Jump to content
The Education Forum
Pat Speer

10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

Recommended Posts

It's not about you, Pat.

It's about the historical untruths you pass.

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

It's about the witnesses.

I'm tired of seeing brave people bashed.

According to Pat Speer everyone who described the throat entrance wound got it wrong.

Everyone who described the T3 back wound got it wrong.

But they didn't -- the physical evidence corroborates them.

Speer's non-argument is both egregious and gratuitous,

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."

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.

i can see that. i'll try to be more clear.

my point is, who was assigned to police Pat's words and theories? You? so who's assigned to watch mine? have i performed ok to suit whomever? (I think i have the Pat Speer Bully Watch next

week.)

who's assigned to monitor yours? whose job is it to call you and me out on our "crap"?

do you really not know?

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.

The difference between T1 and T3 is huge.

In order to correctly interpret the neck x-ray one must understand the throat damage was caused by the throat shot, not a T1 back shot.

<quote on>

Evaluation of the pre-autopsy film shows that there is some subcutaneous or interstitial

air overlying the right C7 and T1 transverse processes. There is disruption of the integrity

of the transverse process of T1, which, in comparison with its mate on the opposite side

and also with the previously taken film, mentioned above, indicates that there has been a fracture in

that area. There is some soft tissue density overlying the apex of the right lung which may

be hematoma in that region or other soft tissue

swelling.

Evaluation of the post-autopsy film shows that there is subcutaneous or interstitial air overlying

C7 and T1. The same disruption of T1 right transverse process is still present.

<quote off>

Lacerated trachea, broken blood vessels, hairline fracture of right T1 transverse process, air pocket overlaying the right C7/T1 transverse processes.

I asked James R. Gordon to apply this to an anatomical model and he produced this, although he doesn't endorse it.

C7T1_2.png

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...

It's about the witnesses.

I'm tired of seeing brave people bashed.

According to Pat Speer everyone who described the throat entrance wound got it wrong.

Everyone who described the T3 back wound got it wrong.

But they didn't -- the physical evidence corroborates them.

Speer's non-argument is both egregious and gratuitous,

and according to DVP the entire lot of us are abject nincompoops, but your feathers are more ruffled at Pat's opinions of some witnesses than of DVP's of you?

i'll be even more clear: i've never seen someone get so bent over another person in a forum. It's like his dog screwed your dog and you're stuck with the puppies.

so Pat's an idiot. get over it.

(JK,Pat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, this man knows some BIG words. I'm outa here. You're on your own.

betcha wished you hadn't resurrected this thread, now, huh. ;)

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."

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.

i can see that. i'll try to be more clear.

my point is, who was assigned to police Pat's words and theories? You? so who's assigned to watch mine? have i performed ok to suit whomever? (I think i have the Pat Speer Bully Watch next

week.)

who's assigned to monitor yours? whose job is it to call you and me out on our "crap"?

do you really not know?

No.

None of what you say matches my experience on the internet.

You insist on making this personal -- I insist on making this a matter of evidence and historical fact.

Glenn, the Job #1 of the JFK murder cover-up was suppression of the physical evidence -- the body was hijacked, the autopists were denied access to the clothing.

Suppression of the clothing evidence is a big part of the cover-up.

When Speer claims JFK wore his clothing up around his earlobes he is engaged in a misrepresentation clear as day.

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...

It's about the witnesses.

I'm tired of seeing brave people bashed.

According to Pat Speer everyone who described the throat entrance wound got it wrong.

Everyone who described the T3 back wound got it wrong.

But they didn't -- the physical evidence corroborates them.

Speer's non-argument is both egregious and gratuitous,

and according to DVP the entire lot of us are abject nincompoops, but your feathers are more ruffled at Pat's opinions of some witnesses than of DVP's of you?

Yes! Correct!

I don't care what DVP says about me -- I care a lot about the treatment the JFK assassination witnesses get.

i'll be even more clear: i've never seen someone get so bent over another person in a forum. It's like his dog screwed your dog and you're stuck with the puppies.

So you aren't following the argument at all?

It's just a personal thing, no issues involved?

You're offended by how I treat Speer -- I'm offended by how he treats the witnesses.

so Pat's an idiot. get over it.

No, he's a serial witness basher who deserves to be called out for his witness bashing.

Get over it, pal.

