Jump to content
The Education Forum

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)


Pat Speer

Recommended Posts

Dr. Finck told the HSCA that he tried to use a metal probe to determine the bullet path, but was unsuccessful.

So then he had the X-rays made when, according to the X-Ray techs, the lungs and internal organs had already been removed.

Hmmmmm. So what were they EXPECTING to find, if the internal cavity was already empty?

My OPINION is that they were simply taking the x-rays to be able to say...they took x-rays but didn't find a bullet.

Sounds like a basic CYA move, when the autopsy report and the x-rays were meant to never be disclosed.

this deserves emphasis.

hmmm > "So then he had the X-rays made when, according to the X-Ray techs, the lungs and internal organs had already been removed."

new to me. is this at all verifiable? I've read the testimony of the organs being removed, and of Finck partially probing the wound; if the time of these events are documented, that's quite a hard thing to defend, even though the WC can defend anything and get away with it, it's still some pretty good ammunition.

and this, too: just how established is it that the report and the x-rays were not meant to be published?

Not only did Jerrol Custer testify to the ARRB that the organs of the chest were removed prior to chest x-rays being taken, he also testified that the x-rays he took of JFK's neck showed many minute fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

Anyone notice several similarities in my last three posts?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hi Ron

If a FMJ bullet travelling at 2000 fps (1367 mph) has the ability to pass right through a man's chest and out the other side, and still retain enough velocity to do some serious damage on the other side, what velocity would a so called "bad round" be travelling at to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch or so?

I have no idea.

Well, I can tell you, the bullet would be moving at little more than a crawl.

For comparison, the .38 Special "Colt Cobra" revolver that Jack Ruby used to shoot LHO had a muzzle velocity of between 800 and 900 fps, depending on the weight of the bullets. This bullet entered the left side of LHO's abdomen and almost managed to exit the right side before it came to a halt, passing through several organs and blood vessels on the way through. With this in mind, we know 800 fps would not be the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's back, as this bullet would likely have been found in the forward part of JFK's chest cavity.

Realistically, I believe a bullet would have to be travelling around 300 fps (204 mph) in order to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch.

While this might be feasible if the rifle muzzle was a few inches from JFK's back, a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign.

1. Bullet drop. If the rifle is sighted in to hit a target at 100 yards (or whatever range you choose) firing bullets with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, the shooter will have no idea he has chambered a "bad round" and will aim as if he is shooting a normal cartridge. At such a reduced velocity, the bullet will not have enough energy to reach its target or, for that matter, anywhere close to it. In fact, at such a low velocity, the bullet will have dropped so much, it is more likely to hit the back end of the limo than anything else.

2. Bullet stability. The spiral riflings inside a rifle barrel impart a high speed spin to a bullet that gyroscopically stabilizes the bullet in flight. Without this spin, the bullet will tumble in flight, end over end. Not only will this prevent the bullet from making a neat entrance wound as seen on JFK's back, the tumbling bullet presents an un-aerodynamic surface that will quickly rob the bullet of velocity; making it go even slower and causing it to impact even further back from the limo.

3. Barrel blockage. Will a bullet travelling this slow have enough energy to even make it out of the barrel?

In summation, I believe the "shallow" back wound caused by a "bad round" to be a fabrication, and further evidence of a well contrived conspiracy that involved the autopsy doctors at Bethesda. Unfortunately, JFK researchers were taken in by this ruse, for the sole reason it served the purpose of discrediting the Single Bullet Theory. I believe there is ample evidence the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated there.

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign. When did it get established that the shot was fired from the 6th floor?

Excuse me, princess. It should read ".......from the 6th floor, or wherever the h*ll the shot came from, although I'm pretty sure it was from behind the limo, and as no one is visible with a rifle directly behind the limo in the Zapruder film, we can likely assume the rifle was at least 50 yards away or more."

Better?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he did feel like a fool x-raying an empty chest cavity, as any evidence of a bullet would have been removed with the lung.

" I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy. "

I cannot state strongly enough the incorrectness of this thinking, and that this line of thought is precisely what those feeding us this disinformation wanted to produce in our minds.

Think of it for a second. JFK was shot in the back with a 162 grain full metal jacket bullet, travelling roughly 2000 fps (1363 mph) when it struck him. The only things that stood between this bullet and the space in front of JFK were two fragile ribs (assuming the bullet did not pass between ribs) and the top of a lung. With the weight of this bullet, and its velocity, it had enough energy to pass through Connally, as well, and still injure Kellerman.

This back wound is indeed a mystery, a bullet entering but not exiting. But, when one considers that the exact same bullet that entered JFK's right lung also caused the damage to JFK's head, the mystery begins to clear up a little.

Frangible bullets are made from powdered lead (or other metals) that is compressed or glued together into the shape of a bullet. They will disintegrate into dust if they come into contact with steel or concrete, but will easily penetrate brittle skull bone. If of the proper hollow point design, these bullets will disintegrate in a wound as they pass through soft, wet tissue, such as brain or lung. This disintegration into dust makes frangible bullets the most lethal bullets on the market today.

It was necessary to mask the nature of the back wound in order to maintain the myth that JFK was shot in the head with a FMJ bullet.

Geez, Robert. The bullet or fragment creating the back wound did not enter the body. This was not a story made up after the autopsy. This was confirmed by the FBI agents watching the autopsy, and by autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins, in numerous interviews. The doctors' failure to find an entrance into the body, moreover, was considered so problematic for the single-assassin conclusion that Arlen Specter chose to lie about it, and made up a story (that the bullet slid between some imaginary strap muscles on the back of the neck) that he told in the Warren Report and continued to tell until his death. So, yes, a story was created to hide what happened. But you're looking in the wrong direction.

You are lost, Pat, along with the majority of researchers who also have a complete lack of understanding of ballistics.

Ever since Tom Purvis fed you all that whopper about the "short shot", you've all gladly accepted the bullet that only penetrated an inch into JFK's back, only because it negated the Single Bullet Theory.

Do you have any concept at all how ridiculous that is?

P.S.

Confirmation by two FBI agents is hardly what one would call consultation with medical professionals.

Bob, Ever since Tom Purvis fed you all that whopper about the "short shot", you've all gladly accepted the bullet that only penetrated an inch into JFK's back, only because it negated the Single Bullet Theory. I believe that what negates the Single Bullet Theory is the Single Bullet Theory. I believe that JFK was shot in the back. I have no clue where the bullet went to. I do not believe it was the 'gurney bullet', that was a plant. I think it likely went into JFK's body, I doubt that it exited under it's own power. It may not ever have left his body. It is not needed to negate the SBT, that does very well by itself. With 7 to 9 shots having been fired, where that one ended up is not significant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade, or does anyone disagree? So what do we know about JFK's wounds? Only what we know from eyewitnesses at Parkland and Bethesda who had no reason to lie or fabricate. There was a back wound with no way to know where the bullet went, absent a real and credible autopsy. There was a throat wound that the doctors who attended JFK took to be an entry wound. Again, no way to tell where the bullet went. There was a gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, characteristic of an exit wound, i.e. a shot from the front. There were other head wounds seen at Bethesda that were not seen at Parkland, which suggests exactly what Humes uttered as heard by the FBI agents, surgery to the head area, which can only mean alteration of the body prior to the so-called autopsy. That is basically what we know IMO, which means a conspiracy. What the government shows us with its photos and x-rays and its final "autopsy" report (after the first one I believe was burned) is worthless, one photo being an obvious fake and thus none of them being trustworthy. We can argue forever, to the delight and amusement of the conspirators, about the exact nature of the wounds and type of weapons used. We know enough to know there was a conspiracy, but little else with respect to medical evidence due to the theft of the body from Dallas, after which any hope of knowing more died.

"We are talking about wounds that received no legitimate autopsy. The procedure at Bethesda was a disgraceful charade,"

I just read this medicolegal thing by some pathologist in which he describes JUST HOW MUCH of a joke this autopsy was in terms of overall Medical procedure as POLICY. These US Naval officers had no more choice in their procedures than an intern would have, and how it was, given their performance as they themselves have attested to, in fact, a travesty.

It's one thing for we laypersons to see the many mistakes that are visible and unconscionable, quite another to compare their actions to how it was supposed to be done.

If anyone hasn't come across it, it's "Medicolegal Investigation of the JFK Murder" by Charles Wilber.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ron

If a FMJ bullet travelling at 2000 fps (1367 mph) has the ability to pass right through a man's chest and out the other side, and still retain enough velocity to do some serious damage on the other side, what velocity would a so called "bad round" be travelling at to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch or so?

