Pat Speer Refuses to Answer Simple Questions about What He Believes
John McAdams
questions about what you believe?
We know why that is. Your views are illogical, and if you answer the
questions, your illogic will be seen.
But let me give you a chance.
QUESTIONS:
Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? Yes or no?
If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
vertebra. Yes or no?
If no, what happened to it?
Kindly answer the questions.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Anthony Marsh
> Do you know how it looks, Pat, which you refuse to answer simple
> questions about what you believe?
>
Do you know how it looks, .John, which you refuse to answer simple
questions about what you believe?
We know why that is. Your views are illogical, and if you answer the
questions, your illogic will be seen.
> We know why that is. Your views are illogical, and if you answer the
> questions, your illogic will be seen.
>
> But let me give you a chance.
>
> QUESTIONS:
>
> Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? Yes or no?
>
Yes. Not the neck as Ford said.
> If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
> vertebra. Yes or no?
>
No.
> If no, what happened to it?
>
The bullet was deflected up and out the throat.
slice...@comcast.net
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And John, while you're answering that question, please answer this one
too: how does Oswald calling Twiford make the Odio visit impossible?
Please answer the question using only the known facts about the call.
John McAdams
<slice...@comcast.net> wrote:
>On Jan 15, 9:57�pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 1/15/2010 8:59 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>>
>> > Do you know how it looks, Pat, which you refuse to answer simple
>> > questions about what you believe?
>>
>> Do you know how it looks, .John, which you refuse to answer simple
>> questions about what you believe?
>>
>> We know why that is. �Your views are illogical, and if you answer the
>> questions, your illogic will be seen.
>>
>> > We know why that is. �Your views are illogical, and if you answer the
>> > questions, your illogic will be seen.
>>
>> > But let me give you a chance.
>>
>> > QUESTIONS:
>>
>> > Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? �Yes or no?
>>
>> Yes. Not the neck as Ford said.
>>
>> > If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
>> > vertebra. �Yes or no?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> > If no, what happened to it?
>>
>> The bullet was deflected up and out the throat.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Kindly answer the questions.
>>
>
> And John, while you're answering that question, please answer this one
>too: how does Oswald calling Twiford make the Odio visit impossible?
>Please answer the question using only the known facts about the call.
Are you trying to run intereference for Speer? Produce a distraction
so that people won't notice that he fails to answer.
As to Twiford: Oswald was known to be in Houston on the evening of
September 25. Oswald called Mrs. Twiford on some date and asked to
speak to Mr. Twiford.
Iron clad written evidence ties Oswald to Twiford.
One can *posit* that Oswald was there some other date. But nobody has
any evidence that that may have happened.
So the most likely scenario is that Oswald was in Houston, calling
Estelle Twiford, and not in Dallas talking to Odio.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
CE-2335.
Oswald was at Sylvia Odio's in late September.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/ODIO.htm
McAdams STILL doesn't give any official citations.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:d2c2l5luvb1uvn268...@4ax.com...
cdddraftsman
> On 1/15/2010 8:59 PM, John McAdams wrote:
>
> > Do you know how it looks, Pat, which you refuse to answer simple
> > questions about what you believe?
>
> Do you know how it looks, .John, which you refuse to answer simple
> questions about what you believe?
>
> We know why that is. Your views are illogical, and if you answer the
> questions, your illogic will be seen.
>
> > We know why that is. Your views are illogical, and if you answer the
> > questions, your illogic will be seen.
>
> > But let me give you a chance.
>
> > QUESTIONS:
>
> > Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? Yes or no?
>
> Yes. Not the neck as Ford said.
>
>
Yes the neck as Ford said ! :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/ShapeofJFKsNeck311.jpg
>
> > If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
> > vertebra. Yes or no?
>
> No.
Yes ! The tip of one of his transverse process .
>
> > If no, what happened to it?
>
> The bullet was deflected up and out the throat.
