Battling Doug Horne's Large Batch Of Conspiracy Silliness
David Von Pein
DOUGLAS P. HORNE SAID:
>>> "Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head wounds
before the autopsy." <<<
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
The above single sentence penned by Douglas P. Horne should be enough
of a reason all by itself, with nothing more added, for all sensible
and reasonable people to disregard Mr. Horne's theories as pure
hogwash and nonsense (not to mention impossible).
DOUG HORNE SAID:
>>> "Mr. Von Pein, this is in response to your claim that there is nothing
wrong with the autopsy x-rays and photos. Many autopsy photos, and two
skull x-rays, are missing." <<<
DVP SAID:
Yes, there are indeed apparently some autopsy photos "missing". But I
will once again have to agree with the man who wrote the best book
ever written on the JFK assassination, Vincent Bugliosi, when he said
this in "Reclaiming History":
"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
through whose hands they passed." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 275 of
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
Kennedy" (Endnotes on CD-ROM)(©2007)
http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
DOUG HORNE SAID:
>>> "Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in 9 visits to the [National] Archives
(most of them during the 1990s), has conclusively proven that the three
surviving skull x-rays in the National Archives are altered copy films,
not original x-rays. The science he used was optical densitometry, a
technique not employed by the HSCA's "experts" because they didn't think
outside the box." <<<
DVP SAID:
And yet at the end of this day (like all other days since the HSCA
final report was published in early 1979), we're still left with the
conclusions of the TWENTY or so experts who were a part of the HSCA's
Photographic Panel, with those conclusions being:
"The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41 [linked below]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
DOUG HORNE SAID:
>>> "Quoting old findings which did not employ optical densitometry as an
analytical technique does NOT discredit his [Dr. Mantik's] work, it is
simply an intellectually dishonest way of attempting to ignore it." <<<
DVP SAID:
I'm certainly not alone in my disagreements with Dr. Mantik. Many
other people also strongly disagree with Dr. Mantik's conclusions
regarding the photographs and X-rays, and also disagree with his
notion that some conspirator(s) had a desire to "plant" a "6.5-
millimeter object" onto one of JFK's X-rays after the autopsy, which
is a notion that defies logic from all sensible points-of-view (mainly
because it was so utterly UNNECESSARY AND SUPERFLUOUS).
But Dr. David Mantik doesn't care about Occam and his handy (and
usually accurate) razor. Instead of applying some measure of logic and
common sense (and Occam) to the controversial matters surrounding
JFK's murder, Dr. Mantik (and you) would rather peddle impossible-to-
prove theories for years on end.
And, of course, there will always be somebody out there in fantasy-
land who will be ready to listen to the impossible-to-prove theories
of conspiracy theorists like Doug Horne and David Mantik. Such is the
way with the world.
DOUG HORNE SAID:
>>> "Hopefully, your attempts to dissuade people from reading my book will
backfire, and badly. All of your concerns are addressed and countered,
more than adequately, in my book, for those who are curious and have an
open mind." <<<
DVP SAID:
I'm not attempting to "dissuade" anyone from reading your 5 volumes of
nonsense, Doug. Not at all. Hopefully many people will buy your books.
And among those people who buy them there will certainly be a decent-
sized percentage of logical and reasonable folks (like me) who know
beyond any and all doubt that none of the over-the-top theories that
you purport as being true and valid in your book series entitled
"Inside The Assassination Records Review Board" can possibly be
accurate...because the stuff you think happened in November 1963 is
just (to put it bluntly) too ridiculous to consider believing for more
than three seconds.
DOUG HORNE SAID:
>>> "Have a nice day. And thank you for attracting more attention to my
book. Surely, anyone reading this debate in the [Amazon.com] comments
section will now want to buy it, to see what this is all about---so they
can make their own assessments." <<<
DVP SAID:
Yeah, if only for the many belly-laughs that your impossible-to-prove
conspiracy theories will undoubtedly elicit from the people reading
your books.
But good luck selling them anyway.
Have a nice day.
ADDENDUM:
Let's just take a quick (but by no means comprehensive) inventory of a
few of the insane and crazy things that Mr. Douglas P. Horne believes
happened with respect to the death of the 35th U.S. Chief Executive.
And keep in mind that Mr. Horne thinks that ALL of these things
definitely occurred in connection with JFK's assassination, and this
short list is probably only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to
the crazy conspiracy-oriented things that Mr. Horne puts his faith in.
Back in the world of sanity and REALITY, however, in order to believe
that even ONE of the following things is actually true, a person has
no choice but to place his faith in something that is really, really
silly:
1.) Doug Horne believes that President Kennedy's bullet wounds were
"altered" by Dr. James Joseph Humes at Bethesda Naval Hospital on the
night of November 22, 1963, with the President's wounds being altered
by Humes before the start of the official autopsy on JFK's body.
2.) Doug Horne believes that there were TWO separate brain
examinations performed by the autopsists in late November 1963, with
one of these supplementary brain exams being performed on a brain that
was NOT John F. Kennedy's brain. And the second brain exam was
apparently done on a brain that was WAY TOO BIG to even be JFK's own
brain. (The plotters/cover-up agents involved in this silliness
evidently had no brains at all in any of their own heads, because this
craziness is BEYOND silly and stupid. It's utterly insane, as is #1
above, of course.)
3.) Doug Horne believes that the Zapruder Film has been altered. And
Horne believes the film was faked/altered/manipulated despite the fact
that we know that the original film, both BEFORE and immediately AFTER
it was developed and copied in Dallas on 11/22/63, was never out of
the sight of Abraham Zapruder and/or Zapruder's business partner,
Erwin Schwartz. But maybe Mr. Horne would like to pretend that
ordinary Dallas citizens like Zapruder and Schwartz were also part of
the plot to conceal all of the best evidence from the eyes of the
American public immediately after JFK was shot.
4.) Doug Horne believes that multiple X-rays of JFK's head have been
faked/altered.
The above short list, as I mentioned, is probably only a
representative sampling of the ridiculous and impossible things that
Mr. Horne believes regarding the John F. Kennedy murder case, with the
above four items being things that I jotted down after listening to
Horne's appearance on "Black Op Radio" on December 10, 2009 [linked
below].
http://www.BlackOpRadio.com/black452a.ram
http://www.BlackOpRadio.com/black452b.ram
I'll close this post with some additional excellent quotes from the
master of CS&L [Common Sense & Logic], Vince Bugliosi:
"Before Doug Horne, the main beef that most conspiracy theorists
had with the autopsy surgeons was their alleged incompetence. But
thirty-five years after the assassination, Horne showed all these
naive, whippersnapper conspiracy theorists a thing or two. Humes and
Boswell weren't incompetent. They were criminals and co-conspirators.
"One would think that Horne would be ashamed of himself for
writing the memorandum he did. But to the contrary, he is very
proud. ....
"A great number of nuts have kept pumping out conspiracy
theories for years. But these are private nuts, on the outside as it
were. But when someone like Horne, working for an official review
board of the federal government, someone we expect to be responsible,
can author a document that couldn't possibly be any sillier or
transparently irresponsible, then unfortunately we know that the
notion of a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination will be alive and
well until the crack of doom.
"I suppose it is a given that there will be other Doug Hornes
who will breast-feed the conspiracy loonies for generations to come
with their special lactations of bilge, blather, and bunk.
"One wants to take earnest, well-intentioned, and intelligent
people like Drs. David Mantik and Gary Aguilar seriously, even though
neither of them are pathologists. But when they take someone like Doug
Horne seriously, and accept his outrageous and patently false theory
as completely valid, it becomes much more difficult to take them
seriously." -- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 435-444 of "Reclaiming History"
To read more of Mr. Bugliosi's common-sense debunking of Doug Horne's
silliness, go to the top link below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/1d034f32416ff7b6
http://www.DavidVonPein.blogspot.com
http://www.Blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
David Von Pein
December 19, 2009
garyb
> http://www.Amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie...
>
> http://www.Amazon.com/review/R1BVH7FGVKQRP9/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie...
Dave, have you read Horne's books? Just wondering. I've noticed that Vince
Palamara has come back to the CT side after reading them, although perhaps
he just thinks the case should be decided by number of words. Although in
terms of number of words I think you have them both beat. While I do not
think you are paid by the CIA, if you are I hope that you are being paid
by the word.
Peter Fokes
>Dave, have you read Horne's books?
Ah yes.
I have asked posters the same question.
To date, no one has replied with a "Yes."
Yet they have no end of comments about Horne's arguments.
I'm not going to get bogged down answering their questions until they
read the book.
But we can be sure the rhetoric will fly.
Regards,
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
David Von Pein
>>> "Dave, have you read Horne's books?" <<<
No.
But a person who knows what the evidence is in the Kennedy case (and I
know it pretty well I'd say) doesn't need to read a book full of fantasy
to know that it is a book full of fantasy.
