Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Greg, I recently came across a website (I forgot which one) where there was an article about conspiracy and the JFK case. A commenter by the name of Russo said something to the affect of "CT-ers don't know what they're talking about." Below it you wrote a rebuttal to this person saying, in effect, "Likewise, LN-ers don't know what they're talking about, neither." I applaud you for that because it's those people who really are too stupid, too blind, or a little bit of both (or even paid shills) to see the full truth of JFK's murder.

I have never written such a thing anywhere. At least not in the context provided.

Now, back on track.

Not trying to change the subject but here is what I mentioned above. I didn't realize that this was from your own website.

http://assassinationofjfk.net/rare-footage-jfks-final-minutes-dallas-motorcade/

You are WAY OFF topic!

Please stop it.

Furthermore, not only is this out of context, but you didn't even get my quote correct--nor was it even close!

Misquote.png

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one:

Mr. DULLES - I am a little confused, I thought Dr. Carrico was absent. That was an earlier period.

Dr. PERRY - No, sir; he was present.
Mr. DULLES - He was present?
Dr. PERRY - Yes; he was present when I walked in the room and, at that point, I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. Apparently Dr. Carrico...
If you go through the WC, Dulles does this repeatedly. He did it with Perry also about his first day interview.. And he and Specter teamed up to do it with Humes and the nutty drawings he and Boswell made which do not match the Z film.
This was a fatal flaw with the WC. You had men on it who were not even close to being either objective or knowledgeable in their field. And since Oswald had no defense, it was simply a runway prosecution.
Which is just about what every lawyer who has examined the case in an official capacity since has called it.
I find Malcolm Perry and Carrico's testimony pretty compelling. As I do Weisberg's writing on this. I also recall Mantik saying that when he saw the clothing at NARA, it was clear to him that the tears in the shirt were made from scalpels.
Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this behind the knot location is unquestionable.

Neither do I. But I feel it has the greatest support. By far.

Do you mean popular support, or is supported by testimony and evidence?

Tell me how a missile could enter or exit that wound location without damaging the tie. If you can't do that, then the missile entry/exit could only be above the collar.

Tom

Popular support? I know of only one other person who believes what I believe. The physical evidence and early testimony supports what I believe.

A bone fragment could have exited the throat, creating that wound, passed through four layers of shirt fabric, hit the back of the tie knot, lifting it away from the body but not penetrating it before expending the remainder of it's kinetic energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My height and weight match JFK quite closely. My neighbor and good friend of 25 years who has been a Board Certified ENT and Plastic Surgeon for 30 years has confirmed the location of my 3rd Tracheal ring for me. Depending upon WHICH dress shirt I wear (I have NO PROBLEM relocating the 3rd ring myself) the 3rd ring is either just above, right at, or just below my collar line at a point slightly to the right of the midline. In some photos, JFK's tie appears to be just below his Larynx, and in others quite a bit lower.

It is important to remember that the midline of the shirt collar is lower than the sides.

IMO, an above the collar wound location is reasonable.

Tom

Tom,

That (what I highlighted in red) being the case, why don't you take Ashton Gray's challenge. Because he believes that what you are describing is "patently impossible." Quoting him:

1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.)
2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means.
3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us.
This is so simple. All it takes is a sharpie, a well-fitting dress shirt, and a tie to lay this to rest once and for all. I 'm looking forward to seeing it.

I copied this from his Post 571 on this page of another thread.

P.S. I recognize that his estimated location of the wound relative to tracheal rings is slightly different from yours. Perhaps one of you could persuade the other to change his mind, based on the testimony.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is about the glaring inconsistencies in Pat Speer's work, especially his criticisms of David Mantik's findings, as expressed in the article named in the title of this thread. Let's not stray away from that.

Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Popular support? I know of only one other person who believes what I believe.

Only one person? Doesn't that tell you something?

Can you divulge the identity of this person? I'd like to discuss it with him/her directly.

The physical evidence and early testimony supports what I believe.

