Hidden within the recent attacks on my character by Dale Myers, posted on the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup by David Von Pein, are several acknowledgments by Myers that I was correct about some key issues.
In Von Pein's May 1, 2008 post of an email by Myers, Myers writes "The movements of JBC and the jumpseat (as shown in the ABC/ History Channel program and the Discovery Channel program), demonstrating the differences between prominent conspiracy-based illustrations and reality, were done in unison for clarity. Any charges to the contrary are false."
This is as good as a confession that Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door. He now insists the center of Connally was 6 inches inboard of Kennedy, but that the jump seat on which he was riding was only 2 1/2 inches in from the door. I wonder how many millions of people, seeing Myers animation, and seeing Connally sitting comfortably in the middle of his chair in a direct line of a bullet exiting Kennedy's neck, suspected Myers and ABC and the Discovery Channel knew Connally was not sitting comfortably in his chair in the direct line of fire, but was inexplicably scooted way to his left, hanging off the edge of his seat? I wonder how many of them would have believed Myers' trajectories if it showed Connally in this position? I wonder how many of them would feel deceived to find out that Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a Myers invention designed to "clarify" things for them?
Some might call this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.
In both Von Pein's May 1, 2008 email denouncing my criticisms, and a May 8, 2008 post of a commentary by Myers from his website, Myers acknowledges another mistake as well. In an effort to debunk my criticism of his using distorted images in his overhead views of the single-bullet theory, Myers has asserted:
"(Speer) continues to claim that the Connally (JBC) figure was shrunk (as was the jumpseat) to accomodate the SBT. He now uses images of my work culled from the Discovery Channel program "Beyond the Magic Bullet" to promote this nonsense. Even a cursory look at the images should tell anyone with a brain that the images used by Mr. Speer are at an angle to the viewer (i..e, the right side of the image is falling away from the viewer). This is due to the fact that the images are being filmed directly off my computer monitor and that the camera filming these images is viewing the monitor at a considerable angle. This can be seen in any of the wide angle shots in which I am visible alongside the monitor (none of which, BTW, are included in Speer's presentation). If Mr. Speer had shown his viewers those wide angle views, it would be obvious that the reason JBC (and the jumpseat) appears smaller is because of the camera/monitor relationship."
While Myers attempted to insult my intelligence, he, in fact, overshot and hit his supporters as well. I'd come forward with my complaints about the distorted images years ago. No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation--the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you--was shot at an angle from a computer monitor. David Von Pein, one of my Myers' biggest supporters, still has trouble believing it.
Lost in the catcalls of Myers' supporters (ha ha ha--Myers called Pat stupid--ha ha ha) are the ramifications of his assertion. By admitting the images used in the program were distorted, Myers is as much as admitting that his whole presentation in 2004's Beyond the Magic Bullet was irrelevant. No, it's actually much worse. Since the program's creators added a trajectory angle onto Myers' distorted figures that lined up perfectly with their wounds, Myers is as much as admitting that the single-bullet theory--which he set out to prove some years ago--and which he calls the "single-bullet fact," does not work on undistorted figures.
While I've given Myers a hard time, and have received a substantial amount of abuse in return, I believe Myers' acknowledgment of the failure of his animation to demonstrate the single-bullet theory, was probably worth it. Now we can all stop pretending the alignment of Kennedy and Connally, and thus the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, has been "proven".
Pat Speer, May 08, 2008
Full Version: Dale Myers Debunks His Own Work
QUOTE(Pat Speer @ May 9 2008, 09:09 AM) 
Hidden within the recent attacks on my character by Dale Myers, posted on the alt.assassination.jfk newsgroup by David Von Pein, are several acknowledgments by Myers that I was correct about some key issues.
In Von Pein's May 1, 2008 post of an email by Myers, Myers writes "The movements of JBC and the jumpseat (as shown in the ABC/ History Channel program and the Discovery Channel program), demonstrating the differences between prominent conspiracy-based illustrations and reality, were done in unison for clarity. Any charges to the contrary are false."
This is as good as a confession that Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door. He now insists the center of Connally was 6 inches inboard of Kennedy, but that the jump seat on which he was riding was only 2 1/2 inches in from the door. I wonder how many millions of people, seeing Myers animation, and seeing Connally sitting comfortably in the middle of his chair in a direct line of a bullet exiting Kennedy's neck, suspected Myers and ABC and the Discovery Channel knew Connally was not sitting comfortably in his chair in the direct line of fire, but was inexplicably scooted way to his left, hanging off the edge of his seat? I wonder how many of them would have believed Myers' trajectories if it showed Connally in this position? I wonder how many of them would feel deceived to find out that Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a Myers invention designed to "clarify" things for them?
