Question for Pat Speer
John McAdams
Explain to me, if you would, why you think the bag being brought out
of the TSBD by officer Montgomery is not the bag currently in
evidence.
I've looked at this, and find assertions, not evidence:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter2%3Alookingthroughtheeyesofanall-se
Or maybe you mean this:
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3b%3Amenatwork
It seems obvious to me that you are assuming that Montgomery was
holding the bag straight upward, not tilted at all.
Are you aware of what happened to Jack White when he tried to take
this sort of analysis to the the HSCA?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#jwhite
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
pjspeare
the problems one encounters when trying to measure something seen at
an angle in a photo. But the problem with the bag in the news photos
has nothing to do with how straight up and down it was held. That
would only have an impact on the perceived length--the problem most
people associate with the bag. The problem I discovered was the width.
The bag in the evidence photos is only a little over 8 inches wide,
while the bag in the news photos--the bag actually pulled from the
building--was more like 12 inches wide. The wrapping paper used in the
TSBD was 24 inches wide. It would make sense for the paper to be 12
inches wide when folded in half to create a bag. A bag only 8 inches
wide, however, would suggest the bag was folded twice, and had a third
leaf, so to speak. So why do the evidence photos of the bag splayed
open fail to show this third leaf?
And why did the DPD fail to take any evidence photos of this bag
before the 26th?
And why did the FBI create a false history of this bag in the Drain
memo later changed on Hoover's orders, and claim the bag had been
shown to no one, when other memos from the same day acknowledged the
bag had been shown to Buell Frazier on the night of the 22nd?
And why was the bag in evidence NEVER shown to the three men who,
according to the DPD's own records, found the bag?
And why did Lt. Day play word games to make it sound like he found
the bag?
And why did the FBI, when asked to track down the chain of evidence on
the bag, show it to Day and Day alone, when the Warren Commission had
already received testimony from Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker on
the discovery of the bag, none of whom even mentioned Day's being
present when the bag was discovered?
And why did the FBI and WC fail to place the actual measurements of
the bag anywhere in the record?
And why did Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, in his book, caption a
photo of the bag in evidence as "probably" the bag found in the
sniper's nest?
You can call my research on this topic "crackpot" if you like, but the
fact remains that, when the FBI wants to estimate the size and
proportions of an object in question, they create a comparison photo,
using a similar object of known size and proportions. I have done
this, and am not just making up numbers, a la the autopsy photo
comparison of Robert Artwohl featured on your website.
http://www.patspeer.com/Notexact3.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/Yeold4.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/mosdef.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
John McAdams
>John, I'm well aware of what happened to White, and am well aware of
>the problems one encounters when trying to measure something seen at
>an angle in a photo. But the problem with the bag in the news photos
>has nothing to do with how straight up and down it was held.
Yes it does.
You don't seem to understand the basic principles here.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photog.htm
The angle at which is was held affects the *relative* dimensions shown
in a photo.
>That
>would only have an impact on the perceived length--the problem most
>people associate with the bag.
No, see the link above.
>The problem I discovered was the width.
>The bag in the evidence photos is only a little over 8 inches wide,
>while the bag in the news photos--the bag actually pulled from the
>building--was more like 12 inches wide. The wrapping paper used in the
>TSBD was 24 inches wide. It would make sense for the paper to be 12
>inches wide when folded in half to create a bag. A bag only 8 inches
>wide, however, would suggest the bag was folded twice, and had a third
>leaf, so to speak. So why do the evidence photos of the bag splayed
>open fail to show this third leaf?
>
I have no idea, but if the bag was faked, why would they not have
faked it with 24 inch wide paper?
And Cadigan testified that the paper on the bag in evidence *did* come
from the Depository.
>And why did the DPD fail to take any evidence photos of this bag
>before the 26th?
So what?
Are you assuming that any irregularity in DPD procedures shows
conspiracy?
>And why did the FBI create a false history of this bag in the Drain
>memo later changed on Hoover's orders, and claim the bag had been
>shown to no one, when other memos from the same day acknowledged the
>bag had been shown to Buell Frazier on the night of the 22nd?
