Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Posts

    8,667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

7 Followers

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Simi Valley, California
  • Interests
    History, Politics, Movies, Music, Sports

Recent Profile Visitors

65,855 profile views

Pat Speer's Achievements

Grand Master

Grand Master (14/14)

  • Great Content Rare
  • Dedicated
  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare

Recent Badges

  1. I have been following the Mantik spiral for decades. He correctly concluded there was a bullet defect on the Harper Fragment. In trying to make everything fit his belief the back of the head was blown out, he placed the Harper Fragment on the occipital bone, which put this defect near the EOP entrance described by Humes. So he claims the Harper fragment is occipital bone and the defect is the entrance defect identified by Humes. He pretty much ignores that this placement means the large defect extended well onto the left side of the head, when the Parkland witnesses had indicated it was on the right side only. And he avoids that the beveling at what he calls an entrance is exit beveling, and that pretty much all if not all the doctors studying the medical evidence claim what he calls an entrance, is an exit. I believe he has indicated as well that the bullet entering near the EOP did not exit, and was found and removed at autopsy. Note: this might be one of Horne's claims that is not shared by Mantik. So... bullet #1 enters near the EOP and does not exit. Well, this leaves him without an explanation for what he claims was the blow-out on the occipital bone. So he claims there was an entrance by the temple that blasted out the back of the head. Now, his placement for this entrance puts it right where I long ago pointed out is the location of the bullet defect on the Harper fragment when the fragment is properly oriented, only to have Mantik and his attack dogs engage in a prolonged attack on my character, which only came to an end when the Wecht family intervened and asked Mantik and I to debate at the 2013 Wecht Conference, where Mantik finally admitted I was correct. (But not for long--I recently viewed a 2021 presentation in which he has returned to making his false claim the bullet defect on the Harper fragment is at the top of the head in the Angel orientation--something he admitted wasn't true back in 2013). In any event... bullet #2 enters near the temple and blows out the Harper fragment...which is kind of weird when you think of it. Wouldn't a bullet creating a large defect create a hole near the middle of that defect, or on bone on the margins of that defect? Mantik cites no hole and no such defect. The only bullet defect he claims for the Harper fragment is the entrance by the EOP. Now here's where things get tricky/stinky. For over 20 years Mantik has been claiming there was a bullet entrance on the forehead. When doing so he has misrepresented the statements of Tom Robinson, who said there was a tiny hole that was not a bullet entrance by the temple, and then later on that there were two or three tiny holes on the cheek. In any event, Mantik has routinely claimed Robinson saw a bullet entrance high on the forehead, that was not observed by others. But no, he has now taken to claiming the spot of blood Marion Jenkins thought he saw by the left temple which was presumed to have confused McClelland was actually a bullet hole on the right forehead. And, If I'm not mistaken, that McCelland had in fact observed this as well, even though McClelland had long-claimed he saw no such wound. Well, it should come as no surprise then that Mantik would encourage Chesser to go to the Archives, and that Chesser would come out claiming there was evidence for an entrance wound high on the forehead on the lateral x-rays that had gone unnoticed and unreported by all the radiologists to view the x-rays...that was not visible on the A-P x-ray in which the forehead is featured. Well, okay, so why was this largely unsupported and unsupportable entrance wound necessary? Well, Mantik had long observed that the "trail of fragments" on the skull x-rays ran pretty much straight across the head, and that was inconsistent with trajectories of BOTH the bullet entering by the EOP and the bullet he presumes entered near the temple and exited low on the skull. So a third bullet was required. I mean, why not, the more the merrier. So where did this bullet exit? Well, he has it exit at the beveled bone on the mystery photo, which, he interprets as existing at the LEFT side of the back of the head--due to his placement of the Harper fragment within the photo. So...yeah, Mantik and Horne claim a bullet entered high on the right forehead (where no credible witness noted a wound) and exit from the left side of the head (where no witness of any kind saw a wound). And that's bullet #3. Well, there's still a back wound and throat wound, which Mantik attributes to separate bullets, with the bullet creating the back wound falling out and the throat wound being caused by a shard of glass created when a bullet passed though the windshield. Now, I tend to agree with the former, but the glass shard theory was debunked decades ago when clear copies of Altgens' photos became available which proved the the crack on the windshield appeared at the time of the head shot, and not at the timeJFK reached towards his throat.