I have no idea.

Well, I can tell you, the bullet would be moving at little more than a crawl.

For comparison, the .38 Special "Colt Cobra" revolver that Jack Ruby used to shoot LHO had a muzzle velocity of between 800 and 900 fps, depending on the weight of the bullets. This bullet entered the left side of LHO's abdomen and almost managed to exit the right side before it came to a halt, passing through several organs and blood vessels on the way through. With this in mind, we know 800 fps would not be the velocity of the bullet that struck JFK's back, as this bullet would likely have been found in the forward part of JFK's chest cavity.

Realistically, I believe a bullet would have to be travelling around 300 fps (204 mph) in order to only penetrate the flesh of JFK's back a mere inch.

While this might be feasible if the rifle muzzle was a few inches from JFK's back, a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign.

1. Bullet drop. If the rifle is sighted in to hit a target at 100 yards (or whatever range you choose) firing bullets with a muzzle velocity of 2200 fps, the shooter will have no idea he has chambered a "bad round" and will aim as if he is shooting a normal cartridge. At such a reduced velocity, the bullet will not have enough energy to reach its target or, for that matter, anywhere close to it. In fact, at such a low velocity, the bullet will have dropped so much, it is more likely to hit the back end of the limo than anything else.

2. Bullet stability. The spiral riflings inside a rifle barrel impart a high speed spin to a bullet that gyroscopically stabilizes the bullet in flight. Without this spin, the bullet will tumble in flight, end over end. Not only will this prevent the bullet from making a neat entrance wound as seen on JFK's back, the tumbling bullet presents an un-aerodynamic surface that will quickly rob the bullet of velocity; making it go even slower and causing it to impact even further back from the limo.

3. Barrel blockage. Will a bullet travelling this slow have enough energy to even make it out of the barrel?

In summation, I believe the "shallow" back wound caused by a "bad round" to be a fabrication, and further evidence of a well contrived conspiracy that involved the autopsy doctors at Bethesda. Unfortunately, JFK researchers were taken in by this ruse, for the sole reason it served the purpose of discrediting the Single Bullet Theory. I believe there is ample evidence the bullet that entered JFK's back also entered the top of his right lung and disintegrated there.

I believe the reason for the fabrication of the shallow back wound story was the need to conceal the type of bullets that were fired at JFK that day. These were such exotic bullets that, if their existence became known, it would immediately disqualify LHO as the shooter, unless he had close ties to the CIA or other agencies with the technical know how to make these bullets.

a whole new set of problems arises when we try to get the bullet from the 6th floor to JFK's back as he is behind the Stemmons sign. When did it get established that the shot was fired from the 6th floor?

Excuse me, princess. It should read ".......from the 6th floor, or wherever the h*ll the shot came from, although I'm pretty sure it was from behind the limo, and as no one is visible with a rifle directly behind the limo in the Zapruder film, we can likely assume the rifle was at least 50 yards away or more."

Better?

Well, Queenie, at least you are acknowledging that you, nor anyone else knows where the bullet was fired from. But since we all know it was NOT fired from the 6th floor, why pick that as the place you say it did come from. Why not just say the bullet that came from behind the limo. better?

Not quite sure why you thought 'Princess' was appropriate, but you got rewarded with Queenie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this medicolegal thing by some pathologist in which he describes JUST HOW MUCH of a joke this autopsy was in terms of overall Medical procedure as POLICY. These US Naval officers had no more choice in their procedures than an intern would have, and how it was, given their performance as they themselves have attested to, in fact, a travesty.

It's one thing for we laypersons to see the many mistakes that are visible and unconscionable, quite another to compare their actions to how it was supposed to be done.

If anyone hasn't come across it, it's "Medicolegal Investigation of the JFK Murder" by Charles Wilber.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I take you are trying to excuse "these US Naval officers" for not knowing what they were doing, or else for having to follow procedures that were a joke. I would ask why the U.S.Navy would assign an autopsy of a president of the United States to people who didn't know what they were doing, or to require them to follow procedures that were a joke, or why the Navy would not know that its procedures were a joke. I happen to think that the Navy knew exactly what it was doing at Bethesda that night.

.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he did feel like a fool x-raying an empty chest cavity, as any evidence of a bullet would have been removed with the lung.

