Hard-headedness and the assassination question

[Pat Speer]

This is from a thread over on the JFK Lancer Forum:

"Gary said:

"One thing I have noticed on this and other forums I have participated

in over the years is that people become attached to a theory, whether it be thier own or someone elses, and that theory eventually developes into irrefutable fact. Once that theory has reached, in their mind, the irrefutable fact stage they will not back off of it nor enter into a logical or reasonable discussion concerning it no matter what someone else has to offer or what new evidence might have come along to refute it."

Gary, I, too, have been disturbed by this phenomena. It turns out it's human nature. We're just stubborn and stupid.

In 1970, Thomas Kuhn published his book on the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While I'd never heard of this book until recently, I've found that it's well known and much-discussed in scientific circles. Kuhn went back and studied history and looked at the major breakthroughs in science, and found that very few of them were accepted immediately. He found that new theories only become accepted as the believers in old theories die off and are replaced by new converts. In other words, scholars and experts RARELY change their minds about anything, even after better theories come along. Kuhn found, furthermore, that new theories do not gain acceptance simply because they answer questions better; he found that they only become accepted when the failure of the old theory to answer a question reaches a crisis.

I take from this that our job--to change the perception of the mainstream media, the mainstream historians, and the government itself--is to create such a CRISIS. Fetzer, et al, tried to do this by showing the Z film to be fake. The problem was that only a minority of CTs believed this. I feel that, instead, we need to focus on two points of the medical evidence, two points around which most every CT can rally.

1) It can be shown that the SBT trajectory is highly unlikely, and that those demonstrating the shot on TV (like Dale Myers) are deliberately deceptive. (I spend a good deal of time on this on the single bullet fact chapter at patspeer.com)

2) It can be shown that the so-called "mystery photo" is in fact the back of Kennedy's head and not his forehead. (I devote several chapters to this at patspeer.com) The exposure of this fact to the mainstream media, historians, and government, would force a re-examination of the medical evidence, and an acknowledgment that the experts were wrong. (My video series is built along these lines.)

[John Dolva]

This is from a thread over on the JFK Lancer Forum:

"Gary said:

"One thing I have noticed on this and other forums I have participated

in over the years is that people become attached to a theory, whether it be thier own or someone elses, and that theory eventually developes into irrefutable fact. Once that theory has reached, in their mind, the irrefutable fact stage they will not back off of it nor enter into a logical or reasonable discussion concerning it no matter what someone else has to offer or what new evidence might have come along to refute it."

Gary, I, too, have been disturbed by this phenomena. It turns out it's human nature. We're just stubborn and stupid.

In 1970, Thomas Kuhn published his book on the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions." While I'd never heard of this book until recently, I've found that it's well known and much-discussed in scientific circles. Kuhn went back and studied history and looked at the major breakthroughs in science, and found that very few of them were accepted immediately. He found that new theories only become accepted as the believers in old theories die off and are replaced by new converts. In other words, scholars and experts RARELY change their minds about anything, even after better theories come along. Kuhn found, furthermore, that new theories do not gain acceptance simply because they answer questions better; he found that they only become accepted when the failure of the old theory to answer a question reaches a crisis.

I take from this that our job--to change the perception of the mainstream media, the mainstream historians, and the government itself--is to create such a CRISIS. Fetzer, et al, tried to do this by showing the Z film to be fake. The problem was that only a minority of CTs believed this. I feel that, instead, we need to focus on two points of the medical evidence, two points around which most every CT can rally.

1) It can be shown that the SBT trajectory is highly unlikely, and that those demonstrating the shot on TV (like Dale Myers) are deliberately deceptive. (I spend a good deal of time on this on the single bullet fact chapter at patspeer.com)

2) It can be shown that the so-called "mystery photo" is in fact the back of Kennedy's head and not his forehead. (I devote several chapters to this at patspeer.com) The exposure of this fact to the mainstream media, historians, and government, would force a re-examination of the medical evidence, and an acknowledgment that the experts were wrong. (My video series is built along these lines.)

Gary, very worthwhile things to consider IMO.

At the Uni of WA there's a wall of limestone blocks which one approaches as one leaves many parts of the University. In large letters are carved in bas relief 'Know Thyself'. No one ever in my experience, including myself, does anything but pass this by almost every day a number of times over a number of years.

