Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer

Moderators
  • Content count

    5,733
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Pat Speer

  1. 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.
  2. 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.)
  3. 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.
  4. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Close, but no cigar. Now, let's get back to the SBT, shall we?
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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?
  9. 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.”
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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?
  13. 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.
  14. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    It does seems strange, David, that you insist CT's prove what actually happened, but applaud LN's when they push a series of conflicting images and theories about what actually happened. I mean, how can the SBT be obviously correct if those within its thrall can't even agree on what it is with any precision?
  15. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    DVP, I just looked at the page you've linked to in an effort to embarrass James. it is clear from that page that is you who should be embarrassed. You use Bud's comments from another site to insult the members of this site, and make the oft-repeated but nevertheless long-discredited argument CT's just need to believe the SBT is false because they need to believe Oswald was a patsy. (This avoids that a high percentage of the CT's not active on the internet believe Oswald was a shooter. and that their doubts about the SBT have nothing to do with any supposed affection for Oswald.) In any event, it is clear from this thread (and your link) that it is the SBT-pushers who can't let go of their core beliefs, and become abusive when pushed into a corner. Your quoting of the abuse of the members of this forum by others does not hide that you are pushing their position, and that it is you providing the abuse. And this at the same time you push such mind-bogglingly wrong positions such as CE 903 proving the viability of the SBT, when it does not, and other photos taken at that same re-enactment prove it to have been a deliberate deception. And that, in any event, CE 903 and the re-enactment itself, was purported to have proved the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings, which even you acknowledge to have been inaccurate. (I suppose you didn't think I'd notice that you ran for the river like Rapunzel with her hair on fire.) After Thomas Kelley showed Specter a photo of the back wound, which proved the wound to be on the back, inches below the base of the neck, Specter had Kelley testify that the chalk mark used in the re-enactment was based on the Rydberg drawings (which showed the wound to be at the base of the neck), and then corrected Kelley when he said the wound was on the back. Specter then had Shaneyfelt testify that CE 903 supported this as well, and put into the Warren Report that this further supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. And this even though he had photos (which were then hidden in the archives) proving the the trajectory rod passed inches above the chalk mark. Now, if a CT had behaved like this, you would quote your hero Bugliosi all day long about what a terrible person he was,. But since this was Specter, the creator of your beloved SBT, a myth central to your core values, you can't even bring yourself to look at the facts. From Chapter 10 at patspeer.com: Specter Fails The Lie Detector When one reads Specter's post-Warren Commission comments on its investigation, unfortunately, his slipperiness becomes readily apparent. Let's start with an article on Specter by Gaeton Fonzi published in the August 1966 edition of Greater Philadelphia Magazine. Here, Specter aggressively defended his work for the Warren Commission. Fonzi maintained throughout the article, however, that many of the questions regarding Kennedy's autopsy could have been cleared up if Specter had viewed the autopsy photographs. When asked about this, and why he hadn't been more aggressive about viewing the photographs, for that matter, Specter is reported to have "appeared visibly disturbed" and to have stammered for awhile before responding "The commission decided not to press for the x-rays and photographs." According to Fonzi, Specter then became apologetic, and said "Have I dodged your question?...Yes' Ive dodged your question." He then gave a more detailed response: "The Commission considered whether the x-rays and photographs should be put into the record and should be examined by the Commission's staff and the Commission reached the conclusion that it was not necessary..." Specter had thereby concealed that he had in fact been shown a photo of Kennedy's back wound by a member of the Secret Service, and that he'd opted not to report this to the commission. His silence served another purpose as well. At another point in the article, after discussing Warren Commission Exhibit 385, a Rydberg drawing depicting the path of the bullet through Kennedy's neck, in which the bullet enters at the base of Kennedy's neck, Fonzi asked Specter to explain why so many witnesses, including the FBI agents present at the autopsy, claimed this wound was in the shoulder. He then wrote "Specter says it's possible that the whole thing is just a matter of semantics. 'It's a question of whether you call this point shoulder, base of neck, or back. I would say it sure isn't the shoulder, though I can see how somebody might call it the shoulder.'" Now, admittedly, it's not crystal clear that when Specter said "this point" he was pointing to the entrance location depicted in CE 385, but the implication seems clear. If this is so, moreover, it seems equally clear that Specter was blowing smoke, trying to convince Fonzi that the confusion over the wound's location could be purely semantics, when he knew for certain--from sneaking a peek at an autopsy photo--that the wound depicted at the base of the neck on CE 385 was really inches below on the shoulder. In late 2012, after the passing of both Fonzi and Specter, Fonzi's wife made the tapes of their interviews available to the public via the Mary Ferrell Foundation website. These tapes confirm Specter's dishonesty. In three separate interviews--in over two hours of discussion--Specter never once admits that he'd been shown a photo of Kennedy's back wound, or even that the wound was on Kennedy's back. When interviewed on 6-28-66, he told Fonzi "The bullet entered the back of the neck between two strap muscles." This, as we've seen, was baloney. But he goes further, embarking on the discussion of semantics Fonzi mentioned in his article, and then proceeding to describe it as a neck wound whenever possible, at least five times by my count. Specter's deceptiveness, in fact, hits rock bottom in the second of these interviews. On 6-29-66, when discussing the single-bullet theory, the holes on the President's clothes, and the strange fact that Governor Connally's clothes were cleaned and pressed before being made available to the Commission, Specter asserted "The real question on the holes are the direction." He then injected "We didn't see the President; we didn't