to get in touch with me and talk after we are dumb. thank you again. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] americane watching history tv every weekend on c-span 3. follow us on twitter for information on our schedule, upcoming programs, and to keep up with the latest history news. tv, on american history ophthalmologist gary at gillard has researched and written about the medical at evidence of the kennedy assassination for over 20 years. a junk scienced and the death of jfk, he takes a critical look at the work of the warren commission, using medical reports and diagrams of jfk's wounds provided to the commission in 1964, dr. aguilar argues that based on witnesses and autopsy results of

the wounds, the evidence was flawed. this is a part of a conference marking the 50th anniversary of the release of the report. it is about one hour. >> i will be running through quite a few slides and i want to thank everybody and congratulate cyril for his devotion and he is one of the people when stimulated my interest and brought me sort of onboard after the debate and certainly the medical evidence in 1990. we became acquainted. it was at that point i met smith who was walking in to sit down and i want to start out with just a discussion here about -- it was originally reported in

"the new york times," the warren commission report in 1964 that no material question remained unresolved so far as the death of president kennedy is concerned. that is the conclusion reached and propagated by "new york times" on the outset before anybody got time to read the report, the 26 volumes of supporting evidence. "the new york times" right from the get-go was supportive. it has become policy. one of the things that is always been the strong support for oswald's guilt was the fact that the scientific autopsy scientific evidence supported it . to find in a book by visit who was interviewed and said all of it pointed to oswald's guilt. when you look at the people we should trust on this.

one of the things you will know from people who has followed the case a long time is that there are people who are considered really the authorities. these are people detached, objective, experienced, thoroughly professional, scientifically trained and so forth. what are they? up in the top left, in old photograph, i cannot find a better one. dr. boswell and finck. their autopsy showed to the shots to the right. alfred olivier is a doctor of veterinary medicine and he testified for the rockefeller commission and did work for the warren commission and testified for the warren commission. you have dr. russell fisher, a colleague of dr. west, a medical

examiner of baltimore. he was a chairman of the clark camp. agreed, two shots from the rear. you have luis alvarez. affectove that the jet explained jfk's recoil. on the right, one person whenever the anniversary comes around, automatically the first -- automatically defer dr. michael bosman. he said everything pointed to oswald being the lone killer. in addition, we have the association. george blumberg came up with a series of articles at the aftermath in 1991 and 1992, a

series of articles in the journal of american medical association and that his right from the journal. we are able to have -- and and that's a picture standing with dr. lundberg, not a good one. the editor of the journal of the medicaln association was also the editor of all the ama journals, quite a powerful endorsement and the new york times chimed in that by organizing and publishing the key findings by the war and the commission-- warren

the articles performed a service , for reasonable people and for a reason. respectableost sources and authorities in the country, leading medical editors , leading government authorities. guiltgns of oswald's come down to scientific evidence and test shots in the skulls. it proves that shots could have been fired by oswald. the bullet evidence was said to prove the magic bullet and all the recovered fragments traced to two bullets from oswald's rilfe. finally, the scientific duplication of test shots that shots from behind

through jfk backward. that was proved by the nobel laureate and physicists. let's go through these, the autopsies. arlen specter announced we have every reason to believe -- and here they are. commander humes is in the middle. he was a senior pathologist. assistant was commander j thorne boswell. they brought in his consultant after they had started the autopsy half an hour later, lieutenant colonel pierre finck. neither humes nor boswell had autopsy. a gunshot finck and dr. morton who is the dean was reported and you can find it in the book that finck had been in the position of

reviewing the autopsy of other people and had not done a hands-on autopsy himself in about four years at the time he stepped into the autopsy room in bethesda. these were not practicing forensic pathologist. nevertheless, the autopsy report exhibit 387, three shots were heard in the president fell forward, bleeding from the head. ashotographer looked around he heard the shots and saws wall disappearing into a window at the school book depository. it was not uncommon for autopsy reports to include information relevant to the circumstances of the event, the assassination and so, there it is. two shots are heard. then was supplemented with these diagrams which were produced as we heard earlier for testimony by the autopsy pathologist and the report said there was a large, irregular defect -- there