>
>
Impossible ! If the bullet were deflected it would of torn open his throat
. The throat wound was a 'supported wound of exit' as shown by Dr.Lattimer
.
Pat Speer has been tagged out many a time for playing loose with the
evidence and then trying to rationalise his hokem with preposterous
examples :
For example , this taken from one of his video's :
Fig.1
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/PatSFig1.jpg
Fig.2
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/PatSFig2.jpg
end ....
tl ...
..
.
John McAdams
>Mrs. Twiford said that Oswald called in "Late October".
>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/catch_of_the_day.htm
>
>CE-2335.
>
That's what she thought, but her husband remembered coming home on
September 26, and his wife told him about Oswald then.
By the way, Odio's first testimony was that the three men (including
"Leon Oswald") came on the 26th or 27th.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
slice...@comcast.net
> On 15 Jan 2010 22:17:04 -0500, "slicedm...@comcast.net"
LOL, no, Pat Speer doesn't require any help from me or anyone else to
take your arguments apart. What jumped out at me in this thread was you
making a demand of someone when you have failed--over and over and over
again--to produce an answer for your silly Odio theory. So sorry to
change the subject, but these threads usually go for a while, and he can
respond if he wants to.
> As to Twiford: Oswald was known to be in Houston on the evening of
> September 25. Oswald called Mrs. Twiford on some date and asked to
> speak to Mr. Twiford.
>
> Iron clad written evidence ties Oswald to Twiford.
>
> One can *posit* that Oswald was there some other date. But nobody has
> any evidence that that may have happened.
>
> So the most likely scenario is that Oswald was in Houston, calling
> Estelle Twiford, and not in Dallas talking to Odio.
>
> .John
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fail!, as teenagers are fond of saying nowadays. Another fail. The
evidence shows that Oswald was at Odio's AND that he called Twiford.
Please provide some scrap of evidence, Dr. McAdams, one teeny tiny
scintilla of evidence that shows that the Twiford call makes the Odio
visit impossible.
cdddraftsman
Tomnln caught again conceiling more than he reveils !
tl
pjsp...@aol.com
a computer a simple question and it can't answer it and completely melts
down.
John McAdams refuses to answer a simple question. His failure to answer
this question reflects a severe character defect, IMO.
He claims the HSCA FPP trajectory for the bullet striking Kennedy in the
back is wrong and that the bullet really descended 21 degrees in Kennedy's
body before exiting from his throat, a la the Artwohl exhibit on McAdams'
website.
He is well within his rights to do so. Many LNTs, including John Lattimer,
claimed the back wound was far higher on Kennedy's back than was concluded
by the HSCA FPP.
But McAdams lacks the courage of his convictions, and is afraid to say he
thinks the HSCA was wrong, and is trying to have it both ways. He, alone,
of anyone with whom I've discussed the case, claims BOTH that the bullet
entered where the HSCA FPP placed it AND that it descended 21 degrees
within Kennedy's body, a la Artwohl.
This is really really wacky. In recent days I have posted links to a
number of anatomy drawings. All of these demonstrate beyond any doubt that
a bullet entering at T1, a la the HSCA FPP's exhibits, and descending 21
degrees within the body, would not only pierce the President's lung, but
exit well below his throat, on his sternum. This is clear as day. Still, I
have welcomed McAdams' rebuttal through a drawing demonstrating the
trajectory of a bullet entering at T1, or even C7, and descending 21
degrees that does not exit lower on the body than the location of
Kennedy's throat wound.
But instead of creating this drawing, or even proposing an exit location
on Kennedy's body that would allow me to create this drawing, McAdams' has
made the bizarre claim that neck and throat wounds are not correlated to
the nearest vertebrae, so it would be meaningless for him to reveal this
information. This is nonsense. Not only are neck wounds correlated to the
nearest vertebrae, they are written about and treated based on their
proximity to the nearest vertebrae. So I ask again, knowing full well John
will never answer: at what level on the vertebrae did the bullet exit?