" I think the bottom line is that the back wound is something of a mystery, whatever the explanation may be, and that its only real value to researchers is its location and not how it got there or where the bullet went. Its location is evidence of conspiracy. "

I cannot state strongly enough the incorrectness of this thinking, and that this line of thought is precisely what those feeding us this disinformation wanted to produce in our minds.

Think of it for a second. JFK was shot in the back with a 162 grain full metal jacket bullet, travelling roughly 2000 fps (1363 mph) when it struck him. The only things that stood between this bullet and the space in front of JFK were two fragile ribs (assuming the bullet did not pass between ribs) and the top of a lung. With the weight of this bullet, and its velocity, it had enough energy to pass through Connally, as well, and still injure Kellerman.

This back wound is indeed a mystery, a bullet entering but not exiting. But, when one considers that the exact same bullet that entered JFK's right lung also caused the damage to JFK's head, the mystery begins to clear up a little.

Frangible bullets are made from powdered lead (or other metals) that is compressed or glued together into the shape of a bullet. They will disintegrate into dust if they come into contact with steel or concrete, but will easily penetrate brittle skull bone. If of the proper hollow point design, these bullets will disintegrate in a wound as they pass through soft, wet tissue, such as brain or lung. This disintegration into dust makes frangible bullets the most lethal bullets on the market today.

It was necessary to mask the nature of the back wound in order to maintain the myth that JFK was shot in the head with a FMJ bullet.

Geez, Robert. The bullet or fragment creating the back wound did not enter the body. This was not a story made up after the autopsy. This was confirmed by the FBI agents watching the autopsy, and by autopsy assistant James Curtis Jenkins, in numerous interviews. The doctors' failure to find an entrance into the body, moreover, was considered so problematic for the single-assassin conclusion that Arlen Specter chose to lie about it, and made up a story (that the bullet slid between some imaginary strap muscles on the back of the neck) that he told in the Warren Report and continued to tell until his death. So, yes, a story was created to hide what happened. But you're looking in the wrong direction.

You are lost, Pat, along with the majority of researchers who also have a complete lack of understanding of ballistics.

Ever since Tom Purvis fed you all that whopper about the "short shot", you've all gladly accepted the bullet that only penetrated an inch into JFK's back, only because it negated the Single Bullet Theory.

Do you have any concept at all how ridiculous that is?

P.S.

Confirmation by two FBI agents is hardly what one would call consultation with medical professionals.

Do the research, will ya? Purvis never fed me anything. Every one in attendance at the autopsy agreed that the back wound was probed, but that there was no entrance into the body. Now you, as a self-proclaimed expert on ballistics, know how unusual this is. The doctors themselves knew how unusual this was. So much so that when they found out about the throat wound, they thought "AHA!" the bullet must have exited the throat! But there was a problem. They'd already told the FBI the bullet did not transit the body. And there was another problem. They'd already created a face sheet proving the back wound was, if anything, below the level of the throat wound. And there was yet another problem. There were a number of witnesses beyond the FBI who either saw them probe the back wound, or heard them discuss it, and verify that the bullet did not transit the body.

Well, Specter and the WC didn't know how to explain this to the public. So they didn't. They let the doctors testify that they had trouble finding the entrance into the body, and that they could only ascertain the bullet's course when the body was no longer in front of them, and then acted like this was no big deal. They interviewed the FBI agents but refused to call them before the commission and put their recollections on the record. They put the face sheet into evidence, but failed to take any testimony regarding the level of the back wound on the drawing. And not only that, they asked the doctors to create new drawings with the back wound in a more convenient location. And not only that, they pushed the flat-out lie that the doctors found bruising between two muscles on the back of the neck, through which the bullet slipped or slid. And not only that, they failed to ask any of the other sworn-to-silence witnesses to the wound about their recollections.

That the bullet transited the body at a location above the throat wound was a deliberate hoax.

P.S. If you think it ridiculous that a rifle bullet would not transit beyond the outer layers of the skin, perhaps you should consider the alternative. In your scenario, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that three doctors inspected the body of the most famous patient they would ever see, and found the entrance of a high-velocity bullet on his back flesh, but couldn't find any entrance beyond the flesh. Now, do you know how ridiculous this is? I've read dozens and dozens of books and articles on gunshot wounds, and this just does not happen. I mean, I've yet to find a single case study in which doctors valiantly tried to probe a high-velocity torso wound, but couldn't find any entrance into the body. Have you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There have been a lot of words posted on this thread regarding what Pat Speer has concluded. Many of you are castigating Mr. Speer for using the evidence we were given by the WC, claiming that the evidence doesn't accurately represent the truth.