there you can see that it is the diagram as was prepared by the autopsy doctors and working with an artist and they drew these diagrams showing what can you do -- showing what kennedy looked like at the time he was assassinated. nobody pointed this out but this was prepared for the warren report on the left. the diagram, producing a defect of 13 sonograms. on the night of the autopsy, there was an autopsy diagram

from the face sheet that dr. boswell drew and you can see right here is says 17. i will be showing you several times to get a larger view. you can make it out. under oath, and in a recorded conversation i had with dr. boswell that i only recorded because i know the warren commission center would say i was lying -- [laughter] they always do. he told me the same thing. he said it would be fair to say when you first examined the body, the skull was missing from by 17.imensions, 10 you can see a 10 across and a 17 here. that is when they first first examined him. the defect was not 13 sonometers, it was 17. that is what they wrote in ink on a blood-stained autopsy report. it is not something done later on.

the wound was much larger than reported. he said, yes. i will get into what it means. i know i'm speaking to someone who knows the material better than i do, getting everybody up to speed on a somewhat complicated issue. if i'm speaking down to people, i apologize. if i'm speaking up to people, i apologize as well. it is quite complicated. here's the diagram of the night of the autopsy. the autopsy doctors were criticized for having the incorrect site of the shoot. they say it went along in the bottom of the head. the clark camp and other people reviewed it later said they missed the shoot by 10 sonomete rs. they said they were missing the entrance wound by 10 to 12 sonometers. that is where their markings

were. this is where the correct entrance was later determined by the clark panel. it actually went in there. here's what diagrams show on the night of the autopsy. when boswell was interviewed for the assassination records review hasd, and david mafic better slides of this than i do, here is a diagram of the skull that he prepared that he found when he first examined the body. this is the outline. the skull defect one from here to here. sonometer ruler, though to 17 forward, it puts you about here. we can assume with the training they have they know how to use a sonometer ruler. if the defect was there, there

is no way around that. perhaps they were so incompetent that do not have to do a autopsy, they do not know how to use a ruler. i don't think that is the case. here are the autopsy reports. the other evidence for an inshoot is there was beveling. beveling occurs when you hit an a pane saying abb with of glass. you will find a point on the front and beveling on the outside. there was a wound and there was corresponding beveling on the margins viewed from the inner side of the skull. as they are talking about in the autopsy report. they look at the inside and said there is beveling and that means the bullet came forward. shotther evidence that the entered low in the rear of the head is x-rays of the skull that show metal fragments along the line corresponding with a small

occipital wound. they tracked the fragments along here. this beveling is the case from a forensic standpoint. the conclusion was kennedy died from two her for it in gunshot wounds fired from a point and somewhat behind the level as the fatal missile entered this goal above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance. siteing proved the was behind and above. that is where the trail of fragments was. and this is to show a human skull, not kennedy's. i am putting this in the same orientation as the rick berg diagram. in 1968, ramsey clark apparently

was concerned about some criticism and the fact that only government officials had looked at the autopsy work and he commissioned a panel, the so-called clark panel, and they looked at this and they determined that the autopsy surgeons were wrong about the fatal bullet that struck jfk's head. dr. fisher, who again absolutely , well respected authority and pathologist for decades was the , chief corner of maryland -- in his report, the fragments, a lot of bullet fragments, if you extend their long axis, it passes through the above-mentioned 10 centimeter higher entrance hole.

there is supposed to be a trail of fragments going from here to the upper edge of the eye socket. they said no. that is wrong because the trail goes from a 10-centimeter-higher location and helps to show they made this 10 centimeter error. john latimer a very strong , defender of the warren commission also looked at the , x-rays. got privileged to access them as i have had and a handful of other people have, and he said he reported that if you look at the fragment trail, they were arranged in a way that would roughly align with you wound of entry, which he agreed was up here. he was saying the trail fragment

