Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Medical Evidence: a new perspective


Pat Speer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pat you are a charlatan! (For failing to remove the adjective "wanna-be" from "writer".)

If you are too modest to do so, John should do it for you.)

My only initial comment is that page numbers (even if only within the chapters) would be helpful.

Truly impressive work that deserves to be (note the allusion to Shakespeare!) published in book form!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the full-length version of my Lancer presentation. I will be re-writing it and correcting it from time to time. As it is, I believe it represents a significant breakthrough in the case and is well worth a look for anyone even marginally interested.

http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

****************************************************

Pat, T.G. is absolutely right. You are no wannabe, you're a bona fide.

This is exceptionally good. And I, for one, am in awe of your contribution.

You make us proud of your presence here, on the Education Forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the full-length version of my Lancer presentation. I will be re-writing it and correcting it from time to time. As it is, I believe it represents a significant breakthrough in the case and is well worth a look for anyone even marginally interested.

http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

I took the opportunity to download the pdf's of this presentation after seeing this post. I've only made it a small way through, but it is quite impressive to say the least!

Wanna be? Hardly.

Bone Fide? Yes, unquestionably.

As my younger co-workers would say, "out-freaking-standing!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat, I have now had a chance to (rapidly) read most of your outstanding presentation.

I have several questions for you:

You posit the following sequence of shots:

A shot (#1) from the TSBD at Z frame 188.

A shot (#2) probably from the Dal Tex building at Z frame 222 that passes through JFK and hits Connally. (Your "single bullet".)

A shot (#3) from the sixth floor of the TSBD at Z frame 310-311.

A shot (or sound) at Z frame 320-322 coming from west of the TSBD that you feel could possibly be a diversionary firecracker.

First question: How do your shots (and sound) align with the accoustical study of the HSCA?

Second question: Since you believe all shots came from the rear, how do you explain JFK's rearward head movement? Do you credit any of the explanations for this advanced by the defenders of the LN theory?

Third question: Does your suggesting timing of the first and second shots absolutely preclude them from being fired by the same rifle?

Thanks!

Edited by Tim Gratz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat,

Sorry I missed your presentation in Dallas. I was very much looking forward to it. I skimmed your on-line presentation and was quite impressed. You and I have done much the same work independent of one another.

I thought you might find the attached (I hope) FBI Lab document interesting. It is one of those I showed in Dallas. This report on the Harper fragment was authored by FBI spectrographer, Henry Heiberger. He notes that the bone was delivered to Burkley at “4:30 PM” on the 27th by SA Cornelius McWright.

Notice also that Heiberger made the notation “Spectro – None made. Advised not to + no indication of where to take sample.” As we saw in Dallas, there was lead on the X-rays.

John Hunt

P.S. One small correction; Harper took the fragment to his uncle, Jack Harper, not his father.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sure most of us are familiar with Mr. Hunt's fine work and readily forgive his relationship to E. Howard--no, no, I'm only kidding!

I think it would be most interesting for Mr. Hunt, because of his familiarity with the medical issues, give us a "critique" of Pat's work after he has had sufficient opportunity to carefully review it.

(To John: sometime we'll have to chat about my RI connections. Years and years ago my aunt and uncle (both now deceased) owned the only paint store in East Greenwich as well as a place at Bonnet Shores. I have fond memories of RI.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, the kind comments expressed here are all greatly appreciated. Approximately two years ago I realized that in order to prove there was conspiracy the research community would have to put the discussion of the medical evidence back on a rational footing. The research community had gotten so far away from looking at the actual evidence, focusing instead on the possibility it was faked, that most seemed to accept that the evidence suggested only one shooter. My understanding of the evidence led me to believe the opposite. Hopefully, with the input of men like John Hunt (and eventually some doctors) we'll be able to use the medical information to prove that the evidence wasn't altered, merely misunderstood by the "experts". Those who take the time to swim through my presentation will find that several of the men on the Clark Panel and FPP either twisted the information into saying things they should have known wasn't true (Baden) or wrote papers or articles with analysis of the medical evidence that were in direct contradiction to their findings concerning Kennedy (Fisher, Spitz, Coe). That the top doctors in the country can be so easily pressured into going along with something they had reason to doubt, without even acknowledging those doubts, may be an even greater tragedy than Kennedy's death. Why was Cyril Wecht the only one to express doubt? Why was it so important to "sell" the findings of the FPP to the American people? These questions are to me perhaps even more important than who killed Kennedy, in that whoever killed Kennedy is probably dead himself, while the use of government appointed panels of experts continues.

