Jump to content
The Education Forum
Pat Speer

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

Recommended Posts

Pat thinks it is "highly unlikely" that CE399 caused all those wounds in JFK and Connally? Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did. The evidence in the Exhibits, consisting of identical test ammunition fired into various substances, completely contradicts their own untenable conclusion. It is not highly unlikely, it is scientifically impossible.

For whatever reason, good researchers want to ignore or downplay some of the best evidence; the holes in JFK's clothing, for instance. The testimony of all the medical personnel in Dallas. The strong indication by Dr. Perry and others that the throat wound was an entry wound. The list goes on.

I do agree with the statement about the ego-driven nature of the research community, but that doesn't explain or justify anyone studying the evidence thoroughly and still believing in the completely impossible official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, this isn't "in-fighting."

I don't identify with the "CT group."

I identify with the first day witnesses at Dealey/Parkland/Bethesda.

Their consensus testimony puts the back wound at T3, and the throat wound an entrance, matching the physical evidence and the properly prepared medical documents.

I don't care who is attacking their honesty and competence -- witness bashers come in all ideological stripes.

CT/LN is a phony construct.

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.

Not that it's of value whatsoever, as you have never been able to understand anything I've ever written, but you're wrong. The witnesses said they saw a small hole on the throat that resembled an entrance. I believe they are correct. They also said they saw a large hole which, on average, they placed on the upper right part of the head. This is not compatible with the Harper fragment's being occipital bone, nor with the accuracy of the so-called McClelland drawing. So, in rejecting these claims, I am in fact being true to the witnesses.

And that's not to mention that there were other witnesses. As I've shown, probably dozens of times now, the witnesses to the shooting itself overwhelmingly described a wound on the top right side of the head, and not on the far back of the head. As I've shown, probably dozens of times now, the witnesses at Bethesda noted a wound in this same location, that was EXPANDED to include the back of the head when the scalp was peeled back, and skull fell to the table. So, in short, it's a bogus claim to say I'm a witness-basher. I have, in fact, studied the statements of all the witnesses while coming to my conclusions, while those clinging to what I have come to believe is a mythical blow-out wound on the back of the head claim 1) the Dealey Plaza witnesses claiming to see a wound on the top or right front side of the head were all mistaken, and 2) the Bethesda witnesses failing to note a blow-out on the back of the head when first viewing the body saw the head after this wound was closed up by some pre-autopsy surgery.

So, sorry, Cliff. You've got it all backwards.

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.

i see this forum as two entities - those who like to fight for NO construction whatsoever, and those who do not like to fight.

Before I see the other two entities, US and DVP.

point is, even if Pat is what you say, the infighting costs more credibility than anything else. oh, and the ego. if this thing is that personal to you (and believe me, it is very personal to me) then I say, "hmm."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat thinks it is "highly unlikely" that CE399 caused all those wounds in JFK and Connally? Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did. The evidence in the Exhibits, consisting of identical test ammunition fired into various substances, completely contradicts their own untenable conclusion. It is not highly unlikely, it is scientifically impossible.

For whatever reason, good researchers want to ignore or downplay some of the best evidence; the holes in JFK's clothing, for instance. The testimony of all the medical personnel in Dallas. The strong indication by Dr. Perry and others that the throat wound was an entry wound. The list goes on.

I do agree with the statement about the ego-driven nature of the research community, but that doesn't explain or justify anyone studying the evidence thoroughly and still believing in the completely impossible official story.

For Pat it's all about the Fox 5 autopsy photo.

He put so much time into studying it he MUST assert its authenticity.

Not prepared according to autopsy protocol?

No prob, sez Pat.

No chain of possession?

No prob, sez Pat.

A "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below?

No prob, sez Pat.

20+ witnesses got the throat/back wounds wrong? -- improperly prepared medical documents trump properly prepared medical documents? -- multiple inches of JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up above the "T1 wound" without pushing up on the jacket collar?

No prob!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, this isn't "in-fighting."

I don't identify with the "CT group."

I identify with the first day witnesses at Dealey/Parkland/Bethesda.

Their consensus testimony puts the back wound at T3, and the throat wound an entrance, matching the physical evidence and the properly prepared medical documents.

I don't care who is attacking their honesty and competence -- witness bashers come in all ideological stripes.

CT/LN is a phony construct.

if this is not fighting then i'm glad you're not my enemy.

you're not, are you?

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.

i see this forum as two entities - those who like to fight for NO construction whatsoever, and those who do not like to fight.

Before I see the other two entities, US and DVP.

point is, even if Pat is what you say, the infighting costs more credibility than anything else. oh, and the ego. if this thing is that personal to you (and believe me, it is very personal to me) then I say, "hmm."

I don't view it this way at all, with all due respect.

Mis-information shouldn't be given a pass just because the source of said mis-information is a "CT".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glenn, this isn't "in-fighting."

I don't identify with the "CT group."

I identify with the first day witnesses at Dealey/Parkland/Bethesda.

Their consensus testimony puts the back wound at T3, and the throat wound an entrance, matching the physical evidence and the properly prepared medical documents.

I don't care who is attacking their honesty and competence -- witness bashers come in all ideological stripes.

CT/LN is a phony construct.

if this is not fighting then i'm glad you're not my enemy.

you're not, are you?

Let's find out.

Glenn, take a moment to glance down on your right shoulder-line, assuming you're wearing a shirt.

Keeping your eye on your right shoulder-top, casually raise your right arm and wave as if you're in a motorcade.

Does the shirt fabric on your shoulder indent slightly, or does it jack up multiple inches?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat thinks it is "highly unlikely" that CE399 caused all those wounds in JFK and Connally? Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did. The evidence in the Exhibits, consisting of identical test ammunition fired into various substances, completely contradicts their own untenable conclusion. It is not highly unlikely, it is scientifically impossible.

For whatever reason, good researchers want to ignore or downplay some of the best evidence; the holes in JFK's clothing, for instance. The testimony of all the medical personnel in Dallas. The strong indication by Dr. Perry and others that the throat wound was an entry wound. The list goes on.

I do agree with the statement about the ego-driven nature of the research community, but that doesn't explain or justify anyone studying the evidence thoroughly and still believing in the completely impossible official story.

Yikes. Let's be clear. No one on this forum, or in the research community as a whole, has done more to attack the single-bullet theory in recent years than myself. I have written on it extensively, I have delivered presentations on it at Lancer's 50th, and then at the Bethesda conference last year. I also have a video on it, here, which I believe demonstrates that it was a hoax from the beginning, that has only been kept alive by a series of misrepresentations and/or lies.

https://youtu.be/EHFvDw0VSb0

But no, I said "highly unlikely" ten years ago, when you would much rather I have said "scientifically impossible." Oy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cliff, i don't give anything a pass. CT or not. I test everything against reason and logic.

it's not about that. it's not about whether he's right or wrong or rude. it's about who was assigned to monitor Pat Speer's behavior, and that is David Von Pein's job, and he takes his responsibilities very seriously. This should give you and I the freedom to worry about our OWN presentation skills, and not have to fret so much over others'.

whew.

Pat: may i quote you?

"oy."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat thinks it is "highly unlikely" that CE399 caused all those wounds in JFK and Connally? Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did. The evidence in the Exhibits, consisting of identical test ammunition fired into various substances, completely contradicts their own untenable conclusion. It is not highly unlikely, it is scientifically impossible.

For whatever reason, good researchers want to ignore or downplay some of the best evidence; the holes in JFK's clothing, for instance. The testimony of all the medical personnel in Dallas. The strong indication by Dr. Perry and others that the throat wound was an entry wound. The list goes on.

I do agree with the statement about the ego-driven nature of the research community, but that doesn't explain or justify anyone studying the evidence thoroughly and still believing in the completely impossible official story.

For Pat it's all about the Fox 5 autopsy photo.

He put so much time into studying it he MUST assert its authenticity.

Not prepared according to autopsy protocol?

No prob, sez Pat.

No chain of possession?

No prob, sez Pat.

A "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below?

No prob, sez Pat.

20+ witnesses got the throat/back wounds wrong? -- improperly prepared medical documents trump properly prepared medical documents? -- multiple inches of JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up above the "T1 wound" without pushing up on the jacket collar?

No prob!

Most every word in your post is inaccurate. We went over this 10 years ago, and 8 years ago, and 5 years ago, etc. It seems, in fact, that you only hang out on this forum to attack me, on issues upon which you have already lost the argument...

Here's the slam dunk, in case you missed it the last couple of times. The holes in the clothing were about 14 cm below the top of the collar. The back wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid process. If the top of the collar is by the mastoid at the time of the shots, then, no significant bunching is necessary for the back wound to be 14 cm below the mastoid. Well, as you know, this is exactly what it shows. This places the wound around T-1, Cliff. T-1 is, as acknowledged even by Dr. Mantik, with whom I rarely agree, inconsistent with the single-bullet theory. There is no inconsistency, Cliff, then, between my acceptance of T-1 and my position as a CT, except maybe in your mind. For some reason you have lashed yourself onto the belief the wound was really at T-3. Fine. Believe that. But your constant attacks on me or anyone who's measured out 14 cm from the mastoid on a 6 ft tall man's body in the anatomic position, and compared this to the photos, and came to realize they are both consistent with each other and inconsistent with the single-bullet theory, is bizarre, IMO. As bizarre, in fact, as those claiming the single-bullet theory works at T-1.

So, let's go back to that, Cliff. You have attacked me, repeatedly, for saying I accept the wound was at T-1. You seem to think this "supports" the single-bullet theory. But you are mistaken. It destroys it...to the extent even that the HSCA hired a guy from NASA to move it back. This is shown here:

portableholefixed.jpg

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe it was just semantics, Pat, but I have a hard time accepting any qualifier less than "impossible" in regards to the SBT.

We have indeed debated the location of the back wound before. And I still have a hard time understanding why you think the HSCA's T-1 location is more credible than the T-3 location, which is supported by the holes in both JFK's shirt and his coat, the death certificate signed by Burkley, and the original autopsy face sheet.

Sure, T-1 is still too low for the SBT to work (setting aside the impossible nature of the theory due to the condition of CE399), but T-3 is where the evidence logically leads us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat thinks it is "highly unlikely" that CE399 caused all those wounds in JFK and Connally? Please produce another bullet anywhere that caused seven wounds, including the shattering of a human wrist (one of the thickest bones in the body), and came out looking like this bullet did. The evidence in the Exhibits, consisting of identical test ammunition fired into various substances, completely contradicts their own untenable conclusion. It is not highly unlikely, it is scientifically impossible.

For whatever reason, good researchers want to ignore or downplay some of the best evidence; the holes in JFK's clothing, for instance. The testimony of all the medical personnel in Dallas. The strong indication by Dr. Perry and others that the throat wound was an entry wound. The list goes on.

I do agree with the statement about the ego-driven nature of the research community, but that doesn't explain or justify anyone studying the evidence thoroughly and still believing in the completely impossible official story.

For Pat it's all about the Fox 5 autopsy photo.

He put so much time into studying it he MUST assert its authenticity.

Not prepared according to autopsy protocol?

No prob, sez Pat.

No chain of possession?

No prob, sez Pat.

A "wound" with a lower margin abrasion collar consistent with a shot from below?

No prob, sez Pat.

20+ witnesses got the throat/back wounds wrong? -- improperly prepared medical documents trump properly prepared medical documents? -- multiple inches of JFK's shirt and jacket were bunched up above the "T1 wound" without pushing up on the jacket collar?

No prob!

Most every word in your post is inaccurate.

Oh?

Are you denying the fact that the BOH autopsy photo wasn't prepared according to proper autopsy protocols?

Are you denying that there is no chain of possession for that photo?

Are you denying the analysis of the "wound" which shows a lower margin abrasion collar, consistent with a shot from below?

Are you denying that you tout the authenticity of the BOH photo?

Are you denying that the consensus eye witness testimony put the back wound in the location indicated by the clothing?

We went over this 10 years ago, and 8 years ago, and 5 years ago, etc. It seems, in fact, that you only hang out on this forum to attack me, on issues upon which you have already lost the argument...

Talk about ego-driven!

It's not about you, Pat.

It's about the historical untruths you pass.

Here's the slam dunk, in case you missed it the last couple of times. The holes in the clothing were about 14 cm below the top of the collar. The back wound was measured at 14 cm below the mastoid process.

When? When was this measurement taken?

Those numbers appear on the autopsy face sheet written in PEN, a violation of autopsy protocol.

Those numbers cite a non-thoracic landmark for a thoracic wound, a violation of autopsy protocol.

The mastoid process is a moveable landmark, another violation of autopsy protocol.

You treat this crap as if it were Divine Writ!

The part of the autopsy face sheet properly filled out in PENCIL -- signed off as "verified" -- showed a wound in the lower location,

If the top of the collar is by the mastoid at the time of the shots, then, no significant bunching is necessary for the back wound to be 14 cm below the mastoid. Well, as you know, this is exactly what it shows.

WHAT?

JFK didn't wear his clothing up around his ear lobes.

jfkpose-1.jpg

You rely on a lateral view optical illusion to make that case.

This places the wound around T-1, Cliff. T-1 is, as acknowledged even by Dr. Mantik, with whom I rarely agree, inconsistent with the single-bullet theory.

So you and Dr. Mantik agree that JFK wore his clothing up around his ear lobes?

You and Dr. Mantik are convinced JFK looked like a turtle, perhaps?

You and Dr. Mantik need to look at the physical facts, Pat.

The bullet hole in JFK's shirt is 4 inches even below the bottom of the collar.

How is that location consistent with the base of the neck?

There is no inconsistency, Cliff, then, between my acceptance of T-1 and my position as a CT, except maybe in your mind.

I really don't care about your position as a CT.

Wecht, Mantik, Wexler, Hunt, Thompson -- CTs all, all wrong about the root facts of the case.

Your placing of JFK's clothing up around his ear lobes is egregious nonsense.

Live with it, Pat.

For some reason you have lashed yourself onto the belief the wound was really at T-3. Fine. Believe that.

It's not a matter of belief.

The bullet holes in the clothes align with T3, where all the witnesses place it.

The base of the neck is not four inches below the bottom of your collar Pat.

The claim is beyond bizarre.

But your constant attacks on me or anyone who's measured out 14 cm from the mastoid on a 6 ft tall man's body in the anatomic position, and compared this to the photos, and came to realize they are both consistent with each other and inconsistent with the single-bullet theory, is bizarre, IMO.

See above.

JFK dressed to impress turtles!

As bizarre, in fact, as those claiming the single-bullet theory works at T-1.

This goes way beyond the SBT -- who cares about that?

The T3 back wound establishes the throat entrance.

These are root facts of the case your work obfuscates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not about you, Pat.

It's about the historical untruths you pass.

sounds to me like this is mostly about you, Cliff...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cliff, i don't give anything a pass. CT or not. I test everything against reason and logic.

it's not about that. it's not about whether he's right or wrong or rude. it's about who was assigned to monitor Pat Speer's behavior, and that is David Von Pein's job, and he takes his responsibilities very seriously. This should give you and I the freedom to worry about our OWN presentation skills, and not have to fret so much over others'.

I don't follow.

What difference does it make if it's Pat Speer accusing all the throat/back wound witnesses of beingwrong, or it's David Von Pein?

Either way, they're witness bashing and need to be called out for it, imo.

The witnesses are heroes in my book.

whew.

Pat: may i quote you?

"oy."

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...