Jump to content
The Education Forum
Pat Speer

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

Recommended Posts

I am playing shortstop.

And that's where you'll have to stay throughout the entire game, Jim. You can never come to bat, because.....

"I am part of the defense team." -- James DiEugenio; July 26, 2015

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

to clarify my part: i'm in with the original agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TOM SCULLY SAID:

He's back [on The Education Forum]! What on earth are you [Jim DiEugenio] thinking?

AT DPF ON 7/10/15, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

I didn't like DVP calling me a clown.

Second, I got the impression that Davey was essentially browbeating the opposition down.

Therefore, I thought it was necessary for Spartacus to arrange a jail break.

Some of those new people are not familiar with the techniques Davey uses.

ON 8/5/15, JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As I just wrote elsewhere, if others will agree not to address someone who Bob P just called a clown, so will I.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, now that Jim has me on "Ignore", I guess his presence here is a bit superfluous.

It's funny. Jimbo re-joins EF to combat mean ol' DVP who is "browbeating the opposition". But after about three weeks, James puts me on his Ignore list. Kind of defeats the purpose of his re-joining, huh?

Hilarious. LOL.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About that cosmoline:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmoline

Here's the important part, the part that applies to the paper bag:

"Cosmoline that is fairly fresh, or that has been hermetically sealed in a plastic bag or shrink wrap, remains a grease-like viscous fluid, and mostly wipes off with a rag, leaving only a thin film behind. Cosmoline that is older and has had air exposure usually solidifies after a few years, as the volatile hydrocarbon fraction evaporates and leaves behind only the waxy hydrocarbon fraction. The solid wax does not readily wipe off. It can be scraped off, although the scraping is laborious and leaves crumbs to be swept or vacuumed away. A useful method of cleaning a tool of crusted cosmoline is to allow a penetrating oil (such as CRC 5-56, CLP, or equivalent) to soak into it for several minutes or hours, which typically restores it to a viscous-fluid state, allowing it to be wiped off. An additional method of cosmoline removal on new parts is to use a closed-cabinet parts washer that utilizes the power wash process. Removal of cosmoline with an aqueous parts washer requires high heat, the proper aqueous detergent, and the correct hydraulic impact pressure.[1] All cleaning methods create waste that must be disposed of in the proper manner. Aqueous washing or solvent cleaning both have accepted methods to dispose of the "sludge" created. Cosmoline is mostly waxes and hydrocarbons and creates a regulated waste that is not difficult to dispose of properly. It has been reported that talcum powder can be used as an absorbent of Cosmoline by packing the powder around the item to be cleaned and applying sufficient heat to melt the solid film allowing the compound to be wicked from the coated surface into the talcum, which can be scraped off more easily.[2]'

Having spent several years in the auto parts business, I'm familiar with parts being coated with cosmoline. The fresher the cosmoline, the stickier and oilier it is. The longer the surface has been coated with cosmoline, the more solid it becomes. BUT, in my personal experience, no matter how old the coating of cosmoline, the sticky quality never goes away.

Now...make of that what you will regarding the Carcano and the bag.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"3. I don't think Kennedy wore his clothing up at his ears, and you know it. As stated, the top of his collar approaches the mastoid process. The hole was 14 cm below the top of the collar. The wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid. It all adds up, and supports the accuracy of the face sheet, which shows a wound at T-1 equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip, exactly as described at autopsy."

Pat, that is one of the more ridiculous things you have ever written, and, from my viewpoint, you have written a lot of ridiculous things.

The mastoid process is nowhere near the top of the collar, and 14 cm. down from the mastoid process is nowhere near 14 cm. down from the top of the collar. Period.

Now go write one of your thousand word posts to baffle with BS all the unenlightened lurkers. Isn't this the LN way?

In order to rebut my assertion the collar was near the level of the bottom tip of the mastoid, Cliff posted a photo showing the collar an inch or two below the mastoid. Well, he knew this wasn't the last photo taken before Kennedy was shot in which the level of the collar was on display, Robert. Here is a better example.

endoftheline2.jpg

As you can see, I use this image to demonstrate that even IF the jacket sticks straight out from behind the mastoid, as claimed by some, that this still leaves far too much material to lift the bullet entrance on the clothing to the blue line, the level of entrance pushed by the Warren Commission, McAdams, and Bugliosi, etc.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"3. I don't think Kennedy wore his clothing up at his ears, and you know it. As stated, the top of his collar approaches the mastoid process. The hole was 14 cm below the top of the collar. The wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid. It all adds up, and supports the accuracy of the face sheet, which shows a wound at T-1 equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip, exactly as described at autopsy."

Pat, that is one of the more ridiculous things you have ever written, and, from my viewpoint, you have written a lot of ridiculous things.

The mastoid process is nowhere near the top of the collar, and 14 cm. down from the mastoid process is nowhere near 14 cm. down from the top of the collar. Period.

Now go write one of your thousand word posts to baffle with BS all the unenlightened lurkers. Isn't this the LN way?

In order to rebut my assertion the collar was near the level of the bottom tip of the mastoid, Cliff posted a photo showing the collar an inch or two below the mastoid. Well, he knew this wasn't the last photo taken before Kennedy was shot in which the level of the collar was on display,

Betzner 3 (Z186) shows otherwise.

betzner1.jpg

So does the Towner film.

townerfinal_zpsa3dc1c88.jpg

endoftheline2.jpg

As you can see, I use this image to demonstrate that even IF the jacket sticks straight out from behind the mastoid, as claimed by some, that this still leaves far too much material to lift the bullet entrance on the clothing to the blue line, the level of entrance pushed by the Warren Commission, McAdams, and Bugliosi, etc.

