Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5,744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pat Speer

  1. I've been doing a lot of work on the so-called "mystery photo" of late, and have lightened up the dark section of the photos, and morphed them together. (Yes, there are two of them.) This has led me to some surprising conclusions. But, first things first. I have long assumed the gash apparent on the gif file below is the 15 by 6 entrance measured at autopsy. (This gash was circled by the late Jack White on the first of the images in the gif.) So, gun experts, hunters, rock throwers, etc, what do you think? Does this look like a bullet entrance along the back of the head, as described by the autopsy doctors? Or merely "congealed blood", as claimed by the only single-assassin theorist to address this issue, Dr. Chad Zimmerman? Or is it something else entirely?
  2. Pat Speer

    More truths that are forever quashed!

    It's a conspiracy myth that Powers changed his statements at the request of the FBI. O'Donnell probably. But Powers no. I compiled quote after quote on this matter on my website. From patspeer.com, chapter 5b. Kenneth O’Donnell, a Kennedy assistant, rode in the back-up car in the middle seat behind the driver. (5-4-64, 6-4-64, 8-6-64, and 11-23-64 interviews with William Manchester, as represented in The Death of a President, 1967) (Manchester's narration for the aftermath of the shooting) "In the jumps seats, Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers have heard the sickening impact of the fatal bullet, and Dave has seen it. O'Donnell crosses himself. Powers whispers 'Jesus, Mary, and Joseph...'" (5-4-64, 6-4-64, 8-6-64, and 11-23-64 interviews with William Manchester, regarding the possibility Kennedy was killed by Texas oilmen, as represented in The Death of Lancer, the original draft of The Death of a President, as quoted in an article by Edward Jay Epstein in the July 1967 issue of Commentary Magazine) "They did it. I always knew they'd do it. You couldn't expect anything else from them. They finally made it." (5-18-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 7H440-457) “We turned—I remember the overpass. And then the shots occurred--which, at that time, I did not know were shots. My first impression was it was a firecracker. And then either somebody said “He has been hit,” or I noticed the slump—he had been waving out the right side of the car and I noticed him slump over toward Mrs. Kennedy, and I realized then that they had been shots. But as fast as that realization occurred, I saw the third shot hit.” (When asked how close the back-up car was to the limousine) “My guess would be 5 to 8 feet…I would presume they were just about turning to step up the speed a little bit, because there would be no crowds from there. (When asked if the Secret Service car had completed its turn onto Elm Street) “My recollection is they had, just about. I don’t recollect a separation of this nature. It was a slight sloping turn, as I remember, and I thought we were right together.” (When asked what Kennedy was doing with his hands prior to the time of the shooting) “He was waving. We had just left the mass of crowds. But as we turned on the grass plot, there were four or five people there, and I believe he waved to them.” (When asked how many shots he heard) “Three” (When asked the time span of the shots) “I would say 5-6 seconds.” (When asked if the shots came in a pattern) “Yes. The first 2 came almost simultaneously, came one right after the other. There was a slight hesitation, then the third one.” (Asked his reaction) “My reaction is in part a reconstruction and is that they came from the right rear. That would be my best judgment.” (When asked how others reacted) “The agents all turned to the rear…I would think watching the President when the shot—the first shots hit—that it would be automatic it would have to have come from the rear. (When asked again about the agents’ reactions) “The reaction I note would be right rear. And again, looking at the manner of the President’s movement I would think you would have to feel the thrust of the shot was from the right rear…He was leaning out waving. He may have just been withdrawing his hand. And the shot hit him, and threw him to the left. He slumped on Mrs. Kennedy. (When asked which shot this was) “It was not the third shot. Whether it was the first or second, I would not know…If I had to pick one of the two, I think it might have been the second shot.” (A 1968 conversation with Congressman Tip O'Neill, as recounted in O’Neill’s autobiography Man of the House, 1987) “I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. 'That's not what you told the Warren Commission,' I said. 