Jump to content
The Education Forum
Pat Speer

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

Recommended Posts

Brad, the ARRB had a separate group covering military and related records, when you get the Lancer CD you will find their internal mems, correspondance etc. Doug Horne was not involved in that area or with their interviews or records collections on the 112th MIG.

The ARRB interview with Prouty definitely explores the subject of his comments on the use of the military in presidential security.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the presence of military intelligence officers in Dealey Plaza, James Richards recently offered a bit of information (and this photo) that was previously unknown to me.

David A. Sooy was an ONI officer stationed in Dallas. He was photographed with another ONI man named Frank Krystinic. Krystinic was close friends with Michael Paine. Sooy was in his car parked in front of the TSBD when the shots were fired, a fact which is referenced in his obituary.

Just another coincidence?

attachicon.gif10414571_650535015066813_827721137919513780_n.jpg

Bumped with a question for Linda:

Is this the only photo we have of Sooy?

Some of the photos that James Richards posted on another thread are gone now, but it's my understanding that in this photo Sooy is on the right and Krystinic is on the left. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on that.

--Tommy :sun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the presence of military intelligence officers in Dealey Plaza, James Richards recently offered a bit of information (and this photo) that was previously unknown to me.

David A. Sooy was an ONI officer stationed in Dallas. He was photographed with another ONI man named Frank Krystinic. Krystinic was close friends with Michael Paine. Sooy was in his car parked in front of the TSBD when the shots were fired, a fact which is referenced in his obituary.

Just another coincidence?

attachicon.gif10414571_650535015066813_827721137919513780_n.jpg

Krystinic was more than close friends with Mike Paine.

He actually met Oswald at the ACLU meeting that Paine and Oswald went to in October of 1963. It was after Oswald made a speech.

Oswald and Krystinic later got into an argument. Which became heated, and nearly violent.

Although Oswald left the impression he was not impressed by the ACLU, he later joined the organization. (Melanson, Spy Saga, p. 56)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the presence of military intelligence officers in Dealey Plaza, James Richards recently offered a bit of information (and this photo) that was previously unknown to me.

David A. Sooy was an ONI officer stationed in Dallas. He was photographed with another ONI man named Frank Krystinic. Krystinic was close friends with Michael Paine. Sooy was in his car parked in front of the TSBD when the shots were fired, a fact which is referenced in his obituary.

Just another coincidence?

attachicon.gif10414571_650535015066813_827721137919513780_n.jpg

Krystinic was more than close friends with Mike Paine.

He actually met Oswald at the ACLU meeting that Paine and Oswald went to in October of 1963. It was after Oswald made a speech.

Oswald and Krystinic later got into an argument. Which became heated, and nearly violent.

Although Oswald left the impression he was not impressed by the ACLU, he later joined the organization. (Melanson, Spy Saga, p. 56)

Its a small RUBY like world , NO ?? , gaal

===================

Bill Kelly

Posted 21 March 2013 - 08:49 PM

Okay, let me get this straight.

In early November 1963 Col. James Dudley Wilmeth USA(Ret), professor of Russian language at UT Arlington, seeks out Marina Oswald so he can hear her speak Russian, the same reason Ruth Paine gave for seeking out Marina and befriending her.

Col. Wilmeth is a neighbor of Clarke Benham, a Bell Helicopter engineer who works with Michael Paine, who gave Ruth Paine's phone number to Wilmeth, and calls early in the week before the assassination. I like Ruth Paine's testimony on this when she acknowledges the phone call from Wilmeth, but then asks if they were interested in Wilmeth's visit to the Paine home,

Mr. Jenner. Have you completed all you wish to say about that incident?

Mrs. Paine. Yes. Are you going to ask me if he came?

Well Wilmeth came calling Nov. 19 as they were preparing dinner, a "social call" that lasted about an hour and a half. Wilmeth considered having Marina address his Russian language class, but called Ruth Paine on the afternoon of Nov. 22nd, and considering the circumstances, said he wouldn't bother them again.

Col. Wilmeth is a local Ft. Worth boy who attended UT Austin and West Point, served in North Africa and Europe during WWII, and after the war was assigned to the US Military Mission to Moscow, where he worked on POW issues and developed his interest in the Russian language. Wilmeth also served in Korea and Japan and after retirement from the military taught Russian at UT Arlington.

When Wilmeth is questioned about his visit to the Paines, the report mistakenly says Wilmeth learned Russian while spending "two years with US military in Mexico," and J. E. Hover himself decides this mistake in a report is worthy of calling attention to it and correcting, making sure the Warren Commission knows that it's MOSCOW not MEXICO, just in case Wilmeth is called to testify. He is not called, but at Hover's insistence the official record is corrected.