I truly cannot believe that any rational and sensible person could
possibly buy into Doug Horne's 2,000+ pages of totally-unprovable
conspiracy-slanted hogwash. It's mind-boggling to think that people can be
that gullible.
And you DO realize that Doug Horne believes in just about every silly
theory out there regarding JFK's murder....don't you?
Plus, you can hear him talk about his insane theories for almost three
hours at Black Op Radio (12/10/09).
Plus, you can read all about his silly theories in his ARRB memos as well,
available for free online. Some people seem to think that Horne just now
(this year) came up with these new revelations about body- altering
surgery BY HUMES [LOL break], and Z-Film forgery, and X-ray tampering, and
the amazingly-stupid "Two Brains" theory.
But Mr. Horne's thoughts regarding those things have been in print since
1998 (at least most of those crazy beliefs have been anyway), right here
at the links below:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_AutPhoto43/html/dh_autPhoto43_0001a.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/arrb/contents_arrb_staff-memos.htm
>>> "While I do not think you are paid by the CIA, if you are I hope that you are being paid by the word." <<<
I wish. But the checks from the Langley have been slow in coming. And I've
been trying to get Mr. McAdams' help in getting the CIA boys to give us
both a raise in our "Disinfo" salaries, but to date I've had no success.
~sigh~
Anthony Marsh
>
>
> http://www.Amazon.com/review/R23U3HRSNOQ2X3/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=5&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx2RVKNXI6HGY2D#Mx2RVKNXI6HGY2D
>
>
> http://www.Amazon.com/review/R1BVH7FGVKQRP9/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=15&cdPage=2&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx1VQDYSDYMUDVQ#Mx1VQDYSDYMUDVQ
>
>
>
> DOUGLAS P. HORNE SAID:
>
>
>>>> "Dr. Humes performed the post-mortem surgery on JFK's head wounds
> before the autopsy."<<<
>
>
I didn't believe he'd actually put it in writing, but that theory is
what I was hinting at in my questions to Peter.
> DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
>
>
> The above single sentence penned by Douglas P. Horne should be enough
> of a reason all by itself, with nothing more added, for all sensible
> and reasonable people to disregard Mr. Horne's theories as pure
> hogwash and nonsense (not to mention impossible).
>
>
>
> DOUG HORNE SAID:
>
>
>>>> "Mr. Von Pein, this is in response to your claim that there is nothing
> wrong with the autopsy x-rays and photos. Many autopsy photos, and two
> skull x-rays, are missing."<<<
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
>
> Yes, there are indeed apparently some autopsy photos "missing". But I
> will once again have to agree with the man who wrote the best book
> ever written on the JFK assassination, Vincent Bugliosi, when he said
> this in "Reclaiming History":
>
> "For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
> autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
> conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
> people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
> working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
> suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
> photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
> through whose hands they passed." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 275 of
> "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
> Kennedy" (Endnotes on CD-ROM)(�2007)
>
Talk about cover-up. Bugliosi is trying to excuse destruction of
evidence by calling it a clerical error. We NOW have the photos which
they thought they had destroyed. They weren't lost in a filing cabinet.
> http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
>
> DOUG HORNE SAID:
>
>
>>>> "Dr. David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in 9 visits to the [National] Archives
> (most of them during the 1990s), has conclusively proven that the three
> surviving skull x-rays in the National Archives are altered copy films,
> not original x-rays. The science he used was optical densitometry, a
> technique not employed by the HSCA's "experts" because they didn't think
> outside the box."<<<
>
>
>
> DVP SAID:
>
> And yet at the end of this day (like all other days since the HSCA
> final report was published in early 1979), we're still left with the
> conclusions of the TWENTY or so experts who were a part of the HSCA's
> Photographic Panel, with those conclusions being:
>
> "The evidence indicates that the autopsy photographs and X-rays
> were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that
> they had not been altered in any manner." -- 7 HSCA 41 [linked below]
>
The ones they were allowed to see.
At least we won't make excuses for people who try to destroy and hide
evidence.
Or maybe just before Finck came.
> master of CS&L [Common Sense& Logic], Vince Bugliosi:
jas
original post snipped for space
"DOUG HORNE SAID: >>> "Have a nice day. And thank you for attracting more
attention to my book. Surely, anyone reading this debate in the
[Amazon.com] comments section will now want to buy it, to see what this is
all about---so they can make their own assessments." <<<
I think this statement pretty much sums up what Horn's true intentions
are.
M-O-N-E-Y
Why else would he parlay junk?
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>Yes, there are indeed apparently some autopsy photos "missing". But I
>will once again have to agree with the man who wrote the best book
>ever written on the JFK assassination, Vincent Bugliosi, when he said
>this in "Reclaiming History":
>
> "For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
>autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
>conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
>people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
>working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
>suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
>photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
>through whose hands they passed." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 275 of
>"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
>Kennedy" (Endnotes on CD-ROM)(=A92007)
>
>http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>
>
Bugliosi showed poor judgment here. I was astonished when he listed
Aguilar among his list of good researchers.
He got bamboozled by Aguilar on this.
The only evidence of "missing photos" is witness testimony.
The earliest inventory we have shows exactly the same photos in the
set today.
Further, the witnesses who claimed "missing photos" tended to be under
questioning, and the context was usually a photo that *should* have
been taken to show something.
Finally, the witness accounts of "missing photos" aren't mutually
corroborating. They are basically all over the place.
And just one final thing to keep in mind about how silly Aguilar is:
any "missing" photos have to be consistent with the authenticated
photos and x-rays we have. And the photos and x-rays we have flatly
rule out the wounds that Aguilar wants.
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
garyb
> >>> "Dave, have you read Horne's books?" <<<
>
> No.
>
> But a person who knows what the evidence is in the Kennedy case (and I
> know it pretty well I'd say) doesn't need to read a book full of fantasy
> to know that it is a book full of fantasy.
>
> I truly cannot believe that any rational and sensible person could
> possibly buy into Doug Horne's 2,000+ pages of totally-unprovable
> conspiracy-slanted hogwash. It's mind-boggling to think that people can be
> that gullible.
>
> And you DO realize that Doug Horne believes in just about every silly
> theory out there regarding JFK's murder....don't you?
>
> Plus, you can hear him talk about his insane theories for almost three
> hours at Black Op Radio (12/10/09).
>
> Plus, you can read all about his silly theories in his ARRB memos as well,
> available for free online. Some people seem to think that Horne just now
> (this year) came up with these new revelations about body- altering
> surgery BY HUMES [LOL break], and Z-Film forgery, and X-ray tampering, and
> the amazingly-stupid "Two Brains" theory.
>
> But Mr. Horne's thoughts regarding those things have been in print since
> 1998 (at least most of those crazy beliefs have been anyway), right here
> at the links below:
>
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_AutPhoto43...
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/contents/arrb/contents_arrb_staff-...
>
> >>> "While I do not think you are paid by the CIA, if you are I hope
that you are being paid by the word." <<<
>
> I wish. But the checks from the Langley have been slow in coming. And I've
> been trying to get Mr. McAdams' help in getting the CIA boys to give us
> both a raise in our "Disinfo" salaries, but to date I've had no success.
> ~sigh~
>
> http://www.The-JFK-Assassination.blogspot.com
I haven't read Bugliosi either and dismiss him for some fairly similar
reasons actually. But I wouldn't post a review on Amazon of any book that
I hadn't read.
slats
news:a131862f-c41b-433a...@x18g2000vbd.googlegroups.com:
)
> Plus, you can read all about his silly theories in his ARRB memos as
> well, available for free online. Some people seem to think that Horne
> just now (this year) came up with these new revelations about body-
> altering surgery BY HUMES [LOL break], and Z-Film forgery, and X-ray
> tampering, and the amazingly-stupid "Two Brains" theory.
Fear not. The National Inquirer is on the case.
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/ted_kennedy_hidden_secrets_jfks_brain_mary_
jo_hitler_letters/celebrity/67849
pjsp...@aol.com
photos were first determined to be missing, the only people to have
possessed them were the Secret Service and the Kennedy family. You are
incorrect, however, in your characterization of the missing photos. The
doctors were fairly consistent on which photos were missing. There were
three. One showed the bruise on the lung. One showed the entrance near the
EOP from the outside. One showed the entrance near the EOP from the
inside. The mystery photo of much discussion, depending on whether you
think it shows the back of the head or the forehead, is one of the last
two. The initial inventory performed in 1966 says it depicted a "missile
wound of entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of scalp,”
which every honest person knows means the back of the head. I believe it
was correct.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14%3Ademystifyingthemysteryphoto
So there are really only two photos which were either not taken by
mistake, or taken and then disappeared.
On Dec 21, 1:20 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 20 Dec 2009 15:29:22 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
John McAdams
wrote:
>You're right, John, that Bugliosi's quoted excuse is malarkey. When the
>photos were first determined to be missing, the only people to have
>possessed them were the Secret Service and the Kennedy family.
