Jean Ceulemans

Compare the sunlight, Valentine rather close to same spot and indicating where rifle all. was found, picture ref 11/22

Versus the one discussed here with in arch. ref. 11/26 as the date..

Little note: when zoomed in,  and compared, his pencils are the same and in the same order in his pocket next to his badge (could be his "thing", mine were rarely the same, and most certainly not in the same order).

Anyone tried reading the time on his watch?

5 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

What in the world are you babbling about now? I didn't "lie" in any of those statements that you quoted. They are all correct statements and, moreover, they are perfectly consistent with each another.

So what is your point?

[--Awaiting six-mile-long explanation from K.H., which undoubtedly will feature no "point" at all.--]

Again, agree. Someone is wrapping BS in a colorfull package but actually is simply repeating, no proove of anything IMO. Repeating the same stuff, just in a different way (quote/link/scrn-print). 

Next add a lot of insinuations (to be safe adding question marks behind those).  Has been going on for some time now.  Always the same strategy. 

That how media works these days, people only read headlines and watch pictures... they don´t care what it is based on, they take it for the truth and go to the next headline. Problem: when they do it often enough it will become generally accepted.  That´s how propaganda works..... 

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it?

And a member now gets punished for expressing his OPINION about a particular subject, eh?

Pat seems to really believe that McClelland (in his initial report) was talking about a large wound in the left temple. I think Pat is dead wrong on this McClelland/Left Temple subject. McClelland's "left temple" reference, as you and others have correctly pointed out earlier, was referring to the alleged ENTRY wound that McClelland said was being pointed out by Dr. Jenkins. This was, of course, all just one big misunderstanding on McClelland's part. But Pat Speer evaluates this situation differently. And Pat's certainly entitled to his opinion....as am I and all other EF members.

So what it boils down to is ---- You, Sandy, are penalizing Pat for having a different opinion than yours.

Do you think that's fair?

 

Also agree on this one.  Where does it stop if we can not express different points of view...

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It's kind of fun watching two conspiracy theorists calling each other liars on a daily basis now. I'm enjoying it. Even though such accusations are, of course, in direct violation of one of the most fundamental rules of this forum. But I guess if you're a moderator (or two), you can get away with such infractions. And maybe that's why we can now write out the word LIAR at this forum without it being X'ed out. Perhaps the mods removed that restriction so they themselves can utilize that word more often and more freely (on each other). Nice. 

"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying."  -- Education Forum Rules and Membership Behaviour

 

IMO, I have to agree with David on this

26 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, Pat, given the wholly-untenable alternative(s) that would have no choice but to be true in order for the Single-Bullet Theory to not be true, I do indeed believe that the SBT can be categorized as more of a "fact" versus merely a "theory".

After weighing all of the possible options and alternatives, it couldn't be clearer to me that the single-bullet conclusion is by far the best solution. And it's rather incredible to me that so many people have such a hard time seeing the obvious truth that resides within those three controversial letters—S.B.T.

 

It was not about what you think about the SBT, it was about that even people that believe Oswald-did-it, sometimes can have reservations about the SBT (or any another element for my part).  It´s about diversity existing within any group.   

On 5/4/2024 at 6:29 AM, Vince Palamara said:

 

@Pat Speer is my favorite researcher- he has me questioning my beliefs on the medical evidence over and over again. For example- at first glance, the new book by Dr. David Mantik and Jerome Corsi THE FINAL ANALYSIS is quite impressive, yet the entire time I was reading it (I just finished it), I kept thinking "I'll bet Pat Speer doesn't believe this" or "I think Pat Speer debunked this" and so on.

Pat- what is you take on the book and Mantik's work? Do you believe his optical density measurements are solid? What about the white patch on the x-rays? What about the dark area on the back of the head as seen in the Zapruder film? Also, what about the red spot on the color autopsy photos that is alleged to be an entry wound (the approximate Clark Panel and HSCA position) that others have disputed?

 

Agree, and at least Pat is expressing his own views and conclusions, does his own homework.  Some of his opponents are merely copying Mantiks homework.  I have serious doubts if they have actually read 18/18b.  I see long lists of questions that have been answered in those chapters, I can only assume they didn´t study it.  So be it, each their own if it makes´m happy, I don´t really care.  But why they often get so nasty and ad hominem. Kinda makes me feel there is more to it, don´t know.  I probably don´t want to know. Aha, it´s a sunny day out here, gonna enjoy that BBQ with friends and family today.  Have a nice Sunday ya all.

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

As far as messages, my inbox is probably full and I probably need to clean up a few. I have been holding onto old messages from people like Gerry Hemming, Gary Mack, and David Lifton. 

This raises a question. Should I make these messages public now that they are no longer with us? Is that cool, and in the spirit of this website? I don't know. 

Your call, but if it can help to make things clear, why not... I´m 100% sure you can handle it respectfully. Some people here could use some Voltaire btw, about having a minimum of respect for a different opinion, and their right to express it.  Progress comes from disagreement : thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  I´d like  to see more of that, not the "I´ll ignore you" type of behaviour.

14 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

The doctors at Parkland saw cerebellum. You can believe them - the ones who had medical education and who were actually there - or you can believe Pat. They both can't be right.

Pat Speer has no medical education other than listening to dinner table conversation at home. He was not at Parkland, and even if he had been, he would not have had the expertise to evaluate the wounds anyway.

