Favorite author-Jim DiEugenio; favorite researcher-Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I have frequently experienced that exact type of attitude being aimed at me by conspiracy theorists during the last 20+ years---at this forum and also at every other Internet forum I've joined since 2003---without exception.

Most CTers I've encountered just simply cannot stand having their unprovable and untenable theories torn to shreds by anyone---be it an LNer or a fellow CTer like Patrick J. Speer. Such conspiracists prefer fantasy over reality (and facts).

Sad indeed. But that's the way it is. At least that's been my experience since plugging in my first computer in September of 2000.

 

Although I disagree with you about an awful lot, David, I do agree with your overall point: that there is an element within the CT research community that is determined to push the nebulous and ill-founded as being obvious and well-grounded. But I think you would have to admit that there is a similar element within the Oswald-did-it community, an element that claims as a matter of (near) religion that the single-bullet theory is a "fact" and that the shots performed were easy shots. 

It's like a giant puzzle in which 2/3 of the pieces are solid gray. Anyone claiming the puzzle is black and white is off, IMO. 

Edited May 5 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

35 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

But I think you would have to admit that there is a similar element within the Oswald-did-it community, an element that claims as a matter of (near) religion that the single-bullet theory is a "fact" and that the shots performed were easy shots. 

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.

 

[Richard Bertolino]

DVP doesn't admit anything.

[Jean Ceulemans]

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.   

[David Von Pein]

24 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

DVP doesn't admit anything.

Nor do CTers.....especially when it comes to the obviousness of the SBT. That became crystal clear right here at the EF almost ten years ago. 

Edited May 5 by David Von Pein

[Richard Bertolino]

15 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Nor do CTers.....especially when it comes to the obviousness of the SBT. That became crystal clear right here at the EF almost ten years ago. 

I won't click there, but Pat Speer probably will.

[Keven Hofeling]

10 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Since you don't seem to know how many times, I'll tell you: zero. 

I said in my first response to Vince that I was responding as part of an experiment. Well, we have the results of that experiment. 

There are a number of members of this forum who can't bear to have myself--or anyone really--point out the problems with their pet theories, and pet theorists, or even mention that I disagree with them. And that goes against the spirit of the place--the spirit embraced by John Simkin and the founders of this forum. This was supposed to be a place where people of differing opinions can share information and argue about their interpretations of that information. Historically, people who wanted everyone here to think the same were encouraged to go elsewhere.

And yet, we now have a moderator who can't help himself and who feels it's perfectly proper to suggest someone more knowledgeable than himself-who dares to disagree with his whimsical and fantastical conclusions regarding a supposedly serious matter--is a dis-informationist. And deserving of contempt. And should, by extension, be banished from the research community. 

Sad. 

Mr. Speer: Is the problem you complain of that there is a massive, coordinated conspiracy against you, or that you are being consistently called out on your factual misrepresentations and mythmaking?

The post of yours to which this is a response is a prime example: You cite John Simkin as somebody who allegedly embraced a non-confrontational spirit, and yet the truth is that John Simkin consistently confronted forum members about their factual misrepresentations (if you wish to dispute this fact, I will be happy to present you with a long list of examples).

To determine whether you are such a diplomat who has been so abused by JFK "buffs," as you seem to be implying, let us review the history to determine whether the problem is instead that you constantly attempt to feed your fellow researchers blatantly false factual misrepresentations calculated to mislead us as if you think we are too stupid to fact check your claims.

The following are just a few examples of your very recent blatant factual misrepresentations, which are not just mere matters of differences of interpretation, but are instead glaring distortions of the factual record:

________________

On April 25, 2024, Speer claimed that (1) mortician Tom Robinson claimed in his HSCA testimony that he "saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by [JFK's] temple," (2) that nineteen years later, before the ARRB, Robinson was no longer referencing the right temple wound, and testified instead "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by [JFK's] right cheek," and (3) that fourteen years after that Doug Horne, without any actual reference to Tom Robinson's testimony at all claimed that "Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye."  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534508

