Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content count

    5,743
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About Pat Speer

  • Rank
    Moderator

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

56,039 profile views
  1. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    If it's her, there's a problem. When interviewed by the sixth floor museum, Calloway told a quite different story. I'm sorry I missed you at Lancer. You've shared a lot of material with others over the years. And it's much appreciated.
  2. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    I'm fairly certain that's not a 12 inch ruler.
  3. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    Thanks for proving my point, Sandy. Aguilar's list is grossly misleading. Dr. Jenkins, Dr. Carrico and Dr. Perry would come to claim they'd been mistaken about seeing cerebellar tissue. While Dr. Clark never admitted he was mistaken, he befriended single-assassin theorists such as Lattimer, and complained to the press about conspiracy theorists. This makes it hard to believe he felt sure there was a huge blowout on the back of the head. This brings us to McClelland, whose initial statement claimed the wound was "of the left temple." It's not a mistake that Gary skipped over this statement. Gary was compiling statements at odds with the official story, yes, but he gave the mistaken impression these statements were consistent and suggested a wound low on the back of the head. When asked to point out the location of this wound, however, very few of the witnesses pointed to a wound low on the back of the head. It didn't add up. This led me to take a closer look, and eventually write the chapters on my webpage which blew up this myth (the myth of a blow-out wound low on the back of the headl.
  4. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    Hey, Denis. Was intern Sharon Thuoy the same person as x-ray intern Sharon Calloway, who gave an interview to the Sixth Floor Museum?
  5. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    Some thoughts on some of the recent comments. 1. The vast majority of Parkland witnesses did not place the large head wound at the base of the back of the head. I went to great lengths to disprove this myth in chapters 18c and 18d of my website. I was then attacked by one well-known researcher who claimed I was knocking down a strawman. Sadly, this strawman still lives. 2. The list of back of the head witnesses cited by Sandy deliberately excluded a number of witnesses to the shooting itself--who uniformly placed the wound at the right top of the head by the temple, where it is depicted in the autopsy photos and x-rays. Aguilar's argument was that he wanted to focus on what medical professionals said, and to exclude laymen. This reflects his confirmation bias. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the 15 to 50 year old memories of witnesses who saw Kennedy for a second in the hospital, who have been repeatedly told the wound was on the back of the head, would be anywhere near as accurate as the post-shooting comments of the Newmans and Zapruder. 3. Scientific studies have shown that emergency room doctors routinely make mistakes while recollecting fatal cases. That's why autopsies are performed. Studies also show that the memories of experts are no more reliable than those of laymen, and that, in fact, experts are more prone to certain kinds of memory error (in which they latch onto an incorrect memory due to its feeling familiar) than laymen (who lack the experience to know what feels familiar). 4. A fist sized hole low on the back of the head would by necessity have scrambled the cerebellum and brain stem...the parts of the brain that tell your heart to pump and lungs to breath. This is a scientific fact. Either Kennedy was DOA or there was no huge hole at the base of his skull. One or the other. You can't have both. 5. A number of the most prominent Parkland witnesses--e.g. Carrico, Perry, Baxter, Jenkins--spent the last 20 years of their lives claiming they were mistaken in their suggestions the back of the head was missing. So, no, people who insist we trust the Parkland witnesses really don't want us to trust them at all, but to assume instead that the most prominent among them were cowards. 6. Carrico and Perry made but cursory examinations of the head wound. Kennedy was barely breathing. Per standard emergency room procedure, they were focused on establishing an airway and keeping the heart beating. It was only after 15 minutes or so that Clark came in and took a look at the head wound. He said it was hopeless and that was the end of it. The idea that doctor after doctor or nurse after nurse came over and held the head up and took a look inside the skull to see how much brain was missing etc. is ludicrous.