I'm afraid I'm not aware of that being true.
You need to explain your claim.
>You are
>incorrect, however, in your characterization of the missing photos. The
>doctors were fairly consistent on which photos were missing. There were
>three. One showed the bruise on the lung. One showed the entrance near the
>EOP from the outside.
Unfortunately we *do* have a back of the head photo (a stereo pair,
actually) and it doesn't show any such entrance.
You are just *assuming* that there ought to be such a photo, because
you buy the phony "EOP entry" stuff.
>One showed the entrance near the EOP from the
>inside.
Same problem as above.
>The mystery photo of much discussion, depending on whether you
>think it shows the back of the head or the forehead, is one of the last
>two. The initial inventory performed in 1966 says it depicted a "missile
>wound of entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of scalp,�
>which every honest person knows means the back of the head. I believe it
>was correct.
Are you talking about F-8?
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14%3Ademystifyingthemysteryphoto
>
> So there are really only two photos which were either not taken by
>mistake, or taken and then disappeared.
>
>
Not taken is the most likely.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John Canal
>was correct.
And it does indeed show the wound of entrance in the posterior
skull....the inside surface of the posterior skull. Posters, .john McAdams
has graciously included my colorized visual aid for decyphering photo #45
(aka F8) on his website...under his section on the headwounds. You'll note
with the correct orientation the entry is 2.5 cm from the edge of the
ruler which is being above it [the entry]. With that correct orientation,
the edge of the ruler is at midline and the ruler is horizontal....and
that's how they measured the entry to be appx. 2.5 cm right of the EOP.
Another way to tell that this orientation is correct is to note the bone
flap, which can be seen hanging off JFK's front right...that's the same
flap that can be seen hanging off the front right of his head in the back
of the head photos (#42/43 aka F3). Thank Paul Seaton for being the first
to notice that. He's also the first to determine the width of the ruler.
This is all on Paul's website.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
The Dutchman
> On 12/20/2009 3:29 PM, David Von Pein wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.Amazon.com/review/R1BVH7FGVKQRP9/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie...
>
> read more »
The super-duper priceless pieces of evidence just plain get misplaced over
40 years; some are outright stolen a la Sandy Berger, but in this case, by
people in positions of trust, who want souveniers to show their
grandchildren later. Or, a conspiracy plot is a possibility, but don't
forget Hanlon's Razor. Carelessness & incompetence rule everywhere. Look
what Life Magazine did to one of the most historically important pieces of
film footage in US history.
David Von Pein
I've been reading through a few selected parts of Doug Horne's five
volumes of insanity entitled "Inside The Assassination Records Review
Board" (via Amazon.com's handy "Look Inside This Book" tool), and I've
been able to confirm that I was 100% correct when I made this statement
the other day:
"The above short list [see link below for the 4-item list], as I
mentioned, is probably only a representative sampling of the ridiculous
and impossible things that Mr. Horne believes regarding the John F.
Kennedy murder case." -- DVP; 12/19/09
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0e2e36113ce98e6b
Sure enough, by glancing at just a few of the pages of Horne's five
volumes provided for free by Amazon.com, I found several more things to
add to the list of "Ridiculous Things That Doug Horne Believes With
Respect To JFK's Assassination". Let's take an another inventory (this is
in addition to the four insane items that I already outlined in the
article linked above):
1.) Doug Horne believes that JFK's body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital
in a cheap "shipping casket".
2.) Doug Horne believes that JFK arrived at Bethesda inside a body bag.
3.) Doug Horne believes that the expensive ornamental casket that was
taken off of Air Force One at Andrews Air Force Base was "empty".
4.) Doug Horne believes that "corrupt individuals within the U.S. Secret
Service were responsible not only for the security stripping of President
Kennedy's Dallas motorcade...but that the Secret Service was integrally
involved in the physical coverup of bullet damage to the Presidential
limousine which, if left in its damaged condition immediately following
the assassination, would have provided incontrovertible proof that the
limousine's occupants were subjected to ambush by crossfire in Dealey
Plaza, and that President Kennedy was therefore assassinated by a
conspiracy" [Horne; page 1379].
5.) Doug Horne, also on page 1379 of his book (Volume 5) suggests that
Governor John Connally was intimately involved in planning the motorcade
route through Dallas so that JFK "would have to pass through the dangerous
kill zone on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza" [Horne; page 1379].
And the only possible inference I can see from that statement made by
Horne on page 1379 is that Horne believes that Governor Connally was an
integral part of a plot to murder John F. Kennedy in Dallas -- even though
Connally HIMSELF rode in the very same car as JFK and was in a direct line
of fire when the bullets started flying in Dealey Plaza (with Connally, of
course, being shot and nearly killed himself during the shooting).
And I saved the best one for last here (this one's a real dilly):
6.) Doug Horne said this on page 1654 of "Inside The ARRB":
"One reality that is undeniable is that Lee Harvey Oswald DID NOT
KILL PRESIDENT KENNEDY, as proven by George O'Toole in 1975." [Emphasis is
Horne's.]
For those who might not recall who George O'Toole is -- O'Toole is the
kook who utilized a machine known as a "Psychological Stress Evaluator" to
determine that Lee Oswald was positively telling the truth when he told
the press (and the world) that he was merely "a patsy" and that he had not
shot President Kennedy.
And O'Toole's "PSE" evaluation of Oswald's oral statements made while LHO
was in custody in Dallas is apparently the BEST evidence that Mr. Horne
can come up with to back up his belief that "Lee Harvey Oswald did not
kill President Kennedy".*
* = Along with O'Toole's "PSE" tests, Horne also states on page 1654 of
his book (in Volume 5) that the other of the "two lines of evidence" that
have "convinced me, more than any others, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not
assassinate President Kennedy" [Horne; page 1654], is the negative result
of the paraffin test that was conducted on Oswald's cheek.
Horne, of course, undoubtedly is aware of the fact that the FBI did a test
with Oswald's rifle after the assassination which proved that a negative
paraffin result on a gunman's cheek does not prove that the person being
tested did NOT fire a rifle, with the FBI agent who fired Oswald's rifle
testing NEGATIVE for nitrates on both his hands AND his cheek.
I'm guessing that Horne, however, probably thinks that that FBI test was
merely a sham and a total lie. After all, nobody in officialdom can be
trusted to ever tell the truth. Right, Doug?
When does Doug Horne's laundry list of insane beliefs cease, you might be
asking?
Beats me.
I only read a few pages (for free) at Amazon.com. And just look at the
list of craziness I was able to gather from just that very short reading.
Just imagine how long my list would be if I had plopped down the
outrageous sum of $84.35 ($16.87 x 5) to purchase all 2,000+ pages of
Horne's fanciful flight into delirium.
David Von Pein
December 21, 2009
Anthony Marsh
> On 20 Dec 2009 15:29:22 -0500, David Von Pein<davev...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yes, there are indeed apparently some autopsy photos "missing". But I
>> will once again have to agree with the man who wrote the best book
>> ever written on the JFK assassination, Vincent Bugliosi, when he said
>> this in "Reclaiming History":
>>
>> "For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
>> autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
>> conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
>> people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
>> working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
>> suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
>> photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
>> through whose hands they passed." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 275 of
>> "Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
>> Kennedy" (Endnotes on CD-ROM)(=A92007)
>>
>> http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>>
>>
>
> Bugliosi showed poor judgment here. I was astonished when he listed
> Aguilar among his list of good researchers.
>
> He got bamboozled by Aguilar on this.
>
> The only evidence of "missing photos" is witness testimony.
>
The evidence of missing photos are the damn photos which the ARRB found
and Kodak developed. We will NEVER be allowed to see those.
> The earliest inventory we have shows exactly the same photos in the
> set today.
>
More nonsense.
> Further, the witnesses who claimed "missing photos" tended to be under
> questioning, and the context was usually a photo that *should* have
> been taken to show something.
>
You approve of the destruction of evidence.
pjsp...@aol.com
your claim about the Psychological Stress Evaluator and Paraffin tests are
incorrect. O'Toole was not a "kook" as you claim. Voice Stress
Analysis--while controversial--has been in widespread use for decades. It
is similar to the polygraph. Its accuracy is unclear, but a certain
percentage of law enforcement officials even today consider it valid. It
has been used by both the FBI and the CIA. Now, does it prove anything?
No. But was O'Toole a "kook" for trying to use it on the recorded
statements of Oswald? Not at all.
As far as the paraffin tests, you still can't bring yourself to read my
chapter on this subject--which is many times more complete than Bugliosi's
treatment of the subject. The neutron activation analysis of the paraffin
cast of Oswald's cheek was not only negative, it was negative in a manner
suggesting someone tried to fake the results, with far more gsr on the
side of the cast not touching Oswald's cheek than touching his cheek.