goes from here and extends forward. here again, here's where the forensic pathologist labeled the skull where they said the entrance went. this is where the clark el, and john latimer said it was. higher. so, again, there is lots of criticism about this. the original autopsy team missed the entrance by tensing of meters, they'd took the wrong photographs, a whole list of failings not worth going into detail here. the internal beveling showed she -- showed the in shoot their. let's take a look at the real evidence. i want this audience to realize that you are more expert, despite very few of you are trained physicians, radiologists, forensic pathologists -- you are more expert than everyone i have

talked about in describing it. ,he original autopsy doctors here's what they said the trail of fragments was. autopsy.he original that is where the clark panel said it was. can you see where the real trail is? here is where they said it was. that is where it is. it does not show up so well here. those of us who have seen them -- i have seen them. ultimately, the house committee on assassination had one radiologist who talked about the trail think at least five centimeters higher as the entrance site. all of us have missed it by a

whopping margin. these are trained professionals. we could prove the shots came from behind because it was beveling on the inside of the skull, meaning the bullet hit on the outside accreted a beveled wound. also, "the new york times" chimed in on this, there was a bruise on the back of a neck that proved a bullet had gone in from behind. let's get into the business of beveling. beveling, as we pointed out here, occurs when the bullet goes through, like abb through a pane of glass. boswell, and this is in my report, boswell told me the same thing he told harrison livingston, and i think in the

assassination records review board, he said they had to dissect jfk's scalp and the skull bone, but "not too much because the bone was all gone and the smallest fragments fit this piece down here. only was a whole here, half of which was present in the bone that was intact, and this small piece then fit right on there and the beveling on those was on the interior surface." what he is saying is this suggests there was an intact plate of bone that he took out of the brain that looked inside inside that intact plate of bone, there was a beveled wound. that was not what it was at all. what he is saying is what there was was an edge of a bone and another fragment was wrought in later and fit in. when you put the two together, you could make out that there was perhaps

beveling. it is supported by his own autopsy diagram that shows 17 sonometers missing. that had to go back down to the lower level of the protuberance. if you look at the bottom of the skull, there is a small diagram of something. this bone was all gone. the smaller fragment fit this piece down here, only half of which was present in the bone that is intact and the small piece fit right on there and the beveling is on the surface. this is the autopsy face sheet. i have blown this thing up to show this. this is essentially what boswell was saying, that there was a complete absence of bone, which is what his face sheet diagram suggests, and there is an implication that -- nobody ever asked him. when i was working with jeremy

for some there him questions, it did not occur to me to ask him, was this meant to be the diagram of that fragment that fit in down there that completed the entrance wound that supposedly showed the beveling? an absoluteng certainty, this evidence is very sketchy now. you have to assume that he oriented that correctly, and that they were able to see that. it is far from totally convincing. we go back to the autopsy report. the president fell forward, bleeding from the head, so on so forth, but that is not what happened at all. were heard and he did not fall forward. he fell backwards. in a hand-written autopsy report, which is available, it ,ays the president fell forward

face-forward in the car. ,we had an assassin from behind. he was hit in the head and he forward. they were given a body and told figure out how it all fits. they were not particularly competent pathologists to do this kind of work. shotstalk about the test of humans goes to duplicate the injuries. again, these are not -- "the new york times" reporting on it and said when the bullets hit the skull from the bottom at one close to the entrance point. "the new york times" has always been extremely subservient to the official version that they put that down. they were not wrong about saying that is what had been testified to by dr. olivier and here he is.

this is his copy directly and he said the right side of the skull blew out in a manner similar to the president. i'm sorry, i cut that off. this right from the warren report. the irony is they had the diagram. the warren commissioners and these are the photographs he showed to the warren commission. here is the test skull he shot. he shoots a test skull and brings in these images. these are published in the war and report. report.n that is supposed to replicate that. no one raises any objection to that. there is no reporter pointing

out that there is a huge what happenedeen on the diagram and what happened to the tesco. there is autopsy photograph. that is a real autopsy photograph, as many or all of you know. and then, warren report also -- they reported that based on information and artist drawings, path toted the bullet's as shown int's head frame z-312. you will notice that they did this to show you the path of the bullet. you will notice one huge difference. further down in the diagram but the point is if you shot kennedy had kennedy been shot in the way said they had, entering the

