Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content count

    5,557
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Pat Speer

  • Rank
    Moderator

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

54,857 profile views
  1. Good job, Andrej. I was going to recommend Alberto match the width of the rifle barrel in the Day photo to the width of the rifle barrel in the FBI photo, and lay this over a version of the Day photo that has been matched to the FBI photo by the width of the rifle butt. That should tell you if the apparent differences can be explained by the rifle's being at a different angle in the Day photo. If some of the features in the FBI photo are grossly at odds with either version of the Day photo...you have a different rifle.
  2. I'm not sure if anyone's done any deep digging into Holland's background, Jim, beyond that Holland's written articles for the CIA. I know you know about this look at Holland: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/max-holland-rescues-the-warren-commission-and-the-nation And I think I told you about this one: http://www.patspeer.com/chapter-9c-mr-holland-s-colossal-blunder My take on Max is that he's a conservative historian, not all that different from a number of other inside-the-beltway insiders...who desperately wants to believe it was Oswald all by his lonesome.
  3. Thanks for the heads-up, Joe. I take my son to the Monterey Bay Aquarium almost every year, and have been telling myself I should stop by the Defense Language Institute to see if they have any records for Oswald, or Hidel, etc. Apparently, that would have been a waste of time. Thanks. Next time I'll be able to head straight to Old Capitol Books and Rosine's without feeling that I should be over at DLI.
  4. FWIW, I seem to remember reading a discussion (Was it in Mrs. Paine's Garage?) of the "We both know who's responsible" comment in which the Paines insisted the reference was to Marina, and that they'd both felt Marina had played head games with Lee that had contributed to his instability.
  5. I talked to Jenkins about this in both 2013 and 2015. He does indeed believe the hole on the head extended to the back of the head. But the top of the back of the head, not the bottom--where way too many CTs want to believe there was a "blow-out" wound. To be clear, in 2013 Jenkins showed me...and Aguilar, and Mantik, and Tink Thompson if I recall...where he believed the skull was shattered beneath the scalp, and where the scalp above this shattered skull was intact. And he pointed out the area behind his right ear on the back of his head. He was claiming, therefore, that there was no blow-out wound where Mantik and others claim there was a blow-out wound. In any event, I spoke to Jenkins again in 2015, with a young researcher (and writer) in attendance. He told us the same thing. When asked (I think by myself but perhaps by the young writer) why he didn't say anything when Mantik and Horne, etc, claimed him as a witness for something he insists he never witnessed, he said something along the lines of "People will believe what they want to believe...what'cha gonna do?" P.S. I just looked and Jenkins told Purdy the head wound stretched from the middle-temporal region back to the occipital." That's pretty much what he told me.
  6. David Von Pein and I have discussed it several times over the years. The original broadcast was 21 hours (over four days, if I recall). It was then edited down to 5 hours over 2 days for America. In any event, when one compares the quotes from the trial in Bugliosi's book to the American broadcast and DVD, one finds that a number of the quoted passages never appeared in the trial as broadcast in America. This leads me to suspect some good stuff--and probably a lot of good stuff--was cut out. P.S. Bugliosi had access to a complete transcript for the whole she-bang. I asked Spence about this and he said he'd never seen such a thing. One can only guess then that Bugliosi's copy was created by the producers for his use, and that it remains in his family's possession.
  7. A couple of points. 1. The mock trial shown on American TV was edited way down from the actual trial. We don't know what was cut, because the original has never been re-shown, and Bugliosi failed to make his transcript of the original available to others. 2. Doug Horne's spin on Jenkins' appearance at the 50th anniversary Lancer conference was misleading, to say the least. Horne did not talk to Jenkins at that conference. I did. I spoke to him again in 2015. While Jenkins' recollections do not support the official story, so to speak, neither do they support what Horne wants people to believe. Jenkins disputed his friend Paul O'Connor's claim there was very little brain in the skull. Jenkins held the brain and infused the brain. Paul did not. What Jenkins found so unnerving about the brain was the ease with which Humes removed it. This led him to speculate it was cut loose from the spine along the base. Now, one can take from this what they want, but NOT that the occipital area at the back of the skull was blown out. You see, Jenkins said...numerous times in my presence, and in the presence of others...that the occipital region at the back of the head was shattered but still in place beneath the scalp at the beginning of the autopsy. I asked Jenkins, moreover, why he didn't speak up and denounce those who kept claiming his recollections prove the back of the head was missing. He replied "Ah heck, people will say whatever they want--what you gonna do..."
  8. I have to disagree with those attacking Spence. As previously stated, he destroyed Guinn and the NAA on the stand, without even raising his voice. His objective as a defense attorney in a made for TV trial was not to attack the witnesses lined up by the producers (who were essentially his co-stars) but to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of millions of viewers. He did just that, IMO. He was so successful, in fact, that his success became an obsession for Bugliosi, who couldn't let it go, and spent the next twenty years inventing and refining arguments (many of them foolish and weak-minded) to try to remove the doubt sown by Spence (and Lane and Thompson and Lifton, etc.).