  6. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    This witness' recollections are quite obviously incorrect on a number of points, e.g. Perry did the trach, not Carrico, the throat wound was not 2 inches to the side--2 inches to the side would be the side of the neck, not the middle of the throat. Her description of the head wound is also a gross exaggeration. Kennedy was breathing. A person with a hole the size of two fists on the back of his head is not breathing, folks. Two fists would be the vast majority of the brain cavity. Even worse, she said the wound was at the base of the back of his head. While it's true one can live a short time with a big hole at the top of the head, one can't live more than a few seconds with a big old hole at the base of the back of the head. In short then, she's probably telling the truth as she recalled it 15 years after the fact, but her recollections are not very helpful beyond, perhaps, her claim of seeing a bullet on a stretcher (that was not Connally's) prior to its discovery by Tomlinson.
  7. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    Yep. The Clark Panel thought, or pretended to think, the back wound was inches above the throat wound, and admitted that an entrance from a lower location (where it was later proved to have been) would almost surely have been intercepted by bone. So... David. Who do you believe? The Clark Panel---a secret four-member panel convened to dismiss conspiracy theories that published no drawings or images in support of their claim the back wound was well above the throat wound--or the HSCA FPP--a nine-member panel which published tracings and drawings to demonstrate that--yikes--the back wound was at or even below the level of the throat wound?
  8. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    C'mon, David. You embarrass yourself when you try to claim the SBT is the only possible conclusion fitting the facts. The reality is that virtually every fact related to the SBT suggests its basically BIgfoot...a scarcely believed myth for whom the "evidence" is largely missing and/or discredited. Let's refresh. The SBT entails a high-velocity bullet entering JFK's back, exiting his throat, and then entering Connally's armpit, exiting his chest, blasting through his wrist, and then embedding itself in his thigh, only to fall out in near pristine condition. But there's a mountain of problems with this. 1. The holes on Kennedy's clothing and the underlying back wound were too low to support that a bullet fired from above exited his throat. Some think we should end this discussion right here. They may very well be right. 2. The autopsy doctors couldn't find a passage from the back to the throat. Okay, that's conclusive. This should be the end of discussion right here. I've read hundreds of autopsy protocols over the years, David, and haven't seen one where the doctors probed a supposedly high-velocity wound track only to have it end in muscle, but then decided the bullet somehow found its way through anyhow. I mean, c'mon, do you really think it's a coincidence that the clothing holes are so low AND that the doctors couldn't find a passage through the neck? I mean, what are the odds? Call up Vince and ask him, will ya? 3. The trajectory from the back wound to the throat wound passes right through bone. This is a huge problem, as the nose of the bullet was undamaged, and a high-velocity bullet would not curve around JFK's spine. 4. The Parkland doctors and the autopsy doctors both noted very little damage to the vessels of the neck, a near-impossibility if a high-velocity bullet had blasted its way through the neck and exited from the center of the throat. 5. The throat wound was far too small to represent the exit of a high-velocity bullet. While some have tried to claim JFK's tie held the skin in place, and that the throat wound was a "shored" wound of exit, articles on shored wounds of exit note that while smaller than expected they are nevertheless larger than the corresponding entrance. Oops. JFK's throat wound was reported to have been smaller than his throat wound. 6. The Warren Commission's wound ballistics expert, Olivier, was unable to get his tests regarding a Mannlicher bullet's expected loss of velocity while creating Kennedy's and Connally's wounds to match up with what supposedly happened, i.e. the bullet's exiting Connally's wrist at a low velocity and barely damaging his thigh. 7. The Connallys felt certain JFK was hit several seconds before Connally was hit. 8. The entrance wound in Connally's armpit was not suggestive of a tumbling bullet.
  9. Pat Speer