As far as what I think happened...the purported purpose of this thread? I
already answered that question, and told John not only that I discuss this
stuff in detail on my webapage, but summarized it for him by telling him I
agree with the HSCA FPP that the back wound in the photographs is at
roughly the T1 level of the spine.
So, if I already answered his question, why did he create this thread?
Well, just a guess. He may have looked at my webpage long enough to know
that I suspect the bullet striking Kennedy in the back and creating the
back wound is not the same bullet that exited his throat, and is hoping to
steer this discussion away from what he thinks to what I think, so that he
can pretend I am a wacky CT whose arguments can be readily dismissed.
But I'm not interested in what I think today. I'm interested in what he
thinks. And so, just for today, I will argue FOR the SBT from the
perspective of the biggest LN/single bullet theorist of all time: Dr. John
Lattimer.
So, Professor McAdams...IF the SBT, in your mind, is consistent with a
bullet's hitting Kennedy at T1 and descending 21 degrees within the body,
WHY did Dr. Lattimer defend the SBT by claiming the bullet hit Kennedy
higher on the back than in even the WC's drawings, and insist the bullet
entered at the level of Kennedy's chin?
Or do you think Kennedy's chin is at T1?
John McAdams
wrote:
>I feel like I'm in one of those science fiction movies where someone asks
>a computer a simple question and it can't answer it and completely melts
>down.
>
I know the feeling, since you won't give me a simple, honest answer to
the questions I asked you at the beginning of this thread.
All I get from you is blather, and changing the subject.
Let's try again.
>> QUESTIONS:
>>
>> Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? �Yes or no?
>>
>> If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
>> vertebra. �Yes or no?
>>
>> If no, what happened to it?
>>
>> Kindly answer the questions.
Do you have the courage to answer the questions, or not?
Do you know how silly you look when you refuse to answer simple
questions?
>John McAdams refuses to answer a simple question. His failure to answer
>this question reflects a severe character defect, IMO.
>
I should have voted to reject this.
But since it's here, I'll say that it's a serious character defect to
refuse to answer simple questions, and to obsess on your pet
obsessions.
>He claims the HSCA FPP trajectory for the bullet striking Kennedy in the
>back is wrong and that the bullet really descended 21 degrees in Kennedy's
>body before exiting from his throat, a la the Artwohl exhibit on McAdams'
>website.
>
Correct.
>He is well within his rights to do so. Many LNTs, including John Lattimer,
>claimed the back wound was far higher on Kennedy's back than was concluded
>by the HSCA FPP.
>
It's where the damn photo shows it!
Are you so immersed in buff lore that you can't just *look?*
>But McAdams lacks the courage of his convictions, and is afraid to say he
>thinks the HSCA was wrong,
What??!!
I've said I believe Artwohl, and not the HSCA.
You are so obsessed, and so incapable of actually arguing your
position that you can't respond to what I say.
You just spew the same nonsense.
>nd is trying to have it both ways. He, alone,
>of anyone with whom I've discussed the case, claims BOTH that the bullet
>entered where the HSCA FPP placed it AND that it descended 21 degrees
>within Kennedy's body, a la Artwohl.
>
The bullet entered at C7/T1. That's what the photo shows.
Do you believe the photo, or not?
If you believe in photo fakery, have the guts to say so, and don't
lead me around on this silly primrose path.
>This is really really wacky. In recent days I have posted links to a
>number of anatomy drawings. All of these demonstrate beyond any doubt that
>a bullet entering at T1, a la the HSCA FPP's exhibits, and descending 21
>degrees within the body, would not only pierce the President's lung, but
>exit well below his throat, on his sternum.
You haven't shown any such thing.
You really are Jack White for a new generation.
>his is clear as day. Still, I
>have welcomed McAdams' rebuttal through a drawing demonstrating the
>trajectory of a bullet entering at T1, or even C7, and descending 21
>degrees that does not exit lower on the body than the location of
>Kennedy's throat wound.
>
>But instead of creating this drawing, or even proposing an exit location
I posted the link to the Artwohl drawing!
