Calling all educators, doctors, journalists, and published writers

[Pat Speer]

Hi, those of you who know me know I'm dead serious about the findings in my presentation and that I'm devoted to getting the word out on my "new perspective."

To that end I am currently adding a comments page to my presentation. I am adding this in hopes it will convince the curious that there are important issues discussed within. I'm also hoping it will attract some media interest somewhere down the line.

If you're a published writer and/or a scholar of some sort (in other words, someone with a lot more cred than myself) and wouldn't mind lending me that cred in order to publicize my work, I would appreciate your posting a complimentary message and/or sending me an e-mail complimenting my work. I apologize for the absolute shamelessness of this post.

The rest of you can utilize this thread discussing what an absolute idiot I am.

[John Dolva]

You're obviously not an idiot, Pat. But it appears your analysis may be based on a faulty fundament. I haven't completed working out an orientation of the head in the headwound photo as yet. It's a slow process that very likely, at the present rate will take many more weeks. Once I have something I'm satisfied meets all criteria, I'll let you know through this thread.

[Pat Speer]

You're obviously not an idiot, Pat. But it appears your analysis may be based on a faulty fundament. I haven't completed working out an orientation of the head in the headwound photo as yet. It's a slow process that very likely, at the present rate will take many more weeks. Once I have something I'm satisfied meets all criteria, I'll let you know through this thread.

John, my analysis of the mystery photo was only one segment of my presentation. My analysis of the single-bullet theory, head wound trajectories, x-rays, and earwitnesses is not reliant upon that photo at all. Even so, it's no coincidence that the x-rays completely confirmed my analysis of the mystery photo. IMO.

Researcher John Canal has sent me his orientation of the mystery photo. It's very similar to the orientation used by Larry Sturdivan in his book. Both of these assert that what I believe is the jugular foramen is the entrance at the back of Kennedy's head (an entrance STRANGELY unacknowledged by the HSCA FPP, by the way) and have the beveled exit (UNMENTIONED in the autopsy report, by the way..nor was it mentioned in the WC testimony, nor was it mentioned ANY time prior to the changing of the official interpretation of this photo in 1967) on Kennedy's forehead. Not one eyewitness saw an exit on Kennedy's forehead! To Canal's credit he acknowledges this and agrees with me that the "beveled exit" was not an actual exit through the skin. This puts him in the minority, however. Most of those who've convinced themselves this photo represents the forehead have also convinced themselves that the beveled bone is THE exit. Some even go so far as to state that this exit was hidden beneath a lock of Kennedy's hair! If the Zapruder film proves anything, it proves that the exit was too big to be hidden.

My problems with his (and evidently your) orientation are as follows.

1. There is what appears to be a bullet hole precisely where Humes said it was when one interprets this photo as being of the back of Kennedy's head. When one says the photo is of the forehead this bullet hole is moved to the LEFT side of Kennedy's head, and is dismissed as blood. I don't see this at all.

2. There is what appears to be the back of the neck at the bottom of the photo when one interprets this photo as being the back of Kennedy's head. When one says the photo is of the forehead this ends up on the LEFT side of Kennedy's head. Some assert that these lines are on a blue towel. There is no other reportage of this towel, nor is it in any of the other photos.

3. EVERY Bethesda witness short of the doctors and Stringer had no problem looking at the photo and interpreting it as being the back of Kennedy's head after his brain had been removed. If the scalp is never reflected to the left, as some want to believe, then why did EVERY one of these Bethesda witnesses, all witnesses to numerous autopsies, immediately agree that this was the back of Kennedy's head when shown the photo by Lifton, and even create drawings explaining the photo from this orientation?

4. The camera used at the autopsy was a 4 x 5 speed graphic. In EVERY other autopsy photo the length of the table was on the horizontal, the wide dimension of the photo. But when one views the photo as being Kennedy's forehead, the table suddently runs along the shorter dimension. This would imply that Stringer, for inexplicable reasons, turned the camera sideways for this shot only.

