Favorite author-Jim DiEugenio; favorite researcher-Pat Speer

[Vince Palamara]

Yes- I am a huge fan of all of Jim DiEugenio's books and the latest Stone documentary. 

Likewise, @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?

 

[Pat Speer]

11 hours ago, Vince Palamara said:

Yes- I am a huge fan of all of Jim DiEugenio's books and the latest Stone documentary. 

Likewise, @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?

 

I'll answer as part of an experiment. 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. 

1. Mantik's work has been an unfortunate distraction, IMO. 

2. While I suspect Mantik's OD readings are accurate, his interpretation of them is highly suspect, and almost certainly flat-out wrong. His original claims were questionable, but when he started claiming his OD readings prove there is a gigantic hole on the back of the head that can't be made out with the naked eye when looking at the x-rays, well, that was a red flag. It's junk science, people.

3. The white patch is real and is indicative of overlapping bone--bone that can be observed on the autopsy photos. While Mantik originally claimed the white patch was added to cover-up the hole from which the Harper fragment had been dislodged he alter changed it to be where the site patch was added to hide that brain was missing--which is in keeping with what was claimed by the doctors. So it's nonsense. 

4. The dark area on the back of the head  in the Z-film is apparent on the back of other heads as well, so I suspect it's just a photographic anomaly. But I would admit that IF any alteration was performed on the film, it would be of this nature. Now, some have claimed that the explosion of the skull on the front of the head was faked as well, but that's just ludicrous, akin to claiming someone confessed to a crime so we would think he was innocent. The large head wound is 100% clear proof the shooting did not go down as purported by the WC. I dug through the dirt and went back and read dozens of articles on the wound ballistics of the rifle, and proved the WC and HSCA wonld ballistics experts, Olivier and Sturdivan, lied through their teeth, in order to confess the public JFK's wound was a typical military rifle wound. It was not. Now, my friend Gary Aguilar has taken from this that non-military ammo was used, and that they covered this up, and I think that's worth thinking about, but this idea that they faked a gigantic head wound to make people think it was lil' ole Oswald firing from behind makes little sense. 

5. As far as the red spot...it is not a hole. No one at the autopsy saw a hole in that location. Even worse, this hole was "discovered' after the Clark Panel realized the trajectories from the building and through the brain proposed in the autopsy report made no sense. So, instead of rethinking their conclusions as to how many shots were fired, or from where they were fired, they simply moved the wound. It is a total HOAX in my opinion. One of my many frustrations with the research community is this focus on the Parkland witnesses and so on in hopes of making the historical case the back of the head was blown out. Well, even if true, this is HOPELESS, IMO, as too many witnesses said it was not so, and so many of the original witnesses changed their statements over the years. In the meantime, however, year after year, decade after decade, the public was told NOTHING about the movement of the head wound, and that a  paper trail demonstrates for fact it was moved for political reasons. I mean, which is a bigger story...in REALITY...that a 90 year old Secret Service agent has started making claims at odds with the official story, and everyone else's story...OR that there is a slam dunk case proving the President's fatal wound was moved in medical reports so the government could claim it was single assassin. Quite OBVIOUSLy, the second, right? And yet when I talk to normies about the case most all have heard of Landis and maybe even Donahue's Hickey-did-it theory, etc, but virtually none of them are aware of the historical fact lawyers and doctors working for the government moved, first, Kennedy's back wound, and second, the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head. 

Edited May 4 by Pat Speer

[Richard Bertolino]

2 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. 

 

This forum does seem to have a problem of that sort. They're everywhere.

[Jean Ceulemans]

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. 

 

 

[Paul Bacon]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The dark area on the back of the head  in the Z-film is apparent on the back of other heads as well, so I suspect it's just a photographic anomaly.

But the other shadows don't have sharp edges.  Back-lit shadows don't have sharp edges.

[Chuck Schwartz]

My favorite author- John Newman.  My favorite researcher- Doug Horne. 

[Gerry Down]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

3. The white patch is real and is indicative of overlapping bone--bone that can be observed on the autopsy photos. While Mantik originally claimed the white patch was added to cover-up the hole from which the Harper fragment had been dislodged he alter changed it to be where the site patch was added to hide that brain was missing--which is in keeping with what was claimed by the doctors. So it's nonsense. 

What chapter of your website deals with the white patch?

[Jean Ceulemans]

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

Edited May 4 by Jean Ceulemans

[Denny Zartman]

The doctors at Parkland say they saw cerebellum. Pat says they didn't.

You can believe the Parkland doctors - the ones who had medical education, medical experience, and who were actually there - or you can believe Pat.

They both can't be right.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

The doctors at Parkland say they saw cerebellum. Pat says they didn't.

You can believe the Parkland doctors - the ones who had medical education, medical experience, and who were actually there - or you can believe Pat.

They both can't be right.

It's not a matter of believing me. It's what a number of the doctors themselves said, and what experts on brain injuries have said. Macerated/scrambled brain tissue when soaked with blood gives a similar appearance, whether it be cerebellum or cerebrum. The best explanation I think comes from Carrico. He said he saw what he thought to be cerebellum, but later realized he never ever even looked at the back of the head, where he would need to have looked to see cerebellum. Their job was to get him breathing. They weren't particularly concerned with the location of the head wound, etc. Professionals focus on their jobs. It's a way to block out the horror, IMO. 

[Roger Odisio]

10 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

It's not a matter of believing me. It's what a number of the doctors themselves said, and what experts on brain injuries have said. Macerated/scrambled brain tissue when soaked with blood gives a similar appearance, whether it be cerebellum or cerebrum. The best explanation I think comes from Carrico. He said he saw what he thought to be cerebellum, but later realized he never ever even looked at the back of the head, where he would need to have looked to see cerebellum. Their job was to get him breathing. They weren't particularly concerned with the location of the head wound, etc. Professionals focus on their jobs. It's a way to block out the horror, IMO. 

That brings up a question, Pat.  Did the severity of Kennedy's head wounds, and particularly the destruction of his brain, mean that for all intents and purposes Kennedy died instantly from the shots?  I think Clint Hill was one witness who thought Kennedy had died instantly.

I can understand initial attempts to get him breathing, but shouldn't the Parkland doctors have looked closely enough at his head wounds in order to determine the feasibility of trying to save his life? Do you think they did?  What was the determinant for them to stop working and declare death?

Btw, thanks for your thorough work on what happened on AF1 awaiting takeoff for DC after the murder. Particularly Valenti's take on Johnson ordering the body to the plane.

I tried to send you a note thru the system here to ask you about it, but got a message saying you couldn't receive notes.  True?

[Denny Zartman]

I'm not reading your posts anymore @Pat Speer. In my view, you have zero credibility.

[Denny Zartman]

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.

[Pat Speer]

5 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm not reading your posts anymore @Pat Speer. In my view, you have zero credibility.

Well, that's your loss, LOL. I've learned as much from studying the statements of those with whom I now disagree, as I have with whom I now agree. 

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

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 😀