Some might call this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.
In both Von Pein's May 1, 2008 email denouncing my criticisms, and a May 8, 2008 post of a commentary by Myers from his website, Myers acknowledges another mistake as well. In an effort to debunk my criticism of his using distorted images in his overhead views of the single-bullet theory, Myers has asserted:
"(Speer) continues to claim that the Connally (JBC) figure was shrunk (as was the jumpseat) to accomodate the SBT. He now uses images of my work culled from the Discovery Channel program "Beyond the Magic Bullet" to promote this nonsense. Even a cursory look at the images should tell anyone with a brain that the images used by Mr. Speer are at an angle to the viewer (i..e, the right side of the image is falling away from the viewer). This is due to the fact that the images are being filmed directly off my computer monitor and that the camera filming these images is viewing the monitor at a considerable angle. This can be seen in any of the wide angle shots in which I am visible alongside the monitor (none of which, BTW, are included in Speer's presentation). If Mr. Speer had shown his viewers those wide angle views, it would be obvious that the reason JBC (and the jumpseat) appears smaller is because of the camera/monitor relationship."
While Myers attempted to insult my intelligence, he, in fact, overshot and hit his supporters as well. I'd come forward with my complaints about the distorted images years ago. No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation--the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you--was shot at an angle from a computer monitor. David Von Pein, one of my Myers' biggest supporters, still has trouble believing it.
Lost in the catcalls of Myers' supporters (ha ha ha--Myers called Pat stupid--ha ha ha) are the ramifications of his assertion. By admitting the images used in the program were distorted, Myers is as much as admitting that his whole presentation in 2004's Beyond the Magic Bullet was irrelevant. No, it's actually much worse. Since the program's creators added a trajectory angle onto Myers' distorted figures that lined up perfectly with their wounds, Myers is as much as admitting that the single-bullet theory--which he set out to prove some years ago--and which he calls the "single-bullet fact," does not work on undistorted figures.
While I've given Myers a hard time, and have received a substantial amount of abuse in return, I believe Myers' acknowledgment of the failure of his animation to demonstrate the single-bullet theory, was probably worth it. Now we can all stop pretending the alignment of Kennedy and Connally, and thus the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, has been "proven".
Pat Speer, May 08, 2008
In Von Pein's May 1, 2008 post of an email by Myers, Myers writes "The movements of JBC and the jumpseat (as shown in the ABC/ History Channel program and the Discovery Channel program), demonstrating the differences between prominent conspiracy-based illustrations and reality, were done in unison for clarity. Any charges to the contrary are false."
This is as good as a confession that Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door. He now insists the center of Connally was 6 inches inboard of Kennedy, but that the jump seat on which he was riding was only 2 1/2 inches in from the door. I wonder how many millions of people, seeing Myers animation, and seeing Connally sitting comfortably in the middle of his chair in a direct line of a bullet exiting Kennedy's neck, suspected Myers and ABC and the Discovery Channel knew Connally was not sitting comfortably in his chair in the direct line of fire, but was inexplicably scooted way to his left, hanging off the edge of his seat? I wonder how many of them would have believed Myers' trajectories if it showed Connally in this position? I wonder how many of them would feel deceived to find out that Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a Myers invention designed to "clarify" things for them?
Some might call this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.
In both Von Pein's May 1, 2008 email denouncing my criticisms, and a May 8, 2008 post of a commentary by Myers from his website, Myers acknowledges another mistake as well. In an effort to debunk my criticism of his using distorted images in his overhead views of the single-bullet theory, Myers has asserted:
"(Speer) continues to claim that the Connally (JBC) figure was shrunk (as was the jumpseat) to accomodate the SBT. He now uses images of my work culled from the Discovery Channel program "Beyond the Magic Bullet" to promote this nonsense. Even a cursory look at the images should tell anyone with a brain that the images used by Mr. Speer are at an angle to the viewer (i..e, the right side of the image is falling away from the viewer). This is due to the fact that the images are being filmed directly off my computer monitor and that the camera filming these images is viewing the monitor at a considerable angle. This can be seen in any of the wide angle shots in which I am visible alongside the monitor (none of which, BTW, are included in Speer's presentation). If Mr. Speer had shown his viewers those wide angle views, it would be obvious that the reason JBC (and the jumpseat) appears smaller is because of the camera/monitor relationship."