As for my "scenario," I debated whether to even include it in the presentation. It was just my conjecture based upon the medical evidence, and is by no means my final decision on the subject. I deliberately left open whether the shot at 224 was a single-bullet or multiple bullets fired by an automatic weapon. As mentioned on this Forum, home-made silencers will often cause a slight yaw, which could help explain the shape of the entrance on Connally. The other question I have yet to make a firm decision on is whether or not a subsonic small caliber bullet would have enough juice to pass through Kennedy and inflict such damage on Connally. At this point I'm leaning towards a "no" on this question.

As to your questions, I believe the dictabelt studies are as much junk science as the Neutron Activation Analysis. While there might be something to the science itself, the conclusions were based on so much interpretation that they were just wrong. McClain was not where they said he was--an honest understanding of the Hughes film proves this. I did some study on this early on, and realized McClain would have to have traveled 50-60 mph for something like 2 seconds to get where he needed to be and then to have slowed back to 12 mph BEFORE any shots were fired. It's ludicrous. He was not where they said he was and it wasn't even his microphone. He WAS at the Lancer banquet, by the way. Evidently, he is convinced the mob killed Kennedy.

The rearward head movement is, I believe, best explained by a tangential shot striking Kennedy on the top of his head by his ear. Lean slightly forward, look at your left knee, and slap the top of your head towards your right eye and see how your head reacts. But DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME! (obligatory warning so no one sues me after giving themselves a concussion.)

The first and second shots, if they did indeed come at 188 and 222 (and strike Kennedy at 190 and 224) are too close together to have both been fired with any accuracy from the Sniper's nest. It's totally interesting to me that both the WC and HSCA and EVERY EARLY LNer held that Kennedy was shot significantly before he came out from behind the sign in Z-film, and that now virtually every LNer holds that Kennedy was hit at the very last split-second, at Z-224 along with Connally. (While the WC said somewhere between 210 and 225, they clearly were leaning to 210). Apparently, the media feels you can disagree with the government's findings all you want as long as you say Oswald did it, but if you agree with the WC or HSCA on most of their findings, but conclude there was a conspiracy--YOU ARE A WACKO.

Of course, if the stretcher bullet was switched by the FBI--something I don't consider all that unlikely, there is nothing to connect the Carcano to either of these early shots. In that case, a different rifle may have been fired twice in that period. But since the eyewitnesses to the shooter in the sniper's nest--I found Worrell and Euins most helpful--indicate the sniper fired at least one early shot, I lean towards two shots from two different rifles between 188 and 224. (Euins and Worrell both heard two early shots but I suspect they saw the rifle in the sniper's nest and heard the shot from the Dal-tex and made the incorrect but reasonable assumption the shot at 222 came from this rifle.)

Pat, I have now had a chance to (rapidly) read most of your outstanding presentation.

I have several questions for you.

You posit the following sequence of shots:

A shot (#1) from the TSBD at Z frame 188.

A shot (#2) probably from the Dal Tex building at Z frame 222 that passes through JFK and hits Connally. (Your "single bullet".)

A shot (#3) from the sixth floor of the TSBD at Z frame 310-311.

A shot (or sound) at Z frame 320-322 coming from west of the TSBD that you feel could possibly be a diversionary firecracker.

First question: How do your shots (and sound) align with the accoustical study of the HSCA?

Second question: Since you believe all shots came from the rear, how do you explain JFK's rearward head movement? Do you credit any of the explanations for this advanced by the defenders of the LN theory?

Third question: Does your suggesting timing of the first and second shots absolutely preclude them from being fired by the same rifle?

Thanks!