see the pictures." Fonzi hadn't asked the question, but Specter was volunteering that "we" didn't see the autopsy photos of the President, perhaps to conceal that "he" had, in fact, seen the one picture needed to determine the location of the President's back wound. And that's not the most revealing of Specter's deceptions. Perhaps inadvertently, Fonzi's tapes offer real insight into Specter's mindset--not only that he was lying, but why he was lying. In his 6-29-66 interview with Fonzi, when discussing Edward Epstein's book Inquest, in which Epstein suggested the Warren Commission investigation had been a whitewash performed in the name of the national interest, the politician in Specter came out, and he played to the grandstands. He told Fonzi: "It was not my function to decide the national interest. It was not Lyndon Johnson's function to decide the national interest. The national interest is decided in a democratic society by the free flow of facts into the truth. And any time any individual sets himself up to decide what is justice or what is the national interest, he's kidding himself. I'm not about to follow anybody's orders on that. They want to run their Commission. tell a bunch of lies, let them go ahead and run their Commission. They can't ask me to work for them." Specter, to his mind, was independent, and beyond the corrupting influence of Washington. Now compare that to what Specter told Fonzi in their final interview on 7-8-66. When discussing the Commission's decision not to inspect the autopsy photographs, Specter at first said "As assistant counsel for the Commission, I do not think that it is appropriate for me to make a public statement disagreeing with the conclusion of the Commission on this question." Then, when asked if he'd thought of resigning when the autopsy photos and x-rays were withheld, he responded: "The decision of the Commission that the photographs and x-rays were not necessary in order for the Commission to arrive at a conclusion was not an egregious abuse of their discretion in light of the fact that they had substantial evidence on this question from eyewitness reports, from the highly qualified autopsy surgeons who had personally observed the President's body, a detailed report of the characteristics of the wounds, and there were important countervailing considerations which led the Commission to its conclusion that the films were not necessary in the light of the question of taste and the stature of the young American president whose memory will be regarded in the light of a smiling, handsome, erect, president, as opposed to a mutilated corpse with half his head shot off." Specter was pretending, of course, that everything the Commission looked at would automatically become available to the public, which he knew to be untrue. But he continued from there, and ultimately revealed more of himself than he possibly could have intended. He insisted "The President of the United States didn't want Arlen Specter to conduct the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, the President of the United States appointed the Commission to do that job..." So there it was--what in retrospect reads like a confession that he'd chickened out--that he'd had the opportunity to make a difference but was overwhelmed by the feeling he'd be out of line in doing so. He then continued "...and if the Commission had done anything improper or made any effort to suppress material evidence or to mislead the American public in any way, that is the area where any honest public servant would be called upon to search his conscience for his resignation, not on discretionary questions as to whether the Commission ought to have additional evidence on the same point." Well, my God. Feel free to read that again. Specter suggested that it would have been wrong for him to help the Commission if he felt it was making a deliberate effort to mislead the public, but that it wasn't his place to raise a ruckus if the Commission was simply ignoring important evidence, as long as it was ADDITIONAL evidence, that they were free to ignore at their discretion. In other words, he was thinking like a junior partner, unwilling to argue with a senior partner. He knew the autopsy photo showed a bullet wound on Kennedy's back, not neck, but thought this photo but one piece of evidence, which the Commission would feel free to ignore. Fate looked him in the face and he blinked. He'd lawyered his way out of doing the right thing. That Specter was worried about Fonzi's article and had chosen to deceive him is further supported, moreover, by a far-friendlier article about the Warren Commission and the medical evidence published a few weeks later, by Joseph Daughen in the 8-28-66 Philadelphia Bulletin. Here, almost as an aside, Daughen asserted "in Dallas, a staff member who had expressed concern over the absence of the evidence was shown by a Secret Service agent a photograph purportedly representing the upper back of the President." Hmmm... Specter was interviewed for this article. Clearly, then, he had told Daughen of his viewing the photo in Dallas. Well, why hadn't he told this to Fonzi, when the commission's failure to view the photos was central to Fonzi's article? Well, the thought occurs that that's it, right there. The viewing of the photos was central to Fonzi's article. If then-District Attorney Specter had told Fonzi he'd seen the photo then Fonzi would have insisted he describe what he saw. And Specter, presumably, was hoping to avoid that. (Notice how the compliant Daughen not only fails to name Specter as the staff member who'd viewed the photo of Kennedy's upper back, but fails to describe where the wound was in this photo.) In any event, in the 10-10-66 edition of U.S. News & World Report, Specter finally admitted he'd been shown one of Kennedy's autopsy photos. He didn't exactly come clean, however. Nope, true to form, he side-stepped the fact the photo shown him by Kelley didn’t match the Rydberg drawings by claiming “It showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report” but that it had not been "technically authenticated." Well, of course it showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report. The autopsy report described a wound on Kennedy's back, and not at the base of his neck, where Specter had taken to pretending it had been. In the article, Specter then moaned that, should this wound have been on Kennedy's back below the level of his throat wound, as proposed by conspiracy theorist Edward J. Epstein, it would mean "the autopsy surgeons were perjurers, because the autopsy surgeons placed their hands on the Bible and swore to the truth of an official report where they had measured to a minute extent the precise location of the hole on the back of the President's neck, as measured from other specific points on the body of the President." Well, once again, the Specter shift was in place. He defended the integrity of the doctors by claiming they'd be perjurers if the autopsy report was in error, when he almost certainly knew the problem was not with the autopsy report, but with the schematic drawings of Kennedy he--Arlen Specter--had asked them to create. To reiterate, the measurements taken by the "autopsy surgeons" suggested the wound to have been on Kennedy's back, at or below the level of the throat wound, and not on the "back of the President's neck," where both Specter