While Myers attempted to insult my intelligence, he, in fact, overshot and hit his supporters as well. I'd come forward with my complaints about the distorted images years ago. No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the animation--the animation shown round the world to convince people the single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you--was shot at an angle from a computer monitor. David Von Pein, one of my Myers' biggest supporters, still has trouble believing it.
Lost in the catcalls of Myers' supporters (ha ha ha--Myers called Pat stupid--ha ha ha) are the ramifications of his assertion. By admitting the images used in the program were distorted, Myers is as much as admitting that his whole presentation in 2004's Beyond the Magic Bullet was irrelevant. No, it's actually much worse. Since the program's creators added a trajectory angle onto Myers' distorted figures that lined up perfectly with their wounds, Myers is as much as admitting that the single-bullet theory--which he set out to prove some years ago--and which he calls the "single-bullet fact," does not work on undistorted figures.
While I've given Myers a hard time, and have received a substantial amount of abuse in return, I believe Myers' acknowledgment of the failure of his animation to demonstrate the single-bullet theory, was probably worth it. Now we can all stop pretending the alignment of Kennedy and Connally, and thus the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, has been "proven".
Pat Speer, May 08, 2008
Congratulations. I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this area.
Pat,
I have long held that the only "evidence" of the SBT, is the very vestige of hope that at some point the alignment resolved, and the shot could have been made. Of course there was never any proof, and their remains no proof that this alignment ever happened. Of course the opposite is true as well. There is no evidence that it did not occur.
The overwhelming physical evidence is that the SBT is nothing more than foolishness.
So how does one support the SBT?
Well like Specter did. Introduce it to testimony so many times, by way of asking the witnesses to assume a mountain of what he often refers to as "facts". I am not so sure that one can assume, a fact. The mere thought that it is an assumption would not allow it to be a fact, but that does not seem to register with Specter.
I must say old boy, excellent job in drawing Myer out. Perhaps in his next episode he will include something worthwhile, like....oh....Road runner perhaps. At least there is some entertainment value in that cartoon.
BEEP BEEP,
Mike
I have long held that the only "evidence" of the SBT, is the very vestige of hope that at some point the alignment resolved, and the shot could have been made. Of course there was never any proof, and their remains no proof that this alignment ever happened. Of course the opposite is true as well. There is no evidence that it did not occur.
The overwhelming physical evidence is that the SBT is nothing more than foolishness.
So how does one support the SBT?
Well like Specter did. Introduce it to testimony so many times, by way of asking the witnesses to assume a mountain of what he often refers to as "facts". I am not so sure that one can assume, a fact. The mere thought that it is an assumption would not allow it to be a fact, but that does not seem to register with Specter.
I must say old boy, excellent job in drawing Myer out. Perhaps in his next episode he will include something worthwhile, like....oh....Road runner perhaps. At least there is some entertainment value in that cartoon.
BEEP BEEP,
Mike
In a recent post on his website, Dale Myers revealed that he's been following this forum. I thought forum members might want to follow our ongoing argument, particularly as he's decided to drag forum members John Simkin (in this post) and Bill Miller (in a previous post) into the fray.
On May 10, 11:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dale Myers has added the following comments to his original 5/8/08
> article posted on his website:
>
> ==============================
>
> "In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.]
> Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this
> response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the
> animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the
> single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle
> from a computer monitor.”
>
> "Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world
> there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--
> namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation
> being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the
> presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program
> sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the
> presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and
> now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to
> deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.
>
> "The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the
> unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the
> presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the
> alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And
> the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by
> Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to
> the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms,
> the path of the bullet*) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-
> dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.
>
> "It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s
> illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the
> single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on
> embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory,
> such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s
> administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations.
> I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this
> area.”)
>
> [Later....]
>
> "Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I
> produced in which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six
> inches is equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the
> jumpseat moving in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally
> and the jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.
>
> "According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that
> Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he
> created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder
> how many [millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that
> Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a
> Myers invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call
> this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”
>
> "I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated
> six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit.
> Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the
> limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5
> inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced
> by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.