Later on April 25, 2024, (1) I presented Speer with the HSCA transcript of Tom Robinsen's demonstrating that Robinson had said the right temple wound had been caused either "a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet," (2) I also presented Speer with the ARRB transcript demonstrating that Robinson in his 1996 ARRB testimony ALSO specifically described the right temple wound separately from the shrapnel punctures in the cheek and executed two drawings of that right temple wound, and (3) I pointed out that Doug Horne was basing his high forehead statement on Robinson's 1/12/1977 HSCA transcript showing that when Robinson was asked by HSCA attorney Andy Purdy whether the wound was "in the forehead region up near the hairline," Robinson replied in the affirmative, "yes," and that, as can be seen in Robinson's marking of the right temple wound in the skull diagram below, Speer's claim, made in an adjoining post, that the wound was below JFK's eye is also categorically false.  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534511

 

________________

On April 20, 2024, Speer again recited his myth about HSCA autopsy technician James Jenkins allegedly denying the existence of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head that Jenkins had described to the HSCA in 1977, and to David Lifton in 1979. Speer wrote:

"...Jenkins said the back of the head between the ears was shattered but still intact beneath the scalp in filmed interviews with Harrison Livingstone and William Law, and then again at two different JFK Lancer conferences which I attended. At the first of these, there was a breakout session with about 30 people in attendance in which he was repeatedly grilled by Aguilar and Mantik about the back of the head, and told them repeatedly that it was shattered but intact beneath the scalp. Of course Mantik turned around and told this to Doug Horne and within days Horne had an article online in which he claimed Jenkins had told this audience that the autopsy photos are inaccurate and Horne then twisted this into Jenkins' claiming the back of the head was blown out--when he had actually said the exact opposite..." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534135

In telling this myth, what Speer did not realize is that there is a transcript of James Jenkins's 2013 Lancer Conference presentation that was independently prepared by someone who has nothing to do with David Mantik and Doug Horne which was posted on the Education Forum demonstrating that, contrary to Speer's claim, what Jenkins actually said at the conference was the following:

"...there was a small entry…..exit, anyway a small wound that appeared to be approximately four….right in front of the top of the right ear and slightly above it...."

"...At the conclusion of the autopsy my personal ideas of the things that I said, I was sure that the entrance wound was above the right ear and that the large wound in the back (of the head) was an exit wound.  In the wound in the back (of the head) there were some questions by Dr. Boswell to the gallery...."  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30149-can-speer-and-his-confederates-counter-the-only-math-that-really-counts-re-jfks-occipital-parietal-wound/?do=findComment&comment=534146

Best demonstrating the ridiculousness of Speer's slanderous mythology about James Jenkins is the following drawing of the occipital parietal wound Jenkins executed for the HSCA in 1977 (corroborating his HSCA testimony), and the excerpt of Jenkins's 1979 interview by Dvid Lifton which follows it:

________________

On March 12, 2024, Speer regurgitated his myth about Parkland Nurse Audrey Bell (that Bell suddenly inserted herself as a witness into JFK assassination history starting in the 1980's after being groomed by JFK conspiracy advocates, and had never before claimed there was a large avulsive head wound, diplomatically characterizing her account as "bullshit"), as follows:

"...There are some major problems with Horne's response. 1. He cites Audrey Bell as a credible witness, when she is not. She never mentioned anything about the head wound till decades after the shooting, after she had been embraced by the research community as a truth-teller..."  https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30250-doug-hornes-response-to-gary-aguilars-review/?do=findComment&comment=530774

My response, on the same date -- https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30250-doug-hornes-response-to-gary-aguilars-review/?do=findComment&comment=530820 -- was to remind Speer of the existence of an item of evidence that had many times been pointed out to him by others on this forum which completely demolishes his claim about Nurse Bell. A November 1967 paper authored by Bell herself, published in the journal of the Association of periOperative Registered Nurses, titled Forty-Eight Hours and Thirty-One Minutes, that contains references to events supporting the representations Bell would make in the 1980's, such as referencing her proximity to Dr. Perry and the performance of the tracheotomy, and "the massive head wound":   https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001209208700474

"...I helped cut the President's shirt from his right arm, and positioned the tracheotomy tray for Dr. Perry.

It was then that I saw the massive head wound. Even though the prospect of surgery-after viewing the proportions of the wound and the general condition of the President-was improbable, I rushed off in search of a telephone to call the Operating Room...."

________________

On January 21, 2024, Speer made the following blatantly false factual misrepresentations about Bethesda X-ray Technician Jerrol Custer:

"Custer said that he would have to have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P x-ray. And that he couldn't and wouldn't have done that if the back of his head was missing. Keep in mind that the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull. He wasn't about to take an x-ray where the brain would be smushed onto the cassette." https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526563

My response was as follows:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526695

Mr. Speer, I regret to inform you that I must once again point out your misrepresentation of testimony to the members of this forum. You claimed that Jerrol Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray if the back of his head was missing. This is, according to you, because the x-rays were taken with the brain still in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so. 

Below, I demonstrate your misrepresentations:

As you can see in the first segment of Custer's deposition testimony I have highlighted in bright yellow, Custer testified that he didn't even see the stirrup at the autopsy, and that the stirrup was not used during x-rays, but only when the body was being probed.

With regard to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette to take the A-P X-ray, in the second segment I have highlighted in light yellow we see that Custer placed a sheet over the film to collect any bodily fluids that might drain while he was taking the x-rays.

In the third pink-highlighted segment, when Jeremy Gunn questioned him about Autopsy Photos 42 and 43, Jerrol Custer confirmed that he had x-rayed the back of JFK's head and mentioned lifting the head just enough "to place the cassette underneath."

Furthermore, contrary to your claim that Custer "couldn't and wouldn't" have placed the back of JFK's head on the x-ray cassette because the x-rays were taken while the brain was in the skull, so he wouldn't have taken such an x-ray as the brain would be "smushed onto the cassette" if he had done so, Custer consistently maintained throughout his deposition that there was no brain in the skull when he took the x-rays. Note that on page 89 of the deposition Custer states that the brain was missing from the skull at the time he took the initial set of x-rays, and indicates that he did not witness what was surely a pre-autopsy clandestine craniotomy:

Finally, despite the impression you gave of Jerrol Custer's ARRB deposition as uneventful and uncontroversial, the truth is that Custer recalled highly controversial and explosive events, including:

He mentioned seeing a mechanical device in the skull at the start of the autopsy; being told the body was at Walter Reed before being brought to Bethesda; witnessing Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy; seeing more than one casket in the morgue; witnessing the Kennedy entourage arriving after the body had already been at Bethesda for over an hour; seeing interference with the autopsy from a four-star General and a plainclothesman in the gallery; and, many indications that Kennedy had been shot from the front.

In the deposition, Custer's memories seem to overlap, such as when, as follows, he relates his memories of the mechanical device in JFK's skull, being told by two separate duty officers that JFK's body had been at the Walter Reed compound before arriving at Bethesda, and recalling having seen Commander William Pitzer filming the autopsy:

And after a couple of attempts to get Speer to respond to the refutations I had made regarding his claims about Jerrol Custer with something more on point than a cut and paste job from his website, Speer responded by accusing me of being a "stalker":

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30083-why-do-some-conspiracy-theorists-accept-the-x-rays-and-autopsy-photos-as-genuine/?do=findComment&comment=526705

________________

As for Speer's defamatory misrepresentations about Dr. Robert McClelland; they are so numerous and malicious that I had to devote an entire thread to them which spanned 20 pages and had 285 replies:

 

Edited May 6 by Keven Hofeling

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Nor do CTers.....especially when it comes to the obviousness of the SBT. That became crystal clear right here at the EF almost ten years ago. 

Well, thanks, David. You have reminded me that I am a CT, LOL. Because, to me, the single-bullet theory is not obviously true, but an obvious hoax. 

Let's be specific.

1. Do you believe the back wound was moved up from the back to the base of the neck on the Rydberg drawings...on purpose? Or was this just a coincidence? (I don't think it was a coincidence.)

2. Arlen Specter claimed in the WR and for the rest of his life that the bruised strap muscles proved the bullet creating the back wound had transited the body from back to front. Only this was a misrepresentation of the location of the strap muscles which were in the front...only. So...do you think this was an honest mistake? Or a deliberate misrepresentation? Or, by golly, do you think he was correct? And that the strap muscles are on the back? (I think it was a dishonest mistake--a mistake he made while trying to convince himself and the world of something he should have known to be untrue.)

3. Through political maneuvering, Dr. John Lattimer was the first civilian medical expert allowed to view the autopsy materials. Now, he came out and told the public, and essentially the world, that the single-bullet theory was obviously true, as the x-rays prove that whatever exited from the throat had transcended down the neck. Was this correct? And do you agree? And, if so, can you show us the trail down the neck on the x-rays? 

4. The HSCA's star witness, and later, in a mock trial, Vincent Bugliosi's star witness, was Dr. Vincent J. Guinn, who testified that the elements within the stretcher bullet matched the elements within the Connally wrist fragment, and that the single-bullet theory was supported. Do you stand by his testimony, and, if so, can you provide us with any scientific support for his claims? 

5. The HSCA photographic panel, including one of Vincent Bugliosi's witnesses in the mock trial, was Cecil Kirk, claimed Kennedy reacted to a shot before heading behind the sign in the Zapruder film. And yet, today, most all your brethren claim they were mistaken, and that Kennedy showed no signs of distress before coming out from behind the sign in the film. So who's correct? And is the inability of your chosen experts to agree on the timing of the shots, and thus the trajectory of the shots, a problem for your position the shots lined up perfectly? Because that is your position, right? 

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:

I won't click there, but Pat Speer probably will.

LOl. I would be tempted except I'm pretty sure it's some ancient discussion between myself and DVP which he believes he won, in which I really embarrassed him. 

[Richard Bertolino]

4 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

LOl. I would be tempted except I'm pretty sure it's some ancient discussion between myself and DVP which he believes he won, in which I really embarrassed him. 

DVP wins all of his arguments.

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

I would be tempted except I'm pretty sure it's some ancient discussion between myself and DVP which he believes he won, in which I really embarrassed him. 

Nah. It was Jim Gordon who was thoroughly embarrassed in our 2015 SBT discussion (plus a few others).

 

Edited May 5 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

11 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Well, thanks, David. You have reminded me that I am a CT, LOL. Because, to me, the single-bullet theory is not obviously true, but an obvious hoax. 

Let's be specific.

1. Do you believe the back wound was moved up from the back to the base of the neck on the Rydberg drawings...on purpose? Or was this just a coincidence? (I don't think it was a coincidence.)

2. Arlen Specter claimed in the WR and for the rest of his life that the bruised strap muscles proved the bullet creating the back wound had transited the body from back to front. Only this was a misrepresentation of the location of the strap muscles which were in the front...only. So...do you think this was an honest mistake? Or a deliberate misrepresentation? Or, by golly, do you think he was correct? And that the strap muscles are on the back? (I think it was a dishonest mistake--a mistake he made while trying to convince himself and the world of something he should have known to be untrue.)

3. Through political maneuvering, Dr. John Lattimer was the first civilian medical expert allowed to view the autopsy materials. Now, he came out and told the public, and essentially the world, that the single-bullet theory was obviously true, as the x-rays prove that whatever exited from the throat had transcended down the neck. Was this correct? And do you agree? And, if so, can you show us the trail down the neck on the x-rays? 

4. The HSCA's star witness, and later, in a mock trial, Vincent Bugliosi's star witness, was Dr. Vincent J. Guinn, who testified that the elements within the stretcher bullet matched the elements within the Connally wrist fragment, and that the single-bullet theory was supported. Do you stand by his testimony, and, if so, can you provide us with any scientific support for his claims? 

5. The HSCA photographic panel, including one of Vincent Bugliosi's witnesses in the mock trial, was Cecil Kirk, claimed Kennedy reacted to a shot before heading behind the sign in the Zapruder film. And yet, today, most all your brethren claim they were mistaken, and that Kennedy showed no signs of distress before coming out from behind the sign in the film. So who's correct? And is the inability of your chosen experts to agree on the timing of the shots, and thus the trajectory of the shots, a problem for your position the shots lined up perfectly? Because that is your position, right? 

1. The Rydberg drawings are, of course, a total mess. Both of the entry wounds are in the wrong place. Those drawings are completely worthless and useless. But I think the Warren Commission was doing the best they could with what they had....i.e., the memory of Dr. Humes and the total lack of relying on the best evidence for the wound locations---the autopsy photos.

The silliness of the WC's decision to not rely on or thoroughly review the autopsy photos still boggles the mind. A crazy, nutty decision to be sure. So, the LNers and CTers are therefore left to fight about the awful Rydberg drawings.