Post the cites about the FBI creating a false history.
Frankly, I don't believe you and think you are misinterpreting the
sources.
But post the links to the documents, and let's see.
>And why was the bag in evidence NEVER shown to the three men who,
>according to the DPD's own records, found the bag?
Huh?
What's the point? The bag was the bag, with Oswald's fingerprint and
palmprint on it.
>And why did Lt. Day play word games to make it sound like he found
>the bag?
That's silly. Post the primary source on that.
>And why did the FBI, when asked to track down the chain of evidence on
>the bag, show it to Day and Day alone, when the Warren Commission had
>already received testimony from Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker on
>the discovery of the bag, none of whom even mentioned Day's being
>present when the bag was discovered?
You tell me? Why would they lie about that when they presumably knew
about (for example) the photos of Montgomery bringing the bag out of
the Depository?
I'm guessing that what happened is that they only dealt with the chain
of evidence *within the FBI.*
But post the document.
>And why did the FBI and WC fail to place the actual measurements of
>the bag anywhere in the record?
They had the bag itself.
You think you can just go around asking irrelevant questions and
impeach the evidence. It doesn't work that way.
>And why did Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry, in his book, caption a
>photo of the bag in evidence as "probably" the bag found in the
>sniper's nest?
>
Curry was clueless about a lot of things.
But I have to note that you are treating this as his saying that it
*wasn't* the bag. That's not what he said.
>You can call my research on this topic "crackpot" if you like, but the
>fact remains that, when the FBI wants to estimate the size and
>proportions of an object in question, they create a comparison photo,
>using a similar object of known size and proportions. I have done
>this, and am not just making up numbers, a la the autopsy photo
>comparison of Robert Artwohl featured on your website.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/Notexact3.jpg
That shows no evidence of a photogrammetric analysis.
>http://www.patspeer.com/Yeold4.jpg
>
Ditto.
>http://www.patspeer.com/mosdef.jpg
That's not a "recreation." Montgomery is clearly holding the bag
tilted toward the camera.
>http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
>
>
That's the same thing!
Look . . . you are doing a Jack White.
P.S. As for the Artwohl thing on my website, I also published --
right below it where anybody can check it out -- a critique of
Artwohl.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/critique.htm
Still . . . look at Artwohl, and the path has to be downward.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
And if you don't like the Artwohl analysis on my site, isn't that an
admission that your analysis is all screwy?
>
>On Sep 28, 9:09=A0pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> Explain to me, if you would, why you think the bag being brought out
>> of the TSBD by officer Montgomery is not the bag currently in
>> evidence.
>>
>> I've looked at this, and find assertions, not evidence:
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/chapter2%3Alookingthroughtheeyesofanall-se
>>
>> Or maybe you mean this:
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/chapter3b%3Amenatwork
>>
>> It seems obvious to me that you are assuming that Montgomery was
>> holding the bag straight upward, not tilted at all.
>>
>> Are you aware of what happened to Jack White when he tried to take
>> this sort of analysis to the the HSCA?
>>
>> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#jwhite
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
>
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
cdddraftsman
Seems Pat Speer is on a new kick !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGOQ2oebB2M
Pat Speer : "The photos of the bag removed from the building
depict a much larger bag than the one entered into evidence. No
eyewitnesses there. Just the facts".
cdddraftsman : I suppose you've proven that 'photogrammetrically'
instead of using a term like "depict" in your statement ?
end ....
tl
I've tried to tell him that using a yard stick , like Jack White , to
measure objects in photographs might have been way too cool back in the
70's and 80's but I don't think I got through ! :-)
John McAdams
>John, I'm well aware of what happened to White, and am well aware of
>the problems one encounters when trying to measure something seen at
>an angle in a photo. But the problem with the bag in the news photos
>has nothing to do with how straight up and down it was held. That
>would only have an impact on the perceived length--the problem most
>people associate with the bag. The problem I discovered was the width.
>The bag in the evidence photos is only a little over 8 inches wide,
>while the bag in the news photos--the bag actually pulled from the
>building--was more like 12 inches wide.
Note that Speer used two different photos of the bag being brought out
of the Depository on his page.