and the "surgeons" had taken to saying it had been. The autopsy report, moreover, said nothing about the relative locations of the back wound and throat wound. So why was Specter suggesting otherwise? Was he playing a sneaky lawyer trick, and leading his readers to assume something he knew to be untrue? I'd bet the farm on it. He then insisted that "The photographs would, however, corroborate that which the autopsy surgeons testified to." Well, notice the language... If he meant to say that the autopsy photo he'd been shown depicted a wound at the base of Kennedy's neck, in the location suggested by the Rydberg drawings, then why didn't he just say so? And why, instead, did he claim that the autopsy surgeons testified to the accuracy of their measurements, and that the photographs corroborated these measurements? Was he trying to avoid saying that the Rydberg drawings were accurate--because he knew full well they were not? Specter also discussed the strap muscles in this interview. He claimed that at the beginning of the autopsy the doctors found that "a finger could probe between two large strap muscles and penetrate to a very slight extent" a "hole at the base of the back of the neck." He then pushed what clearly wasn't true--that he got this information from somewhere other than his own fertile imagination. He related that the Warren Commission testimony of the "autopsy surgeons" had established "the path of the bullet through the President's neck, showing that it entered between two large strap muscles..." His statements in the 11-25-66 issue of Life Magazine were equally curious. He said "Given the trajectory from the Book Depository window, the autopsy, about which I have no doubts, and the FBI report on the limousine; where, if it didn't hit Connally, did that bullet go?" Yes, you read that right. Specter claimed he had no doubts about the autopsy. Well, maybe he didn't. But his version of the autopsy--the one where the doctors found a path between two muscles on the back of Kennedy's neck--was not the real autopsy. I'm being facetious, of course, which sounds a lot like the substance Specter was spreading. The autopsy photo he'd been shown--the one on the slide above--depicted a wound in Kennedy's upper back, at or below the level of his throat wound. The "trajectory from the Book Depository window," therefore, necessitated that either 1) Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when hit, or 2) the bullet creating this wound had curled upwards upon entry. The "autopsy" about which Specter had no doubts, however, had ruled out that the bullet had struck anything upon entry. The films of the assassination studied by Specter, furthermore, proved Kennedy wasn't leaning sharply forward when hit. So what was there to have doubts about? What, Specter, worry? Let's recall here that in his 4-30-64 memo to J. Lee Rankin, Specter urged that the Rydberg drawings be compared to the autopsy photos, and specified: "2. THE COMMISSION SHOULD DETERMINE WITH CERTAINTY WHETHER THE SHOTS CAME FROM ABOVE. It is essential for the Commission to know precisely the location of the bullet wound on the President's back so that the angle may be calculated. The artist's drawing prepared at Bethesda (Commission Exhibit #385) shows a slight angle of declination. It is hard, if not impossible, to explain such a slight angle of decline unless the President was farther down Elm Street than we have heretofore believed. Before coming to any conclusion on this, the angles will have to be calculated at the scene; and for this, the exact point of entry should be known." Now let's do a quick replay. On 4-30-64, Specter admitted that he'd thought the trajectory in Rydberg drawing CE 385 too shallow to support the shooting scenario he'd proposed. Well, this is the same as his saying he thought the neck wound too low to support Kennedy and Connally being hit by the same bullet at the time he'd assumed they'd been hit. On 5-24-64, however, he was shown a photo of Kennedy's back, in which the wound was revealed to have been approximately two inches lower on Kennedy's back than in Rydberg drawing CE 385. This meant it was far too low to support the shooting scenario he'd proposed. So how did Specter respond to this challenge? Did he change his scenario? Nope. On 6-4-64 he took testimony from FBI agent Lyndal Shaneyfelt in which Shaneyfelt purported that the trajectory from the sniper's nest approximated the trajectory through Kennedy's neck in CE 385--the drawing which Specter now knew to be inaccurate. Specter then pushed this nonsense in the Warren Report. He then defended his work by telling Life Magazine he had no doubts about the autopsy, and that the trajectory from the sniper's nest--the trajectory he'd thought incompatible with CE 385, and would have to have thought thoroughly incompatible with the photo he'd been shown--contributed to his faith in his scenario. Well, hello! Do I have to spell it out? Specter was L-Y-I-N-G! An 11-26-66 UPI article (found in the Milwaukee Journal) was also given the Specter touch. Taking note of Dr. Boswell's recent claim the photos could dispel the controversy over the President's wounds, the article reported that "Specter said he had not seen the autopsy pictures" but that he had nevertheless conceded "If it keeps up, you may get a look at them." Note that Specter said he had not seen the "pictures" (plural), and that this allowed him to avoid admitting that he'd seen one "picture" (singular). Specter did discuss his viewing the photo of Kennedy's back soon thereafter, however. In the January 14, 1967 issue of the Saturday Evening Post, he is quoted as claiming “It showed the back of a body with a bullet hole, apparently of entry, where the autopsy report said it was.” Well, there it is again. Notice the language... Notice how Specter once again steers clear of saying that he'd looked at a photo of the President's back, and that this photo showed a wound on the back of the president's neck, and confirmed the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. On 12-4-68, while debating author Josiah Thompson at the University of Pennsylvania, moreover, he repeated his tall-tale about the strap muscles. According to a transcript of this conference found in the Weisberg Archives, he told the students in attendance that the autopsy surgeons "testified that there was a path through the President's neck where the bullet passed between two large strap muscles, bruised the top of the pleural cavity, bruised the top of the right lung, sliced his trachea, and exited from the front of the throat." After describing the wounds, he then detailed that "We then sought to determine what would have been the velocity of a bullet entering the President's neck and exiting the President's neck." Well, my God. It entered the president's "neck," not back. This, clearly, was Specter's story, and he was sticking to it. And stick to it he did. On 12-8-77, when testifying before the HSCA in executive session, Specter made at least seven separate references to a wound on the back of Kennedy's neck. Here they are: "That conclusion was reached because of the evidence which showed that the bullet entered the back of the President's neck" HSCA vol.7 p.89 (When asked if he remains convinced CE 399 went through President Kennedy and Governor Connally "Yes, I am, the President's neck and the Governor." HSCA vol.7 p.90 "I don't think the single bullet theory, that is to say I do not think that they were struck by separate bullets with respect to the President's neck wounds and the wounds on Governor Connally, but I think they could have been struck by separate bullets, all fired by Oswald." HSCA vol.7 p.91 (On the autopsy doctors) "Their early speculation was that the bullet penetrated the back of President Kennedy's neck." HSCA vol.7 p.95 (This was, of course, not true.) "They proceeded with the autopsy examination and found the path through the President's neck." HSCA vol.7 p. 96 (Yikes!) "I was satisfied that the bullet which entered the back of the President's neck went all the way through and exited in front of his neck."HSCA vol.7 p.96 "I do know that the FBI report said that the first bullet hit the President's neck..." HSCA vol.7 p.99 (This, of course, was also nonsense. The FBI report said the wound was in the shoulder.) In any event, Specter never once described this wound as being on Kennedy's back. This was remarkable, moreover, seeing as the HSCA had added two of Specter's old Warren Commission memos into his testimony...which made five separate references to this wound...as a wound on Kennedy's back. Yes, it's true. Specter had routinely described this wound as a back wound prior to his being shown a photo confirming it to have been a back wound, and then claimed forevermore it was a neck wound, even to people who knew full well it was a back wound. Well, that's about as red as a red flag can get. That Specter wasn't exactly telling the truth, the whole truth, as he'd solemnly sworn to do, moreover, is confirmed by something left out of his testimony. When asked about one of the Warren Commission memos introduced during his testimony, in which he'd asserted "The Commission should determine with certainty" that "there are no major variations between the films and the artist's drawings", he explained that he'd believed "it was highly desirable for the X-rays and photographs to be viewed" at that time, in order "to corroborate the testimony of the autopsy surgeons." He then added "I was overruled on the request..." Incredibly, he never admitted being shown the photo of Kennedy's back. Nor was he ever asked about it... Apparently, Kenneth Klein, who'd conducted Specter's testimony, had failed to do his homework. Or maybe there was more to it. Klein, born in Specter's home town of Philadelphia, had been hired to work for the HSCA by its original Chief Counsel, Richard Sprague, who'd worked for Specter in the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office. Many years later, for that matter, Klein went to work for Jenner and Block, the Chicago law firm of Specter's colleague on the Warren Commission, Albert Jenner. And that's not the only curious tie between Specter and the committee. Specter's son, Shanin, just so happened to be Pennsylvania Congressman Robert Edgar's assistant on the committee. Edgar, while a liberal Democrat, was the Congressman from Pennsylvania's Seventh District, on the outskirts of Philadelphia, where the moderate Republican Specter had recently served as District Attorney, and was preparing a run for Governor. Edgar would proceed to author a dissent from the committee's report, in which he claimed its conclusion of a probable conspiracy was unjustified, and credited Specter's son Shanin and Warren Commission counsel David Belin for their assistance. Specter and Edgar traveled in the same circles and almost certainly knew each other. Or maybe all this means nothing. In 1986, Edgar left congress to run against Specter for U.S. Senator. (On November 8, 2013, Shanin Specter published an article on The Daily Beast website. While discussing his own relationship to his father's infamous single-bullet theory he admitted that Congressman Edgar had asked his father for help with the house select committee, and that Specter had volunteered his son--Shanin, the writer of the article--instead.) In any event, if Klein and Edgar had been on a mission to protect Specter's reputation, they were not entirely successful...because something seriously shocking happened the next year-- something that should have marked the end of Specter's political career... On 9-7-78, Dr. Michael Baden, the spokesman for the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, testified that from studying the autopsy photos the panel had concluded Kennedy's torso wound to have been--cut to the sound of Specter saying "oh crap"--not only not on Kennedy's neck, where Specter had long claimed it to have been, but on his back below the level of his throat wound. Congressman Edgar was present for this testimony. His assistant, Specter's son, Shanin, may also have been present. The questions asked Baden by--you guessed it, Kenneth Klein--had been prepared in advance. This suggests, then, that Klein knew well in advance that Baden was gonna undercut the foundation for Specter's single-bullet theory, and that Edgar--and almost certainly his assistant, Specter's son, Shanin--knew this as well. Let's recall here that Specter had once suggested that if this wound were below Kennedy's throat wound, well, then the autopsy surgeons were guilty of perjury. So...does Specter call a press conference after Baden's testimony, and demand Humes, Boswell, and Finck be indicted for perjury? No, of course not. And does Klein call Specter to the stand and ask him to explain why, for nearly 15 years, he'd been claiming the wound on Kennedy's back was a wound on the back of his neck? No, of course not. And that's not even the worst of it. If Specter had at this time come forward and said "Wow, that wound really was on Kennedy's back; I apologize for any confusion caused by my earlier descriptions of the wound," he might have escaped with a smidgen of credibility. But instead he doubled down. Yep, in an unbelievably suspicious move, not only did Specter fail to specify in his subsequent statements and articles that the doctors had been mistaken about the back wound location depicted on the Rydberg drawings--or apologize for his own misleading statements about this wound's location--but he continued--up till his death--to make claims about its location that are demonstrably false... He continued to claim even that the bullet creating this wound entered between two strap muscles on the back of Kennedy's neck.
  16. Bernard wrote me a week or so ago, and said he was adding pdfs from my website to his. I didn't know how to respond. I just responded, saying that since my website is still active, and constantly being updated and revised, I'd prefer for him to post links to my website, as long as it was active. And now I see this thread. If someone had a similar objection, they should have asked that he post links to their material. As a result, I suspect the shut-down is related to someone's being worried about their material being available at all. I'm wondering who this is--someone who turned their website into a book, perhaps? Or someone whose perspectives and claims have drastically changed over the years? Perhaps Jim Hargrove can better explain.
  17. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Nice one, David. Use the photos taken from behind with the stand-in leaning forward while trying to lift the chalk mark to the level of the rod...and failing...instead of the photo with Kennedy's stand-in sitting with his back on the seat.
