also be that Newman is conflating the two wounds; but even though that may be the case, what really matters is the objective reality of those two wounds as established by finder(s) of fact, whether by Judge or by Jury, weighing ALL of the evidence in the context of its appropriate probative value and evidentiary weight. 

 

Additionally, as it pertains to what Bill Newman understands about his own observations of JFK's head wound, whether consciously or not, I consider it to be highly significant that after seeing the autopsy photographs and learning that the President's ear had not in fact been blown off, when gesturing to his own head in the 1990's while describing what he had seen, he demonstrated that the portion of the President's head he saw blown off was behind the ear, in the back of the head, which is confirmed and corroborated by the vast body of other substantiating evidence, such as the testimony and reports of the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses, which is far more important than Newman's testimony in its own right.

 

And if you are so troubled by my efforts to counter your use of inferior witness testimony -- such as that of Bill Newman and other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses -- to assert the utterly absurd proposition that the law enforcement witnesses and medical witnesses mass hallucinated their observations about President Kennedy's right temple and back of the head wounds, maybe you should consider discontinuing your practice of putting the cart before the horse by attempting to invalidate the reports and testimonial evidence of the witnesses with the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight using the confused testimony of those Dealey Plaza lay witnesses who had only split second glances at the wounds in the midst of a highly stressful crisis situation. It only serves to emphasize, highlight and underscore your lack of formal training about how to correctly assess the probative value and evidentiary weight of official reports and testimonial evidence, as well as being completely futile as it merely serves to reveal that you are attempting to perpetrate an agenda upon us that insults our intelligence.

 

Nonsense. You're trying to lawyer your way out of this. I never said Newman or anyone else was a definitive witness. What I have said is that Newman and numerous other witnesses said the wound they saw was on the top or the side of the head, and that the most prominent Parkland doctors admitted they thought the autopsy photos were accurate when asked. And that this should give someone reasonable doubt that, gee, maybe the wound was not on the back of the head, where numerous "theorists" have claimed it to have been. 

It's pretty much like this. A bunch of people witnessing a rock concert, say Woodstock, are asked if they remember what Jimi Hendrix was wearing when he played the Star-Spangled Banner, and offer a variety of answers. And then someone years later notes that those in a particular section said he was wearing a blue shirt, when the film of the concert shows it was really white. And writes a best-selling book purporting that something nefarious occurred--perhaps that Hendrix performed in a blue shirt, but that someone who wasn't supposed to be there--let's say JFK, who was supposed to be dead--was caught in the footage at the side of the stage. And that this led the CIA to insert footage from another concert in the film. Or some such thing.

In any event, the point is that the group of people originally asked about his clothes are eventually asked by journalists if they think the footage was faked, and say "of course not, I was simply mistaken when I said it was a blue shirt," or laugh the whole thing off, except for one, who says "Well, I think he was wearing a blue shirt but that the film-makers made it look white," or some such thing. After which, the devotees of the best-selling author hail this man as a brave truth-teller and the other witnesses as sniveling cowards. And then, over time, a few others come forward--some presenting no evidence whatsoever they were actually at the concert--claiming "Yeah, I saw it. The shirt was blue." And are similarly hailed as heroes. 

it's a ginormous hoax.

Kind of like the "Paul is dead" hoax of the late sixties and seventies. 

And yes, that allows us to segue back to the JFK assassination. Because, as it turns out, the chief cheerleader/ringleader of the everything has been altered by the CIA crowd was none other than James Fetzer, a one-time college professor, whose credibility dropped to the moon-is-cheese level after he embraced every loopy theory that came his way for years and years, including that yes, Paul is dead, and, yes, that the murdered children of school shootings never existed and their grieving parents were actors hired by the Deep State/CIA.

P.S. There isn't a jury in history that would embrace the erratic statements of a few Parkland witnesses and ignore the statements of the Newmans, Zapruder, and numerous autopsy witnesses, especially as these witnesses are backed up by the assassination films, autopsy photos, and x-rays. 

Or so one should hope. 

