10 Conclusions (of Pat Speer)

[David Von Pein]

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.

Australian SBT test ("Beyond The Magic Bullet"); October 2004....

Now we'll hear all the lame arguments about how the above test bullet didn't even come CLOSE to mimicking CE399. It's much more deformed. It bounced off the mock thigh, etc.

But that test bullet is COMPLETELY INTACT after taking a course through TWO mock-up torsos that was very similar to the path purportedly taken by CE399. And Don Jeffries surely knows it.

And yet we are still constantly hearing comments like this one from the anti-SBT camp....

"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." -- Don Jeffries

Apparently the only thing that will satisfy CTers is to dig up JFK and Governor Connally and put them back in the limousine on Elm Street and shoot them again with CE399.

Even Dr. Fackler's ABSOLUTELY PRISTINE bullet doesn't faze or wrinkle the brow of any SBT critic one tiny bit. And this bullet here broke a human wrist in 1992, yet looks like an unfired missile....

Edited August 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Ron Ecker]

I find this thread rather odd. It's been my understanding that Pat believes that all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who said there was a large wound in the back of the head were wrong. They only imagined this wound because of the way they were looking at JFK's head. (This is some psychological phenomenon to which I believe Pat gives a name that I forget.) I find it odd that this unique and significant theory of Pat's about JFK's head wound(s) is mentioned nowhere (unless I missed it) in a thread about the conclusions of Pat Speer.

It also strikes me as odd that Cliff chooses to accuse Pat of "witness bashing," but only with respect to the location of the back wound and the nature of the throat wound. Cliff makes no mention of all the witnesses whom Pat in effect dismisses about the wound in the back of the head.

Perhaps, given its absence from this thread, Pat doesn't even hold this theory about the wound in the back of the head anymore. If so, then I'm out of date and apologize for bringing up something irrelevant.

[David Von Pein]

...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.

WTF?

It's my "job" and "responsibility" to "monitor" Pat Speer's posts (i.e., "behavior")?

Why did you decide to just make up such crap out of whole cloth, Glenn? Any particular reason? Or is it just part of your growing obsession with "all things DVP", which you now wear on your sleeve on a daily basis?

Edited August 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

I find this thread rather odd. It's been my understanding that Pat believes that all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses who said there was a large wound in the back of the head were wrong. They only imagined this wound because of the way they were looking at JFK's head. (This is some psychological phenomenon to which I believe Pat gives a name that I forget.) I find it odd that this unique and significant theory of Pat's about JFK's head wound(s) is mentioned nowhere (unless I missed it) in a thread about the conclusions of Pat Speer.

It also strikes me as odd that Cliff chooses to accuse Pat of "witness bashing," but only with respect to the location of the back wound and the nature of the throat wound. Cliff makes no mention of all the witnesses whom Pat in effect dismisses about the wound in the back of the head.

Perhaps, given its absence from this thread, Pat doesn't even hold this theory about the wound in the back of the head anymore. If so, then I'm out of date and apologize for bringing up something irrelevant.

Ron, I avoid the issue of the head wound/s.

But yes, Pat Speer is a serial witness basher and that includes the head wound/s witnesses.

[David Lifton]

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?

QUOTE: this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you,. .UNQUOTE

Glenn: with all due respect, this is an absurd statement.

Pat Speer runs rough shod over the record, wherever and whenever it conflicts with his preconceptions.

So why shouldn't someone who holds the truth in high regard, want to set the record straight, which --often--means defending a witness.

This afternoon, I spent about an hour (or more) at Speer's website, perusing his manuscript. It was a very irritating experience, because he tends to de-focus everything.

its like being in a math class, where you're trying to learn number theory, and there's this student who raises his hand and says, "But I don't understand something. Why can't it be the case that 2 + 3 equals 6? And then holds forth on some completely extraneous line of argument, which distracts attention away from the issue at hand.