  2. This is just not true. I go through the 11-22-63 statements of the Dealey Plaza witnesses one by one on my website and show how they thought the wound was on the face or right side. And no, none of them were claiming they thought they saw a bullet enter in one place and exit another. They saw an explosion on the skull...on the right side near the face. As far as Bill Newman...please. Bill Newman was on TV claiming the skull exploded by the temple within minutes of the shooting. While he initially pointed to his left temple, he did this because he was holding his kid with his right arm. His wife, moments later, pointed to her right temple. And Bill himself was filmed depicting an explosion from the right temple before he left the studio. The Newmans were looking at the back of JFK's head as he drove past. And yet they saw an explosion on the right side of his head by his ear and failed to see an explosion from the back of his head. And they have repeated this on camera and in person hundreds of times. And that's because no such explosion occurred.
  3. Oswald's work would not entail his moving around the Scott-Foresman boxes unless the items inside were needed for an order. So one might think the DPD and FBI would isolate the orders pulled by Oswald throughout the day and see if any of them involved the items in those boxes, or even neighboring boxes. But they failed to do so. If fact, if memory serves, they even failed to note that the orders on his clipboard were for items on the sixth floor, and gave him a perfectly logical reason to be on that floor...even if Givens was telling the truth when he said he saw him on that floor. As a former warehouse worker I can tell you that there is NOTHING suspicious about Oswald's clipboard being found near the back stairs. An order puller would take a number of orders for a location and grab as much of those orders as he could before going down to drop them off in the shipping department. If heading out to lunch, he would leave his clipboard in the vicinity of where he was to resume work. The discovery of his clipboard by the stairs and elevator then is as suggestive of his innocence as his guilt.
  4. It was a subsequent article. I remembered Griggs' claiming the photo showing the barrel and scope beside the stock and bag was misleading, and I remembered this correctly, but I was wrong about his reasoning--as he said the scope and barrel need not be separated. But I recalled his saying the disassembly of the rifle would mess with the alignment of the scope. And found his saying as much, here: https://docplayer.net/60141044-The-mannlicher-carcano-disassembly-and-reassembly.html
  5. Well, I wrote a book on this topic because, whether or not the tests prove Oswald's innocence, the DPD and FBI's behavior regarding these tests is proof THEY thought they were suggestive of Oswald's innocence, and were scared this would come out. As far as the paraffin (wax) casts, they were taken home by the DPD crime lab employee who'd conducted the tests, and brought back a few days later when the FBI expressed an interest in them. This makes their chain of custody better than average (for this case)...certainly better than the chain-of-custody for the shells.
  6. The paraffin tests were not considered reliable, even in 1963. The NAA tests are considered reliable, even today. But, as to your larger point, yes, you are correct. The tests were performed too late to be conclusive. But there was plenty of gsr on his hands, and he was not believed to have washed his face, so the negative result for antimony on his cheek is undoubtedly suggestive of his innocence. When one takes into account, moreover, that the cheek casts ended up with more barium on the control side of the cheek cast than the side that had been applied to his face, the suspicion someone tried to rig the tests is justified.
  7. Upon double-checking it is clear you are correct in that Griggs didn't say the scope had to be removed. He did say, however, that one couldn't remove the scope and barrel without mis-aligning the scope. "The main metal component consists of the barrel and the firing mechanism. The latter includes the chamber, firing pin, bolt and trigger. For the purposes of this exercise the telescopic sight, permanently screwed to the top of this metal section, can be described as being part of it. It is not necessary to remove the scope when disassembling the rifle. It is inevitable, however, that during disassembly/reassembly, the precise alignment of the scope must be affected. This may be only minimal but nevertheless, it must have an effect."