Equally intriguing, the tests performed by the FBI and by Vincent Guinn on
behalf of the FBI revealed that gsr was always present on the cheek of a
man firing a Carcano. Even worse, these results were well known to the FBI
BEFORE Cunningham testified that he wouldn't expect gsr to land on the
cheek of someone firing a rifle. Which is why he testified that he
PERSONALLY would not EXPECT to find gsr on the cheek of someone firing a
rifle. (Wink wink, nudge nudge.)
On Dec 21, 8:02 pm, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
> http://www.Amazon.com/Inside-Assassination-Records-Review-Board/dp/09...
pjsp...@aol.com
was believed to have studied them in any detail. The SS had them, and they
transferred them to Burkley, who gave them to Lincoln, who gave them to
RFK's secretary. That was it. . So who were these "literally hundreds of
photos? He's wrong, plain and simple.
As far as your claim there's no EOP entrance on F-8 the mystery photo.
Look again. It's right where it's always been.
http://www.patspeer.com/backoftheheadcom.jpg/backoftheheadcom-full.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/entwoundcu.jpg/entwoundcu-full.jpg
Now. if that's not a 15 by 6 "transversal" entrance exhibiting "tunneling"
then what is it? Every hunter I know who's looked at the photo has said
"yep, that's a bullet hole."' And yet, there is NO explanation for this
bullet hole, NOT EVEN to claim it's not a bullet hole, in any of the
reports post 1966, when Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer described
it as a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following
reflection of scalp."
On Dec 21, 4:57 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 21 Dec 2009 19:50:31 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
John McAdams
wrote:
>John, prior to November 1966, when the photos were first archived, NO ONE
>was believed to have studied them in any detail. The SS had them, and they
>transferred them to Burkley, who gave them to Lincoln, who gave them to
>RFK's secretary. That was it. . So who were these "literally hundreds of
>people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
>working with the photos throughout the years" Bugliosi suspects stole the
>photos? He's wrong, plain and simple.
>
>As far as your claim there's no EOP entrance on F-8 the mystery photo.
>Look again. It's right where it's always been.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/backoftheheadcom.jpg/backoftheheadcom-full.jpg
I don't know what to make of that, since you have F-8 wrongly
oriented.
>http://www.patspeer.com/entwoundcu.jpg/entwoundcu-full.jpg
The spot near the hairline (which is *below* the EOP) is a blob of
tissue.
Remember, the HSCA FPP had a stereo pair of the camera original
transparencies.
So what *you* think you see means very little.
>
>Now. if that's not a 15 by 6 "transversal" entrance exhibiting "tunneling"
>then what is it? Every hunter I know who's looked at the photo has said
>"yep, that's a bullet hole."' And yet, there is NO explanation for this
>bullet hole, NOT EVEN to claim it's not a bullet hole, in any of the
>reports post 1966, when Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer described
>it as a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following
>reflection of scalp."
>
Of *course* there was a bullet wound in the posterior scalp.
It was in the cowlick area. You can see it in the BOH photos.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
John C, the original draft of the November 66 inventory (the one actually
written by the doctors) said "Missile wound OVER entrance in posterior
skull, following reflection of scalp." I'm sorry, but no amount of spin
can turn that into a photo of a beveled exit, with the INTERNAL aspect of
an entrance in the background. The doctors themselves, when confronted by
Gunn with their change in interpretation between Nov 66 and Jan 67, blamed
it on the photo, and said it was confusing, and that they couldn't tell
what it represented. So why do you presume to know that "missile wound
over entrance in posterior skull" means something completely different
than what everyone would assume it to mean, when the doctors themselves
refused to say such a thing?
pjsp...@aol.com
John, if you actually researched this area, you'd see that 1) the red oval
in the cowlick does not remotely resemble the bullet entrance of a
full-metal jacketed bullet at less than 100 yards that has broken up on
the skull, and 2) I have already demonstrated that the re- interpretation
of F-8 by the Clark Panel was incorrect. Watch my video series. It's free.
You might learn something.
So, that brings us back to the real question. There is a bullet hole
demonstrating tunneling in a transverse direction and measuring roughly 15
mm by 6 mm visible in F-8 near the EOP when one interprets the photo as
being taken from behind and showing the posterior skull, a la the doctors
in the 1966 inventory. This matches the doctors' description of the wound
to a tee. You seem to believe, however, that the doctors, when they said
this photo represented a "missile wound over exit, following reflection of
the scalp" were wrong. It is incumbent upon you, or whatever side of the
argument you are presenting, then, to offer an alternative explanation for
this bullet hole exactly where they said it was. Saying that it can't be a
bullet hole because some doctors subsequently hired by the government to
look at the photo (and whose spokesman was so daft he testified with his
exhibit upside down) didn't say it was a bullet hole just doesn't cut it,
I'm afraid.
Particularly in that you show little faith in the opinion of these doctors
when it comes to the back wound, which they interpreted to be below the
throat wound, and which you continue to pretend was well above the throat
wound...
http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
On Dec 22, 8:11 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2009 11:07:32 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>John, if you actually researched this area, you'd see that 1) the red oval
>in the cowlick does not remotely resemble the bullet entrance of a
>full-metal jacketed bullet at less than 100 yards that has broken up on
>the skull, and 2) I have already demonstrated that the re- interpretation
>of F-8 by the Clark Panel was incorrect. Watch my video series. It's free.
>You might learn something.
I've checked out some of your web pages, and all I've learned is that
all your interpretations are wrong, often wildly wrong.
>
>So, that brings us back to the real question. There is a bullet hole
>demonstrating tunneling in a transverse direction and measuring roughly 15
>mm by 6 mm visible in F-8 near the EOP when one interprets the photo as
>being taken from behind
But it wasn't taken from behind.
>and showing the posterior skull, a la the doctors
>in the 1966 inventory. This matches the doctors' description of the wound
>to a tee. You seem to believe, however, that the doctors, when they said
>this photo represented a "missile wound over exit, following reflection of
>the scalp" were wrong.
I don't follow you.
F-8 does show the exit of a fragment, as shown by the beveling.
>It is incumbent upon you, or whatever side of the
>argument you are presenting, then, to offer an alternative explanation for
>this bullet hole exactly where they said it was. Saying that it can't be a
>bullet hole because some doctors subsequently hired by the government to
>look at the photo (and whose spokesman was so daft he testified with his
>exhibit upside down) didn't say it was a bullet hole just doesn't cut it,
>I'm afraid.
>
Point me to the video where Baden supposedly had the exhibit upside
down, will you?
Searching "Michael Baden" on YouTube turns up a huge mass of stuff.
>Particularly in that you show little faith in the opinion of these doctors
>when it comes to the back wound, which they interpreted to be below the
>throat wound, and which you continue to pretend was well above the throat
>wound...
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>
>
It clearly was above the throat wound, and Artwhol's diagram clearly
shows that.
Do you dispute the entrance shown in the back photo?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> On 22 Dec 2009 11:07:32 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>> John, prior to November 1966, when the photos were first archived, NO ONE
>> was believed to have studied them in any detail. The SS had them, and they
>> transferred them to Burkley, who gave them to Lincoln, who gave them to
>> RFK's secretary. That was it. . So who were these "literally hundreds of
>> people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
>> working with the photos throughout the years" Bugliosi suspects stole the
>> photos? He's wrong, plain and simple.
>>
>> As far as your claim there's no EOP entrance on F-8 the mystery photo.
>> Look again. It's right where it's always been.
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/backoftheheadcom.jpg/backoftheheadcom-full.jpg
>
>
> I don't know what to make of that, since you have F-8 wrongly
> oriented.
>
>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/entwoundcu.jpg/entwoundcu-full.jpg
>
> The spot near the hairline (which is *below* the EOP) is a blob of
> tissue.
>
I believe that blob of tissue is what fooled Humes. He thought it was
brain matter extruding out of the entrance wound.
John Canal
pjsp...@AOL.COM says...
>
>
>John, if you actually researched this area, you'd see that 1) the red oval
>in the cowlick does not remotely resemble the bullet entrance of a
>full-metal jacketed bullet at less than 100 yards that has broken up on
>the skull,
I guess you're replying to .john's post. Anyway, what B/S...who do you
think is going to buy into it?
You should know, as I mentioned in the other thread, that the bullet
didn't break up until it traversed nearly half his head....so when you
say, "that has broken up on the skull", you show how little you know about
this stuff.
>and 2) I have already demonstrated that the re- interpretation
>of F-8 by the Clark Panel was incorrect.
Good grief...so the bone flap that is hanging off the front right of his
head (as seen clearly in the bOH photos) is no longer (with your
orientation) hanging there....IT'S STICKING UP LIKE A SHARK'S DORSAL
FIN!!!!!!!!!!