Pat is a sloppy, careless researcher who arbitrarily ignores basic facts that contradict his agenda, and then he turns around and shows naked contempt for others who dare contradict him.

Pat is no expert, and I feel bad for those researchers that treat him as such.

If I have ever seen naked contempt, your own reaction has to be close 😀

12 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

This forum is like a Sunday School meeting compared to the JFKAF 'Richard Smith' etc. 🙄

Not my kinda thing the way that sometimes goes. Like people thinking that shouting helps, if they are happy that way, fine. But I´ll leave them at it.

18 minutes ago, Gerry Down said:

What chapter of your website deals with the white patch?

The White Patch was the title of one of Mantiks slides, Pat mentions it under a few different names. Re Chapter 18/18B or the many (and very long) discussions here on the EF

7 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

.., yet his style is so open-minded and refreshing (finally! An Oswald-probably-acted-alone author who concedes points! It's a miracle!) that he gets you thinking and rethinking things quite a bit.

That´s exactly what this forum needs.  No need to feel offended just because of a different opinion. Some get nasty really fast, it´s telling...

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It has been my suspicion for months now that certain "members" are committed to making sure any mention of the medical evidence on my part is drowned out by pages and pages of rehashed information, much of which is questionable or flat-out wrong. 

 

23 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Something I don't get is why does the front box show the natural way of sun shining on it (a little fading from light to dark), that certainly suggests the photo being made during daytime

I agree somebody added enhanced light to the windows (in a sloppy way).

But as the light on that front box looks natural... odd....  

 

 

Compare to the enhanced light on the other box near the window, there's even signs of "accidental" pasting next to it on the wall...

Something I don't get is why does the front box show the natural way of sun shining on it (a little fading from light to dark), that certainly suggests the photo being made during daytime

I agree somebody added enhanced light to the windows (in a sloppy way).

But as the light on that front box looks natural... odd....  

6 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

How do you explain the weird "wood" between the panes of "glass?"

A sloppy job IMO

48 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

The alignment is too good? I guess you did not notice the "wood" between the panes of "glass."

I was talking about the very straight lines, typical in selecting when not using freehand.

Just my thoughts as I didn't dig into this, but to me it looks like a digital enhancement.

The alignment is just too good (like Mark indicates, the patterns) vs. a sloppy job in general, not something done in the 1960's.

Copy/paste repeated a number of times

Way too much contrast to look natural, compare to the real (...) light shining on the box in front

I would be worth it just asking the website about the provenance of this photo, was the original a negative, did they scan it, was it a digital photo, what's with the date, etc

Are there any more details on Oswald being questioned by Judge Johnston?  Most of those present "didn't remember" when asked what LHO said during that event. All I can find is what LHO said to the press (that he had protested for not being allowed legal representation).

Nichols did nothing, he didn't even know (....) ACLU lawyers were among his Dallas bar association (if we can believe that)

The ACLU didn't even bother to actually see LHO himself, they were there (actually hiding behind Nichols statements, the Judge, etc).  One of them did say later on (...) he regretted not having asked to see LHO himself (what kind of a lawyer is that???).

So, all those lawyers involved had some really really poor excuses... 

My guess : nobody wanted to do it, so his choice wouldn't have made a difference

Thanks, in 1947 the CP had some 30% of the total votes in France, but when they stepped out a little later (choose opposition in government), the numbers kept going down.

It was pretty much the same in many Western European countries, the CP had gained a lot of support during WWII when they were a large resistance force (funded by Russia) against the Germans (well... it has to be said, that only really started when Germany invaded Russia). 

3 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

One of the authors of Chokeholds

Co-writer of Chokeholds

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

A couple of more notes on the documentary John linked.

Somewhere in the latter part the narrator mentions kind of in passing that the town of Pont-St- Esprit "was under control of socialists at the time".  I found that interesting, that the US Army, CIA and British Intelligence would choose to target a town under control of socialists (if this was true) for such an experiment on such a grand scale so early in the Cold War.

Vincent Auriol (French President 1947 - 1954) was a socialist (Workers Int´l), and he had 5 communist ministers he became president because the CP supported him).  The CP was a large (actually the largest) party in France in those years, but not so big they could dictate policies.  However, when the CP stepped out, a lot of troubles started... Auriol was followed by Coty (he had 477 votes vs 329 socialist votes).  Now the period was very much about how they acted in Vietnam/Indochina.  And when Algeria went bad deGaulle stepped back in (Catholics). It was Coty that kinda pushed deGaulle in the political game again in  1958 (Coty admired deGaulle).

But in 1951 I can see the US being worried by what was happening in France with such a large CP there.  And how things were moving in Indochina

On 8/4/2019 at 2:26 PM, Denny Zartman said:

In this account, Marina mentions Lee liking to fish. She talks about the beach and the French Quarter in New Orleans. She mentions a cold pot of coffee. But she doesn't seem to mention her alleged discovery of Lee's wedding ring or a wallet full of money.

Why does this 46 page account include trivial details like fishing, but not an important, incriminating detail such as Marina's alleged discovery of Lee's wedding ring on the morning of the assassination?

A lot of confusion about that ring, don´t think we´ll ever know the real or full story:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/was-there-a-wedding-ring

It would be easier if you could indicate what part is being worked on, it´s hard to figure out the size and place of the detail

Was looking at a different structure