Final Questions For Pat Speer .... !
cdddraftsman
Pat Speer : PS
Tom Lowry : TL
PS : "So, perhaps instead of assuming someone like myself from the
music industry has nothing to offer, you should be asking yourself ...
beyond constantly insulting those who've done real work on the case,
what do YOU have to offer"?
TL : Let me first off say that I have nothing against you or the music
industry and with you in that capacity we should be able to get along
just fine . What I have to offer are links to professionals who HAVE
done their homework and come to conclusions in a concise , cogent and
direct way , using the scientific method of determining facts upon
which is built a foundation for enlightenment ; in other words
closure .
Secondly , I find it amazing that you can presume no one would
question your qualifications for making your amazing , astonishing and
astounding discoverys . This after hundreds of researchers have poured
over the 'Evidence and Testimony' for 45 years , having the
resources , knowledge and expertise to discover anything new , we are
now expected to believe that you without these same resources ,
knowledge and expertise , using the same material , could come up with
diametrically opposite conclusions ?
Thirdly I know this is nothing new in the multi-million dollar
"conspiracy industry" and is standard fair .
So I have the following questions for you who insists on leaving a
'open wound' festering for various reasons previously stated :
a) Who else was firing if LHO did not fire all the shots that hit JFK
& JBC ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>6.5mm MC=>CE-399/Fragments=>Surgery=>JBC/
Autopsy=>JFK .
b) Name this extra assassin ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>Surgery=>JBC/Autopsy JFK=>Alone .
c) Where did this extra assassin fire from ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>Payne Residence=>Frazier=>TSBD .
d) Where is this extra assassin's presense mentioned by 'Evidence &
Testimony'?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>6th Flr.=>Elevator=>Lunch Room=>Exit build'g .
e) What did this extra assassin fire with ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>Postal Box=>6.5mm MC rifle .
f) Where are this extra assassin's bullets/fragmnets if they hit
either men ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>PH/CE-399/Limo.=>Wash.=>FBI=>National Archives .
g) Where did this extra assassin go after firing ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>TSBD=>Bus=>Taxi=>Rooming
House=>Tippit=>TT=>Arrest .
h) Where are this extra assassin's shell casings ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>MC=>TSBD=>Photo's=>Recovery=>Id=>National
Archives .
i) Where is this extra assassin's gun ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>6.5mm MC=>TSBD=>Photo's=>Recovery=>Id=>National
Archives .
j) How did this extra assassin disappear leaving no visible trace ?
WCR & HSCA : LHO=>TSBD=>Cartons/MC=>Fingerprints=>Id=>National
Archives .
And while your collecting your thoughts perhaps you could also start
to think ahead about these next two , and probably even a more
important questions , questions I've been dying to ask you , those
that distinguishes a professional approach vs a amatuer attempt at
reaching a verifiable conclusion to one's work :
------
Q1)
------
Are Your Video's Really The Product Of An "Evaluation of Factual
Evidence" ?
Before answering in your typical quick draw fashion , take these
points into consideration :
FACT-BASED RESEARCH, STUDY, AND ANALYSIS CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING FACETS
THAT ARE AT ONCE NOT INTERCHANGABLE OR PARTS DISMISSIBLE WHEN ONE RUNS
INTO PROBLEMS WITH ONES PET THEORY :
This approach is much more labor-intensive because careful research
and analysis is required. In this approach :
· specific assertions or statements are made .
· the truth or falsity of each assertion or statement must be
determined .
· any documentation provided must be reviewed and then verified to
establish that it is factually accurate, truthful, and germane to the
discussion .
· truthful assertions and statements must then be evaluated, weighed
for importance, relevance, or emphasis .
· factual data is combined to form arguments hypothesis and then/or
theories .
· those arguments hypothesis and then/or theories must then be
evaluated to assure they don't exceed whatever factual evidence has
thus far been discovered .
· standard rules of logic and evidence must be applied – in other
words, one has to understand the qualitative difference between
primary and secondary sources of evidence and one must have a general
familiarity with the principles of sound logic , (ie. how to recognize
and avoid (or refute) fallacious arguments) .
· material presented as direct quotations must, in fact, be quotations
not paraphrases or subjective interpretations .
· credible conclusions or assertions cannot be based upon gossip,
rumor, hearsay, anecdotes, half-truths, gross exaggerations, personal
prejudice, malice, or outright falsehoods(Holy Christ! If I were a
CTer I'd jump ship at this point; but thats not what happens , CTer's
just ignore most priciple's of logic & reasoning ever devised .
For example :
You never responded to the fact that this extra assassin goes against
'The Rule of Parsimony' Or Ockham's Razor : In short : Don't add
unnesessary plurality's ? With the SBT you don't need extra assassins
that disappear leaving no shell casings , no gun , and no visible
trace of himself .
· in addition, there must be recognition that, sometimes, available
evidence may be incomplete, ambiguous, or incapable of being
verified. Normally there is recognition that honorable & intelligent
people may arrive at fundamentally different interpretations of
whatever data is under scrutiny
· one has to recognize the difference between innocent errors versus
intentional acts of omission & commission. The latter category would
include such matters as…
* deliberate misquotation or paraphrasing so as to change the original
author’s intended meaning
* biased selection of evidence in order to discredit someone
* suppression of pertinent data
* inability to provide high-quality evidence when making highly
pejorative accusations
The reason I believe you haven't "Hit the Mark" as far as your
conclusions is I noticed :
Genuine scholars and researchers routinely include "acknowledgements"
and "notes" pages in their websites/video's . By contrast , conspiracy
advocates almost never include such pages . In fact review a couple
dozen conspiracy websites/video's & you'll find NONE have an
acknowledgements page . Is there a reason for this ? Why is that
omission significant ? What is the purpose & significance of
acknowledgements and/or notes pages ?
i) First, they summarize the institutions & persons upon whom the
author relied for research assistance . This gives the reader an idea
of the extent , nature , and quality of the author's research (ie. was
he cognizant of the work done by other researchers and scholars plus
was the author aware of & did the author use the major primary sources
which exist ? If not , why not ?
ii) Did the author consult any NEW sources which have never been
previously utilized ==> thus producing fresh insights ?
iii) Acknowledgment and notes pages often identify persons whom the
author asked to review first drafts of the website/video in order to
correct errors and suggest avenues for further research which the
author may have overlooked .
Why is this important ? Because genuine scholars and independent
researchers value critiques by knowledgeable independent sources .
Such evaluations help to reduce errors of fact , interpretation &
judgment .
------
Q2)
------
You critisized Dr. Lattimer for not producing his notes on his
experiments but since he's dead and your alive perhaps you could
produce your "acknowledgements" and "notes" pages for review here ?
The absence of "acknowledgements and notes" pages in many conspiracy
websites/video's is an indication that the author depended exclusively
upon the workings of their own mind . In short , there is no check-and-
balance mechanism in place to recognize , acknowledge & correct
error's , a sure fire sign of
at a minimum :
A amatuer approach to reaching a verifiable conclusion
or at the worse :
The attempt to perpetrate a JFK Assassination Tragedy Conspiracy
Hoax .
End .....
tl
[1] These posts are not intended to make Pat Speer an enemy , for I
realise most Political Conspiracy Theory's focus upon "enemies", not
on "opponents"[2].
One's receptivity to logic & evidence diminishes drastically when one
confronts "enemies" as opposed to "opponents".
[2] There is a distinction between perceiving an "opponent" (i.e. an
honorable/decent & legitimate competitor--albeit wrong-headed from
one's own perspective) versus an "enemy" (i.e. someone characterized
in terms calculated to evoke fear/contempt/suspicion/distrust &
revulsion.)
pjspeare
praise for my decision to show testimony and official documents
onscreen. I'm not making stuff up. I'm telling you what I think, and
I'm showing you why I think it. (While visiting my brother in a
hospital recently, a doctor stopped me, and asked me how he knew me. I
thought maybe he'd been a school-mate. After a minute or two, however,
he said something like "Oh yeah, I've seen your videos. Impressive. I
like the way you put the evidence right on the screen so we can see
what really was said. Crazy stuff. I can't believe Baden testified
with his exhibit upside down. What a clown."
The evidence presented on my webpage, right or wrong, is equally
illuminating. Rather than just spewing, I present exact quotes when
available and applicable. Although it was originally created as a
power point presentation, which left little room for footnotes, I
decided to put in the names and authors of most every article or text
cited, so that researchers could double-check my work if desired.
As far as scholarly work using footnotes... Yes, they do...but they
often rely on the inherent laziness of readers overwhelmed with dense
material, and list footnote after footnote that DOES NOT support their
conclusions. In chapter 9b of my webpage, I review Vincent Bugliosi's
use of footnotes when describing the shooting of Kennedy, and
demonstrate beyond any intelligent argument that he deliberately
misrepresented the statements of the eyewitnesses to fabricate a
shooting scenario that any honest researcher or writer would know was
unlikely.
As far as all your questions...READ my webpage. It's free. While I
have no doubt you'll still think I'm some charlatan, you might learn a
thing or two. If I can read the works of Sturdivan and Bugliosi, you
can read my webpage.
Now for that Occam's Razor business...
Occam's Razor holds that the simplest of any two EQUALLY REASONABLE
scenarios is probably correct.
The majority of witnesses commenting on the spacing of the shots
thought the last two were quite close together, even though research
shows that time slows down for people while they are in the middle of
a traumatic event, and the witnesses would be more likely to say the
first two shots were closer together.
The majority of witnesses standing beneath the sniper's nest thought
the last shot (or shots) came from their right, even though an HSCA
study found it was quite easy to discern from their location that a
shot fired from the sniper's nest had come from directly above them.
The witnesses claiming to have heard four shots were, by some strange
coincidence, inordinately bunched near the corner of Houston and Elm,
where the sniper's nest shots should have been heard at a level far
exceeding "echoes."
The NAA of Oswald's paraffin cheek cast had gsr levels inconsistent
with his recently firing a rifle.
The single-bullet theory is extremely questionable, on many fronts,
starting with the trajectory, and is difficult for me to swallow.
Etc. Etc.
These problems lead me to reject the simple solutions offered by the
WC, and readily accepted by those unwilling to acknowledge that bad
things happen and governments lie.
My webpage is an attempt to come up with simple and logical
explanations, that do not arbitrarily throw out pieces of the puzzle
that do not fit. While I now agree with most LNs that the back of the
head witnesses are wrong, I spent MONTHS reading up on cognition and
optical illusions before coming to this conclusion. As opposed to most
LNs who recite such canards as "eyewitness testimony is inherently
unreliable" and then claim "the vast majority of witnesses heard three
shots, case closed" I decided to see if there was any support for the
possibility so many people were wrong, and wrong in the same way. I
found there was, and presented this evidence. The same thing happened
with the head wound entrance. After years of study, I concluded Humes
was right about an entrance near the EOP. I then found this entrance
on the x-rays. This, in turn, led me to realize that the 6.5 mm
fragment supposedly on the back of JFK's skull was in fact the
fragment removed from above JFK's eye socket at autopsy.
Now, if I'm some charlatan out to sell conspiracy theories, why the
HECK would I spend ANY energy defending the basic findings of the
autopsy doctors, let alone years of my life?
I think I've proved my integrity. Now prove yours. And answer me this
question...
Since you think Lattimer was beyond reproach, and that mere mortals as
myself are unqualified to question him, do you concur with his
assessment that JFK's lungs were on the same level as his Adams's
Apple?
Or are you willing to concede he could be at least a little wrong, and
that someone like myself could catch his mistake.
P.S. Why is it that you trust the findings of Steve Barber (re the
dictabelt evidence) over much-more qualified "experts", but are
unwilling to accept that I could also have made a "discovery" or two?
John Canal
>on the x-rays. This, in turn, led me to realize that the 6.5 mm
>fragment supposedly on the back of JFK's skull was in fact the
>fragment removed from above JFK's eye socket at autopsy.
Huh? "From the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex two small
irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered.' [Autopsy report]
As confirmation of that we can clearly see the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the
lateral.....on "the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex"!
That's above the frontal sinus.
That is not even close to above JFK's eye socket. I explained to this
group years ago [Google up if you don't believe me] why Humes made up that
B/S during his WC testimony about retrieving a fragment from behind the
right eye--it was to cover his butt. More specifically, It was because
when he looked over the x-rays prior to his estimony in March, 64, he saw
the 6.5 mm opacity for the first time--as Mantik theorized. it had been
added to the AP film after the assassination. Humes, thinking they somehow
remarkably missed seeing the huge thing on 11-22-63, were pressed to get
its existence into the record or look like bumbling idiots....so he and
Specter did indeed get the 6.5 mm opacity into the record, albeit not the
autopsy eport, but Humes WC testmony--better late than never.
Over the years, Humes figured out that the thing was added (or maybe he
was naive like many here and believed it was an accidental artifact) and
testified to the ARRB that he didn't recall seeing it on 11-22-63. Finck's
and Boswell's ARRB testimony was consistent with Humes' on that.
And don't be gullible and think for a second that Humes didn't see the
x-rays before he testified to the WC (like he and Specter wanted everyone
to believe)....Hell, Ebersole had them in his hot little mitts to take
measurements from (ya right) so they surely weren't unavailable.
Also, a fragment that large coming off the near- EOP entering bullet would
have done the type of damage to the cerebellum that just didn't happen.
John Canal
John Canal
Oh, I forgot to mention one other little tidbit that is inconsistent with
your theory---from Mantik's notes: "Grid lines can be seen on the 6.5 mm
opacity." Translation: it can not represent a piece of metal.
John Canal
Anthony Marsh
> draftsman, you never cease to amuse. My videos have received high-
> praise for my decision to show testimony and official documents
> onscreen. I'm not making stuff up. I'm telling you what I think, and
> I'm showing you why I think it. (While visiting my brother in a
> hospital recently, a doctor stopped me, and asked me how he knew me. I
> thought maybe he'd been a school-mate. After a minute or two, however,
> he said something like "Oh yeah, I've seen your videos. Impressive. I
> like the way you put the evidence right on the screen so we can see
> what really was said. Crazy stuff. I can't believe Baden testified
> with his exhibit upside down. What a clown."
>
I know this is futile, but will you ever answer my question and explain
what you mean by upside down? Show us how he actually presented it and
then show us how you think it should have been presented.
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>6.5mm MC=>CE-399/Fragments=>Surgery=>JBC/
>> Autopsy=>JFK .
>> b) Name this extra assassin ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>Surgery=>JBC/Autopsy JFK=>Alone .
>> c) Where did this extra assassin fire from ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>Payne Residence=>Frazier=>TSBD .
>> d) Where is this extra assassin's presense mentioned by 'Evidence&
>> Testimony'?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>6th Flr.=>Elevator=>Lunch Room=>Exit build'g .
>> e) What did this extra assassin fire with ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>Postal Box=>6.5mm MC rifle .
>> f) Where are this extra assassin's bullets/fragmnets if they hit
>> either men ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>PH/CE-399/Limo.=>Wash.=>FBI=>National Archives .
>> g) Where did this extra assassin go after firing ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>TSBD=>Bus=>Taxi=>Rooming
>> House=>Tippit=>TT=>Arrest .
>> h) Where are this extra assassin's shell casings ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>MC=>TSBD=>Photo's=>Recovery=>Id=>National
>> Archives .
>> i) Where is this extra assassin's gun ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>6.5mm MC=>TSBD=>Photo's=>Recovery=>Id=>National
>> Archives .
>> j) How did this extra assassin disappear leaving no visible trace ?
>> WCR& HSCA : LHO=>TSBD=>Cartons/MC=>Fingerprints=>Id=>National
>> Archives .
>>
>> And while your collecting your thoughts perhaps you could also start
>> to think ahead about these next two , and probably even a more
>> important questions , questions I've been dying to ask you , those
>> that distinguishes a professional approach vs a amatuer attempt at
>> reaching a verifiable conclusion to one's work :
>> ------
>> Q1)
>> ------
>> Are Your Video's Really The Product Of An "Evaluation of Factual
>> Evidence" ?
>>
>> Before answering in your typical quick draw fashion , take these
>> points into consideration :
>>
>> FACT-BASED RESEARCH, STUDY, AND ANALYSIS CONTAINS THE FOLLOWING FACETS
>> THAT ARE AT ONCE NOT INTERCHANGABLE OR PARTS DISMISSIBLE WHEN ONE RUNS
>> INTO PROBLEMS WITH ONES PET THEORY :
>>
>> This approach is much more labor-intensive because careful research
>> and analysis is required. In this approach :
>>
>> ? specific assertions or statements are made .
>>
>> ? the truth or falsity of each assertion or statement must be
>> determined .
>>
>> ? any documentation provided must be reviewed and then verified to
>> establish that it is factually accurate, truthful, and germane to the
>> discussion .
>>
>> ? truthful assertions and statements must then be evaluated, weighed
>> for importance, relevance, or emphasis .
>>
>> ? factual data is combined to form arguments hypothesis and then/or
>> theories .
>>
>> ? those arguments hypothesis and then/or theories must then be
>> evaluated to assure they don't exceed whatever factual evidence has
>> thus far been discovered .
>>
>> ? standard rules of logic and evidence must be applied ? in other
>> words, one has to understand the qualitative difference between
>> primary and secondary sources of evidence and one must have a general
>> familiarity with the principles of sound logic , (ie. how to recognize
>> and avoid (or refute) fallacious arguments) .
>>
>> ? material presented as direct quotations must, in fact, be quotations
>> not paraphrases or subjective interpretations .
>>
>> ? credible conclusions or assertions cannot be based upon gossip,
>> rumor, hearsay, anecdotes, half-truths, gross exaggerations, personal
>> prejudice, malice, or outright falsehoods(Holy Christ! If I were a
>> CTer I'd jump ship at this point; but thats not what happens , CTer's
>> just ignore most priciple's of logic& reasoning ever devised .
>>
>> For example :
>>
>> You never responded to the fact that this extra assassin goes against
>> 'The Rule of Parsimony' Or Ockham's Razor : In short : Don't add
>> unnesessary plurality's ? With the SBT you don't need extra assassins
>> that disappear leaving no shell casings , no gun , and no visible
>> trace of himself .
>>
>> ? in addition, there must be recognition that, sometimes, available
>> evidence may be incomplete, ambiguous, or incapable of being
>> verified. Normally there is recognition that honorable& intelligent
>> people may arrive at fundamentally different interpretations of
>> whatever data is under scrutiny
>>
>> ? one has to recognize the difference between innocent errors versus
>> intentional acts of omission& commission. The latter category would
>> include such matters as?
>>
>> * deliberate misquotation or paraphrasing so as to change the original
>> author?s intended meaning
>>
>> * biased selection of evidence in order to discredit someone
>>
>> * suppression of pertinent data
>>
>> * inability to provide high-quality evidence when making highly
>> pejorative accusations
>>
>> The reason I believe you haven't "Hit the Mark" as far as your
>> conclusions is I noticed :
>>
>> Genuine scholars and researchers routinely include "acknowledgements"
>> and "notes" pages in their websites/video's . By contrast , conspiracy
>> advocates almost never include such pages . In fact review a couple
>> dozen conspiracy websites/video's& you'll find NONE have an
>> acknowledgements page . Is there a reason for this ? Why is that
>> omission significant ? What is the purpose& significance of
>> acknowledgements and/or notes pages ?
>>
>> i) First, they summarize the institutions& persons upon whom the
>> author relied for research assistance . This gives the reader an idea
>> of the extent , nature , and quality of the author's research (ie. was
>> he cognizant of the work done by other researchers and scholars plus
>> was the author aware of& did the author use the major primary sources
>> which exist ? If not , why not ?
>>
>> ii) Did the author consult any NEW sources which have never been
>> previously utilized ==> thus producing fresh insights ?
>>
>> iii) Acknowledgment and notes pages often identify persons whom the
>> author asked to review first drafts of the website/video in order to
>> correct errors and suggest avenues for further research which the
>> author may have overlooked .
>>
>> Why is this important ? Because genuine scholars and independent
>> researchers value critiques by knowledgeable independent sources .
>> Such evaluations help to reduce errors of fact , interpretation&
>> judgment .
>> ------
>> Q2)
>> ------
>> You critisized Dr. Lattimer for not producing his notes on his
>> experiments but since he's dead and your alive perhaps you could
>> produce your "acknowledgements" and "notes" pages for review here ?
>>
>> The absence of "acknowledgements and notes" pages in many conspiracy
>> websites/video's is an indication that the author depended exclusively
>> upon the workings of their own mind . In short , there is no check-and-
>> balance mechanism in place to recognize , acknowledge& correct
>> error's , a sure fire sign of
>>
>> at a minimum :
>>
>> A amatuer approach to reaching a verifiable conclusion
>>
>> or at the worse :
>>
>> The attempt to perpetrate a JFK Assassination Tragedy Conspiracy
>> Hoax .
>>
>> End .....
>>
>> tl
>>
>> [1] These posts are not intended to make Pat Speer an enemy , for I
>> realise most Political Conspiracy Theory's focus upon "enemies", not
>> on "opponents"[2].
>>
>> One's receptivity to logic& evidence diminishes drastically when one
>> confronts "enemies" as opposed to "opponents".
>>
>> [2] There is a distinction between perceiving an "opponent" (i.e. an
>> honorable/decent& legitimate competitor--albeit wrong-headed from
Anthony Marsh
> Speer:
>
>> on the x-rays. This, in turn, led me to realize that the 6.5 mm
>> fragment supposedly on the back of JFK's skull was in fact the
>> fragment removed from above JFK's eye socket at autopsy.
>
> Huh? "From the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex two small
> irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered.' [Autopsy report]
>
> As confirmation of that we can clearly see the 7 x 2 mm fragment in the
> lateral.....on "the surface of the disrupted right cerebral cortex"!
> That's above the frontal sinus.
>
> That is not even close to above JFK's eye socket. I explained to this
> group years ago [Google up if you don't believe me] why Humes made up that
> B/S during his WC testimony about retrieving a fragment from behind the
> right eye--it was to cover his butt. More specifically, It was because
So, does this mean that you think Humes was part of the cover-up?
Are you accusing him of being part of the conspiracy? Why, because he
was military?
pjspeare
>
> read more »
Anthony, if you watch this video you will see exactly what I'm talking
about. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down--according to the
HSCA FPP's interpretation of the photo. Not mine...his own. It follows
then that he had little understanding of the photo, and was just
winging it...
pjspeare
thinks he falsified his WC testimony on this issue, while I feel he
did not.
The trick is matching up the x-rays. The fragment in the forehead is
absolutely positively NOT the 6.5 fragment. There is, however, another
fragment just above the eyesocket that matches up perfectly. What a
coincidence then that Humes testified he pulled the large fragment
from above and behind the eye. What a coincidence then that both Humes
and Boswell told the ARRB they believed the "6.5 mm fragment" was not
on the back of the head, but the one they pulled out from behind the
eye.
http://www.patspeer.com/believingis.jpg/believingis-full.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/missingmissile.jpg/missingmissile-full.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/fragmentfragment.jpg/fragmentfragment-full.jpg
I hope you realize that the 6.5mm fragment was "discovered" by Dr.
Russell Morgan, a close associate with Dr. Fisher. I suspect it was
"found" to help sell the cowlick entry. Even if not, however, Morgan's
findings are highly suspicious.
Consider:
When one looks at the purported in-shoot near the cowlick on the
trajectory drawing one can see that although the in-shoot was only 1.8
cm from the middle of the back of Kennedy’s head, this would still
project slightly inwards from the back of Kennedy’s head when viewed
laterally, due to the rounded nature of the skull. When one looks at
the x-ray, however, one sees that there is no clear-cut entrance at
this location. That this entrance was hard for even trained experts
to locate can be revealed by reading the various reports written for
the Clark Panel, Rockefeller Commission, and HSCA. To put it mildly,
they lack consensus. Here is a brief summary.
Dr. Russell Morgan of the Clark Panel (February, 1968, using the un-
enhanced x-rays): claims 8 mm hole on outer table, 20 mm on inner
table. 10 cm above the EOP, directly above the depressed fracture
(which means it’s in a section of parietal bone that presumably fell
to the table when the doctors peeled back the scalp and NOT in the
occipital bone near the hairline where the doctors saw a beveled
entrance). Large fragment is embedded in outer table of skull close to
the lower edge of the hole (implying it’s in the depressed bone).
Small fragments of bone lie within the hole.
Dr. Fred Hodges (April, 1975, un-enhanced): says that, although the
bullet hole itself is not readily detected, many linear fracture lines
converge on the site of the small round hole in the right occipital
bone described in the autopsy report. Notes one large metallic
fragment flattened against the outer table of the occiput. (By
supporting the autopsy report, his interpretation is in conflict with
the interpretation of the Clark Panel.)
Dr, Lawrence Angel (October, 1977, un-enhanced): sees entrance 1.8 cm
to right of midline, just below obelion, the mid-point of the Lambda
suture. This means it’s on the occipital bone where Humes originally
placed it, and not the parietal, where the Clark Panel moved it.
Since Dr. Davis measured the Lambda as 6 cm above the EOP, this is
indicative that Angel placed the entrance 4 cm (more than 1 ½ inches)
below the Clark Panel’s entrance. Angel also says radiopaque lump
(the large fragment) is behind obelion and appears to mark entry.
Dr. Norman Chase (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees an entry point
on upper rear head. Sees metal fragment at back of head.
Dr. William Seaman (February, 1978, un-enhanced): sees possible defect
in upper rear skull. Sees no beveling denoting an entrance.
Dr. G.M. McDonnel (August, 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole,
sees depressed fracture with radiating fractures 10.6 cm above the
EOP, and a large metallic fragment 1 cm below it on the outer table of
the skull, above the mid-portion of the EOP.
Dr. David O. Davis, (August 1978, enhanced): doesn’t mention a hole,
says the large fragment is 9-10 cm above the EOP on the outer table of
the skull and is 2.5 cm to right of midline. Says radiating fractures
"seem to more or less emanate from" the fragment, but later says the
central point of the fractures is 3 cm from midline, which means the
bullet fragment ended up to the left of the entrance.
HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel: does not note an entrance location, but
notes a depressed fracture as “sharp disruption of the normal smooth
contour of the skull 10 cm above the EOP” (which places it higher than
in the Clark Panel Report, whose measurement of 10 cm was the distance
to the 8 mm hole above the depressed fracture). Mentions “suggested
beveling” of the inner table and radiating fracture lines. Says large
fragment is 2.5 cm to the right of the midline at the lower margin of
the defect, which means bullet fragment ended up to the right and
below the entrance (assuming they shared the trajectory analysis’s
belief the entrance was 1.8 cm from mid-line.)
HSCA Trajectory Analysis: determined entrance was 1.8 cm to the right
of midline and 9 cm above the EOP. This places the entrance 1 cm below
the depressed fracture observed by the medical panel, and on intact
bone. This contradicts the Clark Panel's conclusion.
The interpretations detailed above raise a lot of questions.
First of all, how could the Clark Panel, using un-enhanced x-rays,
“see” so much more than everybody else? Particularly when the panel's
radiologist, Dr. Morgan, later complained that these x-rays were of
"poor quality" and "severely over-exposed"?
The likely answer, of course, is that they didn't actually see these
things, and only said they did because it helped them shut down the
"junk" in Josiah Thompson's book, and build support for their argument
that the actual entrance on the back of the skull was four inches
higher than determined at autopsy.
But what about the other radiologists? Shouldn’t an oval-shaped bullet
entrance high on the back of someone’s head be readily identifiable to
experienced radiologists and doctors using computer-enhanced x-
rays?
Why is there no consensus on what is shown in the x-rays?
Anthony Marsh
>
> Anthony, if you watch this video you will see exactly what I'm talking
> about. Baden testified with his exhibit upside down--according to the
> HSCA FPP's interpretation of the photo. Not mine...his own. It follows
> then that he had little understanding of the photo, and was just
> winging it...
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec
>
OK, I see what you mean. The way he put it on the easel is upside down to
the way it should be presented to the public to make it easier to
understand. But for a forensic pathologist it makes little difference and
he might be putting it up based on the way the photo was taken. At least
it isn't tilted 90 degrees as you later did to pretend it shows the back
of the head. And he did clearly identify the white area as showing the
frontal bone.
Your interpretation that it shows the back of the head is bogus. Dr. Angel
clearly identified the semi-circular defect as being in the frontal bone.
We know that Baden simply lied when he said it equals the black dot in the
Dox drawing. But surely you can see the scalp and that is reflected DOWN
over the eyes. You can't reflect scalp sideways in order to remove the
brain.
John Fiorentino
Baden's skills are less than adequate, but you're NOT looking at the back of
the head in that photo. You're a bit mixed up I'm afraid.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:5cd0be2e-027d-49ff...@p18g2000pra.googlegroups.com...