  18. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    You've run into a corner, David. Here's Specter with Thomas Kelley. Mr. SPECTER. What marking, if any, was placed on the back of President Kennedy--the stand-in for President Kennedy? Mr. KELLEY. There was a chalk mark placed on his coat, in this area here. (Edit) That represented the entry point of the shot which wounded the President. Mr. SPECTER. And how was the location for that mark fixed or determined? Mr. KELLEY. That was fixed from the photographs of a medical drawing that was made by the physicians and the people at Parkland and an examination of the coat which the President was wearing at the time. Mr. SPECTER. As to the drawing, was that not the drawing made by the autopsy surgeons from Bethesda Naval Hospital? Mr. KELLEY. Bethesda Naval. ((Edit) Mr. SPECTER. Permit me to show you Commission Exhibit No. 386, which has heretofore been marked and introduced into evidence, and I ask you if that is the drawing that you were shown as the basis for the marking of the wound on the back of the President's neck. Mr. KELLEY. Yes. (Edit) Mr. KELLEY. From the evidence that has been shown previously, the wound in the throat was lower on the President's body than the wound in the shoulder, and---- Mr. SPECTER. By the wound in the shoulder do you mean the wound in the back of the President's neck, the base of his neck? Note that Specter wants the record to show that the chalk mark was placed in accordance with the Rydberg drawings. Note that he introduces no photo of this chalk mark. Note also that he corrects Kelley, and makes sure the record reflects that the wound was on the neck, not the back. And this in spite of the fact Specter had previously described this wound as a back wound, and had recently been shown, by Kelley, a photo proving it was indeed a back wound. And here's Specter with Shaneyfelt. Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the photographer was? Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph… It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964. Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be positioned? (Note that this string represents the trajectory of a bullet fired from the sniper’s nest into Kennedy’s back at frame 225 of the Zapruder film) Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass? Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally. Since Specter was pushing that the chalk mark marking the entrance location was made in accordance with the Rydberg drawings, he was thereby pushing that CE 903 supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. And here's Specter in the Warren Report. (On the angle of a bullet from the sniper’s nest used in the re-enactment) “The angle…was approximately the angle of declination reproduced in an artist’s drawing. That drawing, made from data provided by the autopsy surgeons, could not reproduce the exact line of the bullet, since the exit wound was obliterated by the tracheotomy.” The Warren Report, 1964, page 107, FN refers to CE 385, the Rydberg drawing of the SBT. So... did the angle in CE 903 "approximate" the entrance wound suggested by the autopsy photo (as you seem to believe) or the Rydberg drawings, which Specter, Kelley, and Shaneyfelt conspired to push on the public? Most every medical professional (outside that cuckoo bird, Lattimer) agreed that the back wound location in the Rydberg drawings, most importantly, CE 385, was two inches or more higher on the back than the bullet wound shown in the back wound photos. Since you have denounced the Rydberg drawings, it appears you agree. But you can't turn around and state CE 903 is the shizz-nit, when it was purported to have supported the accuracy of the Rydberg drawings. Not unless you are willing to admit Specter, Kelley and Shaneyfelt conspired to deceive the public...for no real reason...as the photo they said supported the Rydberg drawings really supported the autopsy photos...in which case you would be stating that the Warren Report was in error in that CE 903 fails to support the Rydberg drawings, because the back wound location suggested by CE 903 is at least two inches too low. The trajectory rod in CE 903 passes inches higher than the entry wound location used in the re-enactment. Those working on the re-enactment knew it, and sought to conceal this from the public. Period. If you believe they were wrong to do so, then say so, but please please please stop pretending that it's self-evident that the accuracy of CE 903 is supported by the autopsy photos, when the creator of CE 903 (Specter) CLEARLY believed it was not, and did everything he could to conceal this from the public.
  19. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Yep. And many of them were included in my 2014 presentation on the single-bullet theory, which I. presented at the 50th anniversary of the Warren Report conference in Bethesda. While the conference schedule was a mess, and my presentation was thinly attended, I did have one surprise attendee, Warren Commission counsel turned judge Burt Griffin, who quickly left the room when I presented the goods on Specter. (We later exchanged a few emails in which he kinda sorta explained his behavior. He said that no matter what I put up on the screen, he just couldn't believe that Specter would lie about anything of substance. Strangely enough, this echoes Howard Willens, who told me pretty much the same thing the year before. They just refuse to believe the WC investigation was tainted by the actions of the WC or its staff...NO MATTER what the facts show...)
  20. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    David and Jean, as we know, would like it if we pretended it was just a coincidence the back wound was moved up to the base of the neck for the Rydberg drawings, and that this helped sell the single-assassin conclusion. But here's the facts they don't want you to know. 1. One of the tasks assigned Joseph Ball in Area 2 of the commission's investigation was to answer the following question: "What about the trajectory of the bullet in the angle of striking---point of exit appears higher than point of entry." This is an obvious reference to the face sheet's depiction of the wounds. It was thereby Joe Ball's job to fix or explain this problem. 2. Ball's boss Rankin told the commissioner's he'd be seeking help from the doctors on this issue. 3. Ball (from Area 2, whose job it was to establish Oswald as the assassin) accompanied Specter (from Area 1, whose job it was to establish the basic facts of the case, including the locations of the wounds) when Specter first visited Bethesda Hospital (that is, when they told the doctors they wouldn't be allowed access to the autopsy photos during their upcoming testimony, and that they needed to create drawings instead). 4. Skip Rydberg, the man tasked with creating these drawings, confirmed that the autopsy doctors failed to provide the location measurements to him when he created these drawings, and that he was instead instructed to show a bullet heading downward from the base of the neck to the bottom of the throat (a trajectory at odds with both the autopsy photos and measurements). He was then given a special letter of thanks for "depicting the situation required." 5. Ball would later claim he worked with Specter as part of a team which established Oswald as the assassin (this is interesting in that Specter's job was to establish the facts regarding a sniper, and that Ball and Belin were supposed to be working independently to determine the identity of this sniper.) 