Wilmeth's neighbor and the link to Michael Paine is Clarke Benham, Paine's Bell Helicopter co-worker (US Navy, U Michigan) whose wife also teaches (chemestry) with Wilmeth at UT Arlingtion.

Michael Paine and Clarke Benham are together with Raymond Franklin Krystink at Bell Helicopter when news of the assassination mentions the Texas School Book Depository, which sparks Krystink to mention that Paine's friend Oswald works there. The three of them huddle around a little radio, and when Oswald's name is mentioned, Michael Paine says, "He's not supposed to have a gun," or something to that effect.

Kryntink knew Oswald worked at the TSBD because they met earlier at an ACLU meeting. Michael Paine took Oswald to the meeting and Oswald joined the organization. According to Kryntink, Oswald spoke up at the meeting and they talked about the Pope, Walker and Adlai Stevenson. Kryntink says that Oswald implied that he had heard Walker talk and was present at the Stevenson incident.

Krystinik mentions all this in his testimony, but I think he fails to mention that after meeting Oswald at the ACLU meeting, he went to Jack Ruby's Carousel Club with some other Bell Helicopter employees.

Then it comes out - years later, that once Oswald was identified, Michael Paine called home from his Bell Hel office, a conversation that was either picked up by a window washer or a tap on the phone - but in either case, the conversation was picked up and Michael Paine said something about knowing Oswald didn't do it and they knew who did, a conversation said to be with either his father in California or wife in Irving. He then drove to Iriving.

And Col. Wilmeth is not questioned further, but acknowledged visiting Ruth Paine and Marina for a social visit for an hour and a half on November 19, and neither Clark Benham nor Ruth or Michael Paine are questioned by the HSCA or ARRB.

Is that the story?

Well at least they got Krystinik:

JFKCountercoup2: Raymond Franklin Krystinik

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. There is a good chance that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, after all.

6. It’s highly, unlikely, however, that this bullet was CE399, often referred to as the “magic bullet.”

7. The doctors who presided over the President’s autopsy were correct when they described an entrance into the President’s skull at the back of his head near his hairline.

8. They were wrong, however, in assuming that this bullet exited from the top of Kennedy’s skull, as this bullet most logically exited from the President’s throat.

More than a half-dozen Parkland personnel described the throat wound as an entrance.

According to Pat Speer they all got it wrong.

More than a dozen witnesses described a back wound location consistent with the holes in JFK's clothes.

According to Pat Speer they all got it wrong, and JFK's clothing behaved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality.

Pet Theorizing run amok.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a blast from the past. I wrote that after studying the case for a year and a half. I stand by most of it. Some of it I'd forgotten.

The one thing I'd like to take back is my put-down of Wecht. At the time I under-estimated the role peer pressure plays in assassination research and society as a whole. I now consider Wecht's resistance to so many of the heavyweights of his profession remarkable, and quite admirable.

As far as Oswald's killing Tippit, I still suspect that was the case. There are quite a few reasons to suspect as much, IMO, only one of them being that the NAA tests of the paraffin casts identified gsr on his hand casts. But that's a strong suspicion, not really a conclusion.

I had not been in the forum for a long time so I googled "pat speers education forum" for recent content. Your post was one of the returned items, and had a date of Nov. 13. I just forgot to check the year. Hey, I was only 10 years off! LOL. I was even ready to purchase your "upcoming" book.

i was just about to ask this same question when i saw this post from 1 year ago - I'd still like to know, though, Pat. Do you still stand on those original (first) ten "conclusions"?

do you still think it illogical to think Ks wounds were changed?

and incidentally, i too found the fact that "George de Mohrenschildt, Oswald’s best friend, dated Jackie Kennedy’s mother and had known Jackie as a young girl." a mind-numbingly bizarre "tidbit" (if not something more...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, what a blast from the past. I wrote that after studying the case for a year and a half. I stand by most of it. Some of it I'd forgotten.

The one thing I'd like to take back is my put-down of Wecht. At the time I under-estimated the role peer pressure plays in assassination research and society as a whole. I now consider Wecht's resistance to so many of the heavyweights of his profession remarkable, and quite admirable.

As far as Oswald's killing Tippit, I still suspect that was the case. There are quite a few reasons to suspect as much, IMO, only one of them being that the NAA tests of the paraffin casts identified gsr on his hand casts. But that's a strong suspicion, not really a conclusion.