  8. The possibility exists that Oswald washed his face at the rooming house, and that the gsr on his hands came from the Tippit shooting. BUT... the housekeeper insisted he was in and out and had not visited the bathroom. AND...despite constant claims of as much, it's clear the rifle was not wiped down for fingerprints. Well...it makes little sense for Oswald--assuming he was the shooter--to not wipe down the rifle--when the study of fingerprints at crime scenes was common knowledge--and then turn around and wash his face to remove gsr--when the testing of cheeks for gsr was not nearly as commonplace or well-known--and he had no intentions of getting captured. So, perhaps he got "lucky" on two counts--he washed his face without realizing it might help him claim his innocence--AND no one noticed.
  9. Minor point, Joe. The problematic Hosty notes are clearly a draft for a report, and not notes taken down during the interrogation itself. As this draft would have to have been written within a day or two of the assassination, it still carries some weight. It raises a secondary question, moreover. Bookhout wrote a solo report and a joint report with Hosty, but Hosty wrote no solo report. The notes/draft may very well have been the draft of a report which Hosty wrote, but was destroyed. Just spit-balling here. But the thought occurs that Hosty did in fact believe Oswald had said he'd been outside, and had put this in a report. And that his superiors noticed this, and said well this isn't what Bookhout remembers! And tossed his report. Now, we can recall here that Hosty was severely reprimanded after the WR was out and about, and shipped out of town/basically demoted. And I'm wondering if there's a paper trail within the FBI's records spelling out exactly what he'd done that was so embarrassing to Lord Hoover. We know, for one, that he wasn't supposed to mention Mexico City to Oswald. And we know, for two, that he went behind the backs of his superiors at times. But I'm curious if there's any mention of his writing an inaccurate report or some such thing in his records. Now, I think Hosty actually confronted this issue in his book, and said he tried to get access to his file, but that they'd refused to give it to him, or said it had been destroyed. I don't recall. But the thought remains that there could be some evidence somewhere that he did in fact write a report and that it was then thrown in the trash.
  10. Ian Griggs bought a rifle like the one found in the building, and wrote an article and gave a number of presentations on the disassembly and re-assembly of the rifle. As I recall, Mark, among his findings was that the WC image showing the scope attached to the barrel was deceptive, as the scope would have to be removed from the barrel during disassembly, and added back on during assembly.
  11. Thanks, Martin. It's good to know someone could watch the video and appreciate it for what it is.
  12. FWIW, I get into this in Chapter 4 on my website. From looking at all the statements regarding Jack Dougherty, I came to believe he was not in the elevator that came down while Baker and Truly ran up. So who was? It may very well have been the shooter.
  13. Why thank you, Sandy. It sounds like you think there's a chance of my getting into heaven.
  14. For those with an interest, fellow Forum member Francois Carlier has recorded a discussion of ours and put it up on YouTube. This is not a research presentation. It is an informal discussion between two people with an interest in the Kennedy assassination. As proved by the video, age and cancer have taken a toll on me, and I am often forgetful. But those who know me will see that my spirit remains intact, and that lone-nutters such as Francois and conspiracy theorists such as myself can have a friendly conversation. And it is in that spirit that I bring this video to the attention of our fellow Forum members. One viewing this should not take anything we say as gospel. Or start attack threads questioning our character or intelligence. This is not propaganda designed to fool anyone. It is simply a friendly chat that I hope will inspire more friendly chats. If you can accept it for what it is...Enjoy.
  15. I make the argument on my website that they knew the answer but didn't want to deal with its repercussions. 1. They decided from the get-go that the FBI would perform the tests on the cheek cast to see if it contained gsr, and that the tests performed to see if M/C rifles leaked residue which should be found on the cheek of a shooter would be out-sourced. 2. They out-sourced these tests, the controls, to Vincent Guinn, the top scientist in the field. By outsourcing these tests, they could deny they'd hired Guinn, and Guin could deny he'd worked for them, which he did when subsequently testifying before the HSCA on the NAA he'd conducted at their request on the bullet fragments. (I found a letter from Guinn in Weisberg's files which indicated he was supposed to write a report for the HSCA on his gsr studies as well as his bullet lead studies. But, if such a report was written, it was never released. To me, this is suspicious as heck. I mean, they had Guinn perform new tests on the bullet lead--tests the FBI had performed back in '64 but had found inconclusive--but failed to have him even submit a report on the tests he himself had performed in '64, which he'd claimed were conclusive, but which had been buried by the FBI and WC. Now I've thought about this and the only thing I can come up with is that a decision was made to elevate Guinn's NAA tests for bullet lead--which Guinn now claimed supported Oswald's guilt--and conceal Guinn's tests for gsr--which had suggested Oswald's possible innocence.) 