Also, they measured the entry to be 2.5 cm right of midline.....so don't
you think that the entry (as identified by the HSCA, Zimmerman,
Sturdivan--and me, FWIW) being 2.5 cm from the edge of the ruler that,
with the proper orientation--is held horizontally means something...hint:
you've got the photo misorientated?
And you have some nerve telling Sturdivan and Zimmerman, who examined the
original photos # 44 & #45 stereoscopically, that they had both photos 90
degrees misorientated when they were examining it!
>Watch my video series. It's free.
That's still too high a price for the content, IMO!
>You might learn something.
That'll be the day when I learn something about the head wounds from you.
And I wish you'd send me a Christmas present...yup...a diagram showing
your trajectory of that mythical bullet entering the rear of JFK's head,
passing through the floor of the skull, and exiting his throat. Please let
me see that...so we can all have a good laugh. LOL! So the autopsists
failed to see a hole in the floor of the skull when they removed the
brain, eh, Pat?
IMO, you ought to argue with those who don't know the medical
evidence...it'd be less emabarrassing for you.
I've wasted enough of my time...I'll not read any more B/S from you on
this matter.
John Canal
>So, that brings us back to the real question. There is a bullet hole
>demonstrating tunneling in a transverse direction and measuring roughly 15
>mm by 6 mm visible in F-8 near the EOP when one interprets the photo as
>being taken from behind and showing the posterior skull, a la the doctors
>in the 1966 inventory. This matches the doctors' description of the wound
>to a tee. You seem to believe, however, that the doctors, when they said
>this photo represented a "missile wound over exit, following reflection of
>the scalp" were wrong. It is incumbent upon you, or whatever side of the
>argument you are presenting, then, to offer an alternative explanation for
>this bullet hole exactly where they said it was. Saying that it can't be a
>bullet hole because some doctors subsequently hired by the government to
>look at the photo (and whose spokesman was so daft he testified with his
>exhibit upside down) didn't say it was a bullet hole just doesn't cut it,
>I'm afraid.
>
>Particularly in that you show little faith in the opinion of these doctors
>when it comes to the back wound, which they interpreted to be below the
>throat wound, and which you continue to pretend was well above the throat
>wound...
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>
>
>On Dec 22, 8:11=A0am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2009 11:07:32 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John, prior to November 1966, when the photos were first archived, NO ON=
>E
>> >was believed to have studied them in any detail. The SS had them, and th=
>ey
>> >transferred them to Burkley, who gave them to Lincoln, who gave them to
>> >RFK's secretary. That was it. . So who were these "literally hundreds of
>> >people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
>> >working with the photos throughout the years" Bugliosi suspects stole th=
>e
>> >photos? He's wrong, plain and simple.
>>
>> >As far as your claim there's no EOP entrance on F-8 the mystery photo.
>> >Look again. It's right where it's always been.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/backoftheheadcom.jpg/backoftheheadcom-full.jpg
>>
>> I don't know what to make of that, since you have F-8 wrongly
>> oriented.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/entwoundcu.jpg/entwoundcu-full.jpg
>>
>> The spot near the hairline (which is *below* the EOP) is a blob of
>> tissue.
>>
>> Remember, the HSCA FPP had a stereo pair of the camera original
>> transparencies.
>>
>> So what *you* think you see means very little.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Now. if that's not a 15 by 6 "transversal" entrance exhibiting "tunnelin=
>g"
>> >then what is it? Every hunter I know who's looked at the photo has said
>> >"yep, that's a bullet hole."' And yet, there is NO explanation for this
>> >bullet hole, NOT EVEN to claim it's not a bullet hole, in any of the
>> >reports post 1966, when Humes, Boswell, Ebersole, and Stringer described
>> >it as a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following
>> >reflection of scalp."
>>
>> Of *course* there was a bullet wound in the posterior scalp.
>>
>> It was in the cowlick area. =A0You can see it in the BOH photos.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Dec 21, 4:57=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> >> On 21 Dec 2009 19:50:31 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >You're right, John, that Bugliosi's quoted excuse is malarkey. When t=
>he
>> >> >photos were first determined to be missing, the only people to have
>> >> >possessed them were the Secret Service and the Kennedy family.
>>
>> >> I'm afraid I'm not aware of that being true.
>>
>> >> You need to explain your claim.
>>
>> >> >You are
>> >> >incorrect, however, in your characterization of the missing photos. T=
>he
>> >> >doctors were fairly consistent on which photos were missing. There we=
>re
>> >> >three. One showed the bruise on the lung. One showed the entrance nea=
>r the
>> >> >EOP from the outside.
>>
>> >> Unfortunately we *do* have a back of the head photo (a stereo pair,
>> >> actually) and it doesn't show any such entrance.
>>
>> >> You are just *assuming* that there ought to be such a photo, because
>> >> you buy the phony "EOP entry" stuff.
>>
>> >> >One showed the entrance near the EOP from the
>> >> >inside.
>>
>> >> Same problem as above.
>>
>> >> >The mystery photo of much discussion, depending on whether you
>> >> >think it shows the back of the head or the forehead, is one of the la=
>st
>> >> >two. The initial inventory performed in 1966 says it depicted a "miss=
>ile
>> >> >wound of entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of scalp,
>> >> >which every honest person knows means the back of the head. I believe=
> it
>> >> >was correct.
>>
>> >> Are you talking about F-8?
>>
>> >> >http://www.patspeer.com/chapter14%3Ademystifyingthemysteryphoto
>>
>> >> > So there are really only two photos which were either not taken by
>> >> >mistake, or taken and then disappeared.
>>
>> >> Not taken is the most likely.
>>
>> >> >On Dec 21, 1:20 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> >> >> On 20 Dec 2009 15:29:22 -0500, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >Yes, there are indeed apparently some autopsy photos "missing". Bu=
>t I
>> >> >> >will once again have to agree with the man who wrote the best book
>> >> >> >ever written on the JFK assassination, Vincent Bugliosi, when he s=
>aid
>> >> >> >this in "Reclaiming History":
>>
>> >> >> > "For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
>> >> >> >autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
>> >> >> >conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundred=
>s of
>> >> >> >people from various official investigative agencies...examining an=
>d
>> >> >> >working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't fin=
>d it
>> >> >> >suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
>> >> >> >photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
>> >> >> >through whose hands they passed." -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Page 275=
> of
>> >> >> >"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F.
>> >> >> >Kennedy" (Endnotes on CD-ROM)(=3DA92007)
>>
>> >> >> >http://www.ReclaimingHistory.blogspot.com
>>
>> >> >> Bugliosi showed poor judgment here. I was astonished when he listed
>> >> >> Aguilar among his list of good researchers.
>>
>> >> >> He got bamboozled by Aguilar on this.
>>
>> >> >> The only evidence of "missing photos" is witness testimony.
>>
>> >> >> The earliest inventory we have shows exactly the same photos in the
>> >> >> set today.
>>
>> >> >> Further, the witnesses who claimed "missing photos" tended to be un=
>der
>> >> >> questioning, and the context was usually a photo that *should* have
>> >> >> been taken to show something.
>>
>> >> >> Finally, the witness accounts of "missing photos" aren't mutually
>> >> >> corroborating. They are basically all over the place.
>>
>> >> >> And just one final thing to keep in mind about how silly Aguilar is=
>:
>> >> >> any "missing" photos have to be consistent with the authenticated
>> >> >> photos and x-rays we have. And the photos and x-rays we have flatly
>> >> >> rule out the wounds that Aguilar wants.
>>
>> >> >> .John
>>
>> >> >> --
>> >> >> The Kennedy Assassination Home Pagehttp://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.=
>htm
>>
>> >> .John
>> >> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Anthony Marsh
> John, prior to November 1966, when the photos were first archived, NO ONE
> was believed to have studied them in any detail. The SS had them, and they
> transferred them to Burkley, who gave them to Lincoln, who gave them to
> RFK's secretary. That was it. . So who were these "literally hundreds of
> people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
> working with the photos throughout the years" Bugliosi suspects stole the
> photos? He's wrong, plain and simple.
>
> As far as your claim there's no EOP entrance on F-8 the mystery photo.
> Look again. It's right where it's always been.
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/backoftheheadcom.jpg/backoftheheadcom-full.jpg
Why do you put the two photos side by side with F-8 oriented vertically?
You are leaving a false impression that F-8 shows the back of the head. It
does not. I have corrected you about this several times. It shows the
front of the skull. The way you have it now the scalp on the left would
need to be reflected sideways. That's now how a scalp is reflected to
remove the brain. It is reflected down over the eyes, making the left side
of the photo his forehead.
> http://www.patspeer.com/entwoundcu.jpg/entwoundcu-full.jpg
>
You've created fuzzy out of focus blowups to mislead people.
> Now. if that's not a 15 by 6 "transversal" entrance exhibiting "tunneling"
> then what is it? Every hunter I know who's looked at the photo has said
> "yep, that's a bullet hole."' And yet, there is NO explanation for this
Very misleading. Showing them a doctored photo.