6. In any event, the drawings put into evidence by Specter grossly misrepresented the bullet trajectory needed to connect the back wound and throat wound. (Well, I'll be! It was exactly what Ball needed!) 7. Specter, to his credit, didn't trust that this would hold, and instead pushed for Warren to let Dr. Humes view the autopsy photos and double-check the location of back wound in the photos against the location in the drawings. At this time he still called the wound a back wound. 8. His request was refused, however. No, he was, instead, shown a copy of the back wound photo by Secret Service agent Thomas Kelley, so that he--Specter--could double-check the location. Now, let's be clear. This photo proved the drawings to be inaccurate, and that the SBT trajectory pushed in the drawings was a fraud. 9. And yet Specter failed to act on this info. 10. Nope, instead of tattle-telling that the SBT drawing presumably drawn at Ball's request was at odds with the evidence, and essentially a fraud, Specter decided to double-down on this deception. 11. To wit, after seeing the photo of the wound on the back, he began claiming the wound was on the back of the neck, and submitted a chapter for the report in which he called this wound a wound to the neck or wound at the base of the neck dozens of times. He then stuck by this deception till his dying days. 12. He failed to tell his superiors on the commission he saw the photo, and didn't admit it publicly for years afterwards. 13. When taking Kelley's testimony about the May 24 re-construction, he "corrected" Kelly when Kelley said the wound was on the back, and made him say it was on the back of the neck. 14. While a number of re-enactment photos were taken from behind and showed just how far Specter's proposed trajectory passed from the bullet hole on the back of JFK's jacket, none of these photos were entered into evidence by Specter. 15. Now look at what he did instead.... When taking Lyndal Shaneyfelt's testimony about the re-enactment, Specter had Shaneyfelt testify that the trajectory of the bullet in the re-enactment approximated the trajectory through the body in the drawings created by Rydberg. Now even DVP acknowledges these drawings are inaccurate and that this isn't true. So, WHY, is it then that we're supposed to give Specter the benefit of the doubt on all this? It should be obvious to anyone that he knowingly misrepresented Kennedy's wounds and suborned perjury. If we know anything about the case, it is this. And yet, here I am, still arguing this stuff with DVP. Still, maybe we can creep an inch forward. Do you care to address the points listed above one by one, David? Do they not reflect badly on Specter? And why is it, anyway, that neither you nor Jean nor Vince nor any supporter of the single-assassin conclusion outside perhaps Robert Wagner, is willing to admit the blatantly obvious fact that Specter and others lied about much of the evidence? You could still have Oswald as your major bad guy....So why do you have to have ALL the policeman and investigators as saints who have been terribly maligned by these awful conspiracy people? It's this tribal attitude that freaks me out. it's like this country was invaded by some body snatchers back in the 60's, and we've reached the tipping point whereby roughly half the country now calls a pod "mom".
  21. Pat Speer

    Need single bullet theory diagram

    Please, David, Specter was the worst kind of fibber. I track his comments in chapter 10 at patspeer.com and demonstrate his dishonesty a hundred times over. HE changed the description of the back wound from a wound on the back to a wound on the back of the neck AFTER studying a photo you know shows the wound to be on the back. And then fibbed his face off for forty years hoping no one would notice. Since I know you can't bear to read anything that goes into detail, here's an excerpt... When Specter discussed his being shown the autopsy photo before the 1964 re-enactment in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth, for example, he described it as “a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck, just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot.” Oh, my! Base of the neck? This once again steered clear of the fact that a tracing of this photo had been released by the government in 1979. This steered clear, moreover, of the incredibly inconvenient fact that this tracing PROVED the bullet hole to have been inches below the base of the neck. And what did he mean when he said "just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot?" Was he once again referring to the autopsy report, to hide that the exhibits he'd presented to the Warren Commission had been misleading? In any event, Specter not only admitted in his memoirs that he'd failed to tell anyone on the commission he'd taken a look at the back wound photo, but he tried to excuse his cowardice by adding “an unauthenticated photo was no way to establish facts for the record.” Well, this was too much. By Specter's own admission, he was shown the photo by Thomas Kelley, the Secret Service inspector responsible for conducting its investigation of the assassination. Specter knew, moreover, that the Secret Service had possession of the photos. It would have been a simple matter then of his stopping by Bethesda for ten minutes and talking to Dr. Humes, to verify the wounds, and John Stringer, the photographer, to verify it was one of the photos he took on the night of the autopsy. He would then have had an authenticated photo. That Specter's claiming the wound was at the base of the neck was not a one-time slip, whereby he accidentally repeated inaccurate information he'd grown used to telling, was made clear, for that matter, by his book's other references to the wound. He first mentioned the wound in relation to his work for the commission. "To nail down both the direction and the location of the bullet that struck the president's back, we wanted all possible indicators." p.68 Notice how he calls it a back wound. He then discussed his meeting with the autopsy doctors in preparation for their testimony. "At Bethesda, Ball and I tried to clear up some confusion over how far the bullet that struck Kennedy's neck had traveled through his body." p.79 "they surmised that the bullet on the stretcher might have been pushed out the back of Kennedy's neck by the massage." p.79 "As the autopsy progressed, the surgeons realized that the bullet had passed farther through the president's neck." p.79 Now this last bit was just strange. The official story, of which Specter was presumably aware, was that the doctors didn't realize a bullet passed through Kennedy's neck until the morning after the autopsy, after Dr. Humes spoke to Dr. Perry and discovered that the tracheotomy incision had been cut through a bullet wound. So what does Specter cite as evidence for them learning of this the night before? Read on and be amazed: "They saw that the muscles in the front of the neck had been damaged at about the same time the wound was inflicted on the top of the chest cavity." Yes, truth is truly stranger than fiction. Here, in Specter's own book, was an accurate representation of Dr. Humes' testimony--that is, that the bruises on the strap muscles at the front of the neck had led him to suspect the neck wound pre-dated the tracheostomy. This, then, was as much as an admission he'd misled the public in his chapter in the Warren Report, and numerous interviews and articles, when he'd claimed the bullet slipped between these muscles upon entrance on the back of Kennedy's neck. Or was it? Specter had a co-writer on his memoirs, Charles Robbins. Perhaps Robbins had caught Specter's mistake, and had added this bit into the book for the sake of