Edited April 8 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

1. A large bone fragment was blasted off the skull and lay dangling on the side of the head, and was witnessed by a number of Parkland witnesses. Were they hallucinating? And, if not, was Horne correct to claim there was no parietal wounds at the top or side of the head prior to Humes' creating such a wound? 

2. And if your answer is yes--that Horne is correct--can you explain how this surgery was conducted without being observed by Jenkins--who has claimed since forever that no such surgery occurred at Bethesda? 

 

I'm certainly not going to comment on your characterization of what Horne supposedly believes.

Every time I've read one of Horne's theories, in which he includes the evidence, I've been impressed by what I read and I've agreed with it. The man is smart, and he's fair.

So if what you said is indeed what Horne believes, I'd say that it likely makes a lot of sense and very well may represent the facts.

As for how the clandestine surgery was performed without many of the technicians witnessing it, that is easy to understand. Indeed, even Lifton figured it out decades before the ARRB. Humes simply asked non-essential technicians to leave the room during the pre-autopsy surgery.

 

15 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. You have 1 of 3 doctors claiming something, and claiming it for the first time 14 years after the fact, and you take from this that ALL the doctors claimed this, when one said it wasn't so, and the third said he had no recollection of such a thing. That's not exactly rock solid, now is it? And when you add in that the FBI and others and Boswell himself (initially) said it was the exit defect that was matched up at the autopsy, well, it's clear your emperor has no clothes.  

 

In his WC testimony, Finck spoke of having "enough curvature and enough portion of a crater" on a skull bone to be able to determine whether it was a wound of entrance or exit.

The only reason for requiring enough curvature to determine entrance or exit is if the bone is a fragment. Because from curvature you can tell which side of the fragment is inside, and which side is outside.

So yes, Finck did indeed confirm the existence of a fragment down low near the EOP. He did so indirectly. (He wasn't explicit about it because the orders to the autopsists were to cover up gunshots from the front.)

This line of reasoning was corroborated at the time of the HSCA when Boswell came right out and said the very same thing... this time directly.

Finally, both of these doctors are corroborated by the Sibert & O'Neill FBI Report on the autopsy, which states that a 6.5 x 10 cm fragment was brought in late and was kept by Dr. Humes, but made available for later inspection. We know that this fragment came from the EOP because that is where the large rubber dam was put in place by the morticians to prevent embalming fluid leakage.

Pat doesn't have a leg to stand on with the issue. But he will never admit he is wrong. He lives in the world of an ideologue, unwilling to accept information foreign to his understanding.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

... the most prominent Parkland doctors admitted they thought the autopsy photos were accurate when asked.

 

What did Pat expect the doctors to say when forged photos were produced that contradicted what they'd seen?

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

And yes, that allows us to segue back to the JFK assassination. Because, as it turns out, the chief cheerleader/ringleader of the everything has been altered by the CIA crowd was none other than James Fetzer, a one-time college professor, whose credibility dropped to the moon-is-cheese level after he embraced every loopy theory that came his way...

 

Okay, so Pat's line of reasoning is this:

Fetzer believes a crazy theory. Therefore, everything Fetzer believes is crazy.

I'm sure there's a Latin phrase for this logical fallacy.

But that won't stop Pat from using it. He has no shame.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

... for years and years, including that yes, Paul is dead, and, yes, that the murdered children of school shootings never existed and their grieving parents were actors hired by the Deep State/CIA.

 

Here Pat is using fake conspiracies to ridicule a real one. Hmm, Is Pat really a closeted WC apologist? Or is he just mischaracterizing and cherry picking again.

 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

P.S. There isn't a jury in history that would embrace the erratic statements of a few Parkland witnesses and ignore the statements of the Newmans, Zapruder, and numerous autopsy witnesses, especially as these witnesses are backed up by the assassination films, autopsy photos, and x-rays.

 

The bottom line is, Pat was fooled by the cover up and now has to resort to mischaracterization, cherry picking, and logical fallacies to defend himself.

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

If you were to see JFK's skull with all fragments removed there would be a massive hole extending from top front, partialy one side and to the back. Everyone agrees on this.

From bullet strike to coffin there have been witnesses to the expansion (and contraction by Jackie) of this massive hole. 

I believe the notch above the eye is the only certain elicit surgery. The autopsists state a lot of the remainder fell apart without the scalp's support. I believe Jackie held the head together and closed the side flap which sealed with blood.

The fracture lines extend from the bullet exits. The fracture lines intertwine to create such a huge area of shattered skull.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/8/2024 at 10:08 AM, Pat Speer said:

Nonsense. You're trying to lawyer your way out of this. I never said Newman or anyone else was a definitive witness. What I have said is that Newman and numerous other witnesses said the wound they saw was on the top or the side of the head, and that the most prominent Parkland doctors admitted they thought the autopsy photos were accurate when asked. And that this should give someone reasonable doubt that, gee, maybe the wound was not on the back of the head, where numerous "theorists" have claimed it to have been. 

It's pretty much like this. A bunch of people witnessing a rock concert, say Woodstock, are asked if they remember what Jimi Hendrix was wearing when he played the Star-Spangled Banner, and offer a variety of answers. And then someone years later notes that those in a particular section said he was wearing a blue shirt, when the film of the concert shows it was really white. And writes a best-selling book purporting that something nefarious occurred--perhaps that Hendrix performed in a blue shirt, but that someone who wasn't supposed to be there--let's say JFK, who was supposed to be dead--was caught in the footage at the side of the stage. And that this led the CIA to insert footage from another concert in the film. Or some such thing.

In any event, the point is that the group of people originally asked about his clothes are eventually asked by journalists if they think the footage was faked, and say "of course not, I was simply mistaken when I said it was a blue shirt," or laugh the whole thing off, except for one, who says "Well, I think he was wearing a blue shirt but that the film-makers made it look white," or some such thing. After which, the devotees of the best-selling author hail this man as a brave truth-teller and the other witnesses as sniveling cowards. And then, over time, a few others come forward--some presenting no evidence whatsoever they were actually at the concert--claiming "Yeah, I saw it. The shirt was blue." And are similarly hailed as heroes. 

it's a ginormous hoax.

Kind of like the "Paul is dead" hoax of the late sixties and seventies. 

And yes, that allows us to segue back to the JFK assassination. Because, as it turns out, the chief cheerleader/ringleader of the everything has been altered by the CIA crowd was none other than James Fetzer, a one-time college professor, whose credibility dropped to the moon-is-cheese level after he embraced every loopy theory that came his way for years and years, including that yes, Paul is dead, and, yes, that the murdered children of school shootings never existed and their grieving parents were actors hired by the Deep State/CIA.

It's a blizzard of blowhards. 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

Nonsense. You're trying to lawyer your way out of this. I never said Newman or anyone else was a definitive witness. What I have said is that Newman and numerous other witnesses said the wound they saw was on the top or the side of the head...

Face it, Mr. Speer: Online forums and website accumulations of trivia are not the vehicles by which "truth" is ultimately decided in our civilization.  Judges and Juries serve as our factfinders, and do so pursuant to historically vetted judicial rules and principles designed to eliminate the variety of frivolous nonsense and fallacious diatribe that you regularly practice in your endeavor to validate and protect the fraudulent photographic evidence that the government relies upon to preserve the cover-up of the coup de tat it perpetrated in 1963. Should your manipulation of the principles of  probative value and evidentiary weight ever be adjudicated by a Court of competent jurisdiction in which the scales of justice are genuinely operational, your entire project will go down in flames, and your fraudulent photographic evidence will be excluded from consideration except to prove fraud pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence -- "The court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of one or more of the following: unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence."

Your denial of the fact that you constantly proclaim the confused split-second crisis generated testimony of Bill Newman and the other Dealey Plaza lay witnesses as definitive proof of your nutty top of the head wound mythology is conclusively belied by your posting behavior, including in this very thread. As previously stated, this betrays your lack of understanding of the principles of probative value and evidentiary weight under which there is simply no comparison between the testimony of the Dealey Plaza lay witnesses and the testimony and official reports of the law enforcement witnesses and the medical witnesses, and despite being constantly confronted about it by myself and others, you continue to proceed on the errant path that you are on as if you believe yourself to be participating in a fiction forum rather than conversing about the assassination of a United States President and the illegitimate downfall of a duly elected democratic government.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

...and that the most prominent Parkland doctors admitted they thought the autopsy photos were accurate when asked. And that this should give someone reasonable doubt that, gee, maybe the wound was not on the back of the head, where numerous "theorists" have claimed it to have been.

You are neglecting to mention that the most prominent of those Parkland doctors -- meaning those who were senior physicians and who conducted the most extended examinations of JFK's large avulsive head wound -- qualified their validation of the autopsy photographs by saying that if there was scalp covering the large avulsive back of the head wound then, in that case, the back of the head autopsy photographs are authentic (even though it begs the obvious question of what the purpose of those particular autopsy photographs is given the absence of a visible wound, which is even more troubling when considering that John Stringer, the Bethesda autopsy photographer, told researcher David Lifton that the back of the head autopsy photographs he took were of the actual occipital-parietal head wound).

Where doubt enters the equation, in reality, is when a Judge is shown the reports of all the Parkland doctors and nurses about the large gaping back of the head wound, as well as the David Lifton interview of John Stringer, and she or he excludes the back of the head autopsy photographs from evidence -- except to prove fraud -- pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Your suggestion that there could be a "reasonable doubt" of the reports and testimony of the Parkland doctors and nurses (combined with the reports and testimony of the law enforcement witnesses and the Bethesda autopsy witnesses), and that just "numerous theorists" have attested to the existence of the occipital-parietal wound constitute yet further examples of the variety of sophistry you are so well known for on this issue.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

It's pretty much like this. A bunch of people witnessing a rock concert, say Woodstock, are asked if they remember what Jimi Hendrix was wearing when he played the Star-Spangled Banner, and offer a variety of answers. And then someone years later notes that those in a particular section said he was wearing a blue shirt, when the film of the concert shows it was really white. And writes a best-selling book purporting that something nefarious occurred--perhaps that Hendrix performed in a blue shirt, but that someone who wasn't supposed to be there--let's say JFK, who was supposed to be dead--was caught in the footage at the side of the stage. And that this led the CIA to insert footage from another concert in the film. Or some such thing.

In any event, the point is that the group of people originally asked about his clothes are eventually asked by journalists if they think the footage was faked, and say "of course not, I was simply mistaken when I said it was a blue shirt," or laugh the whole thing off, except for one, who says "Well, I think he was wearing a blue shirt but that the film-makers made it look white," or some such thing. After which, the devotees of the best-selling author hail this man as a brave truth-teller and the other witnesses as sniveling cowards. And then, over time, a few others come forward--some presenting no evidence whatsoever they were actually at the concert--claiming "Yeah, I saw it. The shirt was blue." And are similarly hailed as heroes. 

it's a ginormous hoax.

Kind of like the "Paul is dead" hoax of the late sixties and seventies. 

Your imaginary scenario has built into it your standard propaganda, consisting of easily debunked fallacies.

The concert goers who claimed Hendrix was wearing a blue shirt are the fifty or so witnesses that wrote reports and/or otherwise attested that JFK had a large avulsive wound on the right side of the back of his head.

The film showing Hendrix was wearing a white shirt is the Zapruder film in which there is a D-max black patch with sharp edges covering the occipital-parietal wound, and obviously designed to mimic shadow, about which at least three veteran Hollywood professionals have rendered their professional opinions that it is but one example of crude special effects in the film.

Your best-selling book author could be David Lifton or any number of other JFKA researchers who have written books bringing to the attention of readers the overwhelming documentary and testimonial evidence of the large occipital-parietal wound, and some of the many anomalies in the Zapruder film and autopsy photographs that are indicative of photographic forgery.

Those you have renouncing their earlier testimony about the blue shirt when questioned by journalists are supposed to represent the Parkland doctors who, when confronted with the autopsy photos by Ben Bradlee and PBS, hemmed and hawed for fear of being portrayed as crazy conspiracy theorists, which is understandable, given the mainstream media propaganda campaigns they had all seen conducted against David Lifton. And the one holdout you mention represents Doctor Robert McClelland who continued to describe the large occipital-parietal wound he had witnesses up until the day of his death. This you present in your apparent misguided belief that the recanting of some of the Parkland doctors in light of the stress of media attention and potential risks to their professional reputations invalidates their earlier contemporaneous and near contemporaneous observations about the large occipital-parietal wound, but you are wrong. All things considered, the earliest accounts of the fifty or so witnesses, most of whom were law enforcement and medical professionals, continues to be the evidence with the greatest probative value and evidentiary weight.

The witnesses your story has coming forward later and falsely inserting themselves into the concert events represent JFK witnesses such as Dr. Robert Grossman, who is not mentioned as being involved in the treatment of President Kennedy by any of the medical reports or Warren Commission testimony, and who was likely not actually involved in the events, as demonstrated by his testimony to the ARRB that he saw Jackie Kennedy wearing a "white dress" on the day of the assassination, as well as his claims of having seen a small bullet entry wound in the back of JFK's head (the single solitary Parkland Hospital witness to make such a claim). Yet, because of Grossman's claims made in support of the Bethesda autopsy proceedings, you feature him prominently on your website without any mention of the likelihood that he is not a genuine witness. You are thus attacking yourself with your own story.

The bottom line is that the reality which your silly metaphor represents is not as ridiculous as you seem to think it is, except for the parts that are applicable to you and your own sophistry.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

And yes, that allows us to segue back to the JFK assassination. Because, as it turns out, the chief cheerleader/ringleader of the everything has been altered by the CIA crowd was none other than James Fetzer, a one-time college professor, whose credibility dropped to the moon-is-cheese level after he embraced every loopy theory that came his way for years and years, including that yes, Paul is dead, and, yes, that the murdered children of school shootings never existed and their grieving parents were actors hired by the Deep State/CIA.

Your use of the ad hominem, straw man, and guilt by association fallacies in relation to Jim Fetzer is noteworthy. It is demonstrative of your recognition that you have no formidable arguments to offer in your own defense, and so must resort to cheap fallacious reasoning in an attempt to inflame the prejudices of readers. Using Jim Fetzer to mount an attack on all JFK researchers who recognize the probative value and evidentiary weight of the reports and testimony that proves the existence of the occipital-parietal wound is tantamount to using George Santos as the vehicle for an attack upon all politicians. It just doesn't fly and reveals your desperation and the frivolousness of your defense.

 

Pat Speer wrote:

Quote

P.S. There isn't a jury in history that would embrace the erratic statements of a few Parkland witnesses and ignore the statements of the Newmans, Zapruder, and numerous autopsy witnesses, especially as these witnesses are backed up by the assassination films, autopsy photos, and x-rays. 

Or so one should hope. 

I can see that you are really struggling with this idea of the judicial principles of probative value and evidentiary weight. "A few Parkland witnesses" who dealt with gunshot wounds on a daily basis in a busy metropolitan hospital versus the Dealey Plaza lay witnesses who had split-second glimpses of the assassination under highly traumatic conditions? As you can see, it wouldn't really be a fair fight, and as I'm sure Dr. Gary Aguilar has told you, adding "numerous autopsy witnesses" into the mix just further supports the already solid evidentiary case for the large avulsive occipital-parietal wound. The reports and testimony of the law enforcement professionals and the medical professionals would, without any doubt whatsoever, carry the day.

In addition to very serious chain of custody issues, it is precisely all of those reports and testimony that would lead to the exclusion from evidence of the autopsy protocol (and associated photographs and X-rays), and the Zapruder film, except to prove fraud, pursuant to Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This may not seem like a just result to you, given that you are charged with defending the authenticity and integrity of these very materials, but it would certainly be a just result for those of us seeking to unravel the pernicious effects of the 1963 coup. You've picked the wrong side to be on Mr. Speer.

 

Edited April 10 by Keven Hofeling