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and second shots, if they did indeed come at 188 and 222 (and strike Kennedy at 190 and 224) are too close together to have both been fired with any accuracy from the Sniper's nest. It's totally interesting to me that both the WC and HSCA and EVERY EARLY LNer held that Kennedy was shot significantly before he came out from behind the sign in Z-film, and that now virtually every LNer holds that Kennedy was hit at the very last split-second, at Z-224 along with Connally. (While the WC said somewhere between 210 and 225, they clearly were leaning to 210.

The WC reasoning that the first wounding occurred at Zf-210 was based upon the timing of the limo coming out from under the live oak tree. I don't really understanding placing the source of JFK's backwound at Zf-188 from the TSBD. Even the WC said this was an impossible shot. I do concur that JFK was hit at approx. Zf-189, but I don't see how that shot could have originated from the TSBD's southeast sixth floor window.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and second shots, if they did indeed come at 188 and 222 (and strike Kennedy at 190 and 224) are too close together to have both been fired with any accuracy from the Sniper's nest. It's totally interesting to me that both the WC and HSCA and EVERY EARLY LNer held that Kennedy was shot significantly before he came out from behind the sign in Z-film, and that now virtually every LNer holds that Kennedy was hit at the very last split-second, at Z-224 along with Connally. (While the WC said somewhere between 210 and 225, they clearly were leaning to 210.

The WC reasoning that the first wounding occurred at Zf-210 was based upon the timing of the limo coming out from under the live oak tree. I don't really understanding placing the source of JFK's backwound at Zf-188 from the TSBD. Even the WC said this was an impossible shot. I do concur that JFK was hit at approx. Zf-189, but I don't see how that shot could have originated from the TSBD's southeast sixth floor window.

T.C.

Knowing that there was a second shooter who needed fire from the sniper's nest to cover his fire, the sniper in the nest would shoot at the earliest opportunity. The WC showed there was a brief opening in the twigs at 186. A shooter following Kennedy with his rifle for a few seconds leading up to the brief sojourn behind the twigs would be unlikely to hold off firing simply because a few twigs appeared in his view. He needed to get the thing started. I see the twigs as a non-issue.

As mentioned, I was concerned about including this scenario. One of the reasons is my concern that people will go straight to my conclusions, see that I don't include a knoll shot and just stop right there. I'm hoping people will read on even when they disagree with me. I believe the photos and x-rays offer strong evidence for more than one head shot. I'm hoping enough will come to agree with me that we can force the medical establishment to come to the table and explain why their forensic journals say the exact opposite of what so many experts have proposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The first and second shots, if they did indeed come at 188 and 222 (and strike Kennedy at 190 and 224) are too close together to have both been fired with any accuracy from the Sniper's nest.
The WC reasoning that the first wounding occurred at Zf-210 was based upon the timing of the limo coming out from under the live oak tree. I don't really understanding placing the source of JFK's backwound at Zf-188 from the TSBD. Even the WC said this was an impossible shot.
Knowing that there was a second shooter who needed fire from the sniper's nest to cover his fire, the sniper in the nest would shoot at the earliest opportunity. The WC showed there was a brief opening in the twigs at 186. A shooter following Kennedy with his rifle for a few seconds leading up to the brief sojourn behind the twigs would be unlikely to hold off firing simply because a few twigs appeared in his view. He needed to get the thing started. I see the twigs as a non-issue.

Certainly the WC would have preferred to dismiss the "twigs as a non-issue" as well, given the compact timeframe it forced them to work with. But being from the old school, and remembering the importance of the generally-recognized argument that a clear shot wasn't possible from the 6th floor SE nest until Zf-210, I do find the assertion of a shot actually hitting Kennedy from that spot at that time to be anamolous. But if one removes that shot from the list of those that hit their targets, Pat's point about a TSBD shot at that time fits well with the idea that the Carcano ammunition didn't need to be precise, just present.

I understand that Pat's shooting scenario is a small part of his excellent presentation about the Medical Evidence, but this point ties directly to a discussion on the Ultimate Sacrifice thread, where I will also post this.

T.C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...