Yet, fundamentally, in those two words lie the answer to your post, in it's most basic form.

'Attachment' is an apt word in your post.

Fundamentally we all are nothing but a mind/body phenomena with sensory gates through which we percieve that which is not us.IE the world at large, in all its forms, including the realm of ideas.

We have a relationship with this percieved otherness that has a boundary that is defined by our attachments and our habitual relationship with the sensations that arise on our mind/body phenomena as it accompanies the sensory input.

These sensations are our feelings including our mind contents or mind conditioning.

They are basically unpleasant, pleasant, or neutral. They reside in the future, the past or the present. We are in a sense dispersed along a time line that seldom rests in that which only exists and only ever has existed, the present.

According to where our boundary between self and other, and the degree of our attachment to that, and the consequences thereof, we construct the world. IOW we erect a filter through which we interact with the other.

Habitually the neutral, or perhaps boredom, and the unpleasant, and the pleasant (remember here I'm talking about the sensations that arise on each mind/body phenomena. A sunset just exists, that's its only nature, yet in its manifestation on the mind body phenomena we directly blame the sunset for the pleasant sensations that arise within our selves, and call it beautiful, while the truth essentially is that there is beauty within us. Similarly a pile of stinky vomit on the side walk just exists, and it's not until its manifestation enters through our senses we define it as 'yucky'. Again the essential truth is that we are 'yucky'. The yuckiness occurred within us.) is habitually rejected or accepted and externalised. (Oh how beautiful you are, I am so attached to the sensations that arise in me when I not only see you but also when I think of you, I must have you.or: Yuck, what a horrible thing, take it away, put your hands over your eyes, turn away, plug up the ears, don't think about it.) Self delusion. Ignorance. So human and so limiting.

Science attempts to overcome this by 'the scientific principles'. In philosophy, one can look at Plato's allegory of The Cave, and the difficulties of enlightening those who remain trapped behind the wall by someone who has escaped that boundary and tries to explain that the flickers and shadows are not supernatural.

Likewise, Galileo forced to retract his heresy, 'whispered: and yet it moves'. And the church did not formaly acknowledge they were wrong until centuries later.

That which is generally dealt with is that which is acceptable according to the habitual reaction filters we erect within our selves.

So, fundamentally, the answer is 'ignorance'. (not stupidity) and then ignorance of our selves.

The cure, while it exposes us to the boring, and the unpleasant, is Equa Animus, equanimity. ie, this theory evokes an unpleasant sensation within me, whether on the body senses or the mind, and I wil own that, and apply judice to the best of my ability.

In such an atmosphere of study progress is made.

Any call for ignoring people, or ideas, are counter to this. Any judice based on pre judice is counter to this. Yet these are often the dominant paradigms.

So the fundamental fault is not stupidity, but ignorance of the true mature of reality which resides within our selves.

-------------------

Pat, "It turns out it's human nature. We're just stubborn and stupid." is touching on the causes in a gross way.

The people involved are far from stupid. I'd say it is indeed 'human nature', but it's skeptisism which is not a bad thing, and ingnorance, not stupidity, and then primarily of self, which is not helpful.

Further, Pat, I have attempted to engage you in discussing some (IMO) fundamental flaws in your head wound photo analysis. You have never responded. If this is not so please tell me, I'd like to go over a few things.

Edited May 12, 2007 by John Dolva

[Pat Speer]

Further, Pat, I have attempted to engage you in discussing some (IMO) fundamental flaws in your head wound photo analysis. You have never responded. If this is not so please tell me, I'd like to go over a few things.

John, I discuss the mystery photos in greater detail at patspeer.com than I did in the presentation. I also answer a few of the arguments encountered after the presentation first went online. I don't remember what flaws you encountered. Most who disagreed with my analysis pretty much said it looked like a forehead to them, and not the back of a head.

If you watch my video series you'll see that there is a trail of strange circumstances surrounding these photos, which only add to my conclusion that the photos are of the back of the head.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

In order to remove the "blinders", one must either accept and admit (to themselves at least) that they have been so gullible as to have been completely mislead without taking the time to evaluate the factual information for themselves, or else they are just plain old everyday stupid.

Until not long ago, you were under the misconception that the Z312/313 headshot was the last shot.

One might ask exactly why it was that you accepted this as fact WITHOUT having first completely researched this aspect?