(JK,Pat)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not defending Pat, even though I so far respect his energy - i'm defending myself. I LIKE it here in this forum. there are some smart people, and some nice people.

when i read a few months ago about how this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you, I was honestly worried, and that is when i came looking to participate. I was delighted to see that it was still alive, that an admin had posted a sticky about infighting JUST such as this, and that SOME people are not happy with it.

i do not want to go to another forum where this personal affrontery is commonplace. perhaps i can suggest one, tho...

so i speak my mind when i see someone clearly just picking a fight over SOMETHING THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL.

just in case it's not clear: The witnesses do not need a hero. nothing you can say or do is going to make Pat or anyone else change their behavior to suit you.

how is it that you don't know this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not defending Pat, even though I so far respect his energy - i'm defending myself.

...I'm defending the witnesses and the physical evidence.

I guess I haven't made that clear, although somehow it seems that I have.

I LIKE it here in this forum. there are some smart people, and some nice people.

And there are people like Pat Speer who make bald-faced ridiculous comments about the evidence in the case.

And there are people like me who point out the fallacious nature of these comments.

You have a problem with that?

when i read a few months ago about how this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you,

You have that exactly wrong. This forum is for a discussion of evidence and fact --YOU are the one making this personal.

I was honestly worried, and that is when i came looking to participate. I was delighted to see that it was still alive, that an admin had posted a sticky about infighting JUST such as this, and that SOME people are not happy with it.

You conflate disagreement over evidence and fact with "in-fighting."

I attack Speer's ideas -- you attack me, personally.

What is such behavior called?

i do not want to go to another forum where this personal affrontery is commonplace. perhaps i can suggest one, tho...

so i speak my mind when i see someone clearly just picking a fight over SOMETHING THAT THEY CANNOT CONTROL.

just in case it's not clear: The witnesses do not need a hero. nothing you can say or do is going to make Pat or anyone else change their behavior to suit you.

I could care less about any of this.

I'm fighting the mis-information Pat passes.

If you don't like it it's not my problem.

It isn't personal, Sonny.

It's strictly business.

how is it that you don't know this?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little background is in order, Glen. When I first started writing about the assassination online, I spent a lot of time on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup, battling it out with a fellow named Chad Zimmerman, who had made a recent appearance in the TV show Beyond the Magic Bullet. At that time, Cliff and I were allies. He even gave me an important insight at one point (that one could use the collar of JFK's jacket as a ruler when measuring out the back wound location.) In any event, the two of us, with a little bit of help from Anthony Marsh, ended up driving Zimmerman to take down his pro-SBT website, and then leaving the newsgroup altogether. (He never claimed we were the reason, but it seemed obvious.) Well, what happens next? Cliff becomes more and more active on this forum, and spends more and more time going after me, as if our shared history in shutting down one of the most public and vocal supporters of the SBT had meant nothing. I didn't subscribe to his exact theory, even though we both agreed that the clothes destroyed the SBT, so I was now the enemy. Bizarre.

And embarrassing, IMO. I mean, he could easily make his points without making stuff up. But he insists that I "bash" every witness, and that he supports the witnesses, etc. Which is not remotely true. None of the witnesses to the throat wound said they KNEW it was an entrance. No competent trauma doctor would ever say such a thing, as it's not their job to determine entrances from exits. They said it gave the appearance of an entrance. Well, I ended up concluding it was an exit for a low velocity projectile, or maybe even a fragment. Not one of Cliff's witnesses would say I was wrong. Dr. Jones, in fact, put the idea in my head. In his Warren Commission testimony, he said the throat wound could be the exit of a slowly moving projectile. I read the literature, and came to see he was right. But no, that's not good enough for Cliff. It's Cliff's way, or the highway.

P.S. I didn't resurrect this thread. It was Tommy.

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if you did say something as ludicrous as that, it shouldn't matter to anyone to that extent. any adult can just ignore you.

what i've tried to point out is that, unlike your opining, his is something others have to wade through, and the infighting is what about closed this forum down.

i happen to think that there's a bullet that was never found in the autopsy room. i happen to think that in soft tissue like the throat there, after a trach has been performed, or even before, it's easy enough for even a doctor to mistake a wound under an emergency situation.

i happen to think if your opinion gets to someone else that much, then there are other issues than the defense of a bunch of Texans.

i know you didn't resurrect the thread. i was kidding with you. i also don't think you're an idiot.

but what do i know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little background is in order, Glen. When I first started writing about the assassination online, I spent a lot of time on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup, battling it out with a fellow named Chad Zimmerman, who had made a recent appearance in the TV show Beyond the Magic Bullet. At that time, Cliff and I were allies. He even gave me an important insight at one point (that one could use the collar of JFK's jacket as a ruler when measuring out the back wound location.)

Yes, in 2002 or 2003 I was initially supportive of Pat's work.

But very early on I found out that he was putting the back wound at T1 and I took severe issue with it at the time.

That I have continued to take severe issue with it shouldn't be a surprise.

In any event, the two of us, with a little bit of help from Anthony Marsh, ended up driving Zimmerman to take down his pro-SBT website, and then leaving the newsgroup altogether. (He never claimed we were the reason, but it seemed obvious.) Well, what happens next? Cliff becomes more and more active on this forum, and spends more and more time going after me, as if our shared history in shutting down one of the most public and vocal supporters of the SBT had meant nothing.

Once I found out you put the back wound in the same place Zimmerman did I lost confidence in your work.

I didn't subscribe to his exact theory, even though we both agreed that the clothes destroyed the SBT, so I was now the enemy. Bizarre.

No, I became opposed to your work the moment i realized you were promoting a T1 back wound.

This occurred early on.

I will always fight the suppression of the physical evidence, don't take it personally.

And embarrassing, IMO. I mean, he could easily make his points without making stuff up. But he insists that I "bash" every witness, and that he supports the witnesses, etc. Which is not remotely true. None of the witnesses to the throat wound said they KNEW it was an entrance.

It was uniformly described as a wound of entrance.

Punctate.

No competent trauma doctor would ever say such a thing, as it's not their job to determine entrances from exits. They said it gave the appearance of an entrance.

But this conclusion is corroborated by the low back wound.

Too low to have been associated with the throat wound.

Well, I ended up concluding it was an exit for a low velocity projectile, or maybe even a fragment.

Well, you're ignoring the observations of the Parkland doctors, ignoring the location of the holes in the clothes, ignoring the statements of SSSA Glenn Bennett regarding the timing of the back wound.

Not one of Cliff's witnesses would say I was wrong.

One look at the damage on the x-ray and we know the shot was from the front.

Or do you continue to insist JFK wore his clothing up around his ears?

Dr. Jones, in fact, put the idea in my head. In his Warren Commission testimony, he said the throat wound could be the exit of a slowly moving projectile. I read the literature, and came to see he was right. But no, that's not good enough for Cliff. It's Cliff's way, or the highway.

Jones was badgered into making that comment and you know it.

He and Carrico wrote it up as an entrance in their contemporaneous notes.

The low back wound indicates the throat shot came from the front.

The neck x-ray indicates a shot from the front. Once again:

C7T1_2.png

We can see on the Zapruder film JFK react to throat trauma:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpFHYwot6b

Close proximity witnesses Nellie Connally and Linda Willis described JFK reacting to throat trauma.

But that isn't good enough for Pat Speer.

His Pet Theories trump all.

Just because.

P.S. I didn't resurrect this thread. It was Tommy.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if you did say something as ludicrous as that, it shouldn't matter to anyone to that extent. any adult can just ignore you.

what i've tried to point out is that, unlike your opining, his is something others have to wade through, and the infighting is what about closed this forum down.

i happen to think if your opinion gets to someone else that much, then there are other issues than the defense of a bunch of Texans.

i know you didn't resurrect the thread. i was kidding with you. i also don't think you're an idiot.

but what do i know.

The claim that JFK's shirt and jacket rode up into his earlobes -- the crux of Pat Speer's analysis -- is mind-boggling.

That someone would characterize this as a matter of "opinion" is equally baffling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat, this man knows some BIG words. I'm outa here. You're on your own.

betcha wished you hadn't resurrected this thread, now, huh. ;)

Glenn,

Speer didn't resurrect this thread. I did.

Personally, I have a hard time understanding what Speer is getting at because it seems that half the time he's not presenting his point of view but trying to explain his opponent's arguments.

--Tommy :sun

PS I "resurrected" this thread by bumping and writing about Greg Warner's post #13 which I've copied and pasted, below:

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?

10414571_650535015066813_827721137919513780_n.jpg

Edited by Greg Wagner, 22 November 2014 - 06:40 AM.

Biography: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3252

"This isn't right; this isn't even wrong."

~Wolfgang Pauli

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the beat goes on, and on, and on...

1. Zimmerman and I didn't place the wound in the same location. Zimmerman PRETENDED to place the wound at C-7/T-1, but I proved he moved it up on his exhibits.

2. You say you defend the witnesses, but assert without any foundation that Jones was "badgered" into saying the neck wound could have been an exit wound, provided the bullet was traveling at a slow velocity. Jones is still alive. I suspect if he was told you'd said he had been badgered into making his statement--that comes straight out of the textbooks, mind you--he wouldn't think of you as his defender, but as his attacker.

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

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...