First we have this one:
>http://www.patspeer.com/Notexact3.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/Yeold4.jpg
>
It's the same one I have on my website.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bagpic.htm
It's a William Allen photo from the Dallas Times Herald.
But then we have this:
>http://www.patspeer.com/mosdef.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
>
Here we have a *different* photo, also apparently by William Allen.
The key thing is that the bag is *leaning* in the direction of the
camera on the latter photo. It's leaning more than the bag as
pictured in the first photo.
That's distorts the dimensions more.
I have no idea where Speer got his claim that the red line across the
bag in 8 1/2 inches. I'm guessing he did a Jack White, but he may not
have done anything even *that* sophisticated.
.John
pjspeare
at it. Observe its width. NOW, tilt it towards you. The WIDTH does not
change. Now, tilt it back upright. And then turn it slowly to the right.
Its appearance gets THINNER. The width of an essentially flat object is
never so wide as when it is viewed straight on. The bag in the news photos
is viewed almost straight on, which means that, if anything, it is wider
than its appearance in the photo.
And yet it is already approximately 50% WIDER than the bag placed into
evidence.
The way the government tested the rifle and backyard photos was to take
re-enactment photos. This is what they do. I took a re-enactment photo
with a piece of cardboard the size of the bag placed into evidence... And
the cardboard is OBVIOUSLY way smaller than the bag in the news photos. As
far as the rest of your questions about the bag...you really need to read
chapter 4d at patspeer.com.
http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4d%3Asackoflies
As far as your comment about Artwohl, can you really be claiming my
questioning his nonsense makes ME "screwy"? Do you not realize that the
entrance wound location proposed by Artwohl is INCHES higher on Kennedy's
back than the C7/T1 entrance proposed by the HSCA FPP, and agreed to in
your recent debate?
The blue line on the following slide is at the HSCA entrance which...I
agree with. The tan line is Artwohl's proposed entrance.
http://www.patspeer.com/coatcheck.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
On Sep 29, 11:19 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
cdddraftsman
> Wow. I can't believe I have to explain this. Pick up a book. Look straight
> at it. Observe its width. NOW, tilt it towards you. The WIDTH does not
> change. Now, tilt it back upright. And then turn it slowly to the right.
> Its appearance gets THINNER. The width of an essentially flat object is
> never so wide as when it is viewed straight on. The bag in the news photos
> is viewed almost straight on,
PS : "which means that, if anything, it is wider than its appearance
in the photo".
What is the matter with you ?
READ MY LIPS PAT SPEER IF YOU CAN'T PROVE IT PHOTOGRAMMETRICALLY
YOU'VE GOT NOTHING ON WHICH TO GO ON !
LETS SEE YOUR MATHMATICAL COMPUTATIONS PROVING YOUR POINT !
This should be a key to all of those who wish to quantify what John
Locke did in his FAQ : http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/faq.txt
about the assassination :
JL : "this section lists a number of the dizzying array of deceptive
techniques used in conspiracy" :
Pay particular attention to the section :
"COMMON CONSPIRACY BOOK DECEPTIONS"
8.1 Sell emotion first
8.2 Scare the reader away from primary documents
(Pat Speer can't be accused of that , he invites you to them , then
scares the hell out of you by mangling the interpretation beyond all
recognition . He does this by climbing in the minds of others and
tells you what he thinks they are thinking . This always has a
conspiratorial slant. SURPRISE !)
8.3 Distort the evidence
8.4 Emphasize eyewitness testimony
8.5 Emphasize unsworn witnesses
8.6 Raise non-essential issues
8.7 Omit the complete context of the evidence
8.8 Promote yourself to expert
(This Pat Speer has done unconvincingly . His 'slick willy' I studied
three years , subjects that take an expert thirty years to obtain , is
smoothed over by statements like I'm willing to revise www.patspeer.com
if proven wrong . (ie. so as he flounders through his contrived
investigation we're supposed to give him an education along the way ,
as he's dragged screaming and yelling objections , for free ?)