Sometimes we read a book and really get turned on by the material; with Speer, its as if you read and read and fall deeper and deeper into a pile of rubble.

Not "rubbish". . . mind you. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "rubble."

The man dissembles and wanders and indulges in the extraneous; and brings up things that are immaterial, all of this packaged in such a way that we think we're dealing with a serious thinker. You've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? With Speer, fasten your seatbelt, because nothing ever gets resolved.

In his bio, he says: "I had a midlife crises and so I decided to look for truth in the Kennedy assassination." Then he goes off on one tangent after another after another. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to Nowhere. One black hole after another.

Just look at his chapter titles: "19b: Stuck in the Middle with you" ; 19C: "Lost in the Jungle with Kurtz"; 21: "Rorschach Test".

Let me contrast Speer's style with that of someone who was one of my original "teachers" on this case: Vincent Salandria.

SPRING 1965- UCLA

It was the Spring of 1965 when--probably on the recommendation of Ray Marcus--that i went to the Periodicals Room of the UCLA Library, and read Salandria's original articles on the medical evidence.

There it was--clear as a bell--laid out out so a child could understand it: the back (or shoulder wound) was lower than the throat wound. It wasn't just the measurement: it was the damn clothing holes, in both the shirt and jacket.

I remember reading the sentences pointing out that if a bullet entered (from the rear) down where the clothing holes were, and then (somehow) really exited at the front of the throat, it would be following an upward path through Kennedy's body and fly harmlessly--and that was the word he used, "harmlessly"--over the Governor's head.

Of course, I used this in writing my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence ("The Case for Three Assassins") that was a cover story in the January1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine, but who knew--back in 1965--that 40 years later, a so-called "researcher" would come along, inform us that he got involved because of a mid-life crisis (and that he personally assembled a library of over 1,000 books); that he had analyzed all this closely and--ta da!--all previous analyses were wrong!

I've stopped debating this sort of thing, but I don't blame Cliff Varnell one bit for reacting as he does, and for framing his reaction as a defense of witnesses.

Another example: Having assembled a list of 64 witnesses who believed the shots came from the front (and specifically, the knoll), AND (in addition) having assembled and published a 32 chapter book [best Evidence] which lays out the case that the body was covertly intercepted and altered ("hijacked" is the term preferred by Cliff V.) how do you think I react when i see Speer glibly informing those reading his posts that it is illogical to believe that shots were fired from the knoll; or that it is illogical to believe that the President's body was altered?

Speer is not nearly as bad as DVP, of course. He uses words like "loopy" and "zany" Speer, imho, is someone whose writing and thinking results in a series of de-focused arguments which, if one does not know the record, appear to be superficially credible.

If he doesn't like a witness (like Nurse Audrey Bell, who I interviewed in person in 1982, and then on camera in 1989) --and who says that that JFK's head wound was at the back of his head--Speer asserts she has no credibility.

Really! Speer even says she wasn't in the room. If he doesn't like a witness who--along with two others--spent over an hour in a personal meeting with Dr. Kemp Clark (who told him that JFK was shot twice from the front--a simple statement) out comes the knives and we are treated to a bunch of ad hominem nonsense.

Over 50 people say the car stopped, or slowed seriously--an event not on the Zapruder film.

Not a problem. Speer vouches for the film (anyway)

He places great weight on the backward and leftward "head snap", apparently unaware that no one actually saw such a motion, and (consequently) that that motion is an artifact of the alteration (i.e., good evidence of the editing process; of editing --and frame removal--to eliminate the car stop).

But Speer is hopelessly blind to this sort of data.

The list goes on.

Here's another example of what happens when one follows Speer into his defocused pile of rubble.

SPEER ON LBJ AND AND AF-1 (when the plane was on the ground at Love Field). . .