Pat Speer uses a lateral view optical illusion to make JFK's clothing collars line up with the mastoid process.

Posterior views are superior, and all of them show JFK's clothing collars in a normal position on JFK's neck.

Pat's claims indicate the base of JFK's neck was nearly 4 inches below the bottom of his collar.

This is beyond absurd, and the implied attack on the back wound witnesses is despicable in my book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gentle reader, please direct your attention to the location of JFK's jacket collar on Houston St.

ikefinal.jpg

Please note that his shirt collar isn't visible in this photo (Altgens 5 close-up).

Further down Houston St the jacket collar dropped.

How could the jacket collar drop into a elevated position up by his earlobes?

Pat?

Please explain how an item drops and elevates simultaneously...

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tthe Nix film captures the moment the jacket collar dropped.

jfk03nixA.jpg

jfk01nixA.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, you have some 'splainin' to do, don't you?

On your website you acknowledge the drop of the jacket collar in Dealey Plaza.

Don't you have to reconcile this observation with the claim the clothing collars were elevated enough to align the bullet holes with T1?

How does the jacket collar fall into an elevated position?

Is the lower margin of the base of your neck four inches below the bottom of your clothing collars, Pat?

Please explain.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, i would so ignore that OCD stuff. how can anyone STILL be stuck on you? did you say you think JFK was in on it or something? or maybe Jackie...?

that's MY position, and you can't have it. I THINK JFK was in on it. and i have photographic evidence (evidence of DVP-type standards, so you know it's good evidence!).

just wait...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, i would so ignore that OCD stuff. how can anyone STILL be stuck on you? did you say you think JFK was in on it or something? or maybe Jackie...?

that's MY position, and you can't have it. I THINK JFK was in on it. and i have photographic evidence (evidence of DVP-type standards, so you know it's good evidence!).

just wait...

OCD hadn't been invented in '63? Had it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"3. I don't think Kennedy wore his clothing up at his ears, and you know it. As stated, the top of his collar approaches the mastoid process. The hole was 14 cm below the top of the collar. The wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid. It all adds up, and supports the accuracy of the face sheet, which shows a wound at T-1 equidistant from the mastoid and shoulder tip, exactly as described at autopsy."

Pat, that is one of the more ridiculous things you have ever written, and, from my viewpoint, you have written a lot of ridiculous things.

The mastoid process is nowhere near the top of the collar, and 14 cm. down from the mastoid process is nowhere near 14 cm. down from the top of the collar. Period.

Now go write one of your thousand word posts to baffle with BS all the unenlightened lurkers. Isn't this the LN way?

In order to rebut my assertion the collar was near the level of the bottom tip of the mastoid, Cliff posted a photo showing the collar an inch or two below the mastoid. Well, he knew this wasn't the last photo taken before Kennedy was shot in which the level of the collar was on display,

Betzner 3 (Z186) shows otherwise.

betzner1.jpg

So does the Towner film.

townerfinal_zpsa3dc1c88.jpg

endoftheline2.jpg

As you can see, I use this image to demonstrate that even IF the jacket sticks straight out from behind the mastoid, as claimed by some, that this still leaves far too much material to lift the bullet entrance on the clothing to the blue line, the level of entrance pushed by the Warren Commission, McAdams, and Bugliosi, etc.

Pat Speer uses a lateral view optical illusion to make JFK's clothing collars line up with the mastoid process.

Posterior views are superior, and all of them show JFK's clothing collars in a normal position on JFK's neck.

Pat's claims indicate the base of JFK's neck was nearly 4 inches below the bottom of his collar.

This is beyond absurd, and the implied attack on the back wound witnesses is despicable in my book.

here's the thing on this particular photo - and i'm not even sure who is saying which about the bullet holes in the jacket, so what i'm saying is objective - it's what i see:

in the right pic, Ks shoulders are clearly raised higher than in the left, and hunched forward a bit - this doesn't so much raise the collar, but it DOES raise the part of the jacket just below the collar, which would pull the jacket beneath that upward, of course. and that's the part of the jacket that sustained the hole. right?

so it's not really about the collar, it's about the coat just below the collar bunching up.

i'm not saying that this bunching is enough to resolve either theory - just that the collar isn't so much the issue as the part between the shoulders is.

also what is at issue is one human wanting another human to be wrong to a much larger extent than is "normal."

i'd say that's an issue, too.

Edited by Glenn Nall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, i would so ignore that OCD stuff. how can anyone STILL be stuck on you? did you say you think JFK was in on it or something? or maybe Jackie...?

that's MY position, and you can't have it. I THINK JFK was in on it. and i have photographic evidence (evidence of DVP-type standards, so you know it's good evidence!).

just wait...

OCD hadn't been invented in '63? Had it?

no, and neither had homosexuality. and witchcraft. and HepC. and internet forums.

i was speaking of a more current exhibition of relentlessness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can not figure out why everyone tries to place the bullet hole in his back by where the collar of his jacket was/is or whether it was/was not bunched up. Why not just look at the photos of his back showing the bullet hole and just 'see' where it is? (If someone thinks/assumes the photos have been altered, then why would not the photo of his collar being bunched up be altered also?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...