8.9 Don't solicit the other side of the story
8.10 Accuse the defenseless
8.11 Emphasize preliminary information
8.12 Recycle discredited evidence
(This I will admit he is a unsurpassed master at)
end ....
tl
John McAdams
>Wow. I can't believe I have to explain this. Pick up a book. Look straight
>at it. Observe its width. NOW, tilt it towards you. The WIDTH does not
>change. Now, tilt it back upright. And then turn it slowly to the right.
>Its appearance gets THINNER. The width of an essentially flat object is
>never so wide as when it is viewed straight on.
Except for the fact that the bag is closer to the camera, and
therefore will look wider.
>The bag in the news photos
>is viewed almost straight on, which means that, if anything, it is wider
>than its appearance in the photo.
>
>And yet it is already approximately 50% WIDER than the bag placed into
>evidence.
>
How about explaining just what you did? How did you derive the
dimensions of the bag in the Allen photo?
And how did you derive the dimensions of the bag that you are holding
in the photo?
>The way the government tested the rifle and backyard photos was to take
>re-enactment photos. This is what they do. I took a re-enactment photo
>with a piece of cardboard the size of the bag placed into evidence... And
>the cardboard is OBVIOUSLY way smaller than the bag in the news photos. As
>far as the rest of your questions about the bag...you really need to read
>chapter 4d at patspeer.com.
>
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4d%3Asackoflies
I've read that, and it appears that your "Montgomery a midget" comment
shows that you are arguing about the *length* of the bag in the photo.
That most surely changes as the bag is tilted toward he camera.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
>As far as your comment about Artwohl, can you really be claiming my
>questioning his nonsense makes ME "screwy"? Do you not realize that the
>entrance wound location proposed by Artwohl is INCHES higher on Kennedy's
>back than the C7/T1 entrance proposed by the HSCA FPP, and agreed to in
>your recent debate?
>
>The blue line on the following slide is at the HSCA entrance which...I
>agree with. The tan line is Artwohl's proposed entrance.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/coatcheck.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
Oh, my!
You aren't aware of the fact that the entry wound was 5.3 inches down
from the *top* of the collar, not the bottom.
And numerous photos show the coat bunched.
You need to deal with the back photo, and the fact that a neck crease
is visible in both the back and the lateral photo.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
soilysound
in the photos. The bag in the photo outside the TSBD is wider than the
WC bag. The only question is whether they're both in the same state of
foldeness.
pjspeare
of cardboard 38 by 8--the supposed proportions of the bag in the
photo-- and see if it looks anything like it. This is how the FBI and
Secret Service tested the backyard photos. This is how, according to
books on the FBI, photo analysis is performed. Do it. See what you can
come up with.
Failing that, and proving your absolute failure to counter anything
I've written without stooping to deception and insults, you should
just go away.
John McAdams
>Lowry, you are hereby challenged. Recreate the news photo with a piece
>of cardboard 38 by 8--the supposed proportions of the bag in the
>photo--
OK, where did you get 38 x 8 inches?
Is that based on the bag in evidence? Or on witness testimony?
>and see if it looks anything like it. This is how the FBI and
>Secret Service tested the backyard photos. This is how, according to
>books on the FBI, photo analysis is performed. Do it. See what you can
>come up with.
>
You might try taking a 38 x 8 inches bag and HOLD IT AT THE
ORIENTATION OF THE BAG SHOWN IN THE PHOTO.
Holding it straight up and down doesn't hack it.
pjspeare
never given in a report or in testimony. Counsel Joseph Ball approximates
the width as 8 inches in Linnie Mae Randle's testimony, however. And the
FBI and WC did publish photos of the bag with a ruler in the photo...as
shown here
http://www.patspeer.com/Yeold4.jpg
These evidence photos establish that the bag was about 38 by 8.
And yet the bag in the news photos is clearly much wider...
As far as your claim that the bag in the news photo is leaning a bit
towards the camera, and that this accounts for it appearing to be much
much wider, I've already shot this down, here...
http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
This shows that, in order for the 38 by 8 piece of cardboard to match the
width of the bag in the news photo, it would have to have been leaning
several yards closer to the camera, not inches.
The bags are most positively NOT of the same dimensions. Now, perhaps you
can find an innocent explanation for this. The best I can come up with is
that the DPD or FBI felt sure Oswald did it, but was concerned about
Frazier's contention the bag found in the depository was far wider than
the bag he saw with Oswald, and decided to re-fold and down- size the bag.
This might explain why the bag was never shown to the men who saw it in
the depository, and claimed to sign it in the depository. Their signatures
had been removed...
But then there's also the possibility the bag was replaced with something
both smaller and bearing the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
And we needn't argue that DAY signed the bag in the depository so this
would have been impossible...The other three men never mention him in
relation to the bag. The bag was removed from the building before Day
returned from taking the rifle over to his office. His report on his 11-22
activities fails to note he was there when the bag was discovered. The DPD
summary of 11-22 says Montgomery found it. Richard Trask, in Pictures of
the Pain, also proposes that Day signed the bag later that night, at DPD
headquarters...
On Sep 30, 9:50 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
pjspeare
to deal with the fact that, with the Artwohl analysis, you are pushing a
"crackpot photo analysis" severely at odds with the findings of the HSCA
pathology panel, to whom you normally defer.
http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/zimcom.jpg
On Sep 30, 7:44 am, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
John McAdams
>John, as I've said, the exact measurements for the bag in evidence are
>never given in a report or in testimony. Counsel Joseph Ball approximates
>the width as 8 inches in Linnie Mae Randle's testimony, however. And the
>FBI and WC did publish photos of the bag with a ruler in the photo...as
>shown here
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/Yeold4.jpg
>
>These evidence photos establish that the bag was about 38 by 8.
>
OK, for the sake of argument I'll accept that you have a sufficiently
high-resolution version to read the ruler.
>And yet the bag in the news photos is clearly much wider...
>
OK, how did you estimate the dimensions of the bag in the news photo?
This where where I think you did a Jack White.
>As far as your claim that the bag in the news photo is leaning a bit
>towards the camera, and that this accounts for it appearing to be much
>much wider, I've already shot this down, here...
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
>
No you haven't.
You have just made a nonsense assertion that "Montgomery was a midget"
if the bag is the same dimension.
But that doesn't follow unless you know the *length* of the bag in the
Allen photo.
So how did you derive the length of the bag in the Allen photo?
>This shows that, in order for the 38 by 8 piece of cardboard to match the
>width of the bag in the news photo, it would have to have been leaning
>several yards closer to the camera, not inches.
>
>The bags are most positively NOT of the same dimensions. Now, perhaps you
>can find an innocent explanation for this. The best I can come up with is
>that the DPD or FBI felt sure Oswald did it, but was concerned about
>Frazier's contention the bag found in the depository was far wider than
>the bag he saw with Oswald, and decided to re-fold and down- size the bag.
>This might explain why the bag was never shown to the men who saw it in
>the depository, and claimed to sign it in the depository. Their signatures
>had been removed...
>
>But then there's also the possibility the bag was replaced with something
>both smaller and bearing the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>
>And we needn't argue that DAY signed the bag in the depository so this
>would have been impossible...The other three men never mention him in
>relation to the bag. The bag was removed from the building before Day
>returned from taking the rifle over to his office. His report on his 11-22
>activities fails to note he was there when the bag was discovered. The DPD
>summary of 11-22 says Montgomery found it. Richard Trask, in Pictures of
>the Pain, also proposes that Day signed the bag later that night, at DPD
>headquarters...
>
>
That's all red herring stuff -- throwing up a cloud of "questions" to
avoid the main point.
How did you derive the dimentions of the bag shown in the Allen photo?
John McAdams
>John, I deal with the neck crease etc ad nauseum on my webpage. You need
>to deal with the fact that, with the Artwohl analysis, you are pushing a
>"crackpot photo analysis" severely at odds with the findings of the HSCA
>pathology panel, to whom you normally defer.
>
Right, and you are latching onto the HSCA Panel which you normally
think were lying scum.
>http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/ThePortableHole.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/zimcom.jpg
>
>
Your only argument against the Artwohl analysis is that the HSCA
thought the path of the bullet was upward with Kennedy in the anatomic
position.
You need to seriously deal with Artwohl's analysis, which is based on
the nuchal crease. It's visible in both the back photo and the
lateral photo.
Explain what is wrong with his analysis.
For lurkers, here it is:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/angle.jpg
Anthony Marsh
I am interested in the sizes of the folds and what the folded up bag
dimensions would be. If it works out to about 8x6 that seems a little
bulky for Oswald to smuggle out unnoticed by Frazier on the ride to
Irving.
Anthony Marsh
> On 29 Sep 2009 22:29:12 -0400, pjspeare <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>
>> As far as your comment about Artwohl, can you really be claiming my
>> questioning his nonsense makes ME "screwy"? Do you not realize that the
>> entrance wound location proposed by Artwohl is INCHES higher on Kennedy's
>> back than the C7/T1 entrance proposed by the HSCA FPP, and agreed to in
>> your recent debate?
>>
>> The blue line on the following slide is at the HSCA entrance which...I
>> agree with. The tan line is Artwohl's proposed entrance.
>>
>> http://www.patspeer.com/coatcheck.jpg
>> http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>> http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
>
> Oh, my!
>
> You aren't aware of the fact that the entry wound was 5.3 inches down
> from the *top* of the collar, not the bottom.
>
> And numerous photos show the coat bunched.
>
That's fun to play around with the clothes, but you seem to forget that
there was ALSO a hole in the shirt, which was NOT bunched up like the
coat. And you need to deal with the actual autopsy photos, which are real.
The wound is BELOW the top of the right shoulder. Anyone who depicts the
wound as being ABOVE the top of the shoulders is lying.
John McAdams
<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>John McAdams wrote:
>> On 29 Sep 2009 22:29:12 -0400, pjspeare <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>>> As far as your comment about Artwohl, can you really be claiming my
>>> questioning his nonsense makes ME "screwy"? Do you not realize that the
>>> entrance wound location proposed by Artwohl is INCHES higher on Kennedy's
>>> back than the C7/T1 entrance proposed by the HSCA FPP, and agreed to in
>>> your recent debate?
>>>
>>> The blue line on the following slide is at the HSCA entrance which...I
>>> agree with. The tan line is Artwohl's proposed entrance.
>>>
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/coatcheck.jpg
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>>> http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
>>
>> Oh, my!
>>
>> You aren't aware of the fact that the entry wound was 5.3 inches down
>> from the *top* of the collar, not the bottom.
>>
>> And numerous photos show the coat bunched.
>>
>
>That's fun to play around with the clothes, but you seem to forget that
>there was ALSO a hole in the shirt, which was NOT bunched up like the
>coat.
And you know that how?
>And you need to deal with the actual autopsy photos, which are real.
>The wound is BELOW the top of the right shoulder. Anyone who depicts the
>wound as being ABOVE the top of the shoulders is lying.
>
>
The wound was at C7/T1, just like the autopsy photos (which Artwohl
used) show.
tomnln
See page 92 of the WCR.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:5dr6c59iieevupjfs...@4ax.com...
Anthony Marsh
> On 30 Sep 2009 16:16:45 -0400, Anthony Marsh
> <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> John McAdams wrote:
>>> On 29 Sep 2009 22:29:12 -0400, pjspeare <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As far as your comment about Artwohl, can you really be claiming my
>>>> questioning his nonsense makes ME "screwy"? Do you not realize that the
>>>> entrance wound location proposed by Artwohl is INCHES higher on Kennedy's
>>>> back than the C7/T1 entrance proposed by the HSCA FPP, and agreed to in
>>>> your recent debate?
>>>>
>>>> The blue line on the following slide is at the HSCA entrance which...I
>>>> agree with. The tan line is Artwohl's proposed entrance.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.patspeer.com/coatcheck.jpg
>>>> http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>>>> http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
>>> Oh, my!
>>>
>>> You aren't aware of the fact that the entry wound was 5.3 inches down
>>> from the *top* of the collar, not the bottom.
>>>
>>> And numerous photos show the coat bunched.
>>>
>> That's fun to play around with the clothes, but you seem to forget that
>> there was ALSO a hole in the shirt, which was NOT bunched up like the
>> coat.
>
> And you know that how?
>
Because I know the way the shirt was custom tailored and it is
physically impossible that the hole got above the top of his shoulders.
>
>> And you need to deal with the actual autopsy photos, which are real.
>> The wound is BELOW the top of the right shoulder. Anyone who depicts the
>> wound as being ABOVE the top of the shoulders is lying.
>>
>>
>
> The wound was at C7/T1, just like the autopsy photos (which Artwohl
> used) show.
>
Of course, but neither you nor Artwohl know where C7/T1 was on Kennedy.
John Fiorentino
Chad as right on in this regard as was Dr. Lattimer. I demonstrate this
amply in my book, and also explain why Baden was WRONG.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:487921ec-90e3-420a...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
your point is Speare.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:dcd26407-f7b7-49eb...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
pjspeare
lateral autopsy photo has the entrance at T-1, as in the HSCA's
analysis, or even C-7, you've been hoodwinked.
http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
As you can see from the images on the bottom right corner of the slide
below, from your old friend Chad's now-defunct website, the Artwohl
entrance is about C-5.
http://www.patspeer.com/zimcom.jpg
On Sep 30, 1:18 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
> On 30 Sep 2009 16:16:45 -0400, Anthony Marsh
>
>
>
> <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >John McAdams wrote:
pjspeare
show non-interested parties Lattimer's single-bullet theory drawing
and tell them there are people out there who actually think it is an
honest interpretation of the autopsy photos, they refuse to believe
me. There is NO single aspect of the single-assassin theory as utterly
void of credibility as Lattimer and his suggestion the back wound was
actually higher on the back than depicted in the Rydberg drawings.
Please give me a link where I can view your defense of Lattimer and
his completely bogus theory.
http://www.patspeer.com/lattimeran.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/latvlat.jpg
http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
On Sep 30, 7:56 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> The only "Crackpot analysis" is yours Speare.
>
> Chad as right on in this regard as was Dr. Lattimer. I demonstrate this
> amply in my book, and also explain why Baden was WRONG.
>
> John F.
>
> "pjspeare" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:487921ec-90e3-420a...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> John, I deal with the neck crease etc ad nauseum on my webpage. You need
> to deal with the fact that, with the Artwohl analysis, you are pushing a
> "crackpot photo analysis" severely at odds with the findings of the HSCA
> pathology panel, to whom you normally defer.
>
pjspeare
showed that the object in the news photo was obviously larger than this
object of known measurements. This is not exactly rocket science. The FBI
re-enacted the back yard photos in much the same way to see if the rifle
in the photos could be the one found in the depository.
As far as my estimates of the size of the bag in the news photo...I
matched the vertical distance between the folds of the bag in the news
photo with the bag in evidence. These seemed to match. When this was done,
however, the width of the bag failed to match...it was not even close.
Now all this talk has me curious...are you really trying to argue that my
methodology is questionable etc, and that my photo analysis of the bag
should therefore be ignored? If so, that's just sad. All you have to do
to prove me wrong is re-enact the news photo using an object 38 by 8, the
purported size of the bag. Please do. Show us what this would look like.
Maybe I'm wrong. While my girlfriend is a photo geek, and assures me that
the news photo was taken with a 50mm prime lens that captures what the eye
sees and would not distort the size of the bag at that distance, feel free
to ask around and see if you can re- create the photo using a lens that
makes the bag look wider than its actual size. Or, if you still stand by
your earlier assertion that the angle of the bag in the photo distorted
its apparent size, please play with different angles and show us the
results...
As far as the slide below, which absolutely proves my point, let me try to
explain it one more time. Your argument is that the bag's leaning a few
inches towards the camera in the news photo distorts it size, and makes it
look larger than the bag in my re-enactment. Well, if this were true, the
width of the bag in my re-enactment photo should match the width of the
bag in the news photo if I moved a few inches closer to the camera. But,
as proved on the slide, I would need to move yards closer to the camera to
get the bag in the photos to match. Or do you fail to see that my size in
the re-enactment photo, when the bags are made to match, creates the
illusion I am yards closer to the camera than Montgomery in the news
photo?
http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
On Sep 30, 1:00 pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
John McAdams
>I re-enacted the news photo using an object of known measurements, and
>showed that the object in the news photo was obviously larger than this
>object of known measurements.