I had not been in the forum for a long time so I googled "pat speers education forum" for recent content. Your post was one of the returned items, and had a date of Nov. 13. I just forgot to check the year. Hey, I was only 10 years off! LOL. I was even ready to purchase your "upcoming" book.

i was just about to ask this same question when i saw this post from 1 year ago - I'd still like to know, though, Pat. Do you still stand on those original (first) ten "conclusions"?

do you still think it illogical to think Ks wounds were changed?

and incidentally, i too found the fact that "George de Mohrenschildt, Oswald’s best friend, dated Jackie Kennedy’s mother and had known Jackie as a young girl." a mind-numbingly bizarre "tidbit" (if not something more...).

I hadn't looked at those conclusions in years, and was kinda horrified when I saw this thread pop up, as I couldn't recall exactly what they were. So I went through them earlier today and noted where my conclusions had changed. My conclusions about the shooting are pretty much the same. Where I've changed is in my attitude about an ongoing cover-up. In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions. We are, as a species, ego-driven, not truth-driven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions.

Can you elucidate this a bit more as to what you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions.

Can you elucidate this a bit more as to what you mean.

Sure. I've seen how people wed to a theory will hold onto it in spite of the evidence and common sense. I suspect, then, that people like Bugliosi are probably no different, and are wed to their theory Oswald acted alone much as some CTs, as but one example, are wed to the idea Greer did it. Now, it is a little more complicated than that, in that the mainstream media has engaged in "groupthink" as well, creating the illusion a vast conspiracy is at hand to shut down all talk of conspiracy. But no, I really don't think there's a secret office in the basement of the White House, or Pentagon, or CIA headquarters where people get together and track what's going on in CT land, and plot out how to spread disinformation, etc. It's not that they wouldn't. It's that at this point in time they don't need to. Not enough people care.

Now, that said, I do suspect that certain individuals, from both sides of the fence, have told deliberate lies. I just don't think that at this point in time these lies are organized from above, or overseas.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions.

Can you elucidate this a bit more as to what you mean.

Sure. I've seen how people wed to a theory will hold onto it in spite of the evidence and common sense.

This is rich coming from a guy who fell in love with the BOH photo and treats it as if it were fashioned by the hand of God -- rather than an improperly produced photo with no chain of possession and a "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar.

It was love at first sight, right, Pat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5. There is a good chance that Kennedy and Connally were hit by the same bullet, after all.

6. It’s highly, unlikely, however, that this bullet was CE399, often referred to as the “magic bullet.”

7. The doctors who presided over the President’s autopsy were correct when they described an entrance into the President’s skull at the back of his head near his hairline.

8. They were wrong, however, in assuming that this bullet exited from the top of Kennedy’s skull, as this bullet most logically exited from the President’s throat.

More than a half-dozen Parkland personnel described the throat wound as an entrance.

According to Pat Speer they all got it wrong.

More than a dozen witnesses described a back wound location consistent with the holes in JFK's clothes.

According to Pat Speer they all got it wrong, and JFK's clothing behaved in a manner contrary to the nature of reality.

Pet Theorizing run amok.

Well stated. Succinctly put.

Sentiments with which I completely agree.

Speer has put in a lot of work, and has good clipping files.

But. . so what?

What's the use of collecting tons of data if--at the end of the road--you fail when it comes to "connecting the dots".

This case is not about being "wedded" to a theory; its about accurately interpreting data; and drawing proper inferences.

Making outrageous pronouncements--seemingly to get attention--is not the same as drawing reasonable conclusions.

DSL

8/2/15 - 5:15 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions.

Can you elucidate this a bit more as to what you mean.

Sure. I've seen how people wed to a theory will hold onto it in spite of the evidence and common sense. I suspect, then, that people like Bugliosi are probably no different, and are wed to their theory Oswald acted alone much as some CTs, as but one example, are wed to the idea Greer did it. Now, it is a little more complicated than that, in that the mainstream media has engaged in "groupthink" as well, creating the illusion a vast conspiracy is at hand to shut down all talk of conspiracy. But no, I really don't think there's a secret office in the basement of the White House, or Pentagon, or CIA headquarters where people get together and track what's going on in CT land, and plot out how to spread disinformation, etc. It's not that they wouldn't. It's that at this point in time they don't need to. Not enough people care.

Now, that said, I do suspect that certain individuals, from both sides of the fence, have told deliberate lies. I just don't think that at this point in time these lies are organized from above, or overseas.