'You're right,' he replied. “I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family…The family--everybody wanted this thing behind them.” (Johnny We Hardly Knew Ye, co-written with Dave Powers, published 1972) "I had just finished speaking when we heard shots, two close together and then a third one. There must have been an interval of at least five seconds before the third and last shot because, after the second shot, Dave said to me, "Kenny, I think the President's been shot." I made a quick sign of the cross and said "What makes you think that?" "Look at him!" Dave said. "He was over on the right, with his arm stretched out. Now he's slumped over toward Jackie, holding his throat." While we both stared at the President, the third shot took the side of his head off. We saw pieces of bone and brain tissue and bits of his reddish hair flying through the air...I said to Dave, "He's dead." (6-15-75 article in the Chicago Tribune. This article reported that a source within the CIA had told the Church Committee that Kennedy aides Kenneth O'Donnell and David Powers had been pressured by the FBI into leaving their suspicions that shots came from the front out of their statements. It also quoted O'Donnell's response to this allegation.) "The story is an absolute lie," O'Donnell declared in a phone interview. "I'm not accusing the reporter, but whoever gave that story is lying. It's an absolute, outright lie." (Later in the article) "I spent four hours before the commission and my testimony is quite clear," O'Donnell said in the phone interview. "I told them exactly what I saw. I was in charge of the whole operation so I know what happened. I arranged the whole trip..."I testified under oath and I stand by it." O'Donnell recalled he told the Warren Commission he heard two shots, the first of which he initially thought was a firecracker. Both came from behind, he said. And Powers, O'Donnell said, recalled hearing three shots, all from the same direction. He denied that either he or Powers ever had suspicions that the shots came from anywhere but the depository. Further, O'Donnell asserted he was never pressured or asked to change or omit anything from his testimony, either by the FBI or CIA. "I met with them every day (while working for President Johnson on the investigation)" O'Donnell said. "Not one of them ever even raised the question.They worked for me. I didn't work for them." (Interview with O'Donnell's son, Kenneth O'Donnell, Jr. by David Talbot, as reported in Brothers, published 2007) (On the source of the shots heard by his father) "He said there was fire from two different directions." (Quoting his father on his father's impressions of the Warren Commission) "I'll tell you this right now, they didn't want to know"...(It was) "the most pointless investigation I've ever seen." Analysis: from his jumping to the third shot in his testimony, it seems likely that O’Donnell decided that the “firecracker” he heard was in fact two separate shots. His subsequent statements that the first two shots rang out "simultaneously" and "one after another," and that there was a space of five seconds before the head shot, confirm this suspicion. That the quickness of these first two shots troubled O'Donnell, furthermore, is suggested by his subsequent recollection that he'd only testified to hearing two shots.His testimony that he thought Kennedy may have been hit by the second shot--a shot fired only a split second after the first shot, mind you--is therefore of little help to the LPM scenario. It is, in fact, an argument against it. More concretely, O'Donnell's recollection that Kennedy was waving to a small group of people at the time he was hit, and that this happened near a "grass plot," suggests the first shot was heard around frame 190. Since Powers later confirmed O'Neill's recollection about O'Donnell's impression of the source of the shots, moreover, we should suspect O'Donnell's denial of this to the Chicago Tribune in 1975 was, in fact, a lie. His misrepresentation of Powers' impression of the shots--that they all came from behind, when Powers from the earliest claimed he'd had an impression the final shot came from the front--suggests, unfortunately, that he was not above such behavior. First shot hit 190. First two shots may have been bunched. David Powers, another Kennedy assistant, rode in the middle seat to the right of O’Donnell. (4-8-64, 8-10-64, 10-21-64, 3-17-65, and 5-24-65 interviews with William Manchester, as reported in the TV documentary "The Kennedy Assassination: 24 Hours After," 2009) "I am looking at the Presidential car. His hand was waving and now he put his hands slowly to his throat and slumps towards Jackie. And I say to Kenny 'I think the President's been hit.' Kenny and I not only saw the next one we heard it. We just saw that handsome head get blown off. We heard the shot and we heard the impact of the shot. It was the most sickening thing--like a grapefruit being thrown against a brick wall...At Parkland, I ran up to the Presidential car. His eyes were open. I opened the door and said 'Oh, my God, Mr. President!' I almost expected him to say 'I'm alright' because he never complained. A fragment of the bullet had come out of his forehead. I still get an ache in my head like a toothache where he was hit. I suppose it's just nerves." (4-8-64, 8-10-64, 10-21-64, 3-17-65, and 5-24-65 interviews with William Manchester, as represented in The Death of a President, 1967) (On his response to the first shot) "Powers, in Halfback's right-hand jump