Pat Speer video

[Wim Dankbaar]

http://www.noisivision.com/JFK.htm

I don't know if this has been posted before , but that's really great stuff

Wim

[Brian Smith]

http://www.noisivision.com/JFK.htm

I don't know if this has been posted before , but that's really great stuff

Wim

He posted it on the IMDb forum yesterday. It's very good. I never knew about that Nov. 1, 1966 document of inspection that put the mysterious large hole in the scull, in the cropped autopsy photo of the head, at the "posterior scull." Interesting that the autopsists changed the location a few months later to the front of the scull. Has there ever been a homicide case in which the wounds moved around the body so much?

[Wim Dankbaar]

He clearly demonstrates that the whole official story of the wounds is a total farce and fraud.

That has been done before, but I never saw it visualised so well and with unknown footage.

I hope Pat will put this on youtube and google video.

Wim

[Pat Speer]

He clearly demonstrates that the whole official story of the wounds is a total farce and fraud.

That has been done before, but I never saw it visualised so well and with unknown footage.

I hope Pat will put this on youtube and google video.

Wim

Thanks for the kind words. Feel free to pass the word and post the link anywhere you think relevant. Most of the material had been explored before, by men like Weisberg, Lifton, and Aguilar. The one new discovery, as far as I can tell, is that Baden testified with the autopsy photo upside down, when compared to the already incorrect official understanding of the photo. I still cringe every time I see him point to the skull above the exit on the drawing and tell the congressman it corresponds to the bone on the photo.

[Pat Speer]

Not everyone was as kind as those posting above. I received some hatemail as well. I suspect the nastiness of the email below is an indication I'm getting somewhere.

Talk about confusion ! Wow ! Your series of video cartoon's , I suppose intended to confuse a person with a 3rd grade education is laughable at best . Which brings up the point of your education level ; if you ever passed the 6th grade , your not using the marbles god gave you . So , what's the real problem here ? Low self esteem ? Unable to admit to a failed world view ? Unable to come to grasp with an act of inexplicable violence , which goes on around us every minute of every day ? When you do come down to earth after soaring like a eagle , perhaps you'd like to talk turkey with Prof. Rahn who's 300 page Monograph Length Treatises blows your silly assumptions asunder :

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_to..._head_shot.html

I don't think you'll do this because like most Con - Artists in ' The Great JFK Assassination Hoaxing ' business , you run faster from challenges like this then you talk . I invite you to prove me wrong .........Sincerely Tom Lowry

PS : So where's the beef ? After studying this case for 25 years , I've yet to find one demonstrable thing wrong with the WCR , which stands as a bedrock of honesty and unlike your presentation , stands for the truth . If you honest with yourself , you'll remove this rubbish off the Internet , it serves no good , except to confuse people who like yourself are unqualified to pass judgment upon technical issues , that you've proven by your video , are quite beyond your grasp .

Over on the McAdams forum, John McAdams defended Baden by claiming Baden obviously understood the photograph because he knew it was the forehead. This evades every question raised by the video. If Baden had studied the photo long enough to know it was the forehead, how come he presented it upside down, and how come his interpretation differed so much from Angel's interpretation?

Edited November 24, 2006 by Pat Speer

[Pat Powell]

Great work Mr. Speer!!

(Just a thought, invest in some sunglasses!!

It looked pretty bright where you were)

[Frank Agbat]

Not everyone was as kind as those posting above. I received some hatemail as well. I suspect the nastiness of the email below is an indication I'm getting somewhere.

Talk about confusion ! Wow ! Your series of video cartoon's , I suppose intended to confuse a person with a 3rd grade education is laughable at best . Which brings up the point of your education level ; if you ever passed the 6th grade , your not using the marbles god gave you . So , what's the real problem here ? Low self esteem ? Unable to admit to a failed world view ? Unable to come to grasp with an act of inexplicable violence , which goes on around us every minute of every day ? When you do come down to earth after soaring like a eagle , perhaps you'd like to talk turkey with Prof. Rahn who's 300 page Monograph Length Treatises blows your silly assumptions asunder :

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/scientific_to..._head_shot.html

I don't think you'll do this because like most Con - Artists in ' The Great JFK Assassination Hoaxing ' business , you run faster from challenges like this then you talk . I invite you to prove me wrong .........Sincerely Tom Lowry

PS : So where's the beef ? After studying this case for 25 years , I've yet to find one demonstrable thing wrong with the WCR , which stands as a bedrock of honesty and unlike your presentation , stands for the truth . If you honest with yourself , you'll remove this rubbish off the Internet , it serves no good , except to confuse people who like yourself are unqualified to pass judgment upon technical issues , that you've proven by your video , are quite beyond your grasp .