"In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting"

you mean like the preceding posts...? i really am truly amazed at the efforts people make just to take a jab at another researcher who happens to arrive at contrary conclusions to their own (DVP does not qualify as a researcher and I admit enjoying an occasional jab at him).

i do not get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions.

Can you elucidate this a bit more as to what you mean.

Sure. I've seen how people wed to a theory will hold onto it in spite of the evidence and common sense. I suspect, then, that people like Bugliosi are probably no different, and are wed to their theory Oswald acted alone much as some CTs, as but one example, are wed to the idea Greer did it. Now, it is a little more complicated than that, in that the mainstream media has engaged in "groupthink" as well, creating the illusion a vast conspiracy is at hand to shut down all talk of conspiracy. But no, I really don't think there's a secret office in the basement of the White House, or Pentagon, or CIA headquarters where people get together and track what's going on in CT land, and plot out how to spread disinformation, etc. It's not that they wouldn't. It's that at this point in time they don't need to. Not enough people care.

Now, that said, I do suspect that certain individuals, from both sides of the fence, have told deliberate lies. I just don't think that at this point in time these lies are organized from above, or overseas.

"In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting"

you mean like the preceding posts...? i really am truly amazed at the efforts people make just to take a jab at another researcher who happens to arrive at contrary conclusions to their own (DVP does not qualify as a researcher and I admit enjoying an occasional jab at him).

i do not get it.

I don't divide the world in CT/LN.

I divide the world into those who properly weight the physical evidence in this murder case -- and those who don't.

Pat Speer conjurs the same content-less talking points that LNers cite, all pretending that the physical evidence has no weight at all.

Such "researchers" are deserving of all the scorn they get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions.

Can you elucidate this a bit more as to what you mean.

Sure. I've seen how people wed to a theory will hold onto it in spite of the evidence and common sense. I suspect, then, that people like Bugliosi are probably no different, and are wed to their theory Oswald acted alone much as some CTs, as but one example, are wed to the idea Greer did it. Now, it is a little more complicated than that, in that the mainstream media has engaged in "groupthink" as well, creating the illusion a vast conspiracy is at hand to shut down all talk of conspiracy. But no, I really don't think there's a secret office in the basement of the White House, or Pentagon, or CIA headquarters where people get together and track what's going on in CT land, and plot out how to spread disinformation, etc. It's not that they wouldn't. It's that at this point in time they don't need to. Not enough people care.

Now, that said, I do suspect that certain individuals, from both sides of the fence, have told deliberate lies. I just don't think that at this point in time these lies are organized from above, or overseas.

"In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting"

you mean like the preceding posts...? i really am truly amazed at the efforts people make just to take a jab at another researcher who happens to arrive at contrary conclusions to their own (DVP does not qualify as a researcher and I admit enjoying an occasional jab at him).

i do not get it.

Yes, Glenn, I would point to the last couple of posts as Exhibit A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PS: In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting, and so much deception, among my fellow CTs that I no longer assume those pushing the Oswald-did-it theory in the media or the web are conscious of their deceptions.

Can you elucidate this a bit more as to what you mean.

Sure. I've seen how people wed to a theory will hold onto it in spite of the evidence and common sense. I suspect, then, that people like Bugliosi are probably no different, and are wed to their theory Oswald acted alone much as some CTs, as but one example, are wed to the idea Greer did it. Now, it is a little more complicated than that, in that the mainstream media has engaged in "groupthink" as well, creating the illusion a vast conspiracy is at hand to shut down all talk of conspiracy. But no, I really don't think there's a secret office in the basement of the White House, or Pentagon, or CIA headquarters where people get together and track what's going on in CT land, and plot out how to spread disinformation, etc. It's not that they wouldn't. It's that at this point in time they don't need to. Not enough people care.

Now, that said, I do suspect that certain individuals, from both sides of the fence, have told deliberate lies. I just don't think that at this point in time these lies are organized from above, or overseas.

"In the past ten years I have witnessed so much infighting"

you mean like the preceding posts...? i really am truly amazed at the efforts people make just to take a jab at another researcher who happens to arrive at contrary conclusions to their own (DVP does not qualify as a researcher and I admit enjoying an occasional jab at him).

i do not get it.

Yes, Glenn, I would point to the last couple of posts as Exhibit A.

What difference does it make if it's you, Pat Speer, claiming that all the witnesses to the back/throat wounds got it wrong -- or if it's Von Pein making the same claim?

Egregious witness bashing deserves condemnation.

You're a serial witness-basher Pat, and you need to be called out for it.

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...