The bullet exited where the gash in the neck shows it exiting.
>on Kennedy's body that would allow me to create this drawing, McAdams' has
>made the bizarre claim that neck and throat wounds are not correlated to
>the nearest vertebrae, so it would be meaningless for him to reveal this
>information.
If I had handy the "tracheal ring" number, that would be the precise
description.
Using vertebra numbers is silly.
And you can *see* where I think it exited.
It's where the gash is in the lateral photo.
>his is nonsense. Not only are neck wounds correlated to the
>nearest vertebrae, they are written about and treated based on their
>proximity to the nearest vertebrae. So I ask again, knowing full well John
>will never answer: at what level on the vertebrae did the bullet exit?
>
I don't answer stupid questions!!
I ask again: have you stopped beating your wife?
>As far as what I think happened...the purported purpose of this thread? I
>already answered that question, and told John not only that I discuss this
>stuff in detail on my webapage, but summarized it for him by telling him I
>agree with the HSCA FPP that the back wound in the photographs is at
>roughly the T1 level of the spine.
>
>So, if I already answered his question, why did he create this thread?
>
To see if you would admit the obvious: You were arguing that an entry
at T1 would have to smash the transverse process of T1.
So, you think the bullet that entered in the back *did* do that?
>Well, just a guess. He may have looked at my webpage long enough to know
>that I suspect the bullet striking Kennedy in the back and creating the
>back wound is not the same bullet that exited his throat,
Then where did the one exiting the throat come from?
>nd is hoping to
>steer this discussion away from what he thinks to what I think, so that he
>can pretend I am a wacky CT whose arguments can be readily dismissed.
>
Well if you would be honest and tell us what you think, maybe that
*would* look like a wacky CT argument.
If so, it's your fault.
>But I'm not interested in what I think today. I'm interested in what he
>thinks.
Sashay(tm)!!
If you are an honest researcher, you will tell us what you think.
So, are you an honest researcher?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
cdddraftsman
Oh God I knew he couldn't do it ! He falls back to the rhetoric laced
balarney sandwiches he hands out at You Tube for breakfast , lunch and
dinner .
tl
yeuhd
pjsp...@aol.com
> On 16 Jan 2010 22:52:20 -0500, "pjspe...@AOL.COM" <pjspe...@AOL.COM>
> wrote:
>
> >I feel like I'm in one of those science fiction movies where someone asks
> >a computer a simple question and it can't answer it and completely melts
> >down.
>
> I know the feeling, since you won't give me a simple, honest answer to
> the questions I asked you at the beginning of this thread.
>
> All I get from you is blather, and changing the subject.
>
> Let's try again.
The discussion has always been about where you think the bullet exited.
Your trying to turn it into a discussion of what I think is a transparent
device to avoid responsibility for the nonsense spewed on your website.
(To be clear, I believe most of your website is accurate, or at least
reasonably fair. But the back wound in the Artwohl exhibit is absolutely
positively not at T1, and your pretending it is or could be, is, quite
frankly, bizarre beyond words.)
>
> >> QUESTIONS:
>
> >> Was Kennedy hit in the back by a bullet? Yes or no?
>
> >> If yes, did the bullet smash the transverse process of one of his
> >> vertebra. Yes or no?
>
> >> If no, what happened to it?
>
> >> Kindly answer the questions.
>
> Do you have the courage to answer the questions, or not?
Au contraire. I have the courage to not answer questions that have no
bearing on the discussion at hand and are only designed to confuse the
issue.
>
> Do you know how silly you look when you refuse to answer simple
> questions?
>
> >John McAdams refuses to answer a simple question. His failure to answer
> >this question reflects a severe character defect, IMO.
>
> I should have voted to reject this.
If you'd have rejected this after repeatedly and pointedly calling me a
"crackpot" and the "new generation's Jack White" you'd have revealed
yourself to be a total hypocrite.