But let's look at this from a different angle.

What Pat Speer has done is to take the evidence we were given--flawed or not--and use it to show that, even with their own evidence, the conclusions of the WC are unsupportable. Mr. Speer has educated himself in many different areas of anatomy and physiology, and other areas of scientific analysis, and used that knowledge to show that the conclusions of the WC are dubious at best, and fraudulent at worst.

I, for one, give him a pat on the back for his diligent research. Unlike DVP's stereotype of CT'ers, Speer has NOT called the evidence bogus; instead, he has used the evidence we were given to show the conclusions were bogus.

Now, you can debate the legitimacy of the evidence all you want. BUT if it shows that the SBT is impossible, then the disagreement between Mr. Varnel and Mr. Speer can be considered similar to the sorting of "gnat sh*t and pepper," as one forum member used to express it awhile back.

For the record, I'm more aligned with Mr. Varnel as far as the position of the back wound. I just have no reason to get all argumentative [original word self-censored in the interest of good taste] about any theory that, essentially, arrives at the same conclusion as I do.

And now return you to your regular programming.

[Apparently Mr. Speer and I were posting at the same time.]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this medicolegal thing by some pathologist in which he describes JUST HOW MUCH of a joke this autopsy was in terms of overall Medical procedure as POLICY. These US Naval officers had no more choice in their procedures than an intern would have, and how it was, given their performance as they themselves have attested to, in fact, a travesty.

It's one thing for we laypersons to see the many mistakes that are visible and unconscionable, quite another to compare their actions to how it was supposed to be done.

If anyone hasn't come across it, it's "Medicolegal Investigation of the JFK Murder" by Charles Wilber.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I take you are trying to excuse "these US Naval officers" for not knowing what they were doing, or else for having to follow procedures that were a joke. I would ask why the U.S.Navy would assign an autopsy of a president of the United States to people who didn't know what they were doing, or to require them to follow procedures that were a joke, or why the Navy would not know that its procedures were a joke. I happen to think that the Navy knew exactly what it was doing at Bethesda that night.

.

golly i'm glad you asked then. :) not what i meant at all. he's stating that the Medical Procedure is quite clear and that the doctors didn't follow it for whatever reason - i didn't take it that he was excusing them; on the contrary, i took him to mean that they were negligent for one of perhaps a few reasons. FBI coercion, corruption themselves, whatever...

I agree with your last statement; yep, the upper officers knew just what was going on. however they knew, they knew.

and btw, i'm prior Navy - yet i'm more than happy to throw the guilty under the bus, Navy or not.

I'll go get a pullquote from the Medicolegal doc...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just read this medicolegal thing by some pathologist in which he describes JUST HOW MUCH of a joke this autopsy was in terms of overall Medical procedure as POLICY. These US Naval officers had no more choice in their procedures than an intern would have, and how it was, given their performance as they themselves have attested to, in fact, a travesty.

It's one thing for we laypersons to see the many mistakes that are visible and unconscionable, quite another to compare their actions to how it was supposed to be done.

If anyone hasn't come across it, it's "Medicolegal Investigation of the JFK Murder" by Charles Wilber.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow you. I take you are trying to excuse "these US Naval officers" for not knowing what they were doing, or else for having to follow procedures that were a joke. I would ask why the U.S.Navy would assign an autopsy of a president of the United States to people who didn't know what they were doing, or to require them to follow procedures that were a joke, or why the Navy would not know that its procedures were a joke. I happen to think that the Navy knew exactly what it was doing at Bethesda that night.

.

Sorry Ron. No way. First they did not normally do autopsys. They were 'doctors'. They were not allowed to publish there autopsy report/findings. The notes were burn, remember? Almost nothing they found was accepted. it was a total sham. Why were there so many people there? Why was the autopsy doctor not 'in charge'? They wanted the truth hidden, it was. We still do not have the 'truth'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please note that all of Pat's photos are lateral views.

I suggest the following experiment:

Get a hand held mirror; stand in front of a wall mirror with your shoulders perpendicular so that you have a reflection of a lateral view.