bottom of the skull from oswald's position, you could see the bullet would have blown out through his face just as it did in the test skull. in order to avoid that by canting the head downward, they can depict this and report they had the head in the same position. now, we have analysis of bullet evidence. this has long been held -- and a very powerful thing. writing afteroch the assassinations. hochnk critics like paul and bob blakey and other people were absolutely were smitten by the analysis evidence when it was first presented. that --orts

here we have the house committee on assassination. his testimony is fairly early in the examination of the kennedy case and it took the wind out of the sails of a lot of people who were critics when it was supported that the neutron activation analysis proved that all the bullets and fragments came from two bullets from firearms matched to oswald's rifle. here he is testifying. he says, yes, there is no evidence for three bullets, four bullets, or anything more than two, but there is clear evidence for two. here is dr. blakey in a firing line episode.

blakey says, and there's a transcript of this available online -- john latimer quotes. it is in his book on page 217. here you have in 2004 the neutron activation analysis, an article published in peer-reviewed scientific literature, which means the experts have reviewed this and byroved it for publication ken rahn. analysis in the jfk assassination, part one. that is taken from that.

i just copied and pasted it. this reaches the conclusion that only two bullets from lee harvey oswald struck the two men. a very respected scientific publication, neutron activation analyses prove that oswald acted alone. rahn'sed just after article. anyone that looked at rahn's paper was any care would notice an interesting thing. it was published in 2004. you look at the footnotes, and there are only 15, people like that should have 30 or 40. people who publish scientific literature know how we do these kinds of things. the most recent citation inken rahn's 2004 paper was published in 1979. there has been lots of stuff published in intervening years.

i had always been very skeptical about this and that heard about , thatnamed eric ran ditch he had testified in a court case against jason gwynne when somebody had been charged in a murder case at published in "the los angeles times," at this guy had been confronted with vincent guinn prosecuting for the prosecution in a murder case using neutron activation analysis. he was testified against and the guy was acquitted. i said, this is interesting. i looked up rick, who was at berkeley. i tried to peek his interest in this. it turns out he and his associate, pat grant -- he had been vincent guinn's graduate student. they do not care at all if kennedy was killed by all's

walled or a person. he had no opinion on that at all. they took an interest and i brought them up to do a little paper on it in san francisco. they finally went and published to the press. wanted to get them here 10 years ago originally to talk about this. ultimately, they concluded the bullet evidence from the assassination was examined from a metallurgical and scientific standpoint, and their conclusion was the inclusion of material evidence for only two bullets in the kennedy assassination has no friends at aces. moreover, the fragment did not necessarily originate from mc ammunition. indeed, the antimony compositions of the evidentiary specimens are consistent with any number of jacketed ammunitions containing an ardent lead -- on hardened -- u

nhardened lead. the next year, spiegelman, tobin, wessler and all thelutely took apart statistical analysis as well as the metallurgical conclusions. the neutron activation analysis has been completely debunked. i'm not going to read this for you. those that have an interest, i can get you the citation. they are readily available. now even dr. blakey says it is junk science. paul hoch says the fact remains. they said they would demolish the warren commission reconstruction and did not.

the house select committee on assassination got nasa scientist thomas canning. wounds of the two victims were aligned by a single bullet originating from the sniper's nest. he was able to prove this with incredibly elegant work. for those who really want to reed in depth about trajectory with theroblems trajectory analysis that hoch did, i would refer you to don,'s book, fear no evil. i will touch on these to show you that this is an example of junk science. canning had as the origin of the headshot 29 degrees to the right of true north. that is from his report. none of the measurements reported anywhere in the analysis were ever given reference to true north or what it means. there is no objective way of

testing his work. that is also true of the back wound. canning calculated the headshot trajectory and this is a diagram and canning's own report, and where's the president sitting? in the middle of the limousine, not to the right of where he actually was. the trajectory analyses again are an example of someone trying to confirm a bias. i will continue on with that in just a minute. none of the wound locations in the trajectory analysis are the same as the locations in the president's pathology report. he chose his own wound location. [laughter] chose them himself. it's incredible. he assumed that the bullet deflection passing through jfk's body was negligible.

concernedics panel is about the degree of accuracy of trajectory determined from able in the body based on the degrees required. there is such a thing as a capitation cavity. when a bullet strikes, it causes a cavity within the tissues. soft tissue -- if it hits bone, it will be to flex by the bone quite often. even some of the studies show that soft tissues can deflect the bone. canning allows for none of that. dale myers came up with a trajectory analysis that was reported on abc. these are diagrams from his work. proved, the trajectory proved that the shot came from the schoolbook depository, but his analysis is that the bullet was at 224.

it does not matter if it's 190 224, when the president is in a decidedly different position, the trajectory analysis will still get you to that southeast corner window. i don't know if pat speer is in here or not. it is worth reading his work on this. i think he has done a nice job of it. done good works on dale myers' work. what dale myers has done is move the back wound up a little bit. in order to make it work, because it appears as if the neck wound is at a higher location than the back entrance wound he has kennedy slumped , forward slightly. the house committee on assassinations determined there was a upward track through kennedy on the nonfatal backbone. he had always wanted to explain

how that occurred. at the time of the fatal shot, kennedy was leaning forward. if you are leaning forward and being shot from above the bullet , can track upwards because your forward than the downslope of the shot. here is michael bodden actually demonstrating that in a tv show. most people are convinced that the nonfatal shot hit him at 224. here is zapruder frame 225. ofhas not moved much in 1/18 a second. he is not leaning forward. now we have scientific tests from a nobel laureate, those alvarez that show it is most probable that the shot in zapruder 313 came from behind the car, driving jfk backwards with the jet of fact. -- jet effect.

said -- luisrez the jetsaid it was effect. i don't want any cynical after in this room. [laughter] jet effect recoil explains this. he said, when i showed my calculations to phd graduate students, paulhoch, the man who is sympathetic for conspiracy and then turned against it, he said that no one would believe it. unless we could demonstrate retrograde recoil on a rifle range. they said, let's do an experiment. there is showing a bullet coming from the left. you see the bullet comes from the left. it blows out here.

the skull moves back off the table. i have a better slide of it. it does not show it so well there. here we are. here's the bullet coming from the left, going across here, you see the big spray of debris. that melon that he shoots falls back off. proof positive of the jet effect. this is supposed to duplicate what we see in the film. olivier alfred testifying before the rockefeller commission, the jet effect is demonstrated by lewis alvarez in california several years ago when shooting a melon. when you get a honeydew melon going out the front, the melon would roll towards a gun, showing that there was some movement from this jet effect. he felt a larger part of it was a neuromuscular reaction. testifying in 1975, before alvarez published his paper. that is interesting.

how did luis alvarez do it? he supercharged his ammunition and rather than using a carcano .30-06 huntingey show. it is not a jacketed bullet. a jacketed round will have very little effect as other evidence has shown. use an entirely different bullet and did get recoil. he did not shoot at an object with a firm exterior, such as a human skull. he reported, and this is in the american journal of physics article in by the way 1976 is 1976. when he published that article . reported he has testified. they had been in contact. alvarez writes in peer-reviewed scientific literature, it is important to stress the fact that a taped melon was our a

priori best mockup of a head, and it showed retrograde recoil in the first test. if we had use the edison test, and shot at a large collection of objects, and finally found one which gave retrograde recoil, then our frying -- firing experiments could reasonably be criticized. the test as actually conducted, i believe it shows it is most probable that shot 313 came from behind the car. suitably understated. within last two years, josiah thompson, a good friend of paul hoch asked paul if he had copies of the photographs. so he pulled the photographs out of his own file all the photographs they had taken during alvarez's shooting experiment. they showed that alvarez had shot at coconuts, pineapples, -- a coconut is more similar to a human head. it has a hard exterior. plastic jugs full of water, etc. all targets were driven down range, except the melons.

if we had used the other test and shot any large collection of objects and found one that gave retrograde recoil, there could be reason to criticize. in fact, he did not do that, but he never reported it. a physician who is sitting in the room, a physician who has done shooting service of his own, and i've repeatedly said, this sounds like bullshit to me. he said, would you calling a nobel laureate a liar? [laughter] we didn't know him. that he was a liar. [laughter] did. that's what happens when your mind changes. >> dr., which allow me to intro for one moment? i've been asked to announce that dr. grover proctor is giving a presentation upstairs on the

fingerprints of intelligence and that we are reshuffling things a bit during the course of the afternoon in consideration of new presentations. but, please proceed. i am sorry for the interruption. >> i think that is important work he has done. all the targets were driven down range except melons. this is a photograph from his shooting test. the bullet came from the right, came through here, it moves it away. this was a pineapple or something like that. that might have been a rubber ball. he wrote that, whether taped or not, a bullet will cut to the outside of a melon like butter. a human skull is completely different. the thick skull bone requires considerable force to be penetrated and that forces deposited in the skull as momentum. a closer reasonable facsimile of a human head is a coconut. when it was fired upon, it did not show recoil motion but it lasted instead down range. we finally get to the narrow muscular reaction issue.

he said that he thought most of the movement you see in the president moving backwards is due to a neuromuscular reaction. in his book, jfk myths, he larlained the neuromuscu reaction. he shows this picture that he calls fallen soldier and was taken during the spanish civil war. thank you. great having a knowledgeable historian in the room. [laughter] thank you. if you know david, this is not taken then. this photograph was not taken then. what was at? >> i knew it. >> you knew it. ok. it was taken 50 miles from where this is supposed to have been taken and he was not shot in the head. in any case, it's a long story about this having been debunked. larry stern of an uses this that should someone in the head, that they would go backwards. he also, this is testimony he gave before the house committee

on assassinations, he showed these images of a goat being shot in the head. you see that the goat, and his testimony, and i should quote it and i'm not going to for time reasons, he talks about what you actually see here. that is the four legs and back legs all spread outwards. they splay outwards when you get a goat in the head with a bullet. that's not would you see in the kennedy case. you see in the kennedy case is the head leans backwards in the body follows. you can do this as many times as you want. it is decidedly different than a reaction that you see. there is much more to be said about neuromuscular reaction but there is little reason to believe that neuromuscular reaction explains kennedy's head recoiling backwards. -- you havepsy

the autopsy evidence. it is fairly clear that they do -- it is fairly clear that they do not really give you the kind of convincing evidence. you had test shots on skulls, entirely misrepresentative. you have the neutron activation theory which has been bumped. then you have the jet effect, and those tests were reported and done dishonestly. so, with the other thing that is worth talking about is that this abrasion caller because supposed to approve that this is where the bullets came from, from behind. there is discoloration on the edge of the backbone, most pronounced at the upper and outer margin, identifying it as being the entrance wound for a bullet. this is dr. lindenberg confirming the findings of a

clark panel that there was a dark discoloration of the margin of the skin. what this shows is if you hit the skin with a bullet truly perpendicularly, you get a circular wound like this with a zone of this colorization -- discoloration. if it comes from above, you get an abrasion color from above. fairly simple stuff right? , i want to assure that you are all better authorities than the thek panel experts and rockefeller commission experts. here is a diagram that shows what we see. where is the abrasion collar? it is here. it is down below. this is not just my own view of this. the house select committee on assassinations concluded the same thing.

here is another authority. we should all listen to. those of you haven't seen him on specials, a 11 years ago in a , iate with michael baden laid this out for him and told him he was completely wrong. two or three years ago he was on tv saying the same thing. the autopsy photographer was there. the corpsman -- trying to explain why the autopsy photographs were so bad. essentially what he is saying is the coroner who normally takes a photographs was confronted by an fbi agent in the morgue who said you don't have clearance and took them off the job and why they're so lousy. we have our own man taking pictures, the fbi agent said. this is from his book. this is what he wrote. i did not realize this, but pat speer pointed out to me that he had written this, but he had been saying this two or years three after the house select

committee on assassinations report came out. the fbi agent took the autopsy photographs. that is why the photographs are so lousy. here is the house select forensic -- house select committee's forensic panel report. this is the panel's report. they took the photographs under the direction of dr. humes. stringer also stated that the federal agent took a camera from him and exposed the film. this apparently occurred because the agent felt stringer was he only person authorized photograph the body. in the house select committee 's own report they proved his nonsense, which he could easter be today, is not true. i sent him a copy of the page of his book, my side, and said i will be happy to buy you dinner if you can see there is any misrepresentation here.