accuracy. This mystery only gets more curious, however, as we progress through Specter's book. "When all the facts came in, it became clear that the neck shot had exited Kennedy's throat." p.80 Notice how what was formerly a back wound has now become a neck wound. Specter then discussed his being shown the back wound photo by Agent Kelley in 1964. As discussed, he presents this photo as: "a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck, just where the autopsy surgeons said Kennedy had been shot.” p.88 He then describes a second viewing of the photo by him in 1999 in the company of Dr. Boswell. "The entrance wound on the neck was about an inch below the shoulder line in the president's back . The exit wound at the site of the tracheotomy in his throat, was lower." p.88 Well, how can a wound be "on the neck below...the shoulder line in the...back? Does that make any sense? Was he trying to have it both ways? And have the wound be on the back where everyone who's seen the back wound photo knows it to be? Whilst simultaneously being on the neck, where his single-bullet theory needs it to be? Not surprisingly, Specter then insisted that he and Boswell had convinced themselves the President’s back and neck wounds were “consistent with the Single Bullet Conclusion.” As if at this point we should take their word on anything... Unfortunately, it seems the closest thing to an acknowledgment of error we’ll ever get from Specter is his related acknowledgement that the Rydberg drawings were “rough” and that he would never have had them created if he knew that people would credit them “with more precision than was intended.” Specter then discusses the Parkland witnesses, and repeats much of his nonsense. "They never saw the bullet entrance wounds in the back of his head and the back of his neck." p.100 "The Parkland doctors saw the clean, round, quarter-inch hole in the front of the president's neck but didn't know about the wound in the back of his neck." p.101 "Once the Parkland doctors were informed of the wound on the back of the president's head and neck..." p.101 Specter then slips up again (at least presumably). "...before the doctors there knew about the entrance wounds on Kennedy's back and head..." p.103 The strangeness of Specter's book reaches a climax, however, when he discusses a conversation he had with Chief Justice Earl Warren, in which he convinced Warren of the soundness of the single-bullet theory. He claims he explained to Warren that: "The autopsy showed that a bullet had struck Kennedy near the base of his neck on the right side and passed between two large strap muscles in his neck, striking only soft tissue as it continued in a slightly right-to-left, downward, and forward path..." p.109 "The president's garment had holes and tears showing that a missile entered the back in the vicinity of his lower neck..." p.110 "The wounds on the president and governor supported the Single-Bullet Conclusion. The first bullet would retain most of its high velocity after passing through the two large strap muscles in the back of the president's neck, slicing the pleural cavity, striking nothing solid, and then exiting from the front of his neck, nicking the left side of his tie." p.111
  22. Pat Speer

    Givens down to one lie

    As to the original discussion regarding Givens' testimony and Belin's behavior, I have made a recent addition to the section of chapter 4 in which this is discussed. From patspeer.com, chapter 4 So...let's get this straight. David Belin, who has been tasked with determining (and presumably demonstrating) Oswald's guilt, has been pushing Rankin and Redlich to allow him to pre-interview and thereby shape the testimony of his witnesses... while at the same time, Joseph Ball, Belin's senior partner, has been lobbying Chief Justice Warren, whom he has known for decades, about the benefits to be derived from pre-interviewing witnesses, in order to receive as "clean" a record as possible. Of the 14 assistant counsel for the commission, Ball and Belin are the only two tasked with demonstrating Oswald's guilt, and they are also the only two itching to pre-interview their witnesses. Well, hell's bells. If this isn't a clear indication Ball and Belin were up to something I don't know what such an indication would look like. Unstated but implicit in Redlich's memo is that pre-interviewing witnesses in the manner subsequently proposed by Warren leads to a deceptively "clean" record through two processes. The first is that the witness learns what the lawyer wants him to say, and is more likely to say it. And the second is that the lawyer learns what questions shouldn't be asked, because the answers might lead to more questions, or even a direction opposite the preferred direction. That Ball and Belin were so gung-ho about pre-interviewing their witnesses, then, is a red flag. It cries "Future historians, look at our behavior--look at the questions we didn't ask (at least on the record), and the witnesses we never called." And yes, should you be wondering, Ball and his junior counsel Belin did indeed pre-interview their witnesses. In his 2011 book, The Girl on the Stairs, Barry Ernest details a conversation he had with witness Vickie Adams, in which she described the technique employed by David Belin. She said Belin told her he wanted her to answer his questions without elaboration, answering only the questions asked. He then began questioning her. She said that after going through these questions, Belin announced that this was all off the record. He then began questioning her again, on the record. Well, it seems clear from this that Belin was actively trying to weed out problematic comments and details. And we needn't rely upon Adams on this, either. The 4-22-64 testimony of Dallas Crime Scene investigator J.C. Day has many amazing passages, but one of the most amazing passages reflects badly on Belin, not Day. Consider: Mr. BELIN. Is there any other testimony you have with regard to the chain of possession of this shell from the time it was first found until the time it got back to your office? Mr. DAY. No, sir; I told you in our conversation in Dallas that I marked those at the scene. After reviewing my records, I didn't think I was on all three of those hulls that you have, indicating I did not mark them at the scene, then I remembered putting them in the envelope, and Sims taking them. It was further confirmed today when I noticed that the third hull, which I did not give you, or come to me through you, does not have my mark on it. Mr. BELIN. Now, I did interview you approximately 2 weeks ago in Dallas, more or less? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. At that time what is the fact as to whether or not I went into extended questions and answers as contrasted with just asking you to tell me about certain areas as to what happened? I mean, I questioned you, of course, but was it more along the lines of just asking you to tell me what happened, or more along the lines of interrogation, the interrogation we are doing now? Mr. DAY. Yes, sir. Mr. BELIN. Which one? Mr. DAY. Wait a minute now. Say that again. I am at a loss. Mr. BELIN. Maybe it would be easier if I just struck the question and started all over again. Mr. DAY. I remember you asking me if I marked them. Mr. BELIN. Yes. Mr. DAY. I remember I told you I did. Mr. BELIN. All right. And that was it. Day mentioned that Belin had questioned him off the record, which led Belin to try to get Day to add that it was really no big deal, which confused the heck out of Day, which led Belin to let it drop. Berlin knew people would question his behavior, and he sought to cover his rump.
