Glenn Nall

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)

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?

yes, but it wasn't sexual, i don't think. have you read about that White Russian Community in Dallas? Mysterious little clique, that one. and some mysterious behaviors with the Oswalds before, during and after the murder...

yep, something was going on between Ruth and Lee...

if it was sexual, i hope she was better looking than he was.

It's not about you, Pat.

It's about the historical untruths you pass.

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

Stephen, yes, it was in part a joke referring to a particular LNer who is well known for his terrible debate skills, avoidance techniques and personal affronts, BUT i named it "Some JFK Debate Traps" in admission of the fact that these are fallacies we all should watch ourselves for.

You seem to defend Mr Von Pein pretty rigorously. Does he need defending?

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."

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?

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."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

(here's a fun one: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com )

Argumentum ad hominem – the evasion of the actual topic by directing an attack at your opponent.

ergo decedo – where a critic's perceived affiliation is seen as the underlying reason for the criticism and the critic is asked to stay away from the issue altogether.

(shifting the) Burden of proof (see – onus probandi) – I need not prove my claim, you must prove it is false.

False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.

Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning

False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.

False equivalence – describing a situation of logical and apparent equivalence, when in fact there is none.

False dilemma (false dichotomy, fallacy of bifurcation, black-or-white fallacy) – two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are more.

Unwarranted assumption fallacy - The fallacy of unwarranted assumption is committed when the conclusion of an argument is based on a premise (implicit or explicit) that is false or unwarranted. An assumption is unwarranted when it is false - these premises are usually suppressed or vaguely written. An assumption is also unwarranted when it is true but does not apply in the given context.

Appeal to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) – dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity.

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.

Argument from (personal) incredulity (divine fallacy, appeal to common sense) – I cannot imagine how this could be true, therefore it must be false.

Argument from repetition (argumentum ad infinitum) – signifies that it has been discussed extensively until nobody cares to discuss it anymore.

Argument from silence (argumentum ex silentio) – where the conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence.

Argument to moderation (false compromise, middle ground, fallacy of the mean, argumentum ad temperantiam) – assuming that the compromise between two positions is always correct.

Begging the question (petitio principii) – providing what is essentially the conclusion of the argument as a premise.

Circular reasoning (circulus in demonstrando) – when the reasoner begins with what he or she is trying to end up with; sometimes called assuming the conclusion.

Circular cause and consequence – where the consequence of the phenomenon is claimed to be its root cause.

Continuum fallacy (fallacy of the beard, line-drawing fallacy, sorites fallacy, fallacy of the heap, bald man fallacy) – improperly rejecting a claim for being imprecise.

Correlation proves causation (post hoc ergo propter hoc) – a faulty assumption that correlation between two variables implies that one causes the other.

Fallacy of the single cause (causal oversimplification) – it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes.

just what i was looking for, thanks Chris. does the study or anyone show that it slowed any further past 313 in the film?

i'm guessing that it's saying that this is as slow as it gets on the film...?

very obviously 59 people saying "stopped" or "nearly stopped" did not mean 7.6 mph.

"The CTers who think Oswald never fired a shot at either JFK or Tippit (which encompasses roughly 80% of Internet CTers, which is probably a conservative estimate) most certainly must believe that all of the evidence that points to Oswald is fraudulent."

support the italicized part of this statement, please?

DVP:

"Point-blank question for James DiEugenio....

Do you, Jim, think ANY of the evidence pointing to Oswald is legitimate evidence?"

ME:

I cannot answer for Jim or anyone else, D., but I suspect that many of us can in some degree agree with this. For your entertainment, and for the record, as far as evidence against LHO goes, I don't think anyone would dispute that at least some of Oswald's behavior after the shooting conveys some consciousness of guilt, which can be considered testimonial evidence in some cases. (sounds like some wording the WC would have used, doesn't it.)

Consciousness of guilt can be used as evidence, but NOT on its own. So, yes, I think that SOME of the evidence that points to Oswald is legitimate evidence. I also think that the value of this evidence is much worse than that of the evidence that points elsewhere.

I have a point-blank question for you:

Does DVP study the WC's and the HSCA's evidence of LHO's guilt in the JFK assassination at KFC?

guys, guys, guys!

"proof" is in the eye of the beholder. EVERYBODY knows that!

right, D.?

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 know, man. i'm so sorry. i don't know what i was thinking.

it's been a really hard day, my aunt gineah is acting up and i had to work an extra hour at the processing plant, and my eyes are blurry from all them duck feathers.

i was thinking that you said ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured, and not ALL of the evidence that points to Oswald.

i can't believe how stupid i am sometimes, thinking you know what you're writing and all...

i'll try harder, promise.

"I feel very confident - handkerchief or no handkerchief in Truly#1's breast pocket - that Truly#1 on the left, is not Truly because his face and cheeks are very chubby and it looks like he has sort of a pug nose."

So then...I suppose you're saying that apparently Truly #1 truly isn't Truly.

OK...back to seriousness, folks.

Hi Mark,

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Are you disagreeing with Tommy's supposition and my support of it, and making fun of my post as not being serious? That's what it seems like.

To recap, in case you are misunderstanding who "Truly#1" and "Truly#2" are:

"Truly#1" is the term Tommy coined the other night for the man in the left-hand grouping, on the island by the stoplight, whom many - including myself, until the other night - have long posited was Truly.

A couple of pages back, Tommy posited (for the first time anywhere, that i'm aware of) that there is another grouping with Truly, Campbell and Reid (and others around and in front of them) seen at the very far right of the final Weigman frame capturing the TSBD doorway and steps. He called that that "Truly," in the far right-hand grouping, "Truly#2".

In the intervening posts, Tommy (and I) have gone on to point out how the location of the grouping on the far right, lines up with the affidavits, testimonies and statements of Truly, Campbell and Reid about where they were standing.

I then went on to find and post a very clear screen capture showing a clear rendering of the face of "Truly#1" and the left-hand grouping - it was from a Wiegman slide of Jack White's that Bjorn and Robin Unger had kindly posted over in the PM thread.

This very clear photo shows "Truly#1" to have a round, chubby face and cheeks and a rather fat, puggish nose and he's wearing very large sunglasses - which are not the shape of the Roy Truly's regular glasses. Thus, it's conclusive that "Truly#1" cannot be the REAL Roy Truly!:

So, I indeed agree with Tommy's supposition, and have put forward corroborative photographic evidence, that Truly#1 cannot be Roy Truly, and Truly#2 in the in the grouping on the right must be the actual RoyTruly.

It all seems very serious and logical to me - and i'll speak for Tommy here too.

Of course, if you, or anyone else, can put forward a cogent argument refuting any of these things, i have a very open mind and am quite willing to listen to opposing viewpoints and arguments and take them into consideration. I am all about the truth coming out and am quite willing to accept new and contradictory information, even if it would lead to rejecting these points. I am also willing to reject such information if it doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

he was just cuttin' up:

"apparently Truly #1 truly isn't Truly"...

"You actually want to entertain the idea that ALL of the evidence (not just part, but ALL) is fraudulent/planted/manufactured."

support this statement, please?

The supposedly strongest argument the Z-film was not fabricated is that the extant film shows JFK being snapped "back and to the left." Why would forgers who were trying to cover up a conspiracy create such a representation, the argument goes.

I think forgers did re-create the Z-film in order to obscure the number and direction of shots and the limousine slow-down.

In particular, I believe Z-313 is a fabrication based on the head-snap it and the succeeding few frames appear to create. A head snap doesn't make sense. A head snap is characteristic, for example, of the head being hit by blunt object, such as a boxer's gloved fist. The striking object transfers most if not virtually all of its momentum to the struck object, the head; and it does so in a short time. A bullet striking a head, however, does not transfer all or most of its momentum to the head upon striking the hard outer surface of the head. Reason: the bullet is piercing the skull, and so it retains a great deal of its momentum as it passes into the brain. Inside the brain, momentum is transferred to various brain structures.

Look at films, if you can stand to do so, of prisoners being executed by gunshot. There is no snapping of any body part when it's struck by the bullet. At most, there is a a pushing "forward" -- i.e., in the direction the bullet was fired.

Dan Rather may or may not have viewed a camera-original copy of the Z-film. His description, however, of the movement of JFK's body is consistent with how a penetrable object moves when struck by a penetrating bullet.

just out of curiosity, (you're a scientist in math or physics stuff, do i remember correctly?) - what's the difference between the energy possessed by a swinging baseball bat at the point of impact on an object and the energy of a 6.5mm bullet from 150 yards at the point of impact of the same object?

clearly the baseball bat would transfer most if not all of its energy to the object, depending on the fixedness of it, while the bullet would not. but i imagine that the amount of energy the bullet does transfer, considering the amount of energy it possesses at the time with plenty to spare, is sufficient to snap a person's head back. especially if the bullet is blunt-nosed with exposed, soft lead.

another curiosity: all science aside, i once shot a sealed paint can about half full (or half empty) of paint with a 240 Weatherby from about 25 yards out (i prided myself on my marksmanship from 25 yards out back then) --- (Pat, Robert, what's the velocity of this bullet at that range? the same as your 308?) --- The paint can behaved very much like i'd expect a person's head to behave if it did not have a neck and a body trying very hard to make it behave. the rear portion of the can blew backwards maybe another 25 yards, and the front portion of the can and the paint flew straight upward and outward a considerable distance.

a few points i take from this memory.

a) this action describes a snap like no other snap i've ever in my life seen.

if this paint can behaved as badly as it did (and it did) then i have no problem believing that the president's head (and upper body), as a whole, behaved just as i'd expect it to.

c) i don't know what science says about the bullet's energy transference v. a heavy object (and I support science), but i know what the paint can thinks of the bullet's energy transference.

d) honestly what i think is that very often things seem to want to forego the laws of physics when they are shot with a powerful gun. they do weird things. it's hard to apply science to Ks head reaction. which is why the WC tried so hard to do just that.

/***

fyi/fmi Factory figures indicate that a 100-grain Nosler Partition exits the muzzle at 3,406 fps, maintaining 1,500 ft-lbs of energy to over 300 yards and 1,000 ft-lbs past 500 yards. Another useful load pushes an 85-grain Barnes TSX to 3,500 fps.

Read more: http://www.shootingtimes.com/ammo/ammunition_the_6mm_solution_042211/#ixzz3hcRXaZXV

out of mere curiosity, has anyone come up with a number of miles per hour that the limousine is seen to have slowed to in Zapruder? 5? 7? is it even a given that the motorcade is going 11mph?

reading through this thread i'm again reminded of the very large role semantics sometimes play in any two or more people trying hard to reach an agreement, or a disagreement, on something, often unnecessarily. so very often what's "slow" to one person is quite different than "slow" to another; what's "near stopped" to one - or even "stopped" - is different than to another.

i would say, "yeah, he 'stopped' at the stop sign," when he actually slowed "enough" to count as a stop. others (like my mom) would say "NO, he DIDN'T stop - he slowed at the stop sign."

an example. i learned from my dad to round off. up or down, doesn't matter. like horseshoes, as long as it's close. if it's 6.56pm it's 7 o'clock. if it's 7.03, it's 7. if an item costs 4 dollars and 89 cents, i say it's 5 bucks. invariably. and i've had people stop and stare at my response as if i've said the damn thing costs 17 thousand dollars. the 11 cent difference to some is the fact that "it's NOT 5 bucks, it's 4.89, are you crazy...?"

if the person asking me how much something is is counting the change in his hand while he asks, then i'd say '4.89', because I know that this is significant to this person.

my point is that semantics can make all the difference in the world. If we're looking at 37 of 59 people who say it slowed, and mean it slowed to 1 mph because they never saw the wheels exactly "stop", this is very different from 37 people who mean it "slowed" down from the speed it had been going.

and on the other hand, if i had been there and someone had asked me if it had stopped, notwithstanding the enormity of the situation, i very well might have said, "yeah, it stopped" when i know it "almost stopped."

what i'm getting at is i'd like to know if someone has arrived at the limo only slowing to ~6 mph in Zapruder then, at least in regards to fim-tampering, this makes the 59 witnesses' testimonies more dramatic than if some say that even in Zapruder the limo slows to ~2 mph.

sorry to have bored you with my family details. or with mine.

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...).

John, to throw more trivia on to the fire, I believe the Colonel Byrd who owned the TSBD was the same man who founded the Civil Air Patrol, wherein Oswald first met David Ferrie. Now ain't that a coinky-dink!

this thread being 10 years old, i'm sure you're aware by now of the extent to which DH Byrd is curiously, mysteriously attached to other assassination personalities...

the answer being, "great."

coinky-dink back atcha.

you guys give out gold stars...?

what do i have to do to get one? i want a gold star...

yes, what Jim said. he does not and will not adhere to the accepted, standard definition of 'evidence', in its most liberal sense. Jon is correct in saying that the reason reason is impossible with him is that he refuses to even allow for an agreed upon constant. His definition of "evidence" is so far from the norm that reason is not possible - his definition of "reason" is even under suspicion, and I'm not trying to be funny. his intent to avoid both is obvious and vital to the maintenance of his theory.

this is crucial: IF HE CHOSE TO finally accept either, as i stated before, he KNOWS that he would then be forced into a corner from which there is but ONE way out.

he knows this. He will deny it, he will even pretend to be dumb (he is not, as we all know), in order to avoid facing the hard truth. Pride is obviously much more important to him than truth.

and for the record, KFC is still my favorite chicken on the planet (I'm from Atlanta).

or in keeping with your rhyme, you could call it: "White Tie and Handkerchief Guy - Was He Mr. Sooy, of ONI?"

sorry...

See, back then, the states were flush with money for various reasons.

For one, the federal government had not gone bankrupt yet and therefore had not passed back various unfunded mandates to them.

So it was no big deal to pick up these kind of tuition bills. The great thing about it is that they picked up private colleges as well as state schools.

This whole crisis about budgets began slowly under LBJ when he escalated the war and tried to hide its cost, which introduced stagflation. The Nixon years were an utter disaster for the US economy, with the continuing war, with his price controls and the Arab oil boycott. Carter then tried to squeeze out the stagflation, but it hurt him politically. Then came the crusher: Reagan and supply side economics.

The American economy has not been the same since.

See, this is what i was trying to keep away from, 'cause I knew I'd not be strong enough to leave well enough alone.

So.

what i meant was that it's not the Federal govt's job to put me through college. it never was.

and with all due respect, for every 1 financial genius who blames Reagan for an economic failure, there are 3 who claim he ended it.

and since this is a forum on the assassination of John Kennedy and not on present day politics, that is the last thing i will say along those lines except as it may pertain to Dallas in 1963.

[oh, and Ken: exactly]