he never wrote back. for those of you who don't know the case, many of you do, know that your was a huge disk -- disconnect between what the department doctor said about jfk's wounds and where they appear on the autopsy photographs. there is a diagram prepared by dr. mcclellan. here's dr. paul peters writing to harry livingston, saying that is about where i saw the wound, too. when you stack it all up, people say i try to misquote them, but they can never prove it, all of these people at parkland hospital said there was a wound in the right part of jfk's head. they were concerned about this. i pointed this out again in a conference about 15 years ago

when i first discovered this. critics of the warren commission evidence said the findings found on the observations recorded by the parkland hospital doctors. in disagreement with the observation of the parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. all of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs. none had differing accounts. it appears more probable that the observations of the parkland doctors are incorrect. is the house select committee's report. but what was not then known, because it was suppressed into -- until the assassination record review board came along, is what witnesses in the autopsy had actually told the group. here are some diagrams from people interviewed by the group. routinely, the bethesda interviewed by the hsca not only describe wounds in the back of

the head, they depicted diagrams that were suppressed. corroborate that the wound is in front of the ear. not true. all of the interviews with the parkland doctors are wrong. here's dr. boswell's lab assistant. i'm going to give you a couple. i could give you 10 of them. they say the same thing. here the diagrams depicted. here we are. the mortician who prepared the head for burial. you can basically see that most of these people placed the wound on the back of the head.

when need to understand, how did this happen? i'm sure there are several people in this room who have done. views in their specialty. i have done peer-reviewed ophthalmology a couple times. you have seen, as i have seen, junk that comes through. all sorts ofake suggestions and corrections to get it right. there is this tendency for confirmation bias that goes on. i will tell you how i think this starts. much to my amazement, i ran across his article many years ago. in a maryland medical state journal interview, the doctor reported that ramsey clark called him. the attorney general of the united states calls you and he became concerned about the statements he had seen from josiah thompson's then-unpublished book. he decided to get a panel of people together to look at the autopsy evidence. the real goal was that the clark panel report was released

to refute some of the junk in that was in thompson's book. ramsey clark gave russell fisher his marching orders. not that he was i corrupt man, but but he went out there with the knowledge that there were people undermining the faith of the government. we have got to do something about this. so, that is one indication of how this starts. it turns out that russell fisher and the clark panel people also happen to have friends in very close colleagues who work for the rockefeller commission and warren commission. they are close friends. you can see error after error concluding on the bullet trail until finally somebody finally puts it where it is. there is always a tendency to

just look very carelessly at work. you know you can trust these people. these are good, honest people. you try to put them in a way that justifies the work of your prior collies. colleagues. there is an article which i recommend why most published research findings are false. that is because of confirmation bias. confirmation bias occurs when people actively search for information that confirms their hypotheses while ignoring mitigating evidence. it is a type of cognitive bias. a pattern of deviation and judgment that occurs in particular situations, leading to a perceptual distortion, and accurate judgment, or illogical interpretation. it represents an error of inductive influence towards confirmation of the hypotheses understudied. this happens all the time in my specialty. i see it all the time and papers i have reviewed.

again, according to available information, three shots were heard and the president fell forward bleeding from the head. a body is given to these guys. they were told he was shot from above, and behind. here is the body. give us the evidence that will prove it. these words dishonest men. they were not lying. they were trying to put together something that they knew had to fit. here's jack kennedy. that is what he looked like. everybody was to see those photographs. we have a number of photographs. these people are not liars. they are not corrupt. they're not part of some anti-american conspiracy. they're not here to deceive people. they pursue things in ways that they think to confirm the the biases they had carried into this. everything fits with oswald