2. Re: the strap muscles and Arlen Specter's placement of those muscles. It's not that important in the long run, in my view, because the totality of the evidence indicates that the bullet which struck JFK in the upper back most certainly did make its way thru Kennedy's upper body without hitting any bone and without doing any severe damage to any internal structures in the body. And this is true regardless of the precise location of the strap muscles.

Key Fact Reminder --- No bullets were found in JFK's body. That's a fact, and it's a fact that most certainly supports the idea that one bullet traversed the President's upper body from back to front. (And I don't think it's a very good idea to utilize Paul Landis' recent 2023 anti-SBT story. Here's why.)

3. Dr. John Lattimer's work on the JFK case was quite solid and factual (IMO). CTers, of course, totally disagree. Like Lattimer, I believe the bullet (CE399) did, indeed, traverse JFK's upper back and neck and emerge from the throat intact to go on and hit John Connally. No other alternative, IMO, comes even close to matching the known facts (and wounds) in this case.

4. Re: Dr. Vincent P. Guinn and his NAA studies --- Let's all ponder the "What Are The Odds?" question after probing Dr. Guinn's findings HERE.

5. Yes, in my opinion, the HSCA was most certainly incorrect in its assessment that JFK was showing signs of being struck by a bullet as early as Zapruder frame 190. And I think the proof that the HSCA was dead wrong about that timing issue can be found later in that same Zapruder Film, in frames 224 thru 226. Because if Kennedy was hit as early as Z190, then there's no way we'd be seeing JFK doing what he's doing with the hands as late as Z226. That jerking upward of his hands would certainly have occurred well prior to Z226 if he had been hit as early as Z190.
 

[Pat Speer]

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

1. The Rydberg drawings are, of course, a total mess. Both of the entry wounds are in the wrong place. Those drawings are completely worthless and useless. But I think the Warren Commission was doing the best they could with what they had....i.e., the memory of Dr. Humes and the total lack of relying on the best evidence for the wound locations---the autopsy photos.

The silliness of the WC's decision to not rely on or thoroughly review the autopsy photos still boggles the mind. A crazy, nutty decision to be sure. So, the LNers and CTers are therefore left to fight about the awful Rydberg drawings.

2. Re: the strap muscles and Arlen Specter's placement of those muscles. It's not that important in the long run, in my view, because the totality of the evidence indicates that the bullet which struck JFK in the upper back most certainly did make its way thru Kennedy's upper body without hitting any bone and without doing any severe damage to any internal structures in the body. And this is true regardless of the precise location of the strap muscles.

Key Fact Reminder --- No bullets were found in JFK's body. That's a fact, and it's a fact that most certainly supports the idea that one bullet traversed the President's upper body from back to front. (And I don't think it's a very good idea to utilize Paul Landis' recent 2023 anti-SBT story. Here's why.)

3. Dr. John Lattimer's work on the JFK case was quite solid and factual (IMO). CTers, of course, totally disagree. Like Lattimer, I believe the bullet (CE399) did, indeed, traverse JFK's upper back and neck and emerge from the throat intact to go on and hit John Connally. No other alternative, IMO, comes even close to matching the known facts (and wounds) in this case.

4. Re: Dr. Vincent P. Guinn and his NAA studies --- Let's all ponder the "What Are The Odds?" question after probing Dr. Guinn's findings HERE.

5. Yes, in my opinion, the HSCA was most certainly incorrect in its assessment that JFK was showing signs of being struck by a bullet as early as Zapruder frame 190. And I think the proof that the HSCA was dead wrong about that timing issue can be found later in that same Zapruder Film, in frames 224 thru 226. Because if Kennedy was hit as early as Z190, then there's no way we'd be seeing JFK doing what he's doing with the hands as late as Z226. That jerking upward of his hands would certainly have occurred well prior to Z226 if he had been hit as early as Z190.
 

So let's narrow it down. 

1. Your man Lattimer claimed the bullet entering two inches below Kennedy's shoulder line entered at the level of Kennedy's chin, and that this was because Kennedy's shoulder was elevated up to a location ABOVE the base of JFK's head, due to his being a hunchback, due to his steroid use. Do you think this was nonsense? Or do you think he was onto something?

