Jump to content
The Education Forum

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)


Pat Speer

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

please let me try again.

so you ARE saying that the difference between the hole in Ks back and the placement of the hole in the jacket, as it would be worn normally, is 1/8"?

AND that the hole in the jacket is BELOW where it would should have been in order to align with the hole in K?

I don't know how the shirt came into this. i didn't ask about the shirt.

PLEASE do not read anything into my questions. I'm NOT implying anything AT ALL. I'm JUST trying to understand what the given evidence is.

these are yes or no questions. yes with an optional explanation (i'm going to regret that), or no with a clarification.

One eighth of an inch.

Yep.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make?

Good question.

The low location of the bullet holes in the clothes establishes the following:

JFK was shot in the back at T3.

This location is too low to have been associated with the damage seen in the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

This establishes the wound in the throat as an entrance.

Since there was no rounds recovered from either the back or throat wounds during he autopsy, the central question is raised:

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot?

It may very well do exactly that.

Strong maybe, in my book.

In answer to the question what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds, the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- with Kennedy's body in front of them -- asked the FBI men if there were rounds designed not to show up in an autopsy.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry.

An honest answer was not forthcoming from the FBI Lab that night.

The answer was: Yes

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence.

I'm with Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and E. Martin Schotz. This ain't about me.

Schotz said the clothing evidence was as valuable as all of the 26 volumes of the Warren testimony, or close to it.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html

ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that.

You can't get an off the rack shirt to behave like that.

BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?)

He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt.

When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover-up is suppression of the physical evidence.

Those who claim the clothing evidence is useless indulge obfuscation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

out of curiosity, what of the story by the autopsy asst about them searching for HOURS for a bullet in Ks body which was never found...?

Link to post
Share on other sites

out of curiosity, what of the story by the autopsy asst about them searching for HOURS for a bullet in Ks body which was never found...?

As soon as Col Finck showed up they started looking.

According to the FBI report on the autopsy they were "at a loss" to explain a wound of entrance with no exit and no round found.

Then there's this:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCAt:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

Link to post
Share on other sites

i remember whoever it was who described the search for the bullet emphasizing that they searched the body cavity, and that it took up much of the time in the lab...

in context, i wonder how much time and consideration was given to the idea of a missile self-disappearing vs that of finding a missing one. AND if the testimony of the lengthy search is trustworthy.

also, i was really wondering more about the opinions of present colleagues (if i may be so bold as to use that term here?) regarding this lengthy search described by this asst.

i mean, if you get right down to it, if this description of this search made it into the WR, then wouldn't that pretty much prove a missing bullet, ergo a fourth bullet, ergo a conspiracy? the fact that the medical professionals freely admit a missing bullet in a professional capacity...? was the WC able to include this and whitewash it, as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make?

Good question.

The low location of the bullet holes in the clothes establishes the following:

JFK was shot in the back at T3.

doesn't the hole in his back establish that? I've seen a photo with a hole at T3, seems as if that supersedes the evidence of the shirt.

This location is too low to have been associated with the damage seen in the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

I haven't seen a photo with a shot into his back at T1.

This establishes the wound in the throat as an entrance.

Though I'm sure the throat wound was an entrance wound, the shirt or jacket do not establish that.

Since there was no rounds recovered from either the back or throat wounds during he autopsy, the central question is raised:

All that establishes is that there were no rounds recovered.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Good question

Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot?

It may very well do exactly that.

Strong maybe, in my book.

In answer to the question what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds, the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- with Kennedy's body in front of them -- asked the FBI men if there were rounds designed not to show up in an autopsy.

The theory that he may have been shot with a round designed not to show up in an autopsy does not prove that actually happened. It's only speculation.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry.

An honest answer was not forthcoming from the FBI Lab that night.

The answer was: Yes

If the question; does the US possess an Atomic Bomb had been asked, the answer would have been 'yes' but it would not be proof that one was used on JFK.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

If the holes in the shirt and jacket answered that question, you wouldn't need to ask

I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence.