  23. Since at least the publication of Sylvia Meagher's Accessories After the Fact, it has been taken as a "given" by most conspiracy theorists that Charles Givens told two lies regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. 1. He initially claimed he saw Oswald in the domino room at 11:50 AM on the day of the shooting, but then pretended this never occurred. 2 He initially claimed he saw Oswald on the fifth floor as he (Givens) headed down for lunch between 11:30 and 11:45, but then testified he saw Oswald on the sixth floor, during his lunch, after going back up to get his cigarettes. I have found reason to believe the first of these lies was not a lie, but a colossal misunderstanding. The source of the confusion is an FBI report on its 11-22-63 interview of Givens. It has long been quoted as claiming: "Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M." Some researchers, based upon this statement, have even taken to stating that Givens said he saw Oswald at 11:50 in the domino room. But this is clearly incorrect. And here's why. This FBI report is not a verbatim account of Givens' statements. It is a typed-up report taken from the notes created by the FBI agent interviewing Givens. While the FBI has never released the original notes of any of its agents, I have recently realized there is another report written based upon these notes that sheds fresh light on what Givens actually said. This report is a teletype written early on the 23rd in which Dallas Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin summarized the interviews conducted in Dallas for FBI headquarters. Here is Shanklin's discussion of Givens: "Charles Douglas Givens, Employee, TSBD, worked on sixth floor until about eleven thirty A.M. Left at this time going down on elevator. Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass. Oswald was reading paper in the first floor domino room seven-fifty A.M. November twenty two last when Givens came to work." This passage can be found in FBI file 62-109060, sec 9, p54 here: Shanklin on Givens As you can see he specifies that Givens saw Oswald at 7:50, not 11:50 as appeared in the typed-up report. But that's not quite accurate, either. After reading Shanklin's account, I went back and re-read the FBI's typed-up report on its interview with Givens, and realized that the report had actually never claimed Givens saw Oswald at 11:50. This is what people thought it claimed. But it's not what it actually claimed. It actually claimed exactly what Shanklin said it claimed, with the unfortunate subtraction of the time Givens saw Oswald. Here is the confusingly written passage, from which people, including myself, have long extracted that Givens saw Oswald at 11:50. "Givens said that during the past few days Lee had commented that he rode to work with a boy named Wesley. Givens said all employees enter the back door of the building when Jack Dougherty, the foreman opens the door about 7 A.M. On the morning of November 22, 1963, Givens observed Lee reading a newspaper in the domino room where the employees eat lunch about 11:50 A.M.” (CD5 p329) So, you see, by leaving out the time Givens saw Oswald--7:50--the writer of the report allowed people to think the words "On the morning" referred to 11:50. It's clear when one views this all in context, moreover, that Givens never did claim to see Oswald at 11:50. It's not all bad news for conspiracy theorists, however. Oswald's reading the paper at 7:50 in the domino room does little to suggest his guilt, and actually makes him look less guilty. I mean, if he's gonna shoot the President in a few hours, shouldn't he be picking out a window or stacking up some boxes or something? There's also this. Shanklin's teletype asserts that Givens: "Saw Oswald on fifth floor as left going down. Oswald told him to close the gates when he got to first floor so Oswald could signal for elevator later. Givens stayed on first floor until twelve o'clock and then walked out of the building to watch the parade pass." While the FBI's typed-up report said Givens traveled to the first floor and then walked around until 12 o'clock, it did not specify that he did not go back up. Shanklin's message is much more specific on this matter. There is NO WAY this is compatible with Givens' subsequent testimony he went back up to the sixth floor and talked to Oswald. Shanklin's teletype thereby clears Givens of one lie, but helps convict him of another.
  24. Pat Speer

    Givens down to one lie

    Two quick points. 1. Livingston is not credible. This forum was the site of a heated discussion between Jim Fetzer, David Lifton and myself, in which Fetzer defended Livingston's story. At the heart of Livingston's story is that HE knew about the throat wound early on the afternoon of the 22nd, because, if I recall, he'd heard a nurse talk about it on the radio. The key problem with this is that NO record exists of this radio report, and no newspaper account or eyewitness account makes reference to such a report. In any event I argued that Livingson's story was bunkum and Lifton agreed with me on this point, claiming he'd searched high and low for such a report but couldn't find one. Lifton had the added perspective, moreover, of having been contacted by Livingston before Livingston contacted Livingstone, and then partnered up with Fetzer. Lifton didn't believe him then and never came to believe him, even after he was embraced by Livingstone, Fetzer et al. Beyond the radio report that no one can find, there is another huge problem with Livingston's story, IMO. In his deposition on the Crenshaw case, which Fetzer came to disavow after people like myself and yes, Bugliosi,, started using it to attack Livingston's credibility, Livingston mentions performing two video-taped interviews to document his claims, one in which he tells his story and one, if I recall, in which he was interviewed by David Mantik and Gary Aguilar. Neither of these videos has ever seen the light of the day. 2. Bugliosi's section on Livingston is sloppy. He makes out that Livingston called Humes from San Diego, when Livingston was consistent in that he called Humes from his house in Maryland.
  25. Pat Speer

    Givens down to one lie

    Geez Louise, David. You completely forgot about a key point in my original post. Shanklin's memo specifies that Givens never left the first floor before leaving the building. This is yet another nail in the coffin for the story Givens told about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor when he went back up for cigarettes. It never happened. The HSCA, to its credit, rejected Givens' story by claiming it was beside the point. They were right. Even if Oswald had traveled downstairs for lunch, there's no proof he didn't race back up just before the shots were fired. What's intriguing about this, however, is your response. Why do you so desperately want to believe Givens? Because if you acknowledge his story smells to high heaven, you'd have to acknowledge Belin knowingly pushed a smelly story on the public? And that might lead you to believe the whole WR is a similarly smelly story? Your side lost the Battle of Givens decades ago,. Move on to fight another day.
×