Gary Mack and the about face !

[Pat Speer]

I would agree, Rob, that the WC's conclusions are "sunk", but not because of the confusion regarding the head wounds.

Many of the witnesses you cited were shown the autopsy photos and deferred to their accuracy. Some were asked to point out the head wound location they'd described as being on the back of the head, and pointed to a location above the ear, its location in the autopsy photos. In any event, there is no consensus for a wound LOW on the back of the head--where most CTs place the wound after being shown the so-called McClelland drawing, and being told this is where the Parkland witnesses placed the wound.

The confusion spread through a series of steps.

1. Some witnesses thought shots came from in front of Kennedy.
2. Some witnesses thought they saw smoke on the knoll.
3. Several Parkland witnesses thought the large head wound was on the back of the head.
4. Several Parkland doctors saw scrambled brain fall from the skull onto the stretcher or floor and assumed this was cerebellum.


Well, this ia pretty convincing. But when you look closer it begins to fall apart.

1. A number of witnesses thought the large head wound was on the top of the head, not back.
2. A number of those who said it was on the back of the head pointed out a location on the top of the head.
3. Most of the "cerebellum" witnesses came to claim they could have been mistaken, or that they saw cerebellum while looking down into the skull from a wound at the top of the head, and that, in any event, there was no blow-out wound on the back of the head between the ears, where most CTs place the wound.

Well, this leaves open the possibility the wound was actually at the top of the back of the head, a couple of inches behind where it is shown in the photographs. But it makes little sense to me that the autopsy doctors would be a party to concealing a wound in this location...since this is where they placed the wound in the drawings they'd had created from the commission.

No, I think it's far better to focus on the wound location they moved for the drawings--the back wound. The movement of this wound by the WC is, for me, the proof of the cover-up. And I'll go further than that. IF the HSCA had focused on this one aspect--who moved the wound for the WC's drawings, and why--they would have buried the WC's reputation. But no, they let Specter off the hook, which perhaps wasn't all that surprising considering he'd finagled his son onto the HSCA's staff.

[Mike Orr]

Sorry , Pat but I can't go against the Parkland Staff for where they said the large head wound was located which was seen by so many . It's like the movement of the wounds to fit a lone gunman from the rear. It's like Gerald Ford's movement of the back wound to the base of the neck so the SBT will have a chance to work . I would like to know who orchestrated this whole charade of moving wounds to fit a crime . No disrespect to you Pat but I have to go with Parkland observations .

[Pat Speer]

Sorry , Pat but I can't go against the Parkland Staff for where they said the large head wound was located which was seen by so many . It's like the movement of the wounds to fit a lone gunman from the rear. It's like Gerald Ford's movement of the back wound to the base of the neck so the SBT will have a chance to work . I would like to know who orchestrated this whole charade of moving wounds to fit a crime . No disrespect to you Pat but I have to go with Parkland observations .

That's my point, Mike. When you compare the witness statements to the autopsy measurements and the drawings created for the commission, it's clear the back wound was moved. But this just isn't true for the head wound. The head wound depicted in CE 388 is high on the back of the head, slightly behind where it is shown in the autopsy photos. This is where the Parkland witnesses on average placed the wound. This leads to a question. If the WC was so brazen as to move the back wound...why didn't they move the head wound? For me, the answer is clear. it's because the WC didn't think they needed to move the head wound. It's not that they wouldn't have, if they'd felt they needed to. The Clark Panel, after all, moved the entrance wound when they realized the WC's trajectory made little sense.

Now, some will try to sell you that because some witnesses thought the large head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the autopsy photos this means they disavowed the photos and that the photos are thereby discredited, but this is a bunch of hooey. The vast majority of witnesses to view the autopsy photos assumed they were authentic, and showed the wounds they saw. Many of those cited as "back of the head" witnesses, in fact, defended the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and assumed they'd been mistaken. In fact, when one looks closely at this issue, and reads all the statements and testimony, one finds that "conspiracy" writers such as (well, you know who they are) have routinely misrepresented the statements of the Parkland (and Bethesda) witnesses to sell their embarrassing belief the large head wound observed at Parkland was a gaping hole low on the back of JFK's head between his ears. I discuss this ad nauseum in chapters 18c and 18d of patspeer.com.

[Michael Walton]

Mack did not "switch sides".

Pay attention.  Geez.

You don't know what you're talking about.  I'd advise you to go to Kennedys and King and do a search.  Mack used to be only a CT and then got hired and "switched sides."  If you don't consider that "switching sides" then I feel sorry for you.

And if you don't think many of the dishonest shows that he hosted on Discovery were dishonest, then I also feel sorry for you. Take the wool away from your eyes, please.

[Michael Walton]

It only happened one way.

The most important eyewitness is dead center, Humes had the appropriate training and wrote a comprehensive and detailed autopsy report that perfectly reflects all the other professional eyewitnesses.

JohnM

To john Myton - explain this please?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view

Note the beveled outshoot (circular shape).

[Walt Cakebread]

To john Myton - explain this please?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B7Hr9Lrku-Cxdm9ZalJTSWU3cms/view

Note the beveled outshoot (circular shape).

Michael,  You might as well be debating a doorknob.....    Mytton has the reasoning ability of a doorknob.

[John Agee]

That's my point, Mike. When you compare the witness statements to the autopsy measurements and the drawings created for the commission, it's clear the back wound was moved. But this just isn't true for the head wound. The head wound depicted in CE 388 is high on the back of the head, slightly behind where it is shown in the autopsy photos. This is where the Parkland witnesses on average placed the wound. This leads to a question. If the WC was so brazen as to move the back wound...why didn't they move the head wound? For me, the answer is clear. it's because the WC didn't think they needed to move the head wound. It's not that they wouldn't have, if they'd felt they needed to. The Clark Panel, after all, moved the entrance wound when they realized the WC's trajectory made little sense.

Now, some will try to sell you that because some witnesses thought the large head wound was further back on the skull than shown in the autopsy photos this means they disavowed the photos and that the photos are thereby discredited, but this is a bunch of hooey. The vast majority of witnesses to view the autopsy photos assumed they were authentic, and showed the wounds they saw. Many of those cited as "back of the head" witnesses, in fact, defended the authenticity of the autopsy photos, and assumed they'd been mistaken. In fact, when one looks closely at this issue, and reads all the statements and testimony, one finds that "conspiracy" writers such as (well, you know who they are) have routinely misrepresented the statements of the Parkland (and Bethesda) witnesses to sell their embarrassing belief the large head wound observed at Parkland was a gaping hole low on the back of JFK's head between his ears. I discuss this ad nauseum in chapters 18c and 18d of patspeer.com.

Pat, how many shots were fired, do you have a theory on this? Based on your claims, presentations, etc, I think you need at least 5 shots.

Let's say you are correct on the location of the President's back wound, and let's say you are correct that the single bullet theory is hooey. So the President's entrance "throat" wound would be a separate shot from the front, correct? Good luck showing a trajectory for that frontal shot that works. So we have at least 2 shots so far. Now we have to account for the Governor's wounds. According to your youtube presentation in 2014, the Governor's wounds do not line up for a single bullet. So how many bullets hit the Governor, two? three? And we have the President's head wound; clearly that is a separate bullet. Most witnesses heard 3 shots. Some heard 2 shots. The vast majority heard 2 or 3 shots. Yes, I know, witnesses are mistaken. Seems to me, you need at least 5 shots: 3 shots hit Kennedy (back, throat, head) and at least 2 shots hit the Governor (based on your claim that the Governor's wounds do not line up).

How many shots Pat? five? six?

[Royell Storing]

            The chain of possession of JFK's Body having been broken at some point between AF1 and Bethesda makes the consistent description of his head wound by the Parkland Professionals the only Professional Opinion bearing legal merit. Location = BACK of the Head. Earlier corroboration of the location of this wound is supplied by SA Clint Hill.