    Texas Innocence Project - Oswald Petition

    Any detailed protestation of Oswald's innocence that fails to mention "Oh yeah, they ran a test to see if he'd fired a rifle which suggested he hadn't fired a rifle, and then sought to hide the results of this test from the public" is near worthless, IMO. The Oswald-did-it crowd repeats like a mantra that there is not one scintilla of evidence for Oswald's innocence. The cheek test proves this mantra to be a lie. It should be, at the very least, a stepping stone to further discussion. Let's clear this up as well. Announcing something in a press conference is not leaking. This isn't meant as a defense of Curry and Wade--who hid from the public that the cheek test was negative--but they told the press the hand tests suggested Oswald had fired a gun, and did not indicate he'd fired a rifle,. As a consequence, they should not be held accountable for the subsequently repeated canard that the hand tests indicated he'd fired a rifle. There's also this. Greg's citing Barnes as an expert misses something--something huge. Barnes performed the cheek test at the request of his boss. From patspeer.com, chapter 4f: Casts of Contention. On 4-22, Lt. J.C. Day of the Dallas PD testifies before the Commission. His testimony is taken by David Belin, and is supportive of detective Barnes' testimony of a few weeks prior. Day states: “Under my direction they made paraffin casts of the hand of Lee Harvey Oswald in Captain Fritz' office…I directed them to make it, and also paraffin casts or just of a piece of paraffin on the left side of the face to see if there were any nitrates there…(correcting himself) Right side…The test on the face was negative…It was just something that was done to actually keep from someone saying later on, 'Why didn't you do it?' Actually, in my experience there, shooting a rifle with a telescopic sight there would be no chance for nitrates to get way back or on the side of the face from a rifle...A rifle such as that one we are talking about here from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, in my opinion, would not throw nitrates back to where a man's face was when he is looking through a telescopic sight…I would expect more with a revolver with an open cylinder than I would from a rifle. Actually, for most practical purposes, I would not be surprised if there would be no nitrates from a man firing a rifle.” Here, once again, the Commission relies upon the personal feeling of a witness in place of actual tests. How hard would it have been to have twenty men fire the rifle three times, wait a few hours, and then see how many tested positive for nitrates on their cheek?
  10. Pat Speer

    Texas Innocence Project - Oswald Petition

    "Junk science in the form of paraffin tests were done - not only on his hands, but in an unprecedented move, also on his right cheek. This was done for no other reason that to scare a confession. When that did not work, it was leaked to the press that the test was positive - leaving the impression it proved he had fired a rifle and a pistol. The tests are infamous for giving false positives and for not being able to distinguish if the residue is from a gun or from common sources such as urine, matches, pharmaceuticals and fertilizers. It is not possible to get residue on your cheek from firing a rifle. The Dallas police knew that when they did the test. This was all exacerbated by the fact that they did not photograph the hand casts showing the dots signifying areas of residue as per proptocol. Instead, they did a sketch showing the alleged pattern," The section of the petition cited above is largely inaccurate. 1. The cheek test was done so the DPD could say they performed every test they should have performed, not so they could scare a confession. The test was negative. So they decided not to say anything about it. 2. The test results were not leaked to the press. Curry and Wade announced to the press that the hand tests were positive, and that this proved only that Oswald had fired a gun, not a rifle. Members of the press at first reported this correctly, but within a few hours some news agencies started saying both hands being positive indicated he'd fired a rifle. This wasn't remotely true. It's unclear where this came from but it wasn't from Curry or Wade. 3. It is not only possible to get residue on your cheek from firing a rifle, it is the expected result for most rifles. The paraffin cast for Oswald's cheek was subsequently tested for gsr via neutron activation analysis. This test is still considered valid, and has not been dismissed as junk science. And yet, even though Dr. Vincent Guinn ran a series of controls showing that gsr should have been apparent should Oswald have fired the rifle, this test came up negative as well. The FBI and WC thereby decided to hide this from the public. They got no help from Guinn, though, as he made a public speech in which he discussed his work for the commission. This led, then, to the WC's calling the FBI agent who supervised the tests of Oswald's rifle, John Gallagher, to "testify" as its last witness, reading from a script to Norman Redlich. He did not detail the test results for the cheek cast, beyond that the FBI considered them inconclusive, seeing as there was more barium on the back side of the cast than on the front side. What he did not say was that this actually suggested that someone had tried to tamper with the cheek cast, and that the results for the other component of gsr, antimony, were lower than the FBI would have expected, based upon their controls. IOW, that the test was negative for gsr. This information is of the utmost importance, IMO, and should be of interest to the Innocence Project.
  11. Pat Speer

    I agree with Trump

    OMG. I have to agree with Cliff. Trump's behavior towards Russia has been a disaster. Trump didn't have to meet with Putin at all. The U.S. at this point is ten times as powerful as Russia. And yet, Trump travels half-way round the world to stand by Putin in the middle of a bi-partisan investigation of Putin's purported attack on our democracy, and then denounces this investigation. No president has ever done anything like this. It's fruit loops. Trump COULD have visited Putin, and said he's awaiting judgement after the investigation has been completed. But no, he repeatedly said "All I can do is ask him if he did those bad things, mommie, and if he says no well I guess we gotta believe him" which makes the U.S. look ridiculous...and idiotic. What an embarrassment! I mean, it couldn't have been any worse if he'd peed his pants. I know some people think the media's bias against Putin comes from his being a communist, or socialist, and that it's hip and cool to side with communists and socialists. But I don't see it that way at all. The days of Russian communism and socialism are long gone. It's clear to me Putin is little more than a corrupt and murderous thug ruling over a kleptocracy, and that Trump would love to follow in his footsteps.
  12. Pat Speer

    A question to David Lifton

    I have a timeline on the statements and articles regarding the medical evidence in chapters 1 and 1b of patspeer.com. Those with an interest should check it out. DVP is correct in that some of the Dallas doctors indicated that ONE bullet pierced Kennedy's throat and exited the back of his head, and that the next day the Boston Globe matched this to the fact they'd been told the shots came from behind Kennedy, and reversed the trajectory--claiming instead that the ONE bullet striking Kennedy entered the back of his head and exited his throat. And Francois Carlier is telling the truth in that over the years the Dallas doctors were repeatedly asked about Lifton's body-alteration theory, and that they largely rejected it. Where Francois is mistaken, however, is in his assertion nobody ran to the knoll looking for the shooter. While he is correct in that nobody chased someone they thought to be a shooter, there were a lot of witnesses who followed police to the train yards, in hopes of witnessing the capture of a shooter, or perhaps even assisting the police in the capture. This may be hard for some to believe, but it is not uncommon for an unarmed American to expose himself to serious danger as a reaction to a perceived injustice. I am not a particularly brave man, IMO, but even I have jumped in front of a trio of rednecks preparing to beat up on some stupid punk rock teens, and have raced down an aisle at a baseball game to help pull a couple of drunk idiots off an usher. It's wrong. Someone has to do something. So safety be damned. As a consequence, I feel quite certain that I'd have been one of those rushing the knoll on 11-22-63 (provided, of course, that I was alone or with some friends--if I'd been with a child it would be a different story.)
  13. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    LOL. I'd originally written a more detailed response in which I noted that every discussion of the single-bullet theory follows a similar pattern. Someone tries to defend it, a bunch of us start to show them their mistake, and then you jump in and turn the thread into first) a personal attack on me, and second) a discussion of your pet theories. And here you go, proving me right. It's pretty creepy, dude.
  14. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Close, but no cigar. Now, let's get back to the SBT, shall we?
  15. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Sorry, Cliff. You have embraced a few facts, while I have performed a detailed analysis of most every aspect of the SBT. There are a dozen reasons to reject the SBT. You, for some strange reason, think we should all focus on but one. You then attack everyone who disagrees with you on whether we should focus on this one point, even when they agree with your point---that the clothing entrances are too low to support the SBT.. My position, as you know, is that having the bullet entrance at T-1, where the HSCA placed it, is yet another nail in the coffin of the SBT. This fact is borne out, moreover, by the fact every so-called expert claiming the SBT works, from Specter to Lattimer to Canning to Myers, etc. moves the back wound above T-1 when depicting the SBT. You, however, choose to believe the bullet entered at T-3. Fine. Feel free to believe that. But you keep claiming LN depictions of the SBT use an entrance at T-1, when they do not, as I have proved over and over and over again. So, from my perspective, you are the vichy. I mean, think about it, if every CT said fine the autopsy photos are legit and the back wound was at T-1, and then defied the likes of Myers to create a depiction of the single-bullet theory using the T--1 entrance, they would be forced to make such an attempt, and fail. But no, you keep the focus on the clothes, which they keep claiming moved, and you keep claiming the autopsy photos are fake...which allows them to cite a bunch of experts in defense... And this allows them to escape. Here are two SBT-killers, one embraced by you, and the other ignored by you. Why ignore a slam dunk?
×