>
> "To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and
> inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in
> front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their
> actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other
> photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a
> single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery
> Channel.
>
> "The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are
> identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in
> unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the
> television time available – especially given the fact that the
> position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single
> bullet theory.
>
> "But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is
> better than acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic
> analysis and logic. It also allows him to play the martyr for his
> fellow conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven
> something." -- DALE K. MYERS; ADD-ON SECTIONS TO HIS MAY 8TH ARTICLE
> LINKED BELOW
>
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/con-j...-debunkers.html
>
> ==============================
>
Here is my response to David Von Pein's post of Myers' comments:
Thanks, David, for providing this response. Myers is a classic weasel. As he now admits, he DELIBERATELY deceived people about the seat position. When originally confronted on this, he LIED and said the mis-perception that the seat was in the wrong location was Peter Jennings' fault. When I demonstrated on my webpage that it was not Jennings' fault, but HIS fault, he back-tracked and said "Oh yeah, we put the seat in the wrong position, but only "for clarity". Now, he says moving Connally and the seat together "was simply easier than moving the two separately given the television time available – especially given the fact that the position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory."
Oh, really? Now let's recall the actual words used in Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet to accompany Myers' movement of the seat. In Beyond Conspiracy, Jennings says "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year later: "Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards (Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image in the slide up above). And turned to his right."
By stating that Connally was "sitting" or was "seated" 6 inches inboard, and then sliding the seat 6 inches inboard, they created what can only be interpreted as a deliberate deception. Now, Myers is trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the position of the seat is irrelevant, and saying, basically, that if people were deceived by his deliberate deception then that's their own problem. Well, I beg to differ. I've spoken to hundreds of people on the Kennedy assassination over the years, and dozens of them have said they were skeptical of the single-bullet theory until they saw Myers' animation, with Kennedy sitting in the MIDDLE of his seat, in a direct line with the bullet. Myers' admitted deception, in other words, has been the single-biggest propaganda tool promoting his position. But he wants us to believe it's inconsequential.
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
Similarly, he now admits that the trajectory super-imposed on his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet is irrelevant. He claims the distortion of his animation from its being filmed at an angle was "self evident"-- an amazingly self-serving proclamation, considering that NONE of his online defenders noticed it until he mentioned it. He says further that lines drawn on three dimensional images are irrelevant--which is a repudiation of Beyond the Magic Bullet's addition of a trajectory line onto his animation as much as my own studies of Myers' work. He fails to explain why he was so SILENT about this when Beyond the Magic Bullet was first broadcast. Myers, after all, and by his own admission, knew they used distorted images. Myers, after all, knew they were projecting a line over his animation. (His own line was noticeably absent). While he criticizes me for "pretending" like I've "proven something" he allowed a TV program broadcast worldwide to use his animation to "pretend" to "prove something." Where is his outrage at their abuse of his work? Oh, that's right. They are on his "team" and are helping him in his goal of saving the world from those darned "conspiracy theorists".
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
On May 10, 11:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dale Myers has added the following comments to his original 5/8/08
> article posted on his website:
>
> ==============================
>
> "In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.]
> Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this
> response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the
> animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the
> single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle
> from a computer monitor.”
>
> "Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world
> there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--
> namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation
> being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the
> presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program
> sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the
> presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and
> now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to
> deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.
>
> "The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the
> unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the
> presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the
> alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And
> the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by
> Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to
> the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms,
> the path of the bullet*) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-
> dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.
>
> "It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s
> illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the
> single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on
> embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory,
> such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s
> administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations.
> I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this
> area.”)
>
> [Later....]
>
> "Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I
> produced in which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six
> inches is equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the
> jumpseat moving in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally
> and the jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.
>
> "According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that
> Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he
> created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder
> how many [millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that
> Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a
> Myers invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call
> this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”
>
> "I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated
> six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit.
> Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the
> limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5
> inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced
> by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.
>
> "To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and
> inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in
> front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their
> actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other
> photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a
> single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery
> Channel.
>
> "The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are
> identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in
> unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the
> television time available – especially given the fact that the
> position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single
> bullet theory.