5. The ruler in the photo is within the skull. If the photo is of the forehead then a ruler with 1 x 9 proportions should look as small when within 5 inches or so of a forehead that looks as big. I spent hours trying to re-create this photo while looking through various cameras and could never come close. When I attempted to recreate the photo with it being of the back of the head, however, I had no problem. When I eventually read Doug Horne's ARRB memo on the camera I found that the military had located the original camera and lens but that the HSCA HAD DISREGARDED THEM WHEN THEY FOUND THEY CONFLICTED WITH THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS. I have a very strong suspicion that it was this photo in particular that they could not get to match.

If someone were to recreate this photo in its forehead orientation using a 4 x 5 camera and a lens that could be tied to Bethesda in 1963, then I MIGHT begin to consider that this photo is of Kennedy's forehead. Until that point, I'm convinced that this photo is of the back of Kennedy's head, and that those who think it's his forehead are seriously mistaken.

[John Dolva]

Pat, If you had been following the Autopsy table thread, and the following one 'Skull Curvatures', you would know:

I am not suggesting 4x5 , but 5x4. This is as a result of a careful analysis of peripheral features, including light. The orientation arrived at is consistent with other photos. And it seems, inconsistent with none.

The so called neck creases appear in at least one other photo, in a same area, where it obviously has nothing to do with any body parts.

I am not necessarily suggesting a forehead at all. I'm not really suggesting anything except a range. A forehead consideration is at one extreme. I haven't completed building models as yet, but I can say I tend to end up with the so called exit on the top of the head. I'm not calling it or any other feature an exit or entry as yet. Once I have an orientation, then and only then do I have what is needed to begin to draw some sort of conclusions about the wounds themselves.

Edited February 28, 2006 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

Pat, If you had been following the Autopsy table thread, and the following one 'Skull Curvatures', you would know:

I am not suggesting 4x5 , but 5x4. This is as a result of a careful analysis of peripheral features, including light. The orientation arrived at is consistent with other photos. And it seems, inconsistent with none.

The so called neck creases appear in at least one other photo, in a same area, where it obviously has nothing to do with any body parts.

I am not necessarily suggesting a forehead at all. I'm not really suggesting anything except a range. A forehead consideration is at one extreme. I haven't completed building models as yet, but I can say I tend to end up with the so called exit on the top of the head. I'm not calling it or any other feature an exit or entry as yet. Once I have an orientation, then and only then do I have what is needed to begin to draw some sort of conclusions about the wounds themselves.

Sorry, John, if I misinterpreted your orientation. Based upon some of the other threads, I'd assumed you were leaning towards the large bone being the forehead and with the scalp reflected forward. I apologize if this is incorrect.

[John Dolva]

Pat, I'm not sure what it is you feel a need to apologise for. The analysis in Autopsy Table, until the final conclusion, was a work in progress, and one suggestion for discussion was forehead. However, the important thing was not a pre-judice re body part analysis but rather an analysis that establishes photo orientation. Once that was done, 'Skull curvatures' seeks to establish bodypart orientation.

And therein, a forward reflection is so far indicated. However, that is speculation. As a work in progress, the aim is to establish head orientation in the photo that already has been orientated.

If you take a look at 'Skull curvatures' you will find a set of 3d models that anyone who chooses to do so can use to check various orientations of both inside the skull and on the outside surface of the skull. Once that is complete, an understanding of the photo as being two photos of near and far, and an understanding of size distortion is necessary. I understand Frank may be thinking about this aspect. Once such considerations are complete, hopefully one will have a head orientation that is consistent in all features.

Then an analysis of the wounds can proceed. The idea being that whatever the orientation is, if it can be established, then all conclusions derived from there will have validity.

This is why I keep harping on fundaments and benchmarks. With a solid undisputed benchmark, conclusions made must be accepted even if they run contrary to what one may wish those conclusions to be.