2. Your man Guinn wrote papers claiming you needed a match on three key elements before you could declare two bullet specimens a match. And yet he only had one match: antimony. Even though the wrist fragment matched roughly half the other fragments tested for silver, it barely matched the magic bullet, and only then when one stretched out the confidence levels further than any of the other confidence levels were stretched. He then subsequently changed the numbers to make it look like a match. Now, copper wasn't even close to a match, which Guinn blamed on contamination. In his papers, however, he claimed one should use arsenic as a third element if one of the other three is contaminated. And yet he never offered ANY numbers for arsenic. So the facts are clear that Guinn misrepresented the evidence to the committee, and almost certainly perjured himself when testifying for Bugliosi in the mock trial. Do you stand by his testimony? And, if so, are you aware of any experts in the field who stand by his testimony? 

Edited May 5 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

On 5/5/2024 at 7:34 PM, Pat Speer said:

So let's narrow it down. 

1. Your man Lattimer claimed the bullet entering two inches below Kennedy's shoulder line entered at the level of Kennedy's chin, and that this was because Kennedy's shoulder was elevated up to a location ABOVE the base of JFK's head, due to his being a hunchback, due to his steroid use. Do you think this was nonsense? Or do you think he was onto something?

2. Your man Guinn wrote papers claiming you needed a match on three key elements before you could declare two bullet specimens a match. And yet he only had one match: antimony. Even though the wrist fragment matched roughly half the other fragments tested for silver, it barely matched the magic bullet, and only then when one stretched out the confidence levels further than any of the other confidence levels were stretched. He then subsequently changed the numbers to make it look like a match. Now, copper wasn't even close to a match, which Guinn blamed on contamination. In his papers, however, he claimed one should use arsenic as a third element if one of the other three is contaminated. And yet he never offered ANY numbers for arsenic. So the facts are clear that Guinn misrepresented the evidence to the committee, and almost certainly perjured himself when testifying for Bugliosi in the mock trial. Do you stand by his testimony? And, if so, are you aware of any experts in the field who stand by his testimony? 

Well, Pat, let's assume just for the sake of this discussion that Dr. Guinn was, indeed, a big fat liar (as you apparently believe). I'd still like to know what you think the odds are of a multi-gun conspiracy taking place in Dallas, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the two limo victims, and yet, after the bullets stopped flying, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street?

I think that's an important "What are the odds?" question to ask, because that's precisely what did occur in this JFK murder case. No bullets or fragments exist in this case that were definitely determined to be from some OTHER non-Oswald gun.

With or without any Neutron Activation Analysis entering into the discussion, what I just said above is a proven fact. And it's a proven fact that conspiracy believers should be a little concerned about. Wouldn't you agree?

And the traditional CTer responses of "Nothing in this case can be trusted" and/or "Everything's been faked" are worn-out and unprovable responses that reek of conspiracy theorist desperation. Would you not agree, Pat?

 

Edited May 7 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

10 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, Pat, let's assume just for the sake of this discussion that Dr. Guinn was, indeed, a big fat l-iar (as you apparently believe). I'd still like to know what you think the odds are of a multi-gun conspiracy taking place in Dallas, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the two limo victims, and yet, after the bullets stopped flying, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street?

I think that's an important "What are the odds?" question to ask, because that's precisely what did occur in this JFK murder case. No bullets or fragments exist in this case that were definitely determined to be from some OTHER non-Oswald gun.

With or without any Neutron Activation Analysis entering into the discussion, what I just said above is a proven fact. And it's a proven fact that conspiracy believers should be a little concerned about. Wouldn't you agree?

And the traditional CTer responses of "Nothing in this case can be trusted" and/or "Everything's been faked" are worn-out and unprovable responses that reek of CT desperation. Would you not agree, Pat?

 

What you miss, my friend, is that the tests were designed to find certainties, not possibilities. Guinn's protocols were put in place to prevent people from saying "Well, it matches on one element so MAYBE it's a match, I don't know." And yet, he testified in direct opposition to his protocols and claimed a match on one element was enough to conclude the magic bullet and wrist fragment were related. So, yeah, I think he was a liar. 

It should be noted, as well, IMO, that he lied to the committee about his background. He was asked if he'd worked for the FBI or Warren Commission during the 1964 investigation and said no, when the reality was he worked for the Dept. of Commerce while providing data to the FBI, and that this was by DESIGN, so that the Warren Commission and the public would not know of his involvement. 

A snake in the grass, that one. 

Now, as to your point, I would agree that his tests failed to provide evidence for more than one rifle.