>
> "But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is
> better than acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic
> analysis and logic. It also allows him to play the martyr for his
> fellow conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven
> something." -- DALE K. MYERS; ADD-ON SECTIONS TO HIS MAY 8TH ARTICLE
> LINKED BELOW
>
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/con-j...-debunkers.html
>
> ==============================
>
Here is my response to David Von Pein's post of Myers' comments:
Thanks, David, for providing this response. Myers is a classic weasel. As he now admits, he DELIBERATELY deceived people about the seat position. When originally confronted on this, he LIED and said the mis-perception that the seat was in the wrong location was Peter Jennings' fault. When I demonstrated on my webpage that it was not Jennings' fault, but HIS fault, he back-tracked and said "Oh yeah, we put the seat in the wrong position, but only "for clarity". Now, he says moving Connally and the seat together "was simply easier than moving the two separately given the television time available – especially given the fact that the position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory."
Oh, really? Now let's recall the actual words used in Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet to accompany Myers' movement of the seat. In Beyond Conspiracy, Jennings says "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year later: "Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards (Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image in the slide up above). And turned to his right."
By stating that Connally was "sitting" or was "seated" 6 inches inboard, and then sliding the seat 6 inches inboard, they created what can only be interpreted as a deliberate deception. Now, Myers is trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the position of the seat is irrelevant, and saying, basically, that if people were deceived by his deliberate deception then that's their own problem. Well, I beg to differ. I've spoken to hundreds of people on the Kennedy assassination over the years, and dozens of them have said they were skeptical of the single-bullet theory until they saw Myers' animation, with Kennedy sitting in the MIDDLE of his seat, in a direct line with the bullet. Myers' admitted deception, in other words, has been the single-biggest propaganda tool promoting his position. But he wants us to believe it's inconsequential.
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
Similarly, he now admits that the trajectory super-imposed on his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet is irrelevant. He claims the distortion of his animation from its being filmed at an angle was "self evident"-- an amazingly self-serving proclamation, considering that NONE of his online defenders noticed it until he mentioned it. He says further that lines drawn on three dimensional images are irrelevant--which is a repudiation of Beyond the Magic Bullet's addition of a trajectory line onto his animation as much as my own studies of Myers' work. He fails to explain why he was so SILENT about this when Beyond the Magic Bullet was first broadcast. Myers, after all, and by his own admission, knew they used distorted images. Myers, after all, knew they were projecting a line over his animation. (His own line was noticeably absent). While he criticizes me for "pretending" like I've "proven something" he allowed a TV program broadcast worldwide to use his animation to "pretend" to "prove something." Where is his outrage at their abuse of his work? Oh, that's right. They are on his "team" and are helping him in his goal of saving the world from those darned "conspiracy theorists".
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
In a recent attack on Jim DiEugenio, Dale Myers boasted that when I got him to admit that his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet was distorted and misleading he was in reality handing me my head. Hmmm...
From Myers' website:
"I was grilled for seven hours by eight world-class producers in New York City prior to the decision by ABC News to use my work in the 2003 Peter Jennings special (now seen in repeats on the History Channel), after which news executives took it a step further and arranged to have Z Axis Corporation, world-renowned specialists in computer generated reconstructs for courtroom presentations, examine my computer models and methodology first hand. Their report is available here for all to see, as Mr. DiEugenio well knows.
What obviously chaffs Mr. DiEugenio’s backside is his own inability to get anyone with authority interested in anything he has to say about the case. Boo-hoo.
What does Mr. DiEugenio offer to counter the vetting of my computer work by highly qualified individuals? Get a load of this:
“… [Myers] simulation has been thoroughly skewered at least four times, once by David Mantik (Probe Vol. 2 No. 3), twice by Milicent Cranor, in The Fourth Decade Vol. 2 No. 4 and here, and by Pat Speer. The amazing thing about these critiques is this: there is very little overlap in the deconstructions. Which means that on every possible angle the Myers simulation was open to very effective attack…”
Effective attack? Come now, Jim, you don’t really expect anyone except the mentally challenged to believe this nonsense, do you?
Dr. Mantik’s so-called critique involved reviewing an article I wrote for a computer magazine without ever having seen the actual computer reconstruction (you can read all about it in my 1999 response republished here); Ms. Cranor’s objections were soundly rebutted on my FAQ page at www.jfkfiles.com; and Mr. Speer was handed his head in my blog article, “Con Job: Debunking the Debunkers.” ‘Nuff said."
From Myers' website:
"I was grilled for seven hours by eight world-class producers in New York City prior to the decision by ABC News to use my work in the 2003 Peter Jennings special (now seen in repeats on the History Channel), after which news executives took it a step further and arranged to have Z Axis Corporation, world-renowned specialists in computer generated reconstructs for courtroom presentations, examine my computer models and methodology first hand. Their report is available here for all to see, as Mr. DiEugenio well knows.
What obviously chaffs Mr. DiEugenio’s backside is his own inability to get anyone with authority interested in anything he has to say about the case. Boo-hoo.
What does Mr. DiEugenio offer to counter the vetting of my computer work by highly qualified individuals? Get a load of this:
“… [Myers] simulation has been thoroughly skewered at least four times, once by David Mantik (Probe Vol. 2 No. 3), twice by Milicent Cranor, in The Fourth Decade Vol. 2 No. 4 and here, and by Pat Speer. The amazing thing about these critiques is this: there is very little overlap in the deconstructions. Which means that on every possible angle the Myers simulation was open to very effective attack…”
Effective attack? Come now, Jim, you don’t really expect anyone except the mentally challenged to believe this nonsense, do you?
Dr. Mantik’s so-called critique involved reviewing an article I wrote for a computer magazine without ever having seen the actual computer reconstruction (you can read all about it in my 1999 response republished here); Ms. Cranor’s objections were soundly rebutted on my FAQ page at www.jfkfiles.com; and Mr. Speer was handed his head in my blog article, “Con Job: Debunking the Debunkers.” ‘Nuff said."
QUOTE(Pat Speer @ May 10 2008, 02:27 PM)
In a recent post on his website, Dale Myers revealed that he's been following this forum. I thought forum members might want to follow our ongoing argument, particularly as he's decided to drag forum members John Simkin (in this post) and Bill Miller (in a previous post) into the fray.
On May 10, 11:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dale Myers has added the following comments to his original 5/8/08
> article posted on his website:
>
> ==============================
>
> "In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.]
> Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this
> response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the
> animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the
> single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle
> from a computer monitor.”
>
> "Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world
> there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--
> namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation
> being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the
> presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program
> sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the
> presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and
> now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to
> deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.
>
> "The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the
> unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the
> presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the
> alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And
> the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by
> Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to
> the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms,
> the path of the bullet*) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-
> dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.
>
> "It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s
> illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the
> single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on
> embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory,
> such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s
> administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations.
> I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this
> area.”)
>
> [Later....]
>
> "Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I
> produced in which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six
> inches is equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the
> jumpseat moving in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally
> and the jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.
>
> "According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that
> Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he
> created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder
> how many [millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that
> Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a
> Myers invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call
> this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”
>
> "I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated
> six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit.
> Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the
> limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5
> inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced
> by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.
>
> "To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and
> inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in
> front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their
> actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other
> photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a
> single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery
> Channel.
>
> "The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are
> identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in
> unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the
> television time available – especially given the fact that the
> position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single
> bullet theory.
>
> "But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is
> better than acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic
> analysis and logic. It also allows him to play the martyr for his
> fellow conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven
> something." -- DALE K. MYERS; ADD-ON SECTIONS TO HIS MAY 8TH ARTICLE
> LINKED BELOW
>
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/con-j...-debunkers.html
>
> ==============================
>
Here is my response to David Von Pein's post of Myers' comments:
Thanks, David, for providing this response. Myers is a classic weasel. As he now admits, he DELIBERATELY deceived people about the seat position. When originally confronted on this, he LIED and said the mis-perception that the seat was in the wrong location was Peter Jennings' fault. When I demonstrated on my webpage that it was not Jennings' fault, but HIS fault, he back-tracked and said "Oh yeah, we put the seat in the wrong position, but only "for clarity". Now, he says moving Connally and the seat together "was simply easier than moving the two separately given the television time available – especially given the fact that the position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory."
Oh, really? Now let's recall the actual words used in Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet to accompany Myers' movement of the seat. In Beyond Conspiracy, Jennings says "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year later: "Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards (Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image in the slide up above). And turned to his right."