I really liked Speer's chapter about Lyndon Johnson on AF-1. Speer lines up a dozen reasons Johnson has to be lying --asks "What is he hiding?" (my quotes)--and concludes that Johnson was part of the plot. (Really! He says that. . . ) But. . .the notion that the body was removed from the coffin prior to takeoff is zany? So let me see if I understand Speer's "logic": Johnson is guilty of being party to a state crime (because he lied to Robert Kennedy on a whole bunch of details). almost all of which are related to the bod; but shots did not come from the knoll and the autopsy photos are authentic representations of the body? (which was not altered?)

Confused? Don't worry about it. . . its just Speer laying out another argument that perhaps 2 + 3 equals 7.

Speer is going to be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Lancer Conference. People will fly in from all over probably not because they believe the Warren Report but because they don't--and are looking for the truth.

I hope that when he stands up and addresses this group, he will--in the interest of full disclosure--read the passages from Aubrey Rike's book where Rike describes how, in moving Kennedy from the hospital gurney to the Dallas casket, that he could feel the hole in the back of Kennedy's head.

That's right--the hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

That's what Rike told me (also) in 1980, in an on-camera interview at his home.

Oh. . . I know., Speer will say that 25 years later, while straightening things out during his mid-life crisis, he met Aubrey at another conference, and that Aubrey told him something different, and so the games he plays will go on. And on. And on.

Get it? Its like a game without end. Like a non-convergent Taylor Series in mathematics.

Nothing converges. Truth can't be found, because--by the time Speer gets through massaging the data--there's nothing left but an out-of-focus illegible mess.

DSL

8/2/15 - 9:55 p.m.PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited August 3, 2015 by David Lifton

[David G. Healy]

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.

[...]

Apparently the only thing that will satisfy CTers is to dig up JFK and Governor Connally and put them back in the limousine on Elm Street and shoot them again with CE399.

...

It's infantile statements like the above which shows your lack of concern regarding the President of the United States... asinine comes to mind...

And dude the Aussie docu was trash (all that gaffers tape too lmao), reminds me of that picture of .john dressed up in his trenchcoat out in that cold Wisconsin hinterland shooting at vicious sandbags! lmao!

You don't know what or where that bullet hit, you'll buy into anything that supports WCR trash...

[David Von Pein]

And dude the Aussie docu was trash.

Right on cue, Healy. Good job. Keep on ignoring these two test bullets. Just pretend they never existed. Okay, dude?....

Edited August 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Cliff Varnell]

Speer is going to be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Lancer Conference. People will fly in from all over probably not because they believe the Warren Report but because they don't--and are looking for the truth.

Perhaps Pat can demonstrate how JFK wore his clothing collars up around his earlobes.

Perhaps Dr. Mantik can assist...

JFK on Houston St. before his jacket dropped.

[James DiEugenio]

DJ: 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.

Don, you are correct. As of yet no bullet has ever done this that we know about.

What DVP did not tell you is this: in that docudrama, and that is what it was, there was a big problem. The dummies they used did not have arms. Therefore, the bullet did not demolish any wrist. Also, the bodies were nowhere near what a human would be.

​And even at that they could not make the SBT work, even though they only did half the path.

That show was a pastiche of the discredited simulation of Dale Myers and the discredited measurements of Chad Zimmerman. I can link you to several places on the internet which completely expose those two for the frauds they are.

(Zimmerman is a chiropractor for god's sake. He used to advertise massage therapy. I'll say.)

Edited August 3, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

The dummies they used did not have arms. Therefore, the bullet did not demolish any wrist. Also, the bodies were nowhere near what a human would be.

Yeah, you're right, Jim. The Australian team should have sacrificed two real humans to serve their testing purposes. Nothing less will suffice, right?

Keep pretending that a perfect "SBT" re-creation is even possible (it isn't, of course, since any test has to SIMULATE the human nuances of John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally).

And keep pretending that the 2004 Australian test didn't come anywhere close to simulating the Single-Bullet Theory (even though it did).