Over on the McAdams forum, John McAdams defended Baden by claiming Baden obviously understood the photograph because he knew it was the forehead. This evades every aspect of the video. If Baden had studied the photo long enough to know it was the forehead, how come he presented it upside down, and how come his interpretation differed so much from Angel's interpretation?

Nothing quite like a pan from the McCIAdams people to cement the fact that you've done well! Keep up the good work!

[Brian Smith]

When you are attacked by "researchers" of that ilk, you have received a great compliment. McAdams and his devotees are the laughing stock of JFK assassination research. Didn't McAdams run around at one of the COPA conferences awhile ago using the alias "Paul Nolan"? I read on Wim's site that he even gave an interview (under the alias) to a local newspaper, claiming to be a computer salesman attending the conference. What a clown.

[Pat Speer]

When you are attacked by "researchers" of that ilk, you have received a great compliment. McAdams and his devotees are the laughing stock of JFK assassination research. Didn't McAdams run around at one of the COPA conferences awhile ago using the alias "Paul Nolan"? I read on Wim's site that he even gave an interview (under the alias) to a local newspaper, claiming to be a computer salesman attending the conference. What a clown.

I heard a similar story except I think it was about Max Holland. I respect McAdams for the most part but find his blind defense of the HSCA FPP perplexing. It is simply impossible for him to perceive that nine top "experts" could be wrong. Ironically, several of the main LNers on his forum, including Chad Zimmerman and John Canal, believe the HSCA FPP was full of doodoo, and that the "cowlick" entrance is a fraud. They stand by the WC entrance. My experiences on the McAdams forum have been somewhat comforting, in that they revealed to me that the LNers are nowhere near as united as they might seem. As a result. I suspect it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media and historians catch on that there is no there there.

[Brian Smith]

When you are attacked by "researchers" of that ilk, you have received a great compliment. McAdams and his devotees are the laughing stock of JFK assassination research. Didn't McAdams run around at one of the COPA conferences awhile ago using the alias "Paul Nolan"? I read on Wim's site that he even gave an interview (under the alias) to a local newspaper, claiming to be a computer salesman attending the conference. What a clown.

I heard a similar story except I think it was about Max Holland. I respect McAdams for the most part but find his blind defense of the HSCA FPP perplexing. It is simply impossible for him to perceive that nine top "experts" could be wrong. Ironically, several of the main LNers on his forum, including Chad Zimmerman and John Canal, believe the HSCA FPP was full of doodoo, and that the "cowlick" entrance is a fraud. They stand by the WC entrance. My experiences on the McAdams forum have been somewhat comforting, in that they revealed to me that the LNers are nowhere near as united as they might seem. As a result. I suspect it's only a matter of time before the mainstream media and historians catch on that there is no there there.

They are trying to prop up something that was built on deception to begin with. That is why there are so many discrepancies in the case - travelling wounds, massive contradictions between witness testimony and official evidence, etc. They are doomed to fail. In fact they already have, as over 3/4ths of Americans disbelieve the lone gunman story according to polls. Some polls even put the percentage at near 90%. The mainstream media just keeps repeating the official story as if the opposite were the case. No wonder newspaper circulation is at an alltime low, and tv news ratings continue their precipitous decline. People who want real information have largely turned their backs on them, and rightfully so.

[John Simkin]

http://www.noisivision.com/JFK.htm

I don't know if this has been posted before , but that's really great stuff

Wim

Thank you for this. I plan to create a directory of videos concerning the assassination. Some time ago you posted a link to an interview with Ed Haslam. Could you add the link again?

[Wim Dankbaar]

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/haslam1.htm

http://jfkmurdersolved.com/lewis.htm