By stating that Connally was "sitting" or was "seated" 6 inches inboard, and then sliding the seat 6 inches inboard, they created what can only be interpreted as a deliberate deception. Now, Myers is trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the position of the seat is irrelevant, and saying, basically, that if people were deceived by his deliberate deception then that's their own problem. Well, I beg to differ. I've spoken to hundreds of people on the Kennedy assassination over the years, and dozens of them have said they were skeptical of the single-bullet theory until they saw Myers' animation, with Kennedy sitting in the MIDDLE of his seat, in a direct line with the bullet. Myers' admitted deception, in other words, has been the single-biggest propaganda tool promoting his position. But he wants us to believe it's inconsequential.
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
Similarly, he now admits that the trajectory super-imposed on his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet is irrelevant. He claims the distortion of his animation from its being filmed at an angle was "self evident"-- an amazingly self-serving proclamation, considering that NONE of his online defenders noticed it until he mentioned it. He says further that lines drawn on three dimensional images are irrelevant--which is a repudiation of Beyond the Magic Bullet's addition of a trajectory line onto his animation as much as my own studies of Myers' work. He fails to explain why he was so SILENT about this when Beyond the Magic Bullet was first broadcast. Myers, after all, and by his own admission, knew they used distorted images. Myers, after all, knew they were projecting a line over his animation. (His own line was noticeably absent). While he criticizes me for "pretending" like I've "proven something" he allowed a TV program broadcast worldwide to use his animation to "pretend" to "prove something." Where is his outrage at their abuse of his work? Oh, that's right. They are on his "team" and are helping him in his goal of saving the world from those darned "conspiracy theorists".
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
On May 10, 11:11 am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> Dale Myers has added the following comments to his original 5/8/08
> article posted on his website:
>
> ==============================
>
> "In a recent post on the UK’s Education Forum, Mr. [Patrick J.]
> Speer writes, “No one to my knowledge, including Myers, until this
> response, had ever suggested the images were distorted because the
> animation – the animation shown round the world to convince people the
> single-bullet trajectories worked, mind you – was shot at an angle
> from a computer monitor.”
>
> "Mr. Speer doesn’t seem to understand that in the real world
> there is no need to acknowledge something that is self evident--
> namely, that Discovery Channel viewers were watching a presentation
> being given from a vantage point that was not perpendicular to the
> presentation screen. This is obvious from the Discovery program
> sequences that show a wide-angle view of the studio in which the
> presentation was being given. Mr. Speer failed to note that fact and
> now claims that the Discovery Channel and yours truly conspired to
> deceive everyone about the single bullet theory.
>
> "The so-called distortions Mr. Speer refers to are of course the
> unintended result of the Discovery Channel photographing the
> presentation monitor at an angle and have nothing to do with the
> alignments depicted in the actual images appearing on the monitor. And
> the trajectory path superimposed over the videotaped sequence by
> Discovery editors after the fact has no more relevance or accuracy to
> the images below it (other than to illustrate, in very broad terms,
> the path of the bullet*) than Mr. Speer’s own attempts to project two-
> dimensional lines into three-dimensional space.
>
> "It’s unfathomable to me that anyone could swallow Mr. Speer’s
> illogical rationale for dismissing the breadth of my work on the
> single bullet theory, but in the world of conspiracy theorists bent on
> embracing anyone and anything critical of the single bullet theory,
> such idiocy is common place. (The UK’s Education Forum’s
> administrator, John Simkin, applauded Speer writing, “Congratulations.
> I am sure all members have been very impressed with your work in this
> area.”)
>
> [Later....]
>
> "Mr. Speer further complains that the animated sequence I
> produced in which Connally is shown sitting inboard of Kennedy by six
> inches is equally deceptively because it shows Connally and the
> jumpseat moving in unison. I explained in a recent email that Connally
> and the jumpseat were moved as one for clarity.
>
> "According to Mr. Speer, “This is as good as a confession that
> Myers knew the jumpseat was not 6 inches in from the door when he
> created animation showing it to be 6 inches from the door… I wonder
> how many [millions of viewers] would feel deceived to find out that
> Connally's sitting comfortably in the middle of his seat was merely a
> Myers invention designed to ‘clarify’ things for them? Some might call
> this an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the public.”
>
> "I don’t know how many ways to say it, but Connally was situated
> six inches inboard of Kennedy at the time they were both hit.
> Connally’s jumpseat, however, was fixed to a track in the floor of the
> limousine, the outside edge of the jumpseat cushion measured at 2.5
> inches from the inside door panel, according to body drafts produced
> by Hess & Eisenhardt Company.
>
> "To demonstrate the difference between a rather common (and
> inaccurate) drawing purporting to show Connally seated directly in
> front of Kennedy at the time of the single bullet shot and their
> actual positions as deduced from the Zapruder film and other
> photographs, the models of Connally and the jumpseat were moved as a
> single unit during presentations for ABC News and the Discovery
> Channel.
>
> "The relationship between Connally and the jumpseat are
> identical in both positions. Moving Connally and the jumpseat in
> unison was simply easier than moving the two separately given the
> television time available – especially given the fact that the
> position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single
> bullet theory.
>
> "But for Mr. Speer, focusing on inconsequential minutia is
> better than acknowledging his own obvious mistakes in photographic
> analysis and logic. It also allows him to play the martyr for his
> fellow conspiracy theorists and pretend he has actually proven
> something." -- DALE K. MYERS; ADD-ON SECTIONS TO HIS MAY 8TH ARTICLE
> LINKED BELOW
>
> http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/05/con-j...-debunkers.html
>
> ==============================
>
Here is my response to David Von Pein's post of Myers' comments:
Thanks, David, for providing this response. Myers is a classic weasel. As he now admits, he DELIBERATELY deceived people about the seat position. When originally confronted on this, he LIED and said the mis-perception that the seat was in the wrong location was Peter Jennings' fault. When I demonstrated on my webpage that it was not Jennings' fault, but HIS fault, he back-tracked and said "Oh yeah, we put the seat in the wrong position, but only "for clarity". Now, he says moving Connally and the seat together "was simply easier than moving the two separately given the television time available – especially given the fact that the position of the jumpseat had absolutely no bearing on the single bullet theory."
Oh, really? Now let's recall the actual words used in Beyond Conspiracy and Beyond the Magic Bullet to accompany Myers' movement of the seat. In Beyond Conspiracy, Jennings says "In the Stone film diagrams have Governor Connally sitting directly in front of the President, facing forward at the time of the second shot. Not true. Governor Connally was sitting 6 inches inboard of the President, and turned sharply to his right." (During this pronouncement we see an animated Governor Connally siting in front of an animated President, then slid inboard, and turned to his right.) Now compare this to Myers' exact words from Beyond the Magic Bullet, a year later: "Here's the position that most critics believed they were occupied at the time of the single bullet, with Connally directly in front of Kennedy. But that's not true. Actually, Connally's seated about six inches inboards (Here, he slides Connally over, as depicted on the second image in the slide up above). And turned to his right."
By stating that Connally was "sitting" or was "seated" 6 inches inboard, and then sliding the seat 6 inches inboard, they created what can only be interpreted as a deliberate deception. Now, Myers is trying to weasel out of it by claiming that the position of the seat is irrelevant, and saying, basically, that if people were deceived by his deliberate deception then that's their own problem. Well, I beg to differ. I've spoken to hundreds of people on the Kennedy assassination over the years, and dozens of them have said they were skeptical of the single-bullet theory until they saw Myers' animation, with Kennedy sitting in the MIDDLE of his seat, in a direct line with the bullet. Myers' admitted deception, in other words, has been the single-biggest propaganda tool promoting his position. But he wants us to believe it's inconsequential.
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
Similarly, he now admits that the trajectory super-imposed on his animation in Beyond the Magic Bullet is irrelevant. He claims the distortion of his animation from its being filmed at an angle was "self evident"-- an amazingly self-serving proclamation, considering that NONE of his online defenders noticed it until he mentioned it. He says further that lines drawn on three dimensional images are irrelevant--which is a repudiation of Beyond the Magic Bullet's addition of a trajectory line onto his animation as much as my own studies of Myers' work. He fails to explain why he was so SILENT about this when Beyond the Magic Bullet was first broadcast. Myers, after all, and by his own admission, knew they used distorted images. Myers, after all, knew they were projecting a line over his animation. (His own line was noticeably absent). While he criticizes me for "pretending" like I've "proven something" he allowed a TV program broadcast worldwide to use his animation to "pretend" to "prove something." Where is his outrage at their abuse of his work? Oh, that's right. They are on his "team" and are helping him in his goal of saving the world from those darned "conspiracy theorists".
SIMPLY UNBELIEVABLE.
You can't hammer away at Myers enough, Pat Good job! Now, if Myer's would give up his Lightwave project files so independent researchers could verify his findings, we'd get someplace.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.