>
> But since it's here, I'll say that it's a serious character defect to
> refuse to answer simple questions, and to obsess on your pet
> obsessions.
>
> >He claims the HSCA FPP trajectory for the bullet striking Kennedy in the
> >back is wrong and that the bullet really descended 21 degrees in Kennedy's
> >body before exiting from his throat, a la the Artwohl exhibit on McAdams'
> >website.
>
> Correct.
>
> >He is well within his rights to do so. Many LNTs, including John Lattimer,
> >claimed the back wound was far higher on Kennedy's back than was concluded
> >by the HSCA FPP.
>
> It's where the damn photo shows it!
>
> Are you so immersed in buff lore that you can't just *look?*
What buff lore are you talking about? Lattimer's books and articles?
Because he said the bullet was far higher on Kennedy's back than proposed
by the WC, who, as per Baden, had it two inches higher on Kennedy's back
than as concluded by the HSCA FPP?
>
> >But McAdams lacks the courage of his convictions, and is afraid to say he
> >thinks the HSCA was wrong,
>
> What??!!
>
> I've said I believe Artwohl, and not the HSCA.
If you believe Artwohl, then you believe the HSCA was wrong about the
back wound location. It's that simple. So why won't you say so?
>
> You are so obsessed, and so incapable of actually arguing your
> position that you can't respond to what I say.
>
> You just spew the same nonsense.
What nonsense? Let's pretend I know nothing about the Kennedy
assassination. Let's pretend I'm one of your students. Now, say I ask you
at what level the bullet exited from Kennedy's neck, and you answer "where
it is in the photo." Would you expect me to find that satisfactory? Of
course not. Let's say then that I follow up and ask you "The HSCA FPP
depicted the bullet rising in Kennedy's neck and exiting at C7--do you
agree that it exited at C7?" What would you say? You either agree or don't
agree, and if you don't agree you most certainly must have some clue where
it exited, correct? Since you claim the bullet descended in Kennedy's
neck, moreover, you must believe it exited at T2 or below. So why won't
you say so?
>
> >nd is trying to have it both ways. He, alone,
> >of anyone with whom I've discussed the case, claims BOTH that the bullet
> >entered where the HSCA FPP placed it AND that it descended 21 degrees
> >within Kennedy's body, a la Artwohl.
>
> The bullet entered at C7/T1. That's what the photo shows.
>
> Do you believe the photo, or not?
I've answered this multiple times in the affirmative.
>
> If you believe in photo fakery, have the guts to say so, and don't
> lead me around on this silly primrose path.
>
> >This is really really wacky. In recent days I have posted links to a
> >number of anatomy drawings. All of these demonstrate beyond any doubt that
> >a bullet entering at T1, a la the HSCA FPP's exhibits, and descending 21
> >degrees within the body, would not only pierce the President's lung, but
> >exit well below his throat, on his sternum.
>
> You haven't shown any such thing.
>
> You really are Jack White for a new generation.
Hogwash. Did you look at any of those drawings? Did you draw a 21 degree
line of descent from T1 in those drawings? Of course not.
But we don't even need those drawings. A quick gander at a beginning
anatomy book will tell you that the lung rises to the neck of the first
rib which derives from T1. From this we can see that any bullet entering
at the T1 level and descending 21 degrees will pass under the first rib
and pierce the lung. Are you disputing this fact? If so, on what basis?
>
> >his is clear as day. Still, I
> >have welcomed McAdams' rebuttal through a drawing demonstrating the
> >trajectory of a bullet entering at T1, or even C7, and descending 21
> >degrees that does not exit lower on the body than the location of
> >Kennedy's throat wound.
>
> >But instead of creating this drawing, or even proposing an exit location
>
> I posted the link to the Artwohl drawing!
>
> The bullet exited where the gash in the neck shows it exiting.
Which is at what level in the neck? if you had to defend the SBT on TV and
they gave you an anatomy drawing to demonstrate the theory, at what level
would you say it exited? Because if you said "look at the picture" or "I
don't know" you'd have convinced most everyone in America that you didn't
know what you're talking about, and that the CT community is right about
the SBT.