3. The FBI failed to tell the WC about their tests until a scientist who'd been spurned by the FBI told the WC such tests should be performed. The WC then asked such tests be performed and the FBI then told them they'd already performed such tests. 4. The FBI's tests were negative--as Oswald's cheek cast had sufficient barium on its surface to suggest he'd fired a rifle, but insufficient antimony, when both elements needed to be present in sufficient quantities. They said these tests were inconclusive, however, because there was more barium on the back side of the cheek cast than on the cheek side. This should have led them to investigate, IMO, as this may have come as a result of a deliberate tainting of the evidence by the Dallas PD. But they failed to do so. 5. The FBI did perform one control of their own, while using the assassination rifle. This gave them positive results. The name RF was written by these results, suggesting that the shooter was Robert Frazier, who performed the ballistic tests on the rifle. 6. Guinn's control tests gave a positive result for gsr on the cheek even when the subject was not tested for hours after firing the rifle. Guinn reported his results to the FBI, informally, in a phone call, which then recorded his results in an internal memo, and not a report that was handed over to the WC. 7. Guinn did wish to get paid for his tests, of course, and so he created a report on these tests and submitted it to the U.S. Dept. of Commerce, which was exploring the commercial applications for NAA. (I was, I thought, the first researcher to find this report, and then report on it. But I later found a copy in Weisberg's papers.) 8. The FBI never told the WC about Guinn's tests, nor his results. Instead they had Cortlandt Cunningham, Frazier's partner, testify that his "personal expectation" was that no residue would leak from Oswald's rifle onto a cheek cast, and that the negative result on the nitrate test (the chemical test on the cast performed by the DPD) was therefore as expected. This concealed that his partner had participated in the FBI's tests of the cheek cast and had established that the rifle could leak residue onto the cheek. 9. A few weeks before the publication of the WR, however, Guinn, who was a bit of a showboat, bragged about his tests at an international conference. An article on his comments at this conference was then published in the states. An internal FBI memo reflects that the FBI was displeased. 10. As a result of this article, the WC asked the FBI's John Gallagher, who'd supervised their tests, to testify. Working off a script, which I found in the FBI's files, he said there was sufficient barium and antimony on the hand casts to conclude Oswald had fired a weapon, and sufficient barium on the cheek cast to conclude he'd fired a rifle, but that there was an excess of barium on the control side of the cast that made the result for the cheek cast inconclusive. His statements dodged the question--which I thought to be pertinent--of whether or not the numbers for antimony were sufficient to claim a positive result for gsr irrespective of the unusual numbers for barium. 11. Thus began a years-long quest on my part, which led to my acquisition of the materials received by Weisberg as a result of his FOIA case and my finding and studying numerous papers by Guinn, which led me to suspect his zeal for self-promotion had led him to both mis-represent the significance of the tests he performed for the HSCA, and flat-out lie about his results afterwards. 12. The NAA results for antimony on the cheek cast, to my understanding (from reading numerous articles on NAA) are negative, as there was insufficient gsr (composed of both barium and antimony) to support Oswald's guilt. While these results can not be considered conclusive, due to the delay in the tests being performed, the positive results on Oswald's hands cut into the possibility gsr had been removed from his cheek via the washing of his face and hands, or time. 13. I think we can suspect then that the test results would be presentable in a court of law, as evidence for his innocence in killing Kennedy. While the submission of these results into evidence would simultaneously support Oswald's guilt re the death of Tippit, the value of a positive result on the hands could be questioned, due to the inordinate amount of barium on the backs of the casts. (The nitrate tests gave positive results for a number of elements including barium and antimony without differentiating between them. Someone familiar with the nitrate tests, but unfamiliar with NAA protocols, then, may have thought that by sprinkling barium--which would presumably have been present in the DPD lab at Parkland Hospital, where the nitrate tests were performed--onto the casts, they were assuring a positive result when the casts were later tested by the FBI.)
×
×
  • Create New...