52 years---and 52,000 excuses. That's the lasting legacy of conspiracy theorists.

Edited August 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

The dummies they used did not have arms. Therefore, the bullet did not demolish any wrist. Also, the bodies were nowhere near what a human would be.

Yeah, you're right, Jim. The Australian team should have sacrificed two real humans to serve their testing purposes. Nothing less will suffice, right?

Keep pretending that a perfect "SBT" re-creation is even possible (it isn't, of course, since any test has to SIMULATE the human nuances of John F. Kennedy and John B. Connally).

And keep pretending that the 2004 Australian test didn't come anywhere close to simulating the Single-Bullet Theory (even though it did).

52 years---and 52,000 excuses. That's the lasting legacy of conspiracy theorists.

That program was pretty awful, David. But, to their credit, they didn't hide the awfulness. They showed us one thing, and claimed another. For one, they tried to recreate the wounds but couldn't get the bullet to tumble and re-create Connally's back wound. So they then added some rope to the neck to get it to tumble. Well, this was deceptive enough, because there had been nothing with the consistency of rope in Kennedy's neck. But when the bullet went through the rope, it slowed the bullet too much, so that it now bounced off the thigh. And even then the bullet was far more damaged than CE 399. So, no, they didn't re-create the single-bullet theory. Not even close.

As far as Fackler... That's a tricky one. It's been awhile, so I hope I get this right. Fackler refused to sign off on the SBT as presented by the WC, but agreed to testify on a single point--that a bullet traveling 900 fps could destroy a wrist while sustaining very little damage. He offered nothing to indicate the bullet striking Connally's wrist was traveling 900 fps, mind you. He just said that IF the bullet was traveling at that speed, the damage to Connally's wrist could be consistent with the damage incurred by CE 399. Now, admittedly, I've only read the transcript provided by Livingstone. (If you have a more complete transcript, I would be interested in reading it.) But, to my recollection, Fackler was not asked about the tests performed for the Warren Commission, and what they said about the SBT. And for good reason. The tests performed for the WC indicated that CE 399 would have to have struck Connally's wrist around 1372 fps, not 900.

[David Von Pein]

So, no, they didn't re-create the single-bullet theory. Not even close.

Total bull, Pat. They fired a 6.5mm. Carcano bullet through two mock bodies, with that bullet taking a general path very similar to the SBT/399 bullet. And the bullet ended up in pretty good shape. A very good SBT re-creation.

CTers just look for excuses to dismiss it. And they refuse to acknowledge the remarkable "SBT-like" similarities.

Amazing, isn't it, how ANY re-creation could come THAT close to mimicking an event (the SBT) that CTers think was a complete fabrication on the part of the WC?

Incredible indeed.

Edited August 3, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

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?

QUOTE: this forum was about to close down SPECIFICALLY because of people like you,. .UNQUOTE

Glenn: with all due respect, this is an absurd statement.

Pat Speer runs rough shod over the record, wherever and whenever it conflicts with his preconceptions.

So why shouldn't someone who holds the truth in high regard, want to set the record straight, which --often--means defending a witness.

This afternoon, I spent about an hour (or more) at Speer's website, perusing his manuscript. It was a very irritating experience, because he tends to de-focus everything.

its like being in a math class, where you're trying to learn number theory, and there's this student who raises his hand and says, "But I don't understand something. Why can't it be the case that 2 + 3 equals 6? And then holds forth on some completely extraneous line of argument, which distracts attention away from the issue at hand.

Sometimes we read a book and really get turned on by the material; with Speer, its as if you read and read and fall deeper and deeper into a pile of rubble.

Not "rubbish". . . mind you. I'm not saying that. I'm saying "rubble."

The man dissembles and wanders and indulges in the extraneous; and brings up things that are immaterial, all of this packaged in such a way that we think we're dealing with a serious thinker. You've heard of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle? With Speer, fasten your seatbelt, because nothing ever gets resolved.