Please state which evidence and testimony you are referring to...

A bone fragment could have exited the throat, creating that wound,

As I stated earlier, according to Perry who is referring SPECIFICALLY to this throat wound, secondary missiles such as a bone fragment normally do not acquire enough momentum to cause this particular throat wound. Are you dismissing his testimony? Or was there something not normal about this bullet and/or bone fragment?

As Greg Burnham posted and I agreed with, please show a trajectory from an accepted entry wound location that would cause the damage to the trachea at the correct angle and also the type of exit wound described, etc...

passed through four layers of shirt fabric, hit the back of the tie knot, lifting it away from the body but not penetrating it before expending the remainder of it's kinetic energy.

What odds would you give that this round bone fragment (which also had to be quite sharp) acquired EXACTLY enough velocity to slash the tough cartilage of the trachea, punch through the skin, and run out of velocity just in time to not leave ANY mark on the necktie?

Do you think this theory is more likely than the throat wound actually being, what, an inch higher than you think it is? How far below the collar line do you place the throat wound in inches or centimeters as you prefer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before this thread strays so far OFF TOPIC that it will become difficult to steer back, let me offer this proposal to Pat Speer.

The article challenges him to answer--or at least adequately address--many items of interest that he has avoided in the past, namely, the items marked in RED within the article.

He has suggested that I identify the author(s) of the article [for whatever reason]. Although the identities are irrelevant, in an effort to reach a compromise in which both his and our wishes are satisfied, I propose the following:

I will agree to identify the anonymous author(s) of the article, but only after Pat Speer properly responds to all of the RED items and to Dr. Chesser's summary.


As I have continually reminded him, the identity of the author(s) should not be relevant--as it is the data that matters. In fact, sometimes identifying the author(s) is counterproductive.

Does Pat Speer actually disagree with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why don't you take Ashton Gray's challenge. Because he believes that what you are describing is "patently impossible." Quoting him:

1. Locate the point between your third and fourth tracheal ring, and mark that location on your skin with a round mark of the appropriate size. (Testimony varies, ranging from 4 to 8 mm. You decide.)

2. Put on a correctly fitting dress shirt, buttoned at the neck, and a tie, and using only natural motions of your head and neck, position the collar and tie so that a projectile could pass above the tie and collar, and penetrate at the spot you've marked on your skin without hitting the top of the collar or the tie. You may not pull down on the shirt or tie with your hands or by any artificial means.

3. Take a selfie, or have someone photograph you, and post it for us.

Ashton and I have no disagreement as to this statement.

So, WHY are YOU daring me to do this? IF you read my post, you know I've already done this - except the selfie - and I've stated the results. Obviously, you already don't trust me or you you'd accept my stated results. The only thing missing is the selfie. Why would you accept the selfie as conclusive proof when I could put a mark anywhere above my collar?

For this to prove anything at all, certain criteria must be agreed upon and then met. Since you are asking and not Ashton, let's hear your required conditions...

1. As I posted earlier, of the two surgeons that performed the trach, only Charles Baxter has stated the location of the wound. Do you accept his incision at the 2nd tracheal ring "immediately" above the injury? To me that means the wound was between the 2nd and 3rd ring. Is that an acceptable location to you? If not, then provide a more reliable source for a different location...

2. The tracheal rings are not visible through the flesh. I have no intention of opening my throat to prove I'm telling the truth as to the correct location. Do you stipulate that you will abide by my determination of the correct location?

3. As to a correctly fitting dress shirt, I am not about to provide a notarized statement from a tailor. Do you accept my judgement of the shirt's fit?

4. What style knot is acceptable?

5. The height of the tie is a key factor. Indicate a JFK photo that you find is an acceptable representation of how he wore his tie. The one I posted with the yellow dot is my choice. Is that acceptable? If not, explain why...

6. Choose a neutral third party to judge the results that is mutually acceptable.

7. agree that you will accept the judgement of this designee without question as correct and unchangeable.

Now answer this question, rather than dare me to do this, why don't you just do this on yourself and provide the results?

Edited by Tom Neal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Before this thread strays so far OFF TOPIC that it will become difficult to steer back, let me offer this proposal to Pat Speer.


Greg,


I say this respectfully because I read who you were earlier today. From what I read, you're passionate about this case and have been for a long time (as have I).


But Pat Speer...again? I simply don't know why you keep haggling Pat Speer. What exactly are you trying to prove here - that he's wrong? Or you're right? Or Dr Mantik is right?


As I said in an earlier post, *no one* is going to have the 100% Rosetta Stone solution to this case as much as we'd like to think we have. I know you keep mentioning that you wish people would stay on track here. You should know that this is a *forum* not Wikipedia, where people are free to share their thoughts and ideas.


I'd really appreciate it if you'd give the Pat Speer animus a rest. I say this for all of the new people who may be researching the case and come to this forum. We have an opportunity to present our side in a cogent way. But when they read the arguing and bickering, we're going to remind them of that comical scene in Planet of the Apes (the Heston version) where they're sitting around fighting among themselves.

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am the other person Sandy is referring to. However, in respect to Greg Burnham, let us continue this at the appropriate forum; namely, the one begun by Ashton Grey titled " There Was No Bullet Wound in John F. Kennedy's Throat "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice one:

Mr. DULLES - I am a little confused, I thought Dr. Carrico was absent. That was an earlier period.

Dr. PERRY - No, sir; he was present.
Mr. DULLES - He was present?
Dr. PERRY - Yes; he was present when I walked in the room and, at that point, I asked someone to secure a tracheotomy tray but there was one already there. Apparently Dr. Carrico...
If you go through the WC, Dulles does this repeatedly. He did it with Perry also about his first day interview.. And he and Specter teamed up to do it with Humes and the nutty drawings he and Boswell made which do not match the Z film.
This was a fatal flaw with the WC. You had men on it who were not even close to being either objective or knowledgeable in their field. And since Oswald had no defense, it was simply a runway prosecution.
Which is just about what every lawyer who has examined the case in an official capacity since has called it.
I find Malcolm Perry and Carrico's testimony pretty compelling. As I do Weisberg's writing on this. I also recall Mantik saying that when he saw the clothing at NARA, it was clear to him that the tears in the shirt were made from scalpels.
This is one of the worst. The only thing Specter forgot to add in his long-winded "question" that he asked Carrico was, "...and of course this shot came from the 6th floor window from a gun held by Lee Oswald...?" Talk about leading the witness! You can almost see the wheels gearing up to spin the Magic Bullet Theory.
Mr. SPECTER - Was the wound in the neck consistent with being either an entry or exit wound, in your opinion?
Dr. CARRICO - Yes.
Mr. SPECTER - Or, did it look to be more one than the other?
Dr. CARRICO - No; it could have been either, depending on the size of the missile, the velocity of the missile, the tissues that it struck.
Mr. SPECTER - Dr. Carrico, assume these facts, if you will---first, that President Kennedy was struck by a 6.5-mm. missile which entered the upper-right posterior thorax, just above the scapula, being 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion, a-c-r-o-m-i-o-n (spelling) process, and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process, and that the missile traveled between two strap muscles, proceeded through the fascia channel without violating the pleural cavity, striking the side of the trachea and exiting in the lower third of the anterior throat. Under the circumstances which I have just described to you, would the wound which you observed on the President's throat be consistent with the damage which a 6.5-mm. missile, traveling at the rate of approximately 2,000 feet per second, that being muzzle velocity, with the President being 160 to 250 feet away from the rifle, would that wound be consistent with that type of a weapon at that distance, with the missile taking the path I have just described to you?
Dr. CARRICO - I certainly think it could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Greg,
But Pat Speer...again? I simply don't know why you keep haggling Pat Speer. What exactly are you trying to prove here - that he's wrong? Or you're right? Or Dr Mantik is right?
[...]
As I said in an earlier post, *no one* is going to have the 100% Rosetta Stone solution to this case as much as we'd like to think we have. I know you keep mentioning that you wish people would stay on track here. You should know that this is a *forum* not Wikipedia, where people are free to share their thoughts and ideas.

First, the entire topic is titled with Pat Speer's name in it!

So it is about his work. It is not about him personally nor anyone else.

It is also about his having been challenged to defend the positions that he has advanced on his website, PatSpeer.com.

He has asserted many things for which he has offered no proof. The tilting items in red invite his proofs to be told.

He has attempted to refute the proofs offered by others--who are experts in their field--without himself providing a foundation for such refutation, including a gross lack of data and a total lack of "hands on" research.

He may not be able to control all of this, so I don't blame him for lacking these things. However, one must still be capable of defending their position and / or refuting another's position when put to task.

Assuming he is relying on any foundation at all...we implore him:

Please, hide it no longer!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quit with the games, Greg. The jig is up. You've been trying to pretend my Mantik's Semantics slide doesn't totally destroy Mantik's argument the Harper frag is occipital by stating my use of of an anatomy drawing was some sort of trick. When I posted Mantik's photo of an occipital bone, and pointed out that even though Mantik covered the central ridge with captions and arrows the ridge was still visible, and proof the Harper frag wasn't occipital bone, you started throwing tantrums claiming I owe you explanations and answers when I owe you nothing.

But Mantik, to his credit, couldn't help himself. Unlike yourself, who tried to pretend there was nothing to my observation the Harper fragment looked nothing like occipital bone, Mantik has finally admitted it. In his "satire", Mantik barfs up that, you never know, Kennedy's Addison's disease might have caused his occipital bone to look nothing like occipital bone.

Here is his quote: "Chronic use of steroids (e.g., JFK) is often associated with osteoporosis. Not only can bones become thinner, but actual bone remodeling can occur. Although the professional literature strongly suggests that osteoporosis is not likely to occur in the skull, the critical question seems unanswered: Can bone remodeling, even without overt osteoporosis, occur in the skull? To be more specific: Could this mechanism have decreased the prominence of JFK’s sulci in the upper occipital bone?"

Well, when your whole claim the Harper fragment is occipital rests on completely unsupported theories holding that 1) Kennedy's illness remodeled his occipital bone so that it would no longer look like occipital bone, and 2) that some unidentified person or entity moved the fragment from a location behind Kennedy's location when shot to a location well in front of Kennedy's location when shot, it's time to hang it up. By Mantik's own admission, both the appearance of the fragment, and the location where it was found, indicate that it was not occipital bone. Well, hello! It's because it wasn't occipital bone!

Edited by Pat Speer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Speer is out of ammunition. He has nothing new to say. He has not attempted to address the items in question.

He does not even recognize what happens to 3D features in a 2D photo (a fact that was emphasized), nor does he address the three pathologists who held the bone in their hands and still called it occipital!

Isn't it too bad that Speer was not able to hand them his artist's drawing so he could properly educate them?

Enough with this nonsense. With no tip remaining on his weapon, Quixote has retreated from the windmills in resignation, after all.
Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat Speer is out of ammunition. He has nothing new to say. He has not attempted to address the items in question.

He does not even recognize what happens to 3D features in a 2D photo (a fact that was emphasized), nor does he address the three pathologists who held the bone in their hands and still called it occipital!

Isn't it too bad that Speer was not able to hand them his artist's drawing so he could properly educate them?

Enough with this nonsense. With no tip remaining on his weapon, Quixote has retreated from the windmills in resignation, after all.

Classic ploy, Greg. Declare victory then retreat. You started a series of threads pushing nonsense on this forum. I countered these threads by proving that the Harper fragment doesn't even bear a passing resemblance to occipital bone. You tried every which way to get out of this, eventually deciding that a group assault on my credibility was in order. Only I didn't take the bait. This was never about me or what I think; it was always about Mantik's claim the Harper fragment was occipital bone.

He was wrong. Get over 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...