Glance over and notice that the top of your shirt collar appears to be a little under the level of your ear lobes.

Now turn your back to the wall mirror and hold up the hand mirror so that it reflects a posterior view of the back of your head.

The top of your shirt collar will appear to have dropped a couple of inches!

That's because the lateral view Pat must use is an optical illusion.

I called John Hunt out for this garbage back in '99...Zombie Pet Theories...

So now I get it.

I don't see any evidence of that at all.

It's all a joke, right?

Your "work" on the back wound is a bad joke, correct.

I mean, you didn't even read the captions to those images.

I could care less about Zimmerman and McAdams. They put the back wound at C7/T1 -- you put the wound at T1.

All of you are demonstrably wrong.

The images I posted demonstrate that McAdams and Zimmerman routinely lie about the back wound location on their exhibits, in which they propose the bullet entered at a level far above the throat wound. But, no, instead of agreeing with me on this obvious point, you choose to pretend there's some sort of optical illusion at work.

To make the case that JFK's mastoid aligned with the top of his collars you employ a lateral view optical illusion.

I've well demonstrated this already.

In other words, you are defending them.

In other words, Pat, you can't defend this T1 nonsense to save your life so you want to make this about the SBT.

It ain't about the SBT.

It's about the historical fact JFK's back wound was at T3.

If you claim otherwise -- show us how the jacket collar dropped into an elevated position.

So...does that mean you think a bullet entrance at T-1 really IS above the level of the throat wound? If so, please demonstrate.

There was NO T1 back wound.

T1 ain't 4 inches below the bottom of your clothing collars.

You ignore the illogic of your claims about the clothing.

You cite lateral views to support your claim that the upper margin of Kennedy's clothing collars aligned with the mastoid process, employing an obvious, demonstrable optical illusion.

You are demonstrably wrong.

FWIW, I'm not pushing Hunt's "garbage."

Hunt used the same lateral view optical illusion.

Hunt's study of the bunching of the clothing led him to believe the holes on the clothing were consistent with the single-bullet theory. I do not. Much as yourself, I argue that the holes on the clothing prove the single-bullet theory a fraud.

Yeah, we've known that for over 50 years.

Who cares about the SBT?

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

That's what I want to know.

Cliff, you asked for a photo, i put one in 233, I notice you are ignoring it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess.

in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it.

i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT.

i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it.

it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it.

i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert, Mark, et al, I wish you'd go try your hand at my Exercise in Reason which is in reality a test written by this doctor guy in the early 70s to point out mistakes that are easily made in the areas of reason and logic.

Only 4% of the people he tested back then got it right, and it looks simple as hell.

(it's a matter of reading the problem correctly and understanding it correctly, which has not yet been done - well, by two people. ok, three. i missed it, too. but i know the answer now and it's fascinating to see how differenly people interpret some pretty simple instructions...)

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )

(Ken thinks i rigged it halfway through it. :) )no, I don't think that, but I can tell from the comments at this time that it is a 'trick' question. It's not just an honest straight forward question. If it were, the answer would be 1. When are we gonna get an interpretation of the answer?

Damn, i can see why Robert called you Princess.

in fact, it has been answered correctly within the very thread. I have promised to stay out of it for a minute because - and you may not like this idea - I was enjoying learning about the way people think, and i happen to think that SOME people enjoy a challenge for the sake of the challenge, even IF they are not able to solve it themselves, without finding an excuse for their inability to solve it.

i missed it. it wasn't because it's a trick question. it's because i didn't try hard enough. once i saw the answer, i saw my mistake, and I LEARNED FROM IT.

i was also proud that i did not need an excuse to justify my missing it.

it's not a trick question, Ken. You're just wrong. there's nothing wrong with being wrong. I've been wrong before, and I lived through it. The odds are in my favor of being wrong again. I will learn from it.

i learned from this exercise. and i learn from you...

ok, well, you're going to have to show me how it's not a trick question. If you have to have the answer to one question before you can even ask the 2nd and then you ask the 2nd without the answer to the first. I'll have to see that. I don't believe that i won't disagree with the answer if the answer is not one. I know you're going to say you have to turn the card with the number 4 on it to see if there is a vowel on the back. but you can't do that until you know that there 'is' a vowel on the front of the card. Anyhow, I can already tell I'm not going to agree with your answer because I can already tell you have the wrong answer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

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


×
×
  • Create New...