Exactly how many "wrong turns" did this erroneous believe lead you down?

How many here continue to believe and accept the garbage that LHO was a poor shot, when in fact the evidence demonstrates clearly that this is not so?

How many are so gullible that they believed "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"?

There is only one "Magic Bullet"!------That being the one which disappeared after having been surgically removed from the leg of JBC.

"Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear"

Tom Purvis

[Pat Speer]

In order to remove the "blinders", one must either accept and admit (to themselves at least) that they have been so gullible as to have been completely mislead without taking the time to evaluate the factual information for themselves, or else they are just plain old everyday stupid.

Until not long ago, you were under the misconception that the Z312/313 headshot was the last shot.

One might ask exactly why it was that you accepted this as fact WITHOUT having first completely researched this aspect?

Exactly how many "wrong turns" did this erroneous believe lead you down?

How many here continue to believe and accept the garbage that LHO was a poor shot, when in fact the evidence demonstrates clearly that this is not so?

How many are so gullible that they believed "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"?

There is only one "Magic Bullet"!------That being the one which disappeared after having been surgically removed from the leg of JBC.

"Politicians, not unlike Magicians, can make things disappear"

Tom Purvis

Absolutely, Tom, we all get a little stuck in the groove of what we were told and what we've concluded seems likely. There are some-you are not alone--who've come to believe that Connally is not hit until after Kennedy is shot in the head. It seems obvious to everyone else, including Connally, that he is hit long before this time. There are others who look at the Z-film and conclude Kennedy's movements prove the shot came from the front. And there are some who watch a watermelon's response to a gunshot and accept that that explains everything.

When I said people are stupid and stubborn, what I meant to convey was that history has shown us that rational discussion of theories usually leads nowhere. People committed to a theory rarely change their minds. The only chance for consensus comes from influencing "newbies." Hopefully there will be some who learn from our mistakes and efforts.

Edited May 12, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Dawn Meredith]

Further, Pat, I have attempted to engage you in discussing some (IMO) fundamental flaws in your head wound photo analysis. You have never responded. If this is not so please tell me, I'd like to go over a few things.

John, I discuss the mystery photos in greater detail at patspeer.com than I did in the presentation. I also answer a few of the arguments encountered after the presentation first went online. I don't remember what flaws you encountered. Most who disagreed with my analysis pretty much said it looked like a forehead to them, and not the back of a head.

If you watch my video series you'll see that there is a trail of strange circumstances surrounding these photos, which only add to my conclusion that the photos are of the back of the head.

So Pat, are you saying the head shot was from the back and not the front? (Actually there were two head shots, one from the rear pushing JFK forward then THE head shot, pushing him violently backward.) That shot appears to hit him at the side of the forehead, blowing away a good portion of the right side of his head.

Dawn

ps If you say it's from the rear, you have a most unlikely ally here on the forum. (No hints,you've got to guess)

[Pat Speer]

Further, Pat, I have attempted to engage you in discussing some (IMO) fundamental flaws in your head wound photo analysis. You have never responded. If this is not so please tell me, I'd like to go over a few things.

John, I discuss the mystery photos in greater detail at patspeer.com than I did in the presentation. I also answer a few of the arguments encountered after the presentation first went online. I don't remember what flaws you encountered. Most who disagreed with my analysis pretty much said it looked like a forehead to them, and not the back of a head.

If you watch my video series you'll see that there is a trail of strange circumstances surrounding these photos, which only add to my conclusion that the photos are of the back of the head.

So Pat, are you saying the head shot was from the back and not the front? (Actually there were two head shots, one from the rear pushing JFK forward then THE head shot, pushing him violently backward.) That shot appears to hit him at the side of the forehead, blowing away a good portion of the right side of his head.

Dawn

ps If you say it's from the rear, you have a most unlikely ally here on the forum. (No hints,you've got to guess)

Dawn, I've been saying for years that the head shot came from behind. In my online presentation, I examine the x-rays and show how they support this conclusion. I know that Tom Purvis shares this understanding. I believe Ashton and I agree on this point as well.

While I believe the fatal head shot came from the sniper's nest, I don't accept the popular single-assassin scenario. For one, there was a shot after the head shot (another point on which Tom and I agree). My study of the earwitnesses tells me that this last shot came from somewhere other than the sniper's nest. For two, I don't believe the head shot at Z-313 impacted on the back of the head. It's clear as your name is Dawn to me that this shot impacts at the supposed exit, from behind, and not on the back of Kennedy's head. If I make it to part 4 of my video series, I hope to demonstrate this conclusively.

[John Dolva]

"Gary(lancer): - "One thing I have noticed on this and other forums I have participated in over the years is that people become attached to a theory, whether it be thier own or someone elses, and that theory eventually developes into irrefutable fact. Once that theory has reached, in their mind, the irrefutable fact stage they will not back off of it nor enter into a logical or reasonable discussion concerning it no matter what someone else has to offer or what new evidence might have come along to refute it."

Gary, very worthwhile things to consider IMO.

At the Uni of WA there's a wall of limestone blocks which one approaches as one leaves many parts of the University. In large letters are carved in bas relief 'Know Thyself'. No one ever in my experience, including myself, does anything but pass this by almost every day a number of times over a number of years.

Yet, fundamentally, in those two words lie the answer to your post, in it's most basic form.

'Attachment' is an apt word in your post.

Fundamentally we all are nothing but a mind/body phenomena with sensory gates through which we percieve that which is not us.IE the world at large, in all its forms, including the realm of ideas.

We have a relationship with this percieved otherness that has a boundary that is defined by our attachments and our habitual relationship with the sensations that arise on our mind/body phenomena as it accompanies the sensory input.

These sensations are our feelings including our mind contents or mind conditioning.

They are basically unpleasant, pleasant, or neutral. They reside in the future, the past or the present. We are in a sense dispersed along a time line that seldom rests in that which only exists and only ever has existed, the present.

According to where our boundary between self and other, and the degree of our attachment to that, and the consequences thereof, we construct the world. IOW we erect a filter through which we interact with the other.

Habitually the neutral, or perhaps boredom, and the unpleasant, and the pleasant (remember here I'm talking about the sensations that arise on each mind/body phenomena. A sunset just exists, that's its only nature, yet in its manifestation on the mind body phenomena we directly blame the sunset for the pleasant sensations that arise within our selves, and call it beautiful, while the truth essentially is that there is beauty within us. Similarly a pile of stinky vomit on the side walk just exists, and it's not until its manifestation enters through our senses we define it as 'yucky'. Again the essential truth is that we are 'yucky'. The yuckiness occurred within us.) is habitually rejected or accepted and externalised. (Oh how beautiful you are, I am so attached to the sensations that arise in me when I not only see you but also when I think of you, I must have you.or: Yuck, what a horrible thing, take it away, put your hands over your eyes, turn away, plug up the ears, don't think about it.) Self delusion. Ignorance. So human and so limiting.

Science attempts to overcome this by 'the scientific principles'. In philosophy, one can look at Plato's allegory of The Cave, and the difficulties of enlightening those who remain trapped behind the wall by someone who has escaped that boundary and tries to explain that the flickers and shadows are not supernatural.

Likewise, Galileo forced to retract his heresy, 'whispered: and yet it moves'. And the church did not formaly acknowledge they were wrong until centuries later.

That which is generally dealt with is that which is acceptable according to the habitual reaction filters we erect within our selves.

So, fundamentally, the answer is 'ignorance'. (not stupidity) and then ignorance of our selves.

The cure, while it exposes us to the boring, and the unpleasant, is Equa Animus, equanimity. ie, this theory evokes an unpleasant sensation within me, whether on the body senses or the mind, and I wil own that, and apply judice to the best of my ability.

In such an atmosphere of study progress is made.

Any call for ignoring people, or ideas, are counter to this. Any judice based on pre judice is counter to this. Yet these are often the dominant paradigms.

So the fundamental fault is not stupidity, but ignorance of the true nature of reality which resides within our selves.

_______________

Further on this theme:

IMO: While the above covers the fundamentals, it is not an easy thing to apply the solution, which while simply worded, often go counter to deeply ingrained habits.

Stacked against the application of the scientific principle, and philosophically understanding and turning that understanding into action, is a plethora of mechanisms.

There are coercive influences with regards to what forms judice. At the core is often some form of manipulation of ego. It's possibly universally unpleasant and disarming to be ignored or ridiculed. Less honorable persons or groupings depend on promulgating this as a paradigm. Or one could elevate it into some form of intellectual game that provides some form of absolution. Ultimately, in the light of hindsight, it's a self defeating waste of time.

It's possible to subjugate ones own ego to a higher truth*. I think compassion, empathy and recognition of flaws as normal, and a rejection of the competitive spirit that often takes the form of team loyalty instead of truth loyalty, help.

If one simply accept that these forces are at play one needs not let them have the influence they seek. Making truth the >>only<< ally, the personalities at times will walk side by side, and inevitably, at some times not, and then again together. This automatically happens when truth or perhaps rather an attempt to the best of ones ability to see and follow truth, becomes each ones personal directive. Then it's possibly no value in fighting for a personal conviction because everyone could ideally fight for truth, which at times is different from what one believes.

There are other factors that complicates the issue, such as when there is a mix of greed for some gain, whether it is credibility, or something like money. On a forum like this book royalties is a sufficient temptation for some to wear blinkers. For others, there are 'job descriptions' of various forms that dictate input, or lack thereof. Agents of various descriptions, for example.

IMO: Again there are solutions that lie simply in aligning self with the natural forces that dominate all these things: the tendency of truth to rise and lies to sink. Lies only has any prominence while there is a concerted effort to support it. So time is against it at all times. -Patience.

Some take a more spiritual approach: -*"If you love truth for its own sake, the truth will free you. But if you hope the truth will free you, you cannot be free. You must love the truth for its own sake, without hope. Then there is no question of freedom/no freedom, no question of Essence/no Essence, no question of enlightenment/no enlightenment. It's just love of truth, and that's it. Nothing else is there. Anything else will bring discord. Accepting what is, understanding what is there, loving the truth that is happening at every second is the natural state, the state without personality, the state of no mind, is the state of no division." - A. Hameed Al

Edited May 13, 2007 by John Dolva

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Failure to understand the evidence has no bearing on the validity of that evidence!

It merely means that one either does not, or has not yet, come to understand what the evidence represents.

Tom

P.S. Pat, as I long ago stated, I personally have no doubts that with your obvious capability for research of the facts, that you will at some point in time come to understand ALL of the evidence.

Connally was hit in the wrist by a lead fragment from the headshot at Z312/313.

Connally was hit in the back right shoulder by the third/last/final shot, after said shot had passed through the head of JFK.

Work on the elongated nature of the skull penetration which the autopsy Dr's measured in the head of JFK as well as exactly how a bullet could strike at the edge of the hairline and thereafter "tunnel" upwards to strike in the vicinity of the EOP of the skull, and you just may resolve exactly what position JFK's head had to be in when the third/last/final shot was fired and struck.

Provided of course that one does not go off chasing another mythological being who would have had to be hiding in the trunk of the Presidential Limo and firing upwards in order to achieve this ballistic/pathological pathway through the skull of JFK.

You ARE getting close!

[J. Raymond Carroll]

"Gary(lancer): - "One thing I have noticed on this and other forums I have participated in over the years is that people become attached to a theory, whether it be thier own or someone elses, and that theory eventually developes into irrefutable fact. Once that theory has reached, in their mind, the irrefutable fact stage they will not back off of it nor enter into a logical or reasonable discussion concerning it no matter what someone else has to offer or what new evidence might have come along to refute it."

Dr. John K. Lattimer, who just passed away, may be a case in point. I love this line from his New York Times obituary:

"A front-page New York Times article, with a photograph of Dr. Lattimer, quoted him saying that the images “eliminate any doubt completely” about the validity of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald fired all the shots that struck the president."

Dr. lattimer claimed, and the NYT seemed to concur, that by looking at an X-Ray of a murder victim, it is possible to determine the identity of the killer. Ordinarily, such a claim would be laughed at by sensible people, but the New York Times took it seriously, and apparently still does. But, as Tennyson wrote in Mort D'Arthur, the old order changeth, yielding place to new. False paradigms are doomed in the long run, provided inquiry continues.

The New York Times

Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By

May 13, 2007

John K. Lattimer, Urologist of Varied Expertise, Dies at 92

By DENNIS HEVESI

John K. Lattimer, a prominent urologist, ballistics expert and collector of historical relics who treated top-ranking Nazis during the Nuremberg war crimes trials and was the first nongovernmental medical specialist allowed to examine the evidence in President John F. Kennedy’s assassination, died Thursday at a hospice near his home in Englewood, N.J. He was 92.

His death was announced by his daughter Evan Lattimer.

For 25 years, Dr. Lattimer was a professor and chairman of the urology department at the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Columbia University.

Dr. Lattimer was credited with helping to establish pediatric urology as a discipline, developing a cure for renal tuberculosis, writing 375 scientific papers and representing the United States at the World Health Organization.

His interests, however, spanned an array of fields. His 30-room, 1895 Federal-style home in Englewood was a virtual military museum until his collection went into storage last year. Its third floor was lined with medieval armor, Revolutionary and Civil War rifles and swords, a pile of cannonballs, World War II machine guns and German Lugers, and drawings by Adolf Hitler.

Dr. Lattimer had been fascinated by weapons since his childhood visits to his grandparents’ farm in Hubbardston, Mich., where he spent summer days hunting. That interest took a more serious turn during World War II, when he treated hundreds of casualties as an Army doctor during the Normandy invasion.

He became a ballistics expert and, after the killing of President Kennedy, a student of assassinations. In his collection was a blood-stained collar that President Lincoln wore to Ford’s Theater the night he was shot.

Dr. Lattimer wrote several articles in medical journals describing experiments he had conducted with rifles, scopes and ammunition similar to those used by President Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald. Then, in 1972, the Kennedy family chose Dr. Lattimer to be the first nongovernmental expert to examine 65 X-rays, color photos and black-and-white negatives taken during the autopsy.

A front-page New York Times article, with a photograph of Dr. Lattimer, quoted him saying that the images “eliminate any doubt completely” about the validity of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Oswald fired all the shots that struck the president.

Dr. Lattimer’s wartime experiences also prompted him to write a somewhat controversial book based, in large part, on his assignment to the medical team at the Nuremberg trials. The book, “Hitler’s Fatal Sickness and Other Secrets of the Nazi Leaders” (Hippocrene Books, 1999), records his professional impressions of the men and their conditions.

It includes a long chapter concluding that Hitler suffered from advanced Parkinson’s disease — probably the “faster moving post-encephalitic” type, Dr. Lattimer wrote — based on reports of Hitler’s tremors, first in the left hand, then spreading to other limbs, and his well-documented attacks of rage.

Dr. Lattimer theorized that the disease prompted him to make bizarre judgments that eventually cost Germany the war. Among the more macabre relics that Dr. Lattimer collected, in this case from his service at Nuremberg, is a glass ampoule that contained the dose of cyanide taken by Hermann Göring, the Luftwaffe commander, to commit suicide rather than go to the gallows.

And although there is some dispute about its authenticity, Dr. Lattimer also had in his collection what is said to be Napoleon’s penis, which a long tradition holds was removed by the priest who administered the last rites. Dr. Lattimer bought it at an auction in 1969. Asked about its authenticity, his daughter said: “Of course, the French don’t want it here. But there’s ironclad provenance.”

John Kingsley Lattimer was born in Mount Clemens, Mich., on Oct. 14, 1914, the only child of Irvie and Gladys Lenfesty Lattimer. His family moved to New York when he was 2.

Besides his daughter, of Kansas City, Mo., Dr. Lattimer is survived by his wife of 59 years, the former Jamie Hill; two sons, Jon, of Kona, Hawaii, and D. Gary Lattimer, of Honolulu; and one grandson.

A lanky 6-foot-4, Dr. Lattimer was a track star at Columbia University, from which he graduated in 1935. He won eight metropolitan area Amateur Athletic Union hurdling championships. He graduated from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia in 1938.

Among Dr. Lattimer’s most prized possessions was a sword that belonged to Ethan Allen, who in the predawn hours of May 10, 1775, led a band of Green Mountain Boys in capturing strategic Fort Ticonderoga, on Lake Champlain in upstate New York — a turning point in the Revolution. Two hundred years later to the hour, Dr. Lattimer — Ethan Allen’s sword in hand — led a re-enactment of that battle.

For several years in the 1980s, Dr. Lattimer was chairman of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Medieval Festival, held outside the Cloisters in Fort Tryon Park in Manhattan. At the 1983 festival, clad in armor and bearing a shield, he told a reporter about his fascination with medieval armaments.

“In my front hall, I have a suit of armor from a Knight of Malta, with the Maltese Cross,” he said. “I also have a beheading ax.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/13/nyregion/13lattimer.html