seat, shouted at O'Donnell, 'I think the President's been hit!'" (Manchester's narration for the aftermath of the shooting) "In the jumps seats, Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers have heard the sickening impact of the fatal bullet, and Dave has seen it. O'Donnell crosses himself. Powers whispers 'Jesus, Mary, and Joseph...'" (On whether or not Rufus Youngblood actually climbed into the back seat of LBJ's car, or simply turned around, as purported by Senator Ralph Yarborough) "Dave Powers, who glanced back, confirms the Senator." (5-18-64 affidavit, 7H472-474): “the first shot went off and it sounded to me as if it were a firecracker. I noticed then that the President moved quite far to his left after the shot from the extreme right hand side where he had been sitting. There was a second shot and Governor Connally disappeared from sight and then there was a third shot which took off the top of the President’s head and had the sickening sound of a grapefruit splattering against a wall…My first impression was that the shots came from the right and overhead, but I also had a fleeting impression that the noise appeared to come from the front in the area of the triple overpass.” (A 1968 conversation between Ken O'Donnell and Tip O’Neill recounted in O'Neill's memoir Man of the House, 1987) “I was surprised to hear O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence. 'That's not what you told the Warren Commission,' I said. 'You're right,' he replied. 'I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn't have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn't want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family…The family--everybody wanted this thing behind them.' Dave Powers was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s. Kenny O'Donnell is no longer alive, but during the writing of this book I checked with Dave Powers. As they say in the news business, he stands by his story.” (5-13-76 interview on WGBH TV, as quoted in L.A. Free Press Special Report Number 1: JFK Murder Solved, published 1976) "If the bullet that wounded the President was not the same bullet that wounded John Connally, and I testified that it wasn't, and John Connally testified that it wasn't, then there would have had to be more than one assassin." (11-19-78 UPI article found in the Reading Eagle) "'I was in the Secret Service car,' said Powers, 'Me and Kenny O'Donnell. When I saw the first bullet hit him as he was waving, I turned to Kenny and said 'My God, they've shot our president.' Kenny blessed himself. Then I saw the second bullet hit the back of his head...' and the voice trails off into silence. Then, very softly, Powers adds, 'Every day I think about it. Every day I get a pain in the back of my head where I saw the president get hit.'" (A 1980 conversation with Gary Mack, as recounted in a series of emails from Mack to John McAdams, posted online by John McAdams, 4-9-03) "Powers told me he and O'Donnell both thought one of the shots might have come from the front. When they told the FBI, the agents didn't take them seriously. Dave was quite insistent on that." (In a follow-up email posted by McAdams at the same time, Mack clarified) "Powers may have told me one or two of the shots might have come from the front--my note to you was not taken from any notes I took at the time. This was a long conversation we had by phone around 1980. Powers told me they didn't know that shots came from the front, just that they thought one or two might have. He never said or hinted they were intimidated to change their story or to keep quiet. But they were disappointed that no one they told the story to seemed very interested in what they thought." (11-20-83 article by Thomas Farragher on Powers found in the New London, Connecticut Day) "The time the first shot was fired, I was 7 yards away from the President. I'm looking at the President. The Secret Service are trained to look elsewhere. And he had been waving to the people on the right side. His hand was way over. And I saw him bring his hand in and then fall toward Jackie. Now a bullet travels faster than the speed of sound. So I saw this happening and then I heard that noise at the same time that I would have thought was a firecracker. But I didn't see the President react that way and I turned to Ken O'Donell (another JFK aide). He's in the jump seat beside me. And I said 'Ken, our President has been shot.' And I remember Kenny made the sign of the cross. I believe that the second shot hit John Connally, and then while we're riding, we're praying. 'You see it's happening behind the agent driving the car--Bill Greer. Great guy. Loved the President. And we're doing about 12 mph but it's happening behind him and he's not aware of it. It seemed to me it was about five seconds from the shot that wounded the President and the one that killed him.'" (5-30-87 AP article featuring an interview with Powers found in The Evening News) "On November 22, 1963, Powers was in the car directly behind Kennedy's when he heard two shots ring out in succession and saw the President slump down. Then, a few moments later, a third shot ripped open the President's head." (8-31-87 AP article by Christopher Callahan on Tip O'Neill's just published claims about O'Donnell and Powers, found in the New London, Connecticut paper The Day) "Powers, in a telephone interview last week, said O'Neill's version is incorrect. Powers, curator of the JFK Library in Boston, said he did not want to address O'Neill's points directly. 'It's too painful to talk about,' said Powers." (Interview in 1988 TV documentary JFK: The Day The Nation Cried) "Coming down from that short flight from Fort Worth to Dallas, I'm talking to the President and Jackie in the back of the plane and I said 'Mr. President, you wave to the Texans on the right, and Jackie'll wave to the ones on the left.' And this is exactly what's happening when the first shot was fired... I had heard the noise. I'm looking at the President at the same time, and he had pulled his hand up toward his throat and he fell over toward Jackie. There's a second shot, and now Governor Connally is out of sight. The first two sort of came close together, but now we're riding and praying. And now we see the shot that hit the President in the head." (Interview with Charles Kuralt broadcast on CBS, November 1988) (When asked if President Kennedy would still be alive if Bill Greer put the limo's pedal to the floor after the first two shots) "Yes, the President would be alive today, and he would be 71 years old, and he'd be a director here" (meaning the JFK Library). (6-5-91 interview with Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, as recounted in Ultimate Sacrifice, 2005) "We were shocked when Dave Powers, head of the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston and a close aide to JFK, vividly described seeing the shots from the 'grassy knoll.' Powers said he and fellow JFK aide Kenneth O'Donnell clearly saw the shots, since they were in the limo right behind JFK. Powers said they felt they were 'riding into an ambush'-- explaining for the first time why the driver of JFK's limo slowed after the first shot. Powers also described how he was pressured to change his story for the Warren Commission." (11-7-91 article in the L.A. Times) "I heard the first shot, positively above and behind me," says Powers, who was riding behind Kennedy's car. 'I'm looking at the President like I always did, and I saw him bring his hand in and kind of fall toward Jackie. I said 'Our President's been shot!' and now I see that terrible thing that hit the President on the head, and you never talk about it,' he says, his voice tightening. 'And now the car begins to accelerate.'" (Interview broadcast in CBS program Who Killed JFK: the Final Chapter?, 11-19-93) "I looked at my watch and it was exactly 12:30 Texas time... And then I heard the first shot... I'm looking right at the President and he had his right hand out waving to the people, and now he had pulled it in and it's up around his neck, and he had fallen toward Jackie. And I said "I think our President's been shot." Analysis: as the leftward shift of the President noted by Powers as a response to the first shot occurred just after frame 190, it is clear he felt the first shot occurred at this time and that it struck Kennedy. His appraisal of the second shot is far less clear. While he indicated this shot came shortly after the first, he also claimed the gap between the first and third shots was but five seconds and that he'd talked to O'Donnell just after the first shot. O'Donnell, as we've seen, heard no shots between Powers' comments on the first "firecracker" sound, and the head shot. This suggests that Powers was talking to O'Donnell when he thinks the second shot was fired, and that he didn't actually hear this shot. His statements to Manchester certainly suggest as much, for there he described but two bursts of gunfire. Powers' associating the second shot with Connally's disappearing from sight, which did not occur till just before the head shot, moreover, suggests that he wasn't sure when he heard a third shot, and only tried to make sense of it later. Since Powers associated the second shot with an occurrence just before the head shot, moreover, he may also have heard the last two shots bunched together, and then moved the second shot closer to the first so he could correlate his recollections with O'Donnell's. Although O'Donnell clearly lied about his own impression of the shots, that Powers' original statement suggests there may have been a shot from the front, suggests that neither of them were actually pressured to change their impression. It seems likely then that O'Donnell changed his story on his own, for reasons all his own. That Powers told Waldron he'd been pressured into changing his story as well, however--when his story doesn't appear to have actually been changed--outside his addition of a shot that hit Connally--is indeed a bit curious. Perhaps he'd said they were uninterested in what he had to say, and Waldron had misinterpreted or misrepresented his words. Or perhaps Powers was simply exaggerating. First shot hit 190-224. Possibly heard but two shots. Last two shots possibly bunched together.
  3. 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.
  4. Pat Speer

    Where is the exit?

    I'm fairly certain that's not a 12 inch ruler.
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.)
  15. 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.
  16. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Close, but no cigar. Now, let's get back to the SBT, shall we?
  17. 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?
  18. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Yes, Cliff, we know. You pride yourself on finding one fact you like and insisting that that fact is the only fact that matters and that anyone who looks beyond that fact is a traitor to the cause. I'm just not that full of myself. I accept the possibility I could be wrong about a fact or two or three... But when I look at EVERY aspect of the single-bullet theory...the clothing...the back wound location... the supposed internal trajectory...the ballistics tests performed by Olivier...the small size of the throat wound...the condition of CE 399...the supposed re-enactments by the WC on down to Dale Myers...and find the evidence for the SBT to be lacking at every turn, well, then I KNOW I'm onto something. The SBT is a hoax. And that's a Fact. So the difference between you and me is a big one--you look for ONE thing...and then latch onto it like a pit bull...and I try to look at everything...and see how it adds up.
  19. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Oh, please, David. IF the other evidence pointed towards the SBT, the external trajectory might not be a deal-killer. Not for me, at least. But you add it to the list of other problems, i.e. 1) the doctors being unable to find a bullet path heading inward from the back wound, 2) the trajectory of a bullet connecting the back wound to the throat wound's heading straight through the transverse process of the spine (when the nose of the bullet was undamaged), 3) the damage to the neck's being far less than one would expect from the passage of a high-velocity bullet, 4) the throat wound's being smaller than the back wound even though the top bullet wound expert on the HSCA FPP claimed a shored wound of exit is always larger than the entrance of the bullet on the other side of the body, etc, etc, until you finally arrive at the fact 1000) the supposedly high-velocity bullet lost very little velocity in Kennedy's neck, Connally's chest, and Connally's wrist and yet somehow failed to pierce Connally's thigh... and then 1001) ended up on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher... it's 100% CLEAR, and both a scientific and historical fact, that CE 399 did not transit Kennedy's neck and go on to cause all the wounds on Connally. It truly is 2 plus 2 equals 4 kind of stuff...once you do your homework...(which you clearly have never done...beyond reading Bugliosi, and watching Myers' videos...) I mean, c'mon....none of it adds up, David. Well, when nothing adds up, it's time to re-think things. And, no, you don't get to insist the earth is flat because you can't conceive it's being round. That's YOUR problem.
  20. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Oh boy. As shown in my last post, the WC took photographs of the sniper's view at Z-222 and Z-225. In both images the back wound overlay a location low on Connally's back. As Jim D has written, moreover, Beyond the Magic Bullet proved just this--that the back wound lined up with a location low on Connally's back. So why is it, then, that you assume Myers, working at home, and presenting no corroborating photos taken from the sniper's nest, got it right years later? Because...? He told you his work was precise and exact? And you believed him?
  21. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    There's also this, David. The re-enactment you cling to as proof of the SBT actually proves JFK's throat wound and Connally's back wound did not line up. Period. It wasn't off by one degree or whatever you think. No, it wasn't even close. I mean, just look at the photos from the sniper's nest across the top of the slide below. Does the location of the back wound on the Kennedy stand-in line-up with the Connally stand-in's armpit? Not even close. It lines up with his lower back. And yeah, i know you'd like us to believe this came as a result of their using the back-up car. Nope. Mr. KELLEY: (when questioned by Arlen Specter as to the alinement of seats within the car used in the re-enactment in comparison to the alignment of the seats within the President’s limousine) “relatively, when two persons are seated in this car, one in the rear seat and one in the jump seat, they are in the same alinement as they were in the President's car.” Mr. KELLEY. (when asked by Arlen Specter if any adjustments were made when determining the vertical alinement of the Kennedy and Connally stand-ins) “When Mr. Anderton was placed in the follow-up car, it was found that the top of his head was 62 inches from the ground. There was an adjustment made so that there would be---the stand-in for Governor Connally would be in relatively the same position, taking into consideration the 3-inch difference in the jump seat and the 2-inch difference in his height.”
  22. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    All your musing about "the 6 inch inboard" stuff is just sad, David. Why invent the possibility Kelley measured from a different location than is shown on the schematics (yes, even the schematic used by the WC) when it's far more likely he was just BSing. I mean, under Specter's prodding, he claimed the chalk mark used in the re-enactment came from the Rydberg drawings. You know that's a crock, right? You just can't seem to get this OBVIOUS fact, David. All of the WC's evidence, CE 903, the testimony of Kelley and Shaneyfelt, was designed to support that the Rydberg drawings were accurate...when Specter, by the time of this testimony, knew for a fact they were not. It was all a con, David. Now, you can choose to believe that Specter was wrong, and that the SBT works just fine with the bullet hole on the back where the HSCA said it was, but you cannot do that while propping up Specter's re-enactment as proving your point--when even he felt it did not. Now, before you get all excited about the HSCA's single-bullet theory, you should consider as well that the FPP only signed off on the SBT under the belief it occurred when Kennedy bent over while was behind the sign in the z-film, and that the committee did not do this. So...no, they didn't actually sign off on it. (This reminds me a bit of Howard Brennan's ID of Oswald--he said he thought it was Oswald but felt even more certain the shooter was not wearing the shirt the commission claimed Oswald was wearing during the shooting...so therefore no ID.) As far as the photos...My best recollection is that I got the clear close-up from the sixth floor site, and the color version from a post by John Hunt.
  23. Pat Speer

    McAdams gets Salvaged

    The tribal nature of the courts is once again revealed. This is one of the worst rulings in recent history. Those supposedly enamored with freedom should rally in support of a university's right to fire an employee who cyberbullies a student, but they instead rallied around the bully, simply because he was "one of them". That line about McAdams not knowing Abbate would be harassed as a result of his actions is a lie akin to "separate but equal". Of course, McAdams knew she would be harassed. He made sure of it. He'd done it before, and knew full well that, if he kept writing and complaining about her, someone would take the next step he was too gutless to take. I mean, c'mon. This ruling makes it sound like McAdams wrote one blog entry, and it had unfortunate consequences, when the fact is he picked out a victim and set out to harm her, and kept writing about the issue until she was harmed. He then made out that he was the victim. Repulsive.
  24. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Greetings, Francois. I see you're still holding onto your myths. I have read--plenty--of stuff from the "critical thinking" community, and most of what you get when it comes to the Kennedy assassination is critical thinking in critical condition. The basic argument is this. 1. Experts are usually right. 2. The "experts" to study the Kennedy assassination mostly buy into the single-bullet-theory. 3. Most of those who disagree with them are laymen. 4. Many of these laymen believe in a wacky theory or two. THEREFORE, the experts are almost certainly correct. And that's as far as it goes. I have discussed the single-bullet theory or attempted to discuss the single-bullet theory with two members of the Warren Commission's staff, Robert Blakey, and the editor of Skeptic Magazine. All have hidden behind the same towel---that some experts said it was probable--and I'm no expert, so I must therefore be wrong...but that they would never take the time to find out if I was wrong, because, y'know, I must be wrong....and besides....there's a lot of "minutiae" in which one might get lost, and that's the problem...people like me...who actually take the time to study this stuff...must be hopelessly lost...yeah, that's it. You're lost, buddy, and I know this because...I refuse to look!" The cognitive dissonance is deafening...ear-shattering, even. The old canard repeated by DVP and yourself that CT's must come up with something you like better before you'll even acknowledge the drool on the chin of your KING is an embarrassment to genuine "critical thinking." And that's not even to say that the one genuine expert on "critical thinking" to study this case is...Jim Fetzer. Case closed?
  25. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Funny you should mention that. That illustration proves Bugliosi's incompetence. He went around the country claiming CT's were dishonest because they failed to acknowledge the jump seat was 6 inches inboard from the door, while at the same time the illustration in his book showed that the jump seat was not 6 inches inboard from the door. He also presented a timeline which pushed that the SBT occurred at Z-224, while writing elsewhere in the book that it occurred as early as z-210. And that's not even to get into the fact he presented expert testimony in the mock trial claiming the SBT shot occurred at Z-190. In short, he didn't have a clue what he was talking about, but, not unlike our president, thought that if he was mean enough and nasty enough no one would notice. He was almost right.
×