You mean it *looks* larger.
Did you examine it photogrammetrically?
>This is not exactly rocket science. The FBI
>re-enacted the back yard photos in much the same way to see if the rifle
>in the photos could be the one found in the depository.
>
Not really. The HSCA PEP examined the Backyard Photos and all the
photos of the MC *photogrammetrically* to see is the dimensions were
consistent.
>As far as my estimates of the size of the bag in the news photo...I
>matched the vertical distance between the folds of the bag in the news
>photo with the bag in evidence. These seemed to match. When this was done,
>however, the width of the bag failed to match...it was not even close.
>
OIC.
Did you take into account the *tilt* of the bag in the photo?
>Now all this talk has me curious...are you really trying to argue that my
>methodology is questionable etc,
Yes.
>and that my photo analysis of the bag
>should therefore be ignored?
I'm obviously not "ignoring" it, but it should not be treated as
evidence.
>If so, that's just sad. All you have to do
>to prove me wrong is re-enact the news photo using an object 38 by 8, the
>purported size of the bag. Please do.
No, you are the one trying to impeach the bag as evidence, you do.
>Show us what this would look like.
>Maybe I'm wrong. While my girlfriend is a photo geek, and assures me that
>the news photo was taken with a 50mm prime lens that captures what the eye
>sees and would not distort the size of the bag at that distance,
You just flat don't understand, since you haven't bothered to read
what the HSCA said about calculating measurements in photos.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photog.htm
>feel free
>to ask around and see if you can re- create the photo using a lens that
>makes the bag look wider than its actual size. Or, if you still stand by
>your earlier assertion that the angle of the bag in the photo distorted
>its apparent size, please play with different angles and show us the
>results...
>
Sorry, it's not my responsibility to do that. It's your analysis, so
you do it right.
>As far as the slide below, which absolutely proves my point, let me try to
>explain it one more time. Your argument is that the bag's leaning a few
>inches towards the camera in the news photo distorts it size, and makes it
>look larger than the bag in my re-enactment. Well, if this were true, the
>width of the bag in my re-enactment photo should match the width of the
>bag in the news photo if I moved a few inches closer to the camera. But,
>as proved on the slide, I would need to move yards closer to the camera to
>get the bag in the photos to match. Or do you fail to see that my size in
>the re-enactment photo, when the bags are made to match, creates the
>illusion I am yards closer to the camera than Montgomery in the news
>photo?
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
You just aren't following this.
The tilt of the bag is more critical than how close to the camera you
are.
You need to tilt the bag as much as Montgomery is tilting it.
>
>
>
>On Sep 30, 1:00=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2009 15:50:02 -0400, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> >John, as I've said, the exact measurements for the bag in evidence are
>> >never given in a report or in testimony. Counsel Joseph Ball approximate=
>s
>> >the width as 8 inches in Linnie Mae Randle's testimony, however. And the
>> >FBI and WC did publish photos of the bag with a ruler in the photo...as
>> >shown here
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/Yeold4.jpg
>>
>> >These evidence photos establish that the bag was about 38 by 8.
>>
>> OK, for the sake of argument I'll accept that you have a sufficiently
>> high-resolution version to read the ruler.
>>
>> >And yet the bag in the news photos is clearly much wider...
>>
>> OK, how did you estimate the dimensions of the bag in the news photo?
>>
>> This where where I think you did a Jack White.
>>
>> >As far as your claim that the bag in the news photo is leaning a bit
>> >towards the camera, and that this accounts for it appearing to be much
>> >much wider, I've already shot this down, here...
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/Theopp.jpg
>>
>> No you haven't.
>>
>> You have just made a nonsense assertion that "Montgomery was a midget"
>> if the bag is the same dimension.
>>
>> But that doesn't follow unless you know the *length* of the bag in the
>> Allen photo.
>