  9. I saw a number of comments on this thread about "south side of Elm" and "north side of Elm". This was discussed on this forum some time ago. The confusing reality is that there were TWO Elms. There is the Elm Street which runs in a straight line from east of the TSBD across the front of the TSBD and then ends in a parking lot behind the grassy knoll. And then there is the Elm street which winds downhill and goes under the underpass. Those working in the TSBD were quite aware they worked on the north side of Elm. In crossing the street to line up along the motorcade route, they thereby crossed over from the north side of Elm to the south side of Elm. That this put them on the north side of the "other" Elm apparently slipped their minds. In any event there was at least one other witness whose use of north/south was confusing. The FBi reports on Mr. and Mrs. Charles Hester says they crossed over to the north side of Elm after the shots. They were actually there the whole time. Date 11/25/63 CHARLES HESTER, 2610 Mayhold Street, furnished the following information: At approximately 12:30 p.m., November 22, 1963, HESTER and his wife, BEATRICE, were standing along the street at the point immediately preceeding the underpass on Elm Street where President JOHN F. KENNEDY was shot. HESTER stated he saw the President slump in the seat of the car and that he heard two shots fired from what appeared to be a building located on the corner of Elm Street and Houston Street. He Stated he and his wife were almost in a direct line of the fire and he immediately grabbed his wife and shoved her to the ground. He stated he thereafter immediately escorted his wife across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. HESTER stated he did not see anyone with a gun at the time the shots were fired and that after the President's car had pulled away from the scene and officers started toward the aforementioned building, he and his wife proceeded to their car and left the area. on 11/24/63 at Irving, Texas File # DL 89-43 By Special Agent DOYLE WILLIAMS and HENRY J. OLIVER Date Dictated 11/25/63 Mrs. CHARLES HESTER, 2619 Keyhole Street, Irving, Texas, advised that sometime around 12:30 p.m., on November 22, 1963, she and her husband were standing along the street at a place immediately preceding the underpass on Elm Street, where President KENNEDY was shot. Mrs. HESTER advised she heard two loud noises which sounded like gunshots, and she saw president KENNEDY slump in the seat of the car he was riding in. Her husband then grabbed her and shoved her to the ground. Shortly thereafter they went across to the north side of the street on an embankment in an attempt to gain shelter. She stated that she believes she and her husband actually had been in the direct line of fire. She did not see anyone with a gun when the shots were fired and stated she could not furnish any information as to exactly where the shots came from. After the President's car had pulled away from the scene. she and her husband proceeded to their car and left the scene as she was very upset. on 11/24/63 at Irving, Texas File # DL 89-43 By Special Agent J. DOYLE WILLIAMS and HENRY J. OLIVER Date Dictated 11/25/63
  10. I didn't crop it. Groden cropped the second BOH photo when he published it in The Killing of A President, from which this scan was made. I simply matched up the two photos as best I could and made a morph. As the morph shows the area in question (the supposed matte) there was no need for me to spend the time and money to create a scan from the full-sized picture subsequently published by Groden (in his ridiculously over-priced book Absolute Proof.) As far as the stereoscope... you're quite incorrect. Groden and Mantik have claimed the central part of the photo on the back of the head appears flat through a stereoscope, because it is a matte, a photographic patch that is identical on the two photos. The morph shows that the central part of the two photos are not identical, and that there is a subtle shift in the perspective on the back of the head consistent with the rest of the photos, and that, in any event, it does not simply lay there flat, as it would if it were the same exact image taken from the same exact angle. It is, in fact, "absolute proof" that Groden and Mantik spewed nonsense.
  11. The 3D argument made by Groden and Mantik doesn't hold. For some strange (or not so strange) reason, Groden failed to publish the two color BOH photos in his possession side by side, or even in the same book, until recently. I morphed the two photos together on the following page, about a fourth of the way down the page. And the three degree effect is apparent even on the middle of the photo. Thus, no matte was inserted. https://sites.google.com/a/patspeer.com/www2/reasontobelieve P.S. I tried to insert the GIF below. It doesn't run automatically and continuously as it does on my page. But seems to work one time when you click on it.
  12. I beg to differ. The defense attorney in the case was Gerry Spence, who actually had a better rep than Bugliosi at the time of the trial. Spence was famous for his country lawyer mannerisms, and I dare say he comes across a heckuva lot better than Bugliosi in the case. Bugliosi comes across as extremely shrill and nasty, which he was. Spence, on the other hand, comes across as fair and genuinely curious. Watch his cross-examination of Vincent Guinn, for example. Spence ate him up and got Guinn to boast that he knew the results of tests he'd never actually conducted. This would destroy his credibility with a jury. And Spence did it without being rude or shrill in the manner of Bugliosi. There's also this to consider. We really have no idea how well Spence performed because the program as shown in the U.S. was edited down to something like 1/3 of its original time, as shown in England. Now, one passion DVP and I share is the desire to get our hands on some tapes of the entire trial, or even a transcript of the entire trial. Bugliosi quoted such a transcript in his book, often quoting lines that were never shown in the U.S. But we have never been allowed to see the full tapes or transcript. For all we know, Ruth Paine admitted she worked for the CIA, or some such thing. I can say, however, that I contacted Spence about a decade ago, and that he told me he didn't believe he'd ever been provided a transcript for the trial. Well, this means Bugliosi was given special access to help sell Oswald's guilt in the U.S. And this, in turn, leads me to suspect the footage shown in the U.S. was edited to help this cause.
  13. Thanks, Paul. I think the Electoral College is doomed. It is on the wrong side of history. Unfortunately, however, the Republicans will prop it up as long as they think it helps them. That is why I pointed out toward the end that it hurts red states, too, and that it is just a matter of time until what Trump thought happened in 2012 actually does happen. At that point, the Republcans will clamor to kill the College and the Democrats will agree.
  14. Goldberg is one of the good guys, in my opinion. One of Shenon's discoveries was that Warren wanted to have all the Warren Commission's working papers destroyed, so that they couldn't be second-guessed. But Goldberg argued against this, and prevailed.