Anthony Marsh
> While Horne and I obviously have different opinions about the evidence,
> your claim about the Psychological Stress Evaluator and Paraffin tests are
> incorrect. O'Toole was not a "kook" as you claim. Voice Stress
> Analysis--while controversial--has been in widespread use for decades. It
> is similar to the polygraph. Its accuracy is unclear, but a certain
> percentage of law enforcement officials even today consider it valid. It
> has been used by both the FBI and the CIA. Now, does it prove anything?
> No. But was O'Toole a "kook" for trying to use it on the recorded
> statements of Oswald? Not at all.
>
The FBI and CIA use bogus tests to trick people into confessing.
Anthony Marsh
> On 22 Dec 2009 14:55:45 -0500, "pjsp...@AOL.COM"<pjsp...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> John, if you actually researched this area, you'd see that 1) the red oval
>> in the cowlick does not remotely resemble the bullet entrance of a
>> full-metal jacketed bullet at less than 100 yards that has broken up on
>> the skull, and 2) I have already demonstrated that the re- interpretation
>> of F-8 by the Clark Panel was incorrect. Watch my video series. It's free.
>> You might learn something.
>
> I've checked out some of your web pages, and all I've learned is that
> all your interpretations are wrong, often wildly wrong.
>
>
>>
>> So, that brings us back to the real question. There is a bullet hole
>> demonstrating tunneling in a transverse direction and measuring roughly 15
>> mm by 6 mm visible in F-8 near the EOP when one interprets the photo as
>> being taken from behind
>
> But it wasn't taken from behind.
>
You have to remember that Speare is a board-certified forensic
pathologist and where he learned his craft they taught him to remove the
brain by reflecting the scalp sideways from right to left and then
scooping out the brain from the side.
Anthony Marsh
The foreground of F-8 shows the front of the head, not the back of the
pjsp...@aol.com
On Dec 22, 12:01 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 22 Dec 2009 14:55:45 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >John, if you actually researched this area, you'd see that 1) the red oval
> >in the cowlick does not remotely resemble the bullet entrance of a
> >full-metal jacketed bullet at less than 100 yards that has broken up on
> >the skull, and 2) I have already demonstrated that the re- interpretation
> >of F-8 by the Clark Panel was incorrect. Watch my video series. It's free.
> >You might learn something.
>
> I've checked out some of your web pages, and all I've learned is that
> all your interpretations are wrong, often wildly wrong.
Hmmm. How did you "learn" that "ALL" my interpretations are wrong? You
mean, they were different than your interpretations, thus they were wrong,
don't you? Please demonstrate the errors in my interpretations that make
them wrong. I mean, you claimed my comparison of the paper bag taken from
the building and the one in the archives was "crackpot photo analysis"...
So, show me the error of my ways. Show all of us how those two bags are
really the same size. You won't cause you can't. Because they are not. And
while you're at it, show us how F-8 relates to a human skull. Show us how
the shape of the drainage hole in the background proves the photo was
taken from above.
>
>
>
> >So, that brings us back to the real question. There is a bullet hole
> >demonstrating tunneling in a transverse direction and measuring roughly 15
> >mm by 6 mm visible in F-8 near the EOP when one interprets the photo as
> >being taken from behind
>
> But it wasn't taken from behind.
HOW could you possibly know this? The Clark Panel, who first said it
showed the forehead, said they couldn't really make it out. They most
certainly didn't note an entrance in the photo. The autopsists, when shown
the photo by Gunn, furthermore, also said they couldn't make it out. So
how can you, who has never studied the photo in detail, possibly claim you
know what it represents? Have you tested in any way? Or are you relying
upon the HSCA FPP, which looked at the photo for all of one day, and
couldn't even figure out which was was up in their testimony?
>
> >and showing the posterior skull, a la the doctors
> >in the 1966 inventory. This matches the doctors' description of the wound
> >to a tee. You seem to believe, however, that the doctors, when they said
> >this photo represented a "missile wound over exit, following reflection of
> >the scalp" were wrong.
>
> I don't follow you.
>
> F-8 does show the exit of a fragment, as shown by the beveling.
The autopsists, in the original inventory, the one they remembered
creating when they were interviewed by the ARRB, said the photos showed a
"missile wound over entrance in the posterior skull, following reflection
of the scalp." No one without a bizarre agenda could possibly think they
were describing an exit in the anterior skull (an exit that Humes swore
did not exist while testifying before the WC), with the interior aspect of
a missile wound on the posterior skull in the background. Such a claim is
really really bizarre. The autopsists themselves refused to say as much.
>
> >It is incumbent upon you, or whatever side of the
> >argument you are presenting, then, to offer an alternative explanation for
> >this bullet hole exactly where they said it was. Saying that it can't be a
> >bullet hole because some doctors subsequently hired by the government to
> >look at the photo (and whose spokesman was so daft he testified with his
> >exhibit upside down) didn't say it was a bullet hole just doesn't cut it,
> >I'm afraid.
>
> Point me to the video where Baden supposedly had the exhibit upside
> down, will you?
>
> Searching "Michael Baden" on YouTube turns up a huge mass of stuff.
Here is part 1 of the video. If you watch all 4 parts, you will see
that you are not only wrong about F-8, but about the back wound.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec
>
> >Particularly in that you show little faith in the opinion of these doctors
> >when it comes to the back wound, which they interpreted to be below the
> >throat wound, and which you continue to pretend was well above the throat
> >wound...
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
>
> It clearly was above the throat wound, and Artwhol's diagram clearly
> shows that.
>
> Do you dispute the entrance shown in the back photo?
Watch parts 2 and 3 of my video series. In Part 2, I map out the location
of the back wound on a body, and prove it to be exactly where it is on the
face sheet. Later, in Part 3, I use the autopsy measurements to reinforce
this point. Feel free to create your own demonstrations proving me
wrong...
P.S. Did you even look at this?
http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg
If so, are you now willing to acknowledge you think the HSCA FPP was wrong
about the back wound location? You can't have it both ways. Either Artwohl
was wrong. Or the HSCA FPP was wrong. Which is it?
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
Bottom Line....
F8 is totally worthless and useless as RELIABLE evidence.
John McAdams
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:0985e119-f103-42bc...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>
> >It is incumbent upon you, or whatever side of the
> >argument you are presenting, then, to offer an alternative explanation
> >for
> >this bullet hole exactly where they said it was. Saying that it can't be
> >a
> >bullet hole because some doctors subsequently hired by the government to
> >look at the photo (and whose spokesman was so daft he testified with his
> >exhibit upside down) didn't say it was a bullet hole just doesn't cut it,
> >I'm afraid.
>
> Point me to the video where Baden supposedly had the exhibit upside
> down, will you?
>
> Searching "Michael Baden" on YouTube turns up a huge mass of stuff.
>Here is part 1 of the video. If you watch all 4 parts, you will see
>that you are not only wrong about F-8, but about the back wound.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec
Gee, Pat, this is silly,
If you look at how he *describes* the features in the photo, you can tell
he knows what the orientation is. He has positioned it so that "up" is
the forehead.
.John
John McAdams
>
> >It is incumbent upon you, or whatever side of the
> >argument you are presenting, then, to offer an alternative explanation
> >for
> >this bullet hole exactly where they said it was. Saying that it can't be
> >a
> >bullet hole because some doctors subsequently hired by the government to
> >look at the photo (and whose spokesman was so daft he testified with his
> >exhibit upside down) didn't say it was a bullet hole just doesn't cut it,
> >I'm afraid.
>
> Point me to the video where Baden supposedly had the exhibit upside
> down, will you?
>
> Searching "Michael Baden" on YouTube turns up a huge mass of stuff.
>Here is part 1 of the video. If you watch all 4 parts, you will see
>that you are not only wrong about F-8, but about the back wound.
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec
Thanks for the link, Pat.
So what we see shows that the claim that Baden positioned F-8 upside down
is entirely bogus.
He did turn it with the forehead facing upward.
That's not the usual orientation.
But then he described the forehead as the forehead. He clearly knew what
the photo showed, and was not at all confused as he described it.
.John
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>On Dec 22, 12:01�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 22 Dec 2009 14:55:45 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >John, if you actually researched this area, you'd see that 1) the red oval
>> >in the cowlick does not remotely resemble the bullet entrance of a
>> >full-metal jacketed bullet at less than 100 yards that has broken up on
>> >the skull, and 2) I have already demonstrated that the re- interpretation
>> >of F-8 by the Clark Panel was incorrect. Watch my video series. It's free.
>> >You might learn something.
>>
>> I've checked out some of your web pages, and all I've learned is that
>> all your interpretations are wrong, often wildly wrong.