>
> >on Kennedy's body that would allow me to create this drawing, McAdams' has
> >made the bizarre claim that neck and throat wounds are not correlated to
> >the nearest vertebrae, so it would be meaningless for him to reveal this
> >information.
>
> If I had handy the "tracheal ring" number, that would be the precise
> description.
>
> Using vertebra numbers is silly.
Now you're really being lazy. The autopsy report said "approximately the
level of the third and fourth tracheal rings". Is that where you think the
bullet exited?
Because here is a typical anatomy drawing.
http://www.gregandmel.net/burnett_thesis/2.17.gif
The third and fourth tracheal rings are at the levels of C7 and T1. So how
can a bullet descending 21 degrees from C7/T1 end up at the level of
C7/T1? It can't. Why is it so hard for you to admit Artwohl was wrong?
>
> And you can *see* where I think it exited.
>
> It's where the gash is in the lateral photo.
>
> >his is nonsense. Not only are neck wounds correlated to the
> >nearest vertebrae, they are written about and treated based on their
> >proximity to the nearest vertebrae. So I ask again, knowing full well John
> >will never answer: at what level on the vertebrae did the bullet exit?
>
> I don't answer stupid questions!!
It's not a stupid question. It is a perfectly valid question that will be
asked of you should you ever be in a position to defend the SBT in a mock
trial or public discussion. You claim the SBT is a fact. So why won't you
say where the bullet exited? If the prosecution claimed O.J. killed his
wife but they had no idea when or how, do you think a jury would have
bought it, or would they have smiled and shook their heads when F.Lee
Bailey told the jury "well, O.J. has an alibi for 'I don't know' so you
must acquit him of this crime"?
>
> I ask again: have you stopped beating your wife?
Non-sequitur. Totally irrelevant.
>
> >As far as what I think happened...the purported purpose of this thread? I
> >already answered that question, and told John not only that I discuss this
> >stuff in detail on my webapage, but summarized it for him by telling him I
> >agree with the HSCA FPP that the back wound in the photographs is at
> >roughly the T1 level of the spine.
>
> >So, if I already answered his question, why did he create this thread?
>
> To see if you would admit the obvious: You were arguing that an entry
> at T1 would have to smash the transverse process of T1.
>
> So, you think the bullet that entered in the back *did* do that?
I don't know. You're the one claiming that a bullet descended 21 degrees
in the back and yet somehow exited the throat. Why don't you tell me what
I'm supposed to think? Where did this bullet go, before exiting the
throat? What did it hit? And don't tell me it skirted across the top of
the lung, because the lung rises up to T1, and a bullet descending from T1
would not skirt across the top of the lung, now would it?
>
> >Well, just a guess. He may have looked at my webpage long enough to know
> >that I suspect the bullet striking Kennedy in the back and creating the
> >back wound is not the same bullet that exited his throat,
>
> Then where did the one exiting the throat come from?
Irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> >nd is hoping to
> >steer this discussion away from what he thinks to what I think, so that he
> >can pretend I am a wacky CT whose arguments can be readily dismissed.
>
> Well if you would be honest and tell us what you think, maybe that
> *would* look like a wacky CT argument.
>
> If so, it's your fault.
I take full responsibility for any nonsense spewed on my webpage. Do you
take responsibility for the nonsense spewed on your webpage? It appears
not.
>
> >But I'm not interested in what I think today. I'm interested in what he
> >thinks.
>
> Sashay(tm)!!
Not a sashay. An attempt to stick to the issue at hand.
>
> If you are an honest researcher, you will tell us what you think.
>
> So, are you an honest researcher?
If you were an honest researcher, you'd already know what I think. I've
been discussing the medical evidence on this forum for years now. And you
never took the time to figure out what I was talking about? Well, then how
did you know I was a "crackpot", or the "new generation's Jack White"?
>
> .John
> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm