Incision made on JFK's head (Kennedy assassination) Nothing to see here: an incision made on JFK's head...

[Pat Speer]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

This is a perfect example of Pat Speer slandering a researcher. First he misrepresents the researcher's evidence. Then he states the researcher's conclusion based on that evidence... which of course makes no sense due to Pat's misrepresentation. And so, he concludes, there is something wrong with the researcher's thinking.

 

DO THE RESEARCH. 

Here, I've done it for you... 

From chapter 19d:

One of the first books to report on the ARRB interviews orchestrated by Horne was Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). This anthology presented competing and overlapping takes on the medical evidence by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Mantik. Now, to focus on but one deception of many included in this book, we shall note that in his chapter Dr. Mantik claimed "Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head (nope, that was Ed Stroble)...described a wound...above the right eye, near the hairline." And that Mantik then cited White House photographer Joe O'Donnell's recollection he saw a photo showing such a wound as support for what he, Mantik, was now claiming Robinson had claimed. 

But this conspiracy gold was poop. The reality was that Robinson described a small wound which he insisted was not a bullet wound. And that he specified, on different occasions, that this tiny wound was by the temple, or even on the right cheek, but never above the right eye. And the reality is that O'Donnell's claim he saw a wound above the right eye in a photo was also suspect. Basically, O'Donnell told Horne, in the same interview in which he described being shown an autopsy photo, that he and Jackie Kennedy had spent a day together editing the Zapruder film. Well this is absolute rubbish, invisible rabbit kind of stuff. And that's not the only red flag suggesting O'Donnell was less than credible. O'Donnell similarly claimed he'd been shown this photo (for which there is no record) by White House photographer Robert Knudsen, whose family claimed he'd told them he'd been the only photographer at the autopsy--an assertion which Mantik would have to have known was false after studying Gunn's and Horne's interviews where witness after witness failed to recall Knudsen's even being  present at the autopsy.  Now, the since-deceased Knudsen had been interviewed for the HSCA, and had told them he'd developed photos taken at the autopsy. But he never said anything under oath about his taking the photos himself or his seeing an entrance wound on the forehead in the photos he'd developed, and his family, who told Horne and the ARRB he'd told them all sorts of wild stuff--well, even they failed to recall his describing such a wound. 

But it's worse than that. When Knudsen was interviewed by the HSCA on 8-11-78 he gave no signs of holding back. He said a lot of stuff which many would find incredible, including that after looking through the autopsy photos supplied him by his interviewer he thought photos were missing in which probes had been placed in the body.  But he said nothing about a missing photo showing a hole in the forehead. In fact, he recalled but one photo of the head wounds (and that was one showing a wound in the right rear) and snapped "Here, this is it." when shown photo 37h, a photo showing the  top of the head from above which failed to show the supposed entrance hole on the forehead and the supposed exit hole in the middle of the back of the head.  Now, there was one curious exchange, where Knudsen was asked if the photos just shown him were "not inconsistent"with the ones he saw in 1963, and responded "No. Not at all." But that was just confusing human speak. I mean, if someone were to ask you if their recollection is not inconsistent with your recollection of an event, it is as likely that you would answer "no" to mean they are not consistent as it is for you to answer "no" to mean they are consistent. I mean, I get confused just writing about this. As Knudsen was asked this question after being shown a series of photos with which he expressed no disagreement, moreover, and as Purdy failed to follow up by asking how they were inconsistent, we can and should assume Knudsen meant that the photos were not inconsistent with his recollections...and that his only real complaint was that some photos (the ones he recalled with the probes) appeared to be missing. 

So... to sum up, the only one to claim Knudsen saw a small wound on the forehead, or even shared a photo showing such a wound,  was O'Donnell, who Knudsen's family had never even heard of, and whose connection to Knudsen was nebulous, if not non-existent. O'Donnell was a dubious source with a dubious claim. 

Now observe how Mantik's, well, stuff...rubs off on Horne. In Volume 2 of his magnum opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2009) Horne discusses Tom Robinson's description of a small wound by the temple, and takes Mantik's lead and pretends Robinson was actually describing a bullet wound above the right eye.  When summarising the HSCA's 1977 interview of Robinson, Horne writes: "Robinson also spoke of a small hole in the temple near the hairlline, which was so small it could be hidden by the hair." Horne then reads the mind of Andy Purdy, the man interviewing Robinson, and claims: "Purdy asked Robinson to clarify which side of the forehead it was on, which tells me that Robinson said 'temple' but had actually pointed to his own forehead rather than to his temple. Robinson responded to the question by saying 'the right side,' thus confirming that it was indeed in the right forehead near the hairline."

What the??? Horne makes a ridiculous assumption and then claims his assumption (Robinson meant forehead and not temple) is confirmed by Robinson's saying it was on the right side. Well, hello, there is a temple on the right side of the head! One can not simply declare that someone saying there was a mark on the right side of the head by the temple actually said it was a bullet hole high on the forehead. That's insulting to, well, everyone...

But it gets worse. On page 599 of Inside the ARRB, Horne claims Robinson's 1-12-77 recollection of a wound by the temple "is consistent with Dennis David's account of seeing Pitzer's photos of a small round wound high in the right forehead, and of Joe O'Donnell's account of Robert Knudsen showing him a photo depicting an entry wound high in the right forehead." Now, we'll get to David and Pitzer in a minute, but what's important here is that we realize that, according to his widely-disseminated notes,  researcher Joe West asked Robinson about the wounds on 5-26-92 and was told instead of "(approx 2) small wounds in face packed with wax", and that when Horne himself spoke to Robinson on 6-18-96, Robinson once again failed to mention a small wound by the temple, and instead claimed he saw "two or three small perforations or holes in the right cheek." And that all  this led Horne to assert, on page 612 of Inside the ARRB, that Robinson's 1996 recollection of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with his 1977 recollection of a small wound by the temple. 

So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

Edited April 25 by Pat Speer

[Sandy Larsen]

21 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

 

It's bizarro only in  your mind, Pat. If Horne told the story, it would make perfect sense.

 

[Pat Speer]

51 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Unlike Horne, Pat Speer routinely kicks inconvenient facts under the rug. In contrast, Doug Horne studies all the facts he can find and comes up with a cogent hypothesis that explains it all.

What Pat scoffs at here is too much for his thought process to handle. But for most intelligent people it makes perfect sense given what evidence we have. JFK's body was indeed delivered to Bethesda Hospital well before it's official arrival time. Most likely it was flown in by helicopter from the airport. It arrived in a plain shipping casket, not the ornate bronze one that it was put in at Parkland.

 

This is one of the most back-assward things I've ever read. 

Not one prominent researcher, not even Mantik, finds Horne's theory convincing.You know, cause you asked him, that Mantik doesn't buy into Horne's ridiculous theory Humes cut the large fragment from the head. 

Now I actually wish Horne was more credible. But he's just not.

1. Compare Reed's testimony to what Horne claims Reed claims. If you do you will see that Reed saw Humes cut into the head to remove the brain AFTER Reed and Custer had taken the x-rays, but Horne needs it to be before, since these x-rays show missing frontal bone...so he simply claims it was before.

2. Compare Robinson's testimony and statements to what Horne claims he saw. Robinson told Horne he saw two three tiny holes on the cheek. Horne claims he actually saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. Robinson has also claimed he saw a blowout wound on the side of the head, but Horne, as I recall, just ignores this and claims any description of a large wound on the front or side of the head prior to Humes' cresting such a wound is a lie. 

3. Compare James Jenkins' description of what he took to be an entrance wound by Kennedy's ear, along with Mantik's and Chesser's subsequent descriptions of this wound as one by the ear, and then watch Horne in JFK: What the Doctors Saw pronounce that Jenkins' was really describing a bullet hole high on the forehead. 

It's embarrassing... for all of us...thinking there was more to it than Oswald...to be associated... with this stuff...

[Pat Speer]

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

It's bizarro only in  your mind, Pat. If Horne told the story, it would make perfect sense.

 

Tom Robinson: I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple.

Tom Robinson, nineteen years later: I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek.

Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

Apparently some think this makes perfect sense. 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Tom Robinson: I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple.

Tom Robinson, nineteen years later: I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek.

Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

Apparently some think this makes perfect sense.

 

Apparently Pat thinks that it is Horne himself relaying the above lines.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/25/2024 at 12:00 AM, Pat Speer said:

DO THE RESEARCH. 

Here, I've done it for you... 

From chapter 19d:

One of the first books to report on the ARRB interviews orchestrated by Horne was Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). This anthology presented competing and overlapping takes on the medical evidence by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Mantik. Now, to focus on but one deception of many included in this book, we shall note that in his chapter Dr. Mantik claimed "Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head (nope, that was Ed Stroble)...described a wound...above the right eye, near the hairline." And that Mantik then cited White House photographer Joe O'Donnell's recollection he saw a photo showing such a wound as support for what he, Mantik, was now claiming Robinson had claimed. 

But this conspiracy gold was poop. The reality was that Robinson described a small wound which he insisted was not a bullet wound. And that he specified, on different occasions, that this tiny wound was by the temple, or even on the right cheek, but never above the right eye. And the reality is that O'Donnell's claim he saw a wound above the right eye in a photo was also suspect. Basically, O'Donnell told Horne, in the same interview in which he described being shown an autopsy photo, that he and Jackie Kennedy had spent a day together editing the Zapruder film. Well this is absolute rubbish, invisible rabbit kind of stuff. And that's not the only red flag suggesting O'Donnell was less than credible. O'Donnell similarly claimed he'd been shown this photo (for which there is no record) by White House photographer Robert Knudsen, whose family claimed he'd told them he'd been the only photographer at the autopsy--an assertion which Mantik would have to have known was false after studying Gunn's and Horne's interviews where witness after witness failed to recall Knudsen's even being  present at the autopsy.  Now, the since-deceased Knudsen had been interviewed for the HSCA, and had told them he'd developed photos taken at the autopsy. But he never said anything under oath about his taking the photos himself or his seeing an entrance wound on the forehead in the photos he'd developed, and his family, who told Horne and the ARRB he'd told them all sorts of wild stuff--well, even they failed to recall his describing such a wound. 

But it's worse than that. When Knudsen was interviewed by the HSCA on 8-11-78 he gave no signs of holding back. He said a lot of stuff which many would find incredible, including that after looking through the autopsy photos supplied him by his interviewer he thought photos were missing in which probes had been placed in the body.  But he said nothing about a missing photo showing a hole in the forehead. In fact, he recalled but one photo of the head wounds (and that was one showing a wound in the right rear) and snapped "Here, this is it." when shown photo 37h, a photo showing the  top of the head from above which failed to show the supposed entrance hole on the forehead and the supposed exit hole in the middle of the back of the head.  Now, there was one curious exchange, where Knudsen was asked if the photos just shown him were "not inconsistent"with the ones he saw in 1963, and responded "No. Not at all." But that was just confusing human speak. I mean, if someone were to ask you if their recollection is not inconsistent with your recollection of an event, it is as likely that you would answer "no" to mean they are not consistent as it is for you to answer "no" to mean they are consistent. I mean, I get confused just writing about this. As Knudsen was asked this question after being shown a series of photos with which he expressed no disagreement, moreover, and as Purdy failed to follow up by asking how they were inconsistent, we can and should assume Knudsen meant that the photos were not inconsistent with his recollections...and that his only real complaint was that some photos (the ones he recalled with the probes) appeared to be missing. 

So... to sum up, the only one to claim Knudsen saw a small wound on the forehead, or even shared a photo showing such a wound,  was O'Donnell, who Knudsen's family had never even heard of, and whose connection to Knudsen was nebulous, if not non-existent. O'Donnell was a dubious source with a dubious claim. 

Now observe how Mantik's, well, stuff...rubs off on Horne. In Volume 2 of his magnum opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2009) Horne discusses Tom Robinson's description of a small wound by the temple, and takes Mantik's lead and pretends Robinson was actually describing a bullet wound above the right eye.  When summarising the HSCA's 1977 interview of Robinson, Horne writes: "Robinson also spoke of a small hole in the temple near the hairlline, which was so small it could be hidden by the hair." Horne then reads the mind of Andy Purdy, the man interviewing Robinson, and claims: "Purdy asked Robinson to clarify which side of the forehead it was on, which tells me that Robinson said 'temple' but had actually pointed to his own forehead rather than to his temple. Robinson responded to the question by saying 'the right side,' thus confirming that it was indeed in the right forehead near the hairline."

What the??? Horne makes a ridiculous assumption and then claims his assumption (Robinson meant forehead and not temple) is confirmed by Robinson's saying it was on the right side. Well, hello, there is a temple on the right side of the head! One can not simply declare that someone saying there was a mark on the right side of the head by the temple actually said it was a bullet hole high on the forehead. That's insulting to, well, everyone...

But it gets worse. On page 599 of Inside the ARRB, Horne claims Robinson's 1-12-77 recollection of a wound by the temple "is consistent with Dennis David's account of seeing Pitzer's photos of a small round wound high in the right forehead, and of Joe O'Donnell's account of Robert Knudsen showing him a photo depicting an entry wound high in the right forehead." Now, we'll get to David and Pitzer in a minute, but what's important here is that we realize that, according to his widely-disseminated notes,  researcher Joe West asked Robinson about the wounds on 5-26-92 and was told instead of "(approx 2) small wounds in face packed with wax", and that when Horne himself spoke to Robinson on 6-18-96, Robinson once again failed to mention a small wound by the temple, and instead claimed he saw "two or three small perforations or holes in the right cheek." And that all  this led Horne to assert, on page 612 of Inside the ARRB, that Robinson's 1996 recollection of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with his 1977 recollection of a small wound by the temple. 

So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

Mortician Tom Robinson presents a huge problem to Pat Speer's distorted conception of the JFKA medical evidence so he resorts to doing a smear job on Robinson's testimony reminiscent of what he has done to Dr. Robert McClelland due to the huge problems McClelland presents to his project.

It is thus appropriate to say that Speer has done a "McClelland job" on Tom Robinson.

Recall Speer's highly deceptive presentation of Dr. McClelland's first day Admittance Note for President Kennedy in which Speer insults our intelligence with his claim that McClelland's Admittance Note is describing only one head wound (an entrance wound in the left temple McClelland described based upon Dr. Marion Jenkins's mistaken observation regarding same). The Note ALSO elsewhere describes a "massive gunshot wound of the head," consistent with all of McClelland's subsequent descriptions of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head, but Pat Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read the Note for ourselves to unmask his deception.

_________________

PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ADMISSION NOTE

DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland

Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy

At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone.

Robert N. McClelland M.D.
Asst. Prof. of Surgery
Southwestern Med.
School of Univ of Tex.
Dallas, Texas

_________________

Speer, in doing one of his infamous "McClelland jobs" on Tom Robinson takes the art of deception to a new level. Speer simply straight out writes bald faced lies.

Pat Speer's wrote a series of lies about Tom Robinson, as follows:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534508

Quote

 

Tom Robinson: I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple.

Tom Robinson, nineteen years later: I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek.

Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. 

 

 

Pat Speer characterizes Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 HSCA testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple":

But as can be seen in the transcript of Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 below, Tom Robinson testified that there was a little wound "at the temples in the hairline" on the "right" side that was "a quarter of an inch" in diameter (Speer deceptively claims this was instead a "large wound," consistent with his corrupt paradigm), and was according to Robinson caused "probably [by] a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet" (but NOTE that the ARRB questioning of Robinson in 1996 makes it clear that Robinson's opinions of the cause of the wound were ALL based upon what he overheard the pathologists saying [as they engaged in the cover-up of the frontal wounds] as Robinson was not any kind of expert in pathology or ballistics).

Pat Speer next characterizes Tom Robinson's 6/21/1996 ARRB testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek":

But when we consult the actual 1996 ARRB report, we see that just as Tom Robinson did in his 1977 HSCA testimony, in his 1996 ARRB testimony Tom Robinson ALSO specifically describes the right temple wound separately from the shrapnel punctures in the cheek (See next to red arrow below). Tom Robinson additionally executed two drawings of the right temple wound for the ARRB (one of which is the skull diagram below).

Then Pat Spear attempts to smear Doug Horne by writing "Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye." 

What Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read ourselves in the 1/12/1977 transcript of the testimony is that when Robinson was asked by HSCA attorney Andy Purdy whether the wound was "in the forehead region up near the hairline," Robinson replied in the affirmative, "yes." Furthermore, as can be seen in Robinson's marking of the right temple wound in the skull diagram above, Speer's claim that the wound was below the eye is also categorically false.

Speer's fraudulent representations about McClelland, Robinson, Jenkins, and virtually every other person he includes in his twisted commentary are an insult to our collective intelligence, but to Speer, that apparently doesn't seem to matter, as he demonstrably believes we are all too stupid to fact check his deceptive claims.

_________________

Setting aside Speer's manipulative treatment of the evidence of the right temple wound, it is simply indisputable that there was awareness at Parkland Hospital of the existence of the wound in the right temple. There is no way around this. Acting White House Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff announced to the world on national television that Dr. Burkley had told him that it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head, and when asked for clarification Kilduff specified that the bullet entered the head in the right temple. How the agents of the cover up managed to completely squelch mention of the entry wound to the right temple from the reports and testimony of the Parkland doctors and nurses is a good question, but there had to be awareness of that wound on the part of the trauma team in order for Dr. Burkley to be aware of it: 

 

Additionally, there was press coverage on the day of the assassination which suggests that the treating physicians were aware of the wound to the right temple, such as the following Telegraph Herald article in which Dr. Malcolm Perry is quoted as saying "the entrance wound was in the front of the head:

 

Edited May 5 by Keven Hofeling

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

On 4/21/2024 at 12:11 AM, Pat Speer said:

The denuding of skin is symptomatic of tangential wounds, Vince. As the bullet strikes at a shallow angle, a piece of bone pulls forward and tears the skin. 

Pat, your post shines a spotlight on a glaring inconsistency: the same individuals who dismiss the autopsy photographs as fabrications are using these very images to bolster their own dubious claims.

@Sandy Larsen, @Keven Hofeling, et al. - Here, Pat presents solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound from a missile on a human skull and its effects. Yet, despite this clear evidence, you choose to believe speculative authors who exploit your credulity. You accept the claim that this wound is merely a surgical incision, based solely on the word of someone utterly unqualified to judge such matters.

[Michael Crane]

13 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 it was Joe O'Donnell. 13 years ago or so, I was reading the New York Times and came across an article about a former U.S. Information Agency photographer who had recently passed,  whose passing had ignited a scandal. 

Because his obituary had listed a number of famous photos he'd taken, when he had in fact not taken these photos. It turned out that, although he had taken some famous photos in the aftermath of the A bomb in Japan, he had been signing and selling photographic prints for decades of photos that he had not taken==all of which were Kennedy-related. An investigation followed and led to his family admitting he'd been suffering from dementia and had developed an unhealthy obsession with the Kennedys. This was, of course Joe O'Donnell, one of the few people in history whose obituary led to a retraction. 

In any event, I read a number of articles on this situation, and saw that Cecil Stoughton, the White House photographer who'd accompanied Kennedy to Dallas, and had taken the Johnson swearing-in photos, had said he'd never heard of O'Donnell, and that, if I recall, U.S. Information Agency photographers did not interact much with White House photographers or the first family. 

Well, hell, I thought, and went back and read the notes of the interviews of the Knudsen family, and found they said they'd never heard of O'Donnell. And then re-read the notes on Horne's interview with O'Donnell, in which he reported that O'Donnell had claimed he'd performed a private showing of the Zapruder film for Jacqueline Kennedy, and that the two of them had edited the film together. 

Well, that was it, I thought, the man was obviously suffering from dementia when he claimed Knudsen had shown him some photos. But, wait, how would he have known Knudsen had claimed he'd taken some photos? I then remembered that Knudsen had written an article in which he claimed he'd taken photos...and that the HSCA had then called him in to testify and that he'd told them he'd developed photos taken by others.

In any event, I shared this info with the research community in the hopes people would stop citing O'Donnell as an important witness. And have instead witnessed men like Mantik and Horne continue to cite O'Donnell as credible, when they know full well he is not. 

Now, recently, after re-reading all of this stuff, I feel a little more charitable towards O'Donnell. We Know Knudsen developed photos. So the possibility exists Knudsen DID show O'Donnell some photos, and that O'Donnell had simply mis-remembered the nature of these photos

Possible smear campaign or good old Government character assassination?

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Possible smear campaign or good old Government character assassination?

None of the articles I found on O'Donnell mentioned his testifying before the ARRB. In fact, I believe I was the first to make the connection that it was the same guy.

Needless to say, when I first brought this up, those propping up his nonsense as important were displeased.

I had a similar experience when I exposed Michael Kurtz. 

He came forth in 2006, after writing about the JFK Assassination for 30 years, with a book in which he claimed he'd interviewed dozens of important witnesses and historical figures over decades and decades, who'd told him all sorts of incredible stuff.

The problem was that he gave dates for these supposed interviews, and I checked those dates against the death dates of some of these witnesses and found that a dozen or so of these supposed interviews took place after the interview subject was dead. IOW, Kurtz had just made them up, which meant that we should distrust what he claimed of his other interviews. 

But some people like his obvious iies, and continue citing them to support their own theories. 

Now, should you be tired of my complaining about conspiracy theorist bs artists, let me regale you with the tale of Michael West--a lone nut bs artist of the highest order.

Why We Fight

Those assuming that they need to play along with the "conservative" view of the assassination in order to get ahead in the medical profession miss that the medical professionals who have chosen to associate themselves with the single-assassin theory have been among the least credible individuals associated with the case. We have already discussed the failings of Dr. Michael Baden, and the many foolish and easily disproved statements he's made about the assassination. We have also discussed Dr. John Lattimer, a Urologist, with his strange belief Kennedy was a hunchback, and his odd diagrams presenting Kennedy's lung above his throat, and his long-time obsession with Nazis, and his odd habit of collecting celebrity genitalia. We have also discussed Dr. Chad Zimmerman, a Chiropractor, and the many flaws in his "experiments". But what we haven't fully discussed is that there has been virtually NO ONE from the world of medicine to publicly associate themselves with the single-assassin conclusion over the past 20 years, with whom other doctors would want to be associated.

If one gets the opportunity to view a video of the 1993 symposium on the medical evidence held in Chicago one will see precisely what I'm talking about.

First up was Dr. George Lundberg, then editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association. (Thanks to researcher Dave Reitzes for posting Lundberg's statements online.)

Lundberg opened by admitting he knew next to nothing about the case, and then concluded:

"What then and whom then do I trust? I have known Dr. James Humes, the principal autopsy pathologist, personally since 1957. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, who was paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen: I know Jim Humes. He's a friend of mine. I would trust him with my life.

Dr. Humes is an outstanding general pathologist, before and after 1963, acclaimed by his peers for thirty years -- forty years, perhaps -- but never was before, during, or after a fully trained forensic pathologist and never claimed to be. He didn't volunteer to do that job; he was assigned.

Moving from 1963 to 1968, the United States Attorney General appointed a four-person, blue-ribbon panel to study and reevaluate the JFK autopsy. The reason that was appointed was a request by the second autopsy pathologist, Dr. Jay Boswell, that there be such an independent investigation. This four-member panel had developed unanimous support for the autopsy report, results and interpretation.

A key member of that panel was the late Dr. Russell Fisher, Chief Medical Examiner for the state of Maryland, probably the world's top forensic pathologist of his time. I knew Russell Fisher. He was a friend of mine. I would trust him with my life. He concurred: two bullets from the rear. A simple story.

In 1979 the forensic pathology subcommittee of the House Select Committee on Assassinations included nine members. It voted eight to one in support of the autopsy findings and basic interpretation. One of the members was Dr. Earl Rose, a forensic pathologist in Dallas in November 1963 whose legal responsibility it was to autopsy President Kennedy and who tried to stop the illegal movement of the body from Dallas.

I have known Dr. Earl Rose since 1973. He is a friend of mine. I would trust him with my life. He concurs: two bullets from the rear.

Another member of that 1979 subcommittee was Dr. Charles Petty. Dr. Petty is Professor of Pathology at the University of Texas-Southwestern Medical School in Dallas, Texas. He heads up the Forensic Science Institute there, which was built in large part because of the Dallas embarrassment over the assassination and their recognition of the need for outstanding forensic science.

Dr. Petty has been quiet on the JFK issue for many, many years. This year he volunteered to write for JAMA on this subject. Last week's JAMA has his editorial, which confirms and explains the Single Bullet Theory.

I have known Chuck Petty since 1968. He is a friend of mine. I would trust him with my life.

These are the keys to trust: Jim Humes in 1963, Russell Fisher in 1968, Earl Rose in 1979 and again in JAMA in 1992, Chuck Petty in 1979 and again in JAMA in`1993, and then there is me.

To imagine or state that somehow these people say we have been duped, misled, or are somehow part of the conspiracy to deny the truth on this issue for all ages, strains the vocabulary to find strong enough words to describe such absurdity. Such charges are somewhere among the descriptors: wild and crazy, off the wall, out in left field in Cubs Park, incredible, insulting, or worse."

Well, this was not exactly scientific, was it? In 1999, for reasons apparently unrelated to his controversial stance on the Kennedy assassination, Lundberg was fired from JAMA.

Next up was Dr. Lattimer, reciting material from his book, claiming he knew Kennedy and Kennedy had a big hump on his back, etc. Then came Dr. Michael West, presenting a program defending the single-bullet theory that he'd previously presented to the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and the FBI Academy. (The former presentation was organized by Dr. Michael Baden, no less.) West recited stuff from Lattimer's book, and showed a film in which it was argued that Governor Connally's delayed reaction to the shot when compared to Kennedy was exactly as one would expect, and that his flipping of his hat circa frame 227 of the Zapruder film was "positive proof" of a neurological response to trauma prior to the point most conspiracy theorists believe he'd been hit. (West was quoted along these lines in Gerald Posner's book Case Closed.)

Erasing the Wild, Wild, West from History

Well, what happened to Dr. West, you might ask?

The 1998 book Tainting Evidence notes that Dr. West was a forensic dentist from Mississippi who appeared as a scientific expert in more than 60 trials in 10 states before it became clear he had a knack for seeing marks on bodies that others failed to see. As at least 20 of his appearances were in murder cases in which a suspect's life lay in the balance, moreover, the possibility West was sculpting his testimony to fit the needs of the prosecution slowly dawned on his fellow scientists. As a result, medical examiners (including Dr. Robert Kirschner, one of the ARRB's special consultants) began testifying against West, and he was denounced in a 1996 article in the American Bar Association Journal, in which he was called "a sore on the body of forensic science."

The 2008 book Forensics Under Fire fleshes out the story, and uses West as a case study of an expert gone awry. Despite West's claims that a special blue light he'd personally developed had allowed him to see the bite marks on victims no one else could see, the "science" of this light was never quite established. As a result other experts began to question West's conclusions, and he gradually fell out of favor. Within a year of his presentation at the 1993 Symposium, in fact, Dr. West was pressured into leaving the international Association of Identification and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences. He was also suspended by the American Board of Forensic Odontology. As a result, the convictions of two men against whom he'd testified were overturned, and the charges against still another were dropped. Word rapidly got out that his word was suspect, and his court appearances dropped off considerably.

He was so desperate for an appearance, in fact, that he agreed to give his opinion on a case for which he'd not done his homework. In 2001, in an effort to discredit the bite-mark analysis used against a client, lawyer Christopher Plourd hired private detective James Rix to contact West and ask if the teeth in a dental mold provided West matched the bite mark on the breast of the woman purportedly killed by Plourd's client. Two months later, after cashing a check for $750, West sent Rix a 20 Minute video explaining that, based on West's expert analysis, the odds that "these weren’t the teeth that created this bite would be almost astronomical."

Oops. This was a big mistake. The dental mold sent West had not been that of Plourd's client, but of Rix, the private investigator.

And from there things spiraled downward. In 2008, after the arrest of a man who'd admitted killing two toddlers in the early nineties, the lawyers for the two men previously convicted of these crimes called for West's arrest. This led Peter Neufeld, co-director of the Innocence Project, a nonprofit legal organization that examines questionable convictions and has won the exoneration of more than 200 inmates, to declare in an ABC News report that West was "a criminal" and that he'd "deliberately fabricated evidence and conclusions which were not supported by the evidence, the data or the rules of science." Neufeld further claimed "If you fabricate evidence in a capital murder case, where you know that if the person's convicted they are going to be executed — as far as I'm concerned that's the crime of attempted murder.'' He then concluded "These are not cases of sloppy forensic science. This is intentional misconduct. It's fabricated evidence to send people to death row.''

Pretty harsh words. Provocative words. Still, even though Neufeld's charges would seem a clear case of libel (should he not have been telling the truth), West refused to respond to his charges. West did, however, tell CBS' Steve Kroft that he stood by his prior testimony, and that if the DNA evidence implicated someone other than the defendants in the rapes and murders of the children they'd been convicted of killing, it meant only that someone else had raped and killed the children after the defendants had bitten them. Not willing to give an inch, West even stood by his absurd testimony that one of the defendants had bitten his victim 19 times--using only his upper teeth!

And from there things only got worse for wild, wild, West. In February 2009, Reasononline posted links to a 1993 video of West (http://reason.com/news/show/131527.html) rubbing a suspect's dental impressions on the cheek of a dead child. Finding bite marks on the cheek, curiously, allowed prosecutors to charge the man responsible for her apparently accidental death with deliberation, and this, in turn, allowed them to seek the death penalty. After seeing this video, Dr. Michael Bowers, a dentist and medical examiner for Ventura County, California, broke ranks with his colleague and told Reasononline that marks appeared on the young girl's cheek after West rubbed the suspect's dental impressions on her cheek because "Dr. West created them. It was intentional. He's creating artificial abrasions in that video, and he's tampering with the evidence. It's criminal, regardless of what excuse he may come up with about his methods...You never jam a plaster cast into a possible bite mark like that. It distorts the evidence. You take a photograph, or if there are indentations, you take an impression. But you don't jam plaster teeth into them."

Dr. David Averill, a former President of The American Board of Forensic Odontology, concurred with this appraisal. He told Reasononline "The video is troubling. I don't know how you can explain where those marks come from. And there's just no justification for him to push the cast into the skin like that...That isn't an acceptable way to perform a bite mark analysis."

But that wasn't the end of it. The writer of the article, Radley Balko, reported that Forensic Odontologist Richard Souviron, who'd served as an expert for the defendant, Jimmie Duncan, was never shown the video prior to Duncan's trial and conviction, and had signed a new affidavit claiming the video showed "'Dr. West, violently and repeatedly, forcing a mold of Jimmie Duncan's teeth into Ms. Oliveaux's right cheek. In doing so, Dr. West creates a mark that was not previously present. Dr. West's behavior and methods are absolutely not supported by any scientific standards or protocol.' Souviron added in the affidavit that hospital photographs show that 'none of the marks were present when Ms. Oliveaux was at the hospital,' and that the abrasions that Reisner testified about for the prosecution 'were created by the flagrant misconduct of Dr. Michael West.'"

Now, that was the end of Wild Wild West's adventures in bite-mark analysis... An 8-6-12 article by Jerry Mitchell in the Clarion-Ledger revealed that in a 2011 deposition West had admitted that "I no longer believe in bite-mark analysis...I don’t think it should be used in court. I think you should use DNA. Throw bite marks out” and that West had further told Mitchell that "The science is not as exact as I had hoped...DNA has made it fairly obsolete.”

 

Edited April 25 by Pat Speer

[Michael Crane]

On 4/24/2024 at 8:32 AM, Pat Speer said:

Heck, he claims Tom Robinson, his star witness, was involved in the clandestine delivery of JFK's body at Parkland an hour and a half before its official arrival. 

 

That might not be so far fetched.Somewhere,somehow...the Secret Service found a funeral home nearby that owned a black hearse.Wasn't the driver and the passenger wearing a white smock? I'm not saying that I believe it,but I'm not disregarding it either.I can see a hurried mortician still wearing his smock.

 

Damn,this case is a 1500 piece puzzle.

Edited April 25 by Michael Crane

[Sandy Larsen]

 

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

@Sandy Larsen, @Keven Hofeling, et al. - Here, Pat presents solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound from a missile on a human skull and its effects.

 

The "solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound" that Pat posted has nothing to do with Kennedy. It's somebody else's wound.

Keven has presented Robinson's ARRB testimony explaining what that triangular piece is, at least the part of it above the ear, as indicated in his drawing below. Though apparently he recalled its locationto be a couple centimeters nearer the ear than its actual location. He said that it was a flap of skin. As well as the location of a 1/4 inch wound.

 

 

 

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Yet, despite this clear evidence, you choose to believe speculative authors who exploit your credulity.

 

Neither Keven nor I have commented on what the beliefs of any authors are. Only Pat has done that. To which I've warned readers not to believe what Pat says about other researchers because of his history of misrepresenting the evidence and what the researchers believe.

Keven went one step further and proved that what Pat said were misrepresentations. No big surprise for me.

 

11 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

You accept the claim that this wound is merely a surgical incision, based solely on the word of someone utterly unqualified to judge such matters.

 

That was Dr. Paul Peters' judgment after carefully observing the autopsy photographs. Why do you consider a medical doctor to be "utterly unqualified?" (See the video in the OP.)

Oh, I know. Because his opinion contradicts your preconceived notions. You have already admitted to being a closed-minded ideologue regarding the authenticity of the photos, films, and x-rays. So why not regarding this incision (as described by Dr. Peters) as well?

 

[Keyvan Shahrdar]

On 4/26/2024 at 12:51 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

 

The "solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound" that Pat posted has nothing to do with Kennedy. It's somebody else's wound.

Keven has presented Robinson's ARRB testimony explaining what that triangular piece is, at least the part of it above the ear, as indicated in his drawing below. Though apparently he recalled its locationto be a couple centimeters nearer the ear than its actual location. He said that it was a flap of skin. As well as the location of a 1/4 inch wound.

 

 

 

 

Neither Keven nor I have commented on what the beliefs of any authors are. Only Pat has done that. To which I've warned readers not to believe what Pat says about other researchers because of his history of misrepresenting the evidence and what the researchers believe.

Keven went one step further and proved that what Pat said were misrepresentations. No big surprise for me.

 

 

That was Dr. Paul Peters' judgment after carefully observing the autopsy photographs. Why do you consider a medical doctor to be "utterly unqualified?" (See the video in the OP.)

Oh, I know. Because his opinion contradicts your preconceived notions. You have already admitted to being a closed-minded ideologue regarding the authenticity of the photos, films, and x-rays. So why not regarding this incision (as described by Dr. Peters) as well?

 

@Sandy Larsen In the same breath you are claiming the autopsy photos are fake and you are using the same photos to make you claim.  Irrefutable scientific evidence is presented to you and you don't believe it.  I am afraid that you have been brainwashed into believing information that has no basis in fact.

You need to evaluate fact not narratives or what people say or write.  You don't need to belief Pat or what he writes, but when photographs are presented with a narrative with basis of fact, that is a fact.

[Keven Hofeling]

On 4/27/2024 at 6:34 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

@Sandy Larsen In the same breath you are claiming the autopsy photos are fake and you are using the same photos to make you claim.  Irrefutable scientific evidence is presented to you and you don't believe it.  I am afraid that you have been brainwashed into believing information that has no basis in fact.

You need to evaluate fact not narratives or what people say or write.  You don't need to belief Pat or what he writes, but when photographs are presented with a narrative with basis of fact, that is a fact.

@Keyvan Shahrdar, on two separate threads now you have responded to the evidentiary challenges @Sandy Larsen and I have presented to you with various reiterations of the following mantra, and have offered absolutely nothing substantive in response, and it is so far appearing futile to even attempt to communicate with you because you are revealing yourself to be a one trick pony capable of nothing other than this solitary hollow mantra:

Quote

 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534030

 "You can say what ever you want but: Narrative is Narrative, Gibberish is Gibberish, and Fact is Fact."

 

The suppressed premise underlying your mantra appears to be the proposition that the films and photographs of the assassination are authentic, pristine and inviolate, and that the abundant evidence that impeaches the authenticity thereof is mere "gibberish" and "narrative" unworthy of the least consideration, so Sandy and I have presented you with questions within the conceptual framework you have presented which you appear to be refusing to address, even though it is the photographic evidence itself we have presented you with.

So I am here going to present these challenges to you again, while reminding you that we have presented same to you within the criteria which you have -- however unwisely -- labeled as "facts" as opposed to "gibberish" and "narratives." In essence, for the sake of argument, we are attempting to engage you in a discussion, on your own terms, and in doing so have presented you with issues on your own turf which one would think you should be able to understand.

The questions Sandy presented you with were at the post linked as follows:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534070

And the related questions I presented you with were at the post linked as follows:   https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534128

For your convenience, those questions were essentially as follows, which challenges you with the additional question of whether you are capable of responding without resort to your dismissive "gibberish/narrative" mantra, given that these questions relate exclusively to the photographic evidence:

__________________

I am with you, Sandy, and would like to see Keyvan answer the questions you have posed about where Keyvan believes the large head wound was located, and about whether it is the Zapruder film head wound imagery or the right profile autopsy photographs of JFK that are fraudulent (given that they contradict each other).  

However, I would like to add the following Zapruder film headwound imagery to the equation (from the 1998 MPI "Images of an Assassination" direct copy of the extant "original" Zapruder film), so that Keyvan can fully appreciate the cantaloupe sized cavernous wound crater that is depicted as being in JFK's forehead in the film which not one single Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital or Bethesda autopsy witness ever reported or described, and which clearly contradicts the autopsy photographs:

What specifically I would like to see Keyvan explain is why in the Zapruder film in frames Z-335 and Z-337 we are see Jackie Kennedy's pink shoulder pad where we should be seeing President Kennedy's forehead, when the autopsy photographs demonstrate that the President's forehead is perfectly intact:

ZAPRUDER FRAME 335

 

ZAPRUDER FRAME 337

Now, Keyvan, how do you reconcile Z-335 and Z-337, as well as the other Zapruder film images above showing a cavernous cantaloupe sized crater in JFK's forehead with the following right profile autopsy photographs of the fallen President which demonstrate that there was no such crater in his forehead and that the forehead was perfectly intact? In other words, which photographic images are fraudulent, the autopsy photographs, or the Zapruder film images?

 

Edited May 1 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/27/2024 at 6:34 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

@Sandy Larsen In the same breath you are claiming the autopsy photos are fake and you are using the same photos to make [your] claim.

 

My whole point is that some of the photos are faked.

If I assume one of the photos is real in order to prove that another is fake, then I have accomplished my goal whether or not I am right in my assumption! Because if I am right in my assumption that the one photo is real, then I have proven the other is fake. On the other hand, if I am wrong in my assumption that the one photo is real... well the only way I can be wrong is if the one I assumed is real is really fake! So, either way, I have proven a photo to be faked.

This obvious fact seems to be beyond your comprehension level. If it weren't, you would have seen the flaw in your critique right away before posting it.

Or... maybe it's just your dogmatic insistence that is making you say dumb things.

 

On 4/27/2024 at 6:34 PM, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Irrefutable scientific evidence is presented to you and you don't believe it.

 

What "irrefutable scientific evidence" are you talking about? If you think that a photo in and of itself is irrefutable evidence, then you are sorely mistaken. Unless you think that Dick Van Dyke really danced with penguins.

 

[Denise Hazelwood]

Pat and Kevin, 

Can you tell me where the R side head autopsy picture that you posted came from? Is it part of the “leaked” Fox set? Or is there an official source for it? (I.e., is there a NARA or government url for the image?)