>
>Hmmm. How did you "learn" that "ALL" my interpretations are wrong? You
>mean, they were different than your interpretations, thus they were wrong,
>don't you? Please demonstrate the errors in my interpretations that make
>them wrong. I mean, you claimed my comparison of the paper bag taken from
>the building and the one in the archives was "crackpot photo analysis"...
>So, show me the error of my ways.
You needed to photograph the bag with the same camera/lens combination
as Dillard.
And from the same distance.
And with the bag *tilted* toward the camera, just as it is in the
Dillard photo.
Until you do that, you are this generation's Jack White.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#jwhite
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjsp...@aol.com
> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
You are in some serious denial. Watch the video again. Watch his
pointer. He testified that the piece of bone above the beveled bone in
the photo was the bone above the black dot on the drawing. He thought
there was bone above the beveled exit. He then showed the committee
the Dox drawing showing the large defect and the large bone fragments.
There is no bone above the beveled exit. He didn't have a clue what he
was talking about.
That's the nice interpretation. When one considers that he also told a
whopping lie to the committee about Humes testifying about this
beveled exit before the Warren Commission (when Humes in fact
testified that there was no such exit), the possibility exists that
his mistakes were by design.
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 23 Dec 2009 00:10:07 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
Wrong again. The apparent size of an object when filmed through a
standard press lens will not vary from camera to camera. As
demonstrated by my "Opposite Approach" slide, the tilt of the bag an
inch or two is also of little consequence, as the photo was taken from
12-15 feet away. Let's get real. I'm not saying that a 38 inch object
appears to be only 36 inches long in the photo, and that therefore it
is not the same object. I'm saying that a bag purported to be 8 to 8
1/2 inches wide appears to be 10 3/4 inches wide in the photo, and
bares no resemblance to the bag in the photo. It's more than 25% wider
than it's supposed to be, and is all crinkled at the bottom. These are
serious differences that are obvious to most everyone. It does not
take a photo expert or photogrammetry expert to perceive these
differences.
Or to put it in terms you might understand, I am claiming a man who
looks like Shaquille O'Neal in one photo is not the same man as a man
who looks like Tiger Woods in another photo. And you are saying they
are the same man, and that the difference in appearance can be
attributed to the man who looks like Shaquille O'Neal leaning towards
the camera, and that the only way to know for sure is to take a photo
of Tiger Woods with the lens and camera used to take the picture of
the man who looks like Shaquille O'Neal.
Like Shaquille O'Neal and Tiger Woods, the bags in question do not
resemble each other and are of entirely different proportions. Your
failure to acknowledge this is quite embarrassing, IMO.
I listened to your debate with DiEugenio with great interest, and
actually thought you won a few rounds. That you won't acknowledge that
the bags don't match and that Artwohl and the HSCA are in opposition,
however, forces me to consider the possibility that your views are of
a religious nature, and not susceptible to reason.
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 22, 10:07�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
But whether a "normal" (50 mm. in Dillard's era) will produce an image
quite different from a wide angle (35 mm.).
>As
>demonstrated by my "Opposite Approach" slide, the tilt of the bag an
>inch or two is also of little consequence, as the photo was taken from
>12-15 feet away.
And you know that how?
>Let's get real. I'm not saying that a 38 inch object
>appears to be only 36 inches long in the photo, and that therefore it
>is not the same object. I'm saying that a bag purported to be 8 to 8
>1/2 inches wide appears to be 10 3/4 inches wide in the photo, and
>bares no resemblance to the bag in the photo. It's more than 25% wider
>than it's supposed to be, and is all crinkled at the bottom. These are
>serious differences that are obvious to most everyone. It does not
>take a photo expert or photogrammetry expert to perceive these
>differences.
>
You need to photograph the bag with the same tilt as in the Dillard
photo. You haven't done that.
If you were serious about this while business, you would.
>Or to put it in terms you might understand, I am claiming a man who
>looks like Shaquille O'Neal in one photo is not the same man as a man
>who looks like Tiger Woods in another photo. And you are saying they
>are the same man, and that the difference in appearance can be
>attributed to the man who looks like Shaquille O'Neal leaning towards
>the camera, and that the only way to know for sure is to take a photo
>of Tiger Woods with the lens and camera used to take the picture of
>the man who looks like Shaquille O'Neal.
>
No person can lean nearly so much as the bag in the Dillard photo.
If you are serious, you will find out what lens Dillard used, and
precisely recreate the photo.
>Like Shaquille O'Neal and Tiger Woods, the bags in question do not
>resemble each other and are of entirely different proportions. Your
>failure to acknowledge this is quite embarrassing, IMO.
>
>I listened to your debate with DiEugenio with great interest, and
>actually thought you won a few rounds. That you won't acknowledge that
>the bags don't match and that Artwohl and the HSCA are in opposition,
>however, forces me to consider the possibility that your views are of
>a religious nature, and not susceptible to reason.
Pat, you just aren't serious about the science here.
You refuse to do a realistic recreation of the Dillard photo.
If you were serious about this, you would.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Dec 22, 9:59=A0pm, "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>>
>> news:0985e119-f103-42bc...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>> > Searching "Michael Baden" on YouTube turns up a huge mass of stuff.
>> >Here is part 1 of the video. If you watch all 4 parts, you will see
>> >that you are not only wrong about F-8, but about the back wound.
>>
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DlEvZWeYXpec
>>
>> Thanks for the link, Pat.
>>
>> So what we see shows that the claim that Baden positioned F-8 upside down
>> is entirely bogus.
>>
>> He did turn it with the forehead facing upward.
>>
>> That's not the usual orientation.
>>
>> But then he described the forehead as the forehead. =A0He clearly knew wh=
>at
>> the photo showed, and was not at all confused as he described it.
>>
>
>You are in some serious denial. Watch the video again. Watch his
>pointer. He testified that the piece of bone above the beveled bone in
>the photo was the bone above the black dot on the drawing. He thought
>there was bone above the beveled exit.
Huh?
What you are saying makes no sense.
He oriented the photo with the forehead facing *upward.*
He explicitly said that forehead was at the top of the photo.
Saying he had it upside down isn't honest.
>He then showed the committee
>the Dox drawing showing the large defect and the large bone fragments.
>There is no bone above the beveled exit. He didn't have a clue what he
>was talking about.
>
He pointed to the beveling, showing the exit of a bullet ("fragment"
would be more accurate).
The bone "above" the wound was really "inferior" to the defect on
Kennedy's head.
It's not hard to understand unless you are out on Nowhere Land.
>That's the nice interpretation. When one considers that he also told a
>whopping lie to the committee about Humes testifying about this
>beveled exit before the Warren Commission (when Humes in fact
>testified that there was no such exit), the possibility exists that
>his mistakes were by design.
>
Kindly post the Humes testimony where he said there was "no such
exit."
Humes clearly believed a bullet exited the anterior top of the skull.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm
If you are going to discuss Baden honestly, you've got to recogize
there is a difference between his being confused or "not having a
clue" and his differing with you about the interpretation of the
evidence.
Look . . . the HSCA FPP consisted of nine of the top forensic
pathologists in the country.
Do you really expect sensible people to ignore their assessment, and
believe that you know what you are talking about?
John Fiorentino
There's another fold in the bag when it's viewed in evidence.
Also, EXACTLY what is your point?
John F.
<pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:19fb5458-1ce5-4720...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 23 Dec 2009 09:45:07 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
John, there is no Dillard photo of the bag. If you were serious about
this and not just clutching at straws so you can ignore my analysis,
you'd know that. The bag photos on your website were by Allen, Smith,
and Beers. I found a second Beers photo in an old book.
I have re-enacted two of them. They complement each other, and reveal
that the bag in the photo was not 8 to 8 1/2 inches wide, a la the
evidence photos and the statements of Ball during the testimony of
Frazier and his sister, but 25% or more wider.
http://www.patspeer.com/mosdef4.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/10.jpg
Since so many LNs can't accept what is blatantly obvious to everyone
else--that the proportions of the bag in the photos do not match those
of the bag in the Archives--and instead claim I'm playing some trick
by failing to tilt the bag the proper angle, I have also created this
slide, demonstrating just how much closer my simulated bag would have
to be to the camera to match the bag in size.
http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
It should be 100% clear that the cardboard cut-out in this slide is
significantly closer to the camera than the cut-out in the first
slide. This proves that the difference in size between the bag in the
press photo and my simulation of the bag in my re-enactment photos can
not be explained by the bag in the press photo's being a few inches
closer to the camera.
SO...either the cameras used to photograph the bag outside the
building were not equipped with standard press lenses, but with some
special tricky lens that magnified the size of the bag, and not
Montgomery, or Montgomery had a miniature head. (I have a normal-sized
head, and created my re-enactments under the assumption Montgomery's
head was also normal-sized.)