In his bio, he says: "I had a midlife crises and so I decided to look for truth in the Kennedy assassination." Then he goes off on one tangent after another after another. Mr. Toad's Wild Ride to Nowhere. One black hole after another.

Just look at his chapter titles: "19b: Stuck in the Middle with you" ; 19C: "Lost in the Jungle with Kurtz"; 21: "Rorschach Test".

Let me contrast Speer's style with that of someone who was one of my original "teachers" on this case: Vincent Salandria.

SPRING 1965- UCLA

It was the Spring of 1965 when--probably on the recommendation of Ray Marcus--that i went to the Periodicals Room of the UCLA Library, and read Salandria's original articles on the medical evidence.

There it was--clear as a bell--laid out out so a child could understand it: the back (or shoulder wound) was lower than the throat wound. It wasn't just the measurement: it was the damn clothing holes, in both the shirt and jacket.

I remember reading the sentences pointing out that if a bullet entered (from the rear) down where the clothing holes were, and then (somehow) really exited at the front of the throat, it would be following an upward path through Kennedy's body and fly harmlessly--and that was the word he used, "harmlessly"--over the Governor's head.

Of course, I used this in writing my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence ("The Case for Three Assassins") that was a cover story in the January1967 issue of Ramparts Magazine, but who knew--back in 1965--that 40 years later, a so-called "researcher" would come along, inform us that he got involved because of a mid-life crisis (and that he personally assembled a library of over 1,000 books); that he had analyzed all this closely and--ta da!--all previous analyses were wrong!

I've stopped debating this sort of thing, but I don't blame Cliff Varnell one bit for reacting as he does, and for framing his reaction as a defense of witnesses.

Another example: Having assembled a list of 64 witnesses who believed the shots came from the front (and specifically, the knoll), AND (in addition) having assembled and published a 32 chapter book [best Evidence] which lays out the case that the body was covertly intercepted and altered ("hijacked" is the term preferred by Cliff V.) how do you think I react when i see Speer glibly informing those reading his posts that it is illogical to believe that shots were fired from the knoll; or that it is illogical to believe that the President's body was altered?

Speer is not nearly as bad as DVP, of course. He uses words like "loopy" and "zany" Speer, imho, is someone whose writing and thinking results in a series of de-focused arguments which, if one does not know the record, appear to be superficially credible.

If he doesn't like a witness (like Nurse Audrey Bell, who I interviewed in person in 1982, and then on camera in 1989) --and who says that that JFK's head wound was at the back of his head--Speer asserts she has no credibility.

Really! Speer even says she wasn't in the room. If he doesn't like a witness who--along with two others--spent over an hour in a personal meeting with Dr. Kemp Clark (who told him that JFK was shot twice from the front--a simple statement) out comes the knives and we are treated to a bunch of ad hominem nonsense.

Over 50 people say the car stopped, or slowed seriously--an event not on the Zapruder film.

Not a problem. Speer vouches for the film (anyway)

He places great weight on the backward and leftward "head snap", apparently unaware that no one actually saw such a motion, and (consequently) that that motion is an artifact of the alteration (i.e., good evidence of the editing process; of editing --and frame removal--to eliminate the car stop).

But Speer is hopelessly blind to this sort of data.

The list goes on.

Here's another example of what happens when one follows Speer into his defocused pile of rubble.

SPEER ON LBJ AND AND AF-1 (when the plane was on the ground at Love Field). . .

I really liked Speer's chapter about Lyndon Johnson on AF-1. Speer lines up a dozen reasons Johnson has to be lying --asks "What is he hiding?" (my quotes)--and concludes that Johnson was part of the plot. (Really! He says that. . . ) But. . .the notion that the body was removed from the coffin prior to takeoff is zany? So let me see if I understand Speer's "logic": Johnson is guilty of being party to a state crime (because he lied to Robert Kennedy on a whole bunch of details). almost all of which are related to the bod; but shots did not come from the knoll and the autopsy photos are authentic representations of the body? (which was not altered?)