I will agree that it is of value as evidence that a bullet went through the material of the shirt and jacket. nothing else

I'm with Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and E. Martin Schotz. This ain't about me.

Schotz said the clothing evidence was as valuable as all of the 26 volumes of the Warren testimony, or close to it.

Yet no one can say what that value is?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html

ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that.

And what difference would it make if it did? the bullet hole in his back is in the spot shown in the photo regardless of where the hole in the shirt is

You can't get an off the rack shirt to behave like that.

BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?)

He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt.

When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover-up is suppression of the physical evidence.

Those who claim the clothing evidence is useless indulge obfuscation.

Pray tell what it is that is being obfuscated?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have not done a lot of reading on the back wound. I don't think it will ultimately get anyone very much closer to something we don't already know.

but - are ya'll saying that the jacket hole was misaligned from the wound by only 1/8"?

--

Again: bullet hole in the shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

The hole in the jacket is 4 & 1/8 inches below the bottom of the collar.

The jacket rode up an eighth of an inch.

The shirt didn't ride up at all.

Anyone can verifiy this: glance down on your right shoulder-line, casually wave your right arm, observe the fabric of your shirt INDENT.

This slight, insignificant displacement of jacket fabric must show up in the Dealey photos, and indeed it does.

Let's say that's true. What difference does it make?

Good question.

The low location of the bullet holes in the clothes establishes the following:

JFK was shot in the back at T3.

doesn't the hole in his back establish that? I've seen a photo with a hole at T3, seems as if that supersedes the evidence of the shirt.

You've seen this photo where?

In what universe does a photograph "supersede" hard, physical evidence?

This location is too low to have been associated with the damage seen in the neck x-ray at C7/T1.

I haven't seen a photo with a shot into his back at T1.

The BOH Fox 5 photo shows a wound at T1.

This establishes the wound in the throat as an entrance.

Though I'm sure the throat wound was an entrance wound, the shirt or jacket do not establish that.

Yes, they do, in spite of any contentless naysaying otherwise.

Since the wound in the back was too low to have been associated with the throat wound, the wound in the throat had no exit.

It was, ergo, a wound of entrance.

Since there was no rounds recovered from either the back or throat wounds during he autopsy, the central question is raised:

All that establishes is that there were no rounds recovered.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Good question

So your comment about the uselessness of the clothing evidence is inoperative.

Does it prove who pulled the trigger on the rifle that fired the shot?

It may very well do exactly that.

Strong maybe, in my book.

In answer to the question what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds, the autopsists the night of the autopsy -- with Kennedy's body in front of them -- asked the FBI men if there were rounds designed not to show up in an autopsy.

The theory that he may have been shot with a round designed not to show up in an autopsy does not prove that actually happened. It's only speculation.

It was speculation by the doctors with the body in front of them.

It is speculation straight out of the historical record, instead of straight out of a Pet Theorist hind end...Hi Pat.

FBI SA James Sibert called the FBI Lab to inquire as to the existence of such high tech weaponry.

An honest answer was not forthcoming from the FBI Lab that night.

The answer was: Yes

If the question; does the US possess an Atomic Bomb had been asked, the answer would have been 'yes' but it would not be proof that one was used on JFK.

What aspects of JFK's murder are consistent with a nuke strike?

Please explain...

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

I can't think of anything it tells us except that there was a shooter behind the limo. That's all I can deduce from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Cliff doesn't want you to see. He likes to pretend that a wound 14cm below the mastoid at T-1 is a wound at the base of the neck. This isn't true. A wound 14 cm below the mastoid at T-1 is on the back, and proves the drawings created for the Warren Commission were a fraud, and inconsistent with the measurements obtained at autopsy.

doityourself.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

KD: The evidence of the jacket and shirt is totally useless for establishing anything.

What happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

If the holes in the shirt and jacket answered that question, you wouldn't need to ask

The holes in the clothes raise the question -- they don't answer it.

I don't buy that at all. I mean I am not as zealous about this as Cliff is, but I do think it does have value as evidence.

I will agree that it is of value as evidence that a bullet went through the material of the shirt and jacket. nothing else

And yet you say it is a good question to ask -- what happened to the bullets causing the back and throat wounds?

Your admission that this is a good question puts the lie to your claim the physical evidence is meaningless.

I'm with Vincent Salandria, Gaeton Fonzi and E. Martin Schotz. This ain't about me.

Schotz said the clothing evidence was as valuable as all of the 26 volumes of the Warren testimony, or close to it.

Yet no one can say what that value is?

I can repeat its value over and over.

Did you bother to read this?

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html

ITs very hard to believe that the equivalent of an Italian tailored shirt that would coast about 200 bucks today would ride up like that.

And what difference would it make if it did? the bullet hole in his back is in the spot shown in the photo regardless of where the hole in the shirt is

This photo to which you refer doesn't exist.

You can't get an off the rack shirt to behave like that.

BTW, Specter makes an ugly inside joke about this in his BS book, A Passion for Truth. (Was ever a book more mistitled?)

He says that once while in NYC he ran across the tailor shop JFK ordered his shirts from. He says that after browsing around there was no way he could afford a shirt.

When I read that, I stood up in bed and threw the book on the floor.

Job #1 of the JFK murder cover-up is suppression of the physical evidence.

Those who claim the clothing evidence is useless indulge obfuscation.

Pray tell what it is that is being obfuscated?

1) The prima facie case for conspiracy.

2) The proper context for understanding the throat x-ray.

3) Persons of Interest working for the US Army Special Operations Division at Ft Detrick, MD.

4) The fabrication of the Fox 5 autopsy photo.

Yeah, much obfuscation.

Job #1 of the cover-up -- ignore or misrepresent the clothing evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what Cliff doesn't want you to see. He likes to pretend that a wound 14cm below the mastoid at T-1 is a wound at the base of the neck.

I hate to break it to you Pat, but C7/T1 is the very definition of the "base of the neck".

Your T1 location is about a quarter inch below the base of the neck.

This isn't true.

The quarter inch difference between C7/T1 and T1 is insignificant.

A wound 14 cm below the mastoid at T-1 is on the back, and proves the drawings created for the Warren Commission were a fraud, and inconsistent with the measurements obtained at autopsy.

What "measurements obtained at the autopsy"?

You have no proof whatsoever those measurements were taken at the autopsy.

If they had been they would have been recorded in pencil.

Instead they were recorded in pen, a violation of autopsy protocol which for some reason in Pat Speer's Universe means they were measurements taken by the Hand of God Himself.

doityourself.jpg

The measurements are phony -- featuring 3 violations of autopsy protocol!

Your T1 back wound is a phony -- the base of your neck is almost 4 inches below the bottom of your collars?

All the witnesses got it wrong?

Why?

Because Pat Speer sez so?

You haven't addressed the issue, Pat.

How could JFK's jacket collar drop into an elevated position?

Link to post
Share on other sites

doityourself.jpg

Please note that Pat Speer did not mark on his shirt the location of the bullet hole.

He didn't want to embarrass himself any further, I guess...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused and perhaps uneducated about the back wound. As I recall, Humes probed the wound with his finger and it was a shallow wound that didn't go anywhere. I've always assumed that they later concluded that it was in fact a through-wound (despite Humes' lying finger) because it HAD to be in order to account for the throat wound.

If it was indeed a shallow wound about a finger's length deep, I don't understand the speculation about some high tech weaponry. It would likely have been a regular bullet that was a bad round. And the question of what happened to the bullet should thus be easily answered. At some point the bullet simply fell out of the shallow wound. And I recall a naval officer at the autopsy telling LIfton that in fact a bullet fell out of the body and rolled on the autopsy table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...