In an earlier post you compared me to Jack White. On the Education
Forum, where Jack White has posted a lot of his work, there are those
who double-check his work, and reveal his mistakes. Neither you, nor
anyone else, has found any mistakes in my paper bag analysis. To do
this, you need to 1) re-create one or more of the photos where the
width of the bag matches something 8-81/2 inches wide, using a
standard press lens, or 2) demonstrate that Montgomery was an
unusually small man, and that the bag appeared to be 25% wider when
next to him than me because he was 25% smaller.
Peter Fokes
wrote:
>In an earlier post you compared me to Jack White.
Hi Pat,
A popular LN technique is to demonize a particular person and then
tell another person they are like the demonized person!
Don't let it get you down.
In olden days, it was tar and feathers!
Now, it's generalization and labels.
And some of these folks are even educated!
Happy Holidays!
Peter Fokes,
Toronto
Anthony Marsh
> <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> news:0985e119-f103-42bc...@15g2000prz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>>
>>> It is incumbent upon you, or whatever side of the
>>> argument you are presenting, then, to offer an alternative explanation
>>> for
>>> this bullet hole exactly where they said it was. Saying that it can't be
>>> a
>>> bullet hole because some doctors subsequently hired by the government to
>>> look at the photo (and whose spokesman was so daft he testified with his
>>> exhibit upside down) didn't say it was a bullet hole just doesn't cut it,
>>> I'm afraid.
>>
>> Point me to the video where Baden supposedly had the exhibit upside
>> down, will you?
>>
>> Searching "Michael Baden" on YouTube turns up a huge mass of stuff.
>
>> Here is part 1 of the video. If you watch all 4 parts, you will see
>> that you are not only wrong about F-8, but about the back wound.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEvZWeYXpec
>
> Thanks for the link, Pat.
>
> So what we see shows that the claim that Baden positioned F-8 upside down
> is entirely bogus.
>
> He did turn it with the forehead facing upward.
>
But the point is that Baden was intentionally lying. The semi-circular
defect was not where he shows the black dot. He turned the exhibit
upside down to make it appear that there was bone ABOVE the
semi-circular defect. When in reality the bone was BELOW the
semi-circular defect, i.e. the face.
Dr. Angel correctly placed the location of the semi-circular defect
above the right eye. But lining that up with their entrance wound did
not point back to the sniper's nest.
Anthony Marsh
No, he orients it so that UP is the top of the head, as if there was
still bone above the semi-circular defect.
Anthony Marsh
>
> Bottom Line....
>
> F8 is totally worthless and useless as RELIABLE evidence.
>
Bottom line . . .
You can't handle the evidence.
You are a WC defender so you dismiss evidence that you don't like.
Anthony Marsh
Yes, he explicitly lied and you can't tell the difference.
The forehead BELOW the semi-circular defect is at the top of the photo. It
may be the way the photo was take upside down, but putting it upside down
next to the other photo creates a false impression.
> Saying he had it upside down isn't honest.
>
Putting it upside down isn't honest.
>
>> He then showed the committee
>> the Dox drawing showing the large defect and the large bone fragments.
>> There is no bone above the beveled exit. He didn't have a clue what he
>> was talking about.
>>
>
> He pointed to the beveling, showing the exit of a bullet ("fragment"
> would be more accurate).
>
Yes, but the HSCA official drawing of the trajectory shows an intact
bullet exiting.
And the beveling indicates an entrance wound, not an exit wound.
> The bone "above" the wound was really "inferior" to the defect on
> Kennedy's head.
>
If by inferior you mean further back on the head you are wrong. The
intact bone is the top of the face, then there is a big hole above that.
> It's not hard to understand unless you are out on Nowhere Land.
>
>
More arrogant WC defender bias. Dr. Angel oriented it correctly.
>> That's the nice interpretation. When one considers that he also told a
>> whopping lie to the committee about Humes testifying about this
>> beveled exit before the Warren Commission (when Humes in fact
>> testified that there was no such exit), the possibility exists that
>> his mistakes were by design.
>>
>
> Kindly post the Humes testimony where he said there was "no such
> exit."
>
Humes could not find a distinct single exit point for the head shot.
> Humes clearly believed a bullet exited the anterior top of the skull.
>
Yes, and he thought it blew away the exit wound.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shootft.htm
>
> If you are going to discuss Baden honestly, you've got to recogize
> there is a difference between his being confused or "not having a
> clue" and his differing with you about the interpretation of the
> evidence.
>
> Look . . . the HSCA FPP consisted of nine of the top forensic
> pathologists in the country.
>
> Do you really expect sensible people to ignore their assessment, and
> believe that you know what you are talking about?
>
Why do you ignore what they said and what Dr. Angel diagrammed?
John McAdams
>On Dec 23, 8:23�am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 23 Dec 2009 09:45:07 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I listened to your debate with DiEugenio with great interest, and
>> >actually thought you won a few rounds. That you won't acknowledge that
>> >the bags don't match and that Artwohl and the HSCA are in opposition,
>> >however, forces me to consider the possibility that your views are of
>> >a religious nature, and not susceptible to reason.
>>
>> Pat, you just aren't serious about the science here.
>>
>> You refuse to do a realistic recreation of the Dillard photo.
>>
>> If you were serious about this, you would.
>>
>
>John, there is no Dillard photo of the bag.
Sorry, don't know where I got that idea.
>If you were serious about
>this and not just clutching at straws so you can ignore my analysis,
>you'd know that. The bag photos on your website were by Allen, Smith,
>and Beers. I found a second Beers photo in an old book.
>
OK, but you used the Allen photo in your analysis.
So the same problem exists.
You need to use a film/camera combination with an equally wide angle,
and you need to have the bag you are holding held at the same angle.
>I have re-enacted two of them. They complement each other, and reveal
>that the bag in the photo was not 8 to 8 1/2 inches wide, a la the
>evidence photos and the statements of Ball during the testimony of
>Frazier and his sister, but 25% or more wider.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/mosdef4.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/10.jpg
"Matching the heads and hands in the photos?"
????!!!!!
That works if you have the same size head and hands as Montgomery!
>
>Since so many LNs can't accept what is blatantly obvious to everyone
>else--that the proportions of the bag in the photos do not match those
>of the bag in the Archives--and instead claim I'm playing some trick
>by failing to tilt the bag the proper angle, I have also created this
>slide, demonstrating just how much closer my simulated bag would have
>to be to the camera to match the bag in size.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
>
You are holding the bag vertically!
>It should be 100% clear that the cardboard cut-out in this slide is
>significantly closer to the camera than the cut-out in the first
>slide. This proves that the difference in size between the bag in the
>press photo and my simulation of the bag in my re-enactment photos can
>not be explained by the bag in the press photo's being a few inches
>closer to the camera.
>
>
You've got to tilt the damn thing!
The fact that you refuse to simply shows that you aren't serious.
>SO...either the cameras used to photograph the bag outside the
>building were not equipped with standard press lenses, but with some
>special tricky lens that magnified the size of the bag,
Don't know anything about photography, do you?
A 35 mm. lens on a 35mm. camera is "wide angle," but it's not
"tricky."
Indeed, a 28 mm. or a 21 mm., or a 24 mm. are also "wide angle" but
not tricky.
I have all four, by the say, for my Contax G1 (28 and 21) and my old
Nikon Fs (35 and 24).
Why do you think you can tackle issues like this knowing nothing about
photography?
>and not
>Montgomery, or Montgomery had a miniature head. (I have a normal-sized
>head, and created my re-enactments under the assumption Montgomery's
>head was also normal-sized.)
>
Oh, my Gawd!
"Normal sized" heads are not all the *same* size.
>In an earlier post you compared me to Jack White. On the Education
>Forum, where Jack White has posted a lot of his work, there are those
>who double-check his work, and reveal his mistakes.
ROFLMAO!
>Neither you, nor
>anyone else, has found any mistakes in my paper bag analysis. To do
>this, you need to 1) re-create one or more of the photos where the
>width of the bag matches something 8-81/2 inches wide, using a
>standard press lens, or 2) demonstrate that Montgomery was an
>unusually small man, and that the bag appeared to be 25% wider when
>next to him than me because he was 25% smaller.
No, it's your job to do it right.
You won't be taken seriously (except by people like DiEugenio and the
buffs on the Education Forum) unless you do.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Brigette Kohley
is not slightly wider than the bag in the archives photos, but 25% or
more wider. To debunk my claim, YOU need to either 1)take a photo of
an object roughly the same distance from the camera as I am in my re-
enactment (12-15 feet) with a press lens that makes the object look
25% wider than it appears when taken with a 50mm lens, or 2) take a
photo of an object the same distance from the camera as the simulated
bag is in my re-enactment, and then take a second photo with it
tilting slightly forward, in which it appears 25% wider. For someone
with your obvious expertize this should be incredibly easy, a walk in
the park.
Debunk away.
On Dec 23, 8:39 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
> On 23 Dec 2009 17:03:49 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>