Confused? Don't worry about it. . . its just Speer laying out another argument that perhaps 2 + 3 equals 7.

Speer is going to be one of the key speakers at the upcoming Lancer Conference. People will fly in from all over probably not because they believe the Warren Report but because they don't--and are looking for the truth.

I hope that when he stands up and addresses this group, he will--in the interest of full disclosure--read the passages from Aubrey Rike's book where Rike describes how, in moving Kennedy from the hospital gurney to the Dallas casket, that he could feel the hole in the back of Kennedy's head.

That's right--the hole at the BACK of Kennedy's head.

That's what Rike told me (also) in 1980, in an on-camera interview at his home.

Oh. . . I know., Speer will say that 25 years later, while straightening things out during his mid-life crisis, he met Aubrey at another conference, and that Aubrey told him something different, and so the games he plays will go on. And on. And on.

Get it? Its like a game without end. Like a non-convergent Taylor Series in mathematics.

Nothing converges. Truth can't be found, because--by the time Speer gets through massaging the data--there's nothing left but an out-of-focus illegible mess.

DSL

8/2/15 - 9:55 p.m.PDT

Los Angeles, California

A couple of points, David.

1. My website/book is a work in progress. It reflects, for the most part, my current thoughts and ideas. It is a new approach to non-fiction. Maybe a stupid one, but a new one nevertheless. When I first started researching the case, I was horrified to find that some of the best researchers, including yourself, had been working on books for DECADES, and that these books included valuable information that others were not allowed to know about because--eegads--it might cut into the sales of these incredible ground-breaking books that will quite possibly never see the light of day. So I said "Screw it! Put it up on the web. Let others read it and catch mistakes. Cut and paste it onto forums. Always be questioning it. Always be re-writing it." So, yeah, my book is not designed to sell, but to inform those with an interest. And it's made an impact. Maybe not a huge impact, but a far larger impact than if I'd been hoarding everything for a published book. When I first started writing on this forum. no one but no one was talking about tangential wounds, and the probability your buddy Kemp Clark was correct in his assessment of the large head wound as a tangential wound. I was pretty much a voice in the wilderness...until 2013, where Tink Thompson and Robert Groden did back to back presentations at Duquesne in which they each claimed they now believed the large head wound was a tangential wound.

2. I don't want to tell people what to think on my website. I want to explain to them why I think the way I do, so they can decide to agree, or not. I'm sorry if that's not direct enough for you. I'm sorry if I sometimes wander away from where you think my thoughts should focus.

3. I am not a serial basher of witnesses, as claimed by Cliff, and you should be one of the last people to go along with such a thing. As you know, I have repeatedly pointed out that YOUR interpretation of the wounds is at odds with the recollections of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, including William Newman and Abraham Zapruder. As you know, you have said their observations are of no value, and should be ignored. And that's not the worst of it. Whenever I have pointed out that the majority of the key Parkland witnesses--your witnesses, so to speak--openly denounced your theory when asked about it in interviews, or in letters from researchers, you and others have said it was because they were scared or weak or some such thing. That's right. People like Carrico and Perry and Jenkins were "brave" when they said they thought they saw cerebellum, or anything indicating there was a wound low on the back of the head ... but scared little mice when they looked at the original photos late in life and stated, for the record, that they believed them to be authentic. Oh, please.

4. Your double-standard on this is further revealed in your comments about Audrey Bell, who was Connally's nurse at Parkland, and was never mentioned by any of the doctors in their testimony regarding Kennedy. And who then, late in life, started claiming she'd been shown Kennedy's head wound by Perry. Well, that's nonsense, IMO. So why is this a double standard? Because when Dr. Robert Grossman similarly came out of nowhere and began claiming he'd studied Kennedy's wounds you expressed doubt he'd even seen the body, and essentially called him a fake. And why did you do this? Because he said he saw the wounds described in the autopsy report.

5. As I've stated, a number of times now, the Warren Commission testimony of the Parkland witnesses was far more suggestive of conspiracy than their earliest statements. So, let's think on this. And then please answer this question. IF Kennedy's killers were so worried about his head wounds suggesting he'd been shot from the front that they hijacked his body and altered his wounds, wouldn't one of these "they"s have the common sense to make sure the Parkland doctors didn't talk about these wounds in their testimony? I mean, we know the WC was worried about the back wound, and teamed up with the autopsy doctors to pretend it was a neck wound. And that Specter, the SS, and FBI lied about this in their testimony regarding the re-enactment. Well, if there had been a cover-up of the head wounds from the beginning, how the heck did Specter fail to get the message?

6. LBJ's actions after the shooting haven't convinced me he was part of the plot, but have made this possibility a much much stronger possibility in my mind. I'm sorry about the nuance. But I can't say I feel positive LBJ was in on it. Best guess, yes. Firm conclusion, no. And yes, Valenti's words in particular support the possibility Johnson wanted control of the body. If I recall correctly, I actually brought this to your attention when I first realized this. So you're welcome.

7. I don't believe we have differing recollections of Rike. He told me he thought the wound was on the back of the head, but stressed that he did not see the wound, and only felt it.

8. If anyone knows anything about you, David, it's that you like to tape-record your interviews. If you have tape of Kemp Clark in the nineties saying he still believed the shots came from the front I will apologize to you on this forum. But if you do, well, what's the matter with you? Your theories got next to no attention on the fiftieth. If you'd have come forward with a tape of the rarely-interviewed Clark saying he thought the shots came from the front, well, that would have made the news.

9. As far as the limo stop...yikes. That's been debunked so many times on this forum it's ridiculous. In short, the majority of those supposedly claiming the limo stopped either claimed the limo slowed or said the motorcade stopped, which nobody disputes. And it's even worse than that. The major proponent for the limo stop argument was Jim Fetzer, who supposedly stood behind John Costella's conclusions regarding the Z-film. Well, Costella believed that for the film to be a forgery, and for the limo stop to have been removed, well, the entire film would have to have been a fake from beginning to end. Now, how many of those thinking the limo stop was removed buy into this? Virtually none. They think frames were removed which showed the limo stop, even though the supposedly top expert on Zapruder film alteration says this did not occur. Go figure. (I don't remember where you stand on this. But I hope that you, for your sake, have gotten as far away from that sinking ship Fetzer as possible.)

Edited August 3, 2015 by Pat Speer

[Glenn Nall]

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

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?

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

Speer didn't resurrect this thread. I did.

I know that. it was a joke.

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.

that's fine. at least you're not spending all of your energy creating confrontation as Cliff is. He clearly wants to fight, and THAT is the point i've been trying to make. I think it's pathetic, People don't even pick at DVP like this, and he INVITES it.

i don't know why what i've pointed out is hard to understand. Pat might be a buffoon. i don't know. i'm just saying that this infighting that Cliff is clearly bent on is sad. and very uncomfortable.

now i am outa here. i'll shop somewhere else for a while.

[Glenn Nall]

...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.

WTF?

It's my "job" and "responsibility" to "monitor" Pat Speer's posts (i.e., "behavior")?

Why did you decide to just make up such crap out of whole cloth, Glenn? Any particular reason? Or is it just part of your growing obsession with "all things DVP", which you now wear on your sleeve on a daily basis?

it was sarcasm, david. look it up. i was being sarcastic.

see, Cliff was being intentionally judgemental of Pat's opinions, and i was pointing out that that is not a human's job to judge other humans. you just happen to make yourself a convenient target for jokes.

most people who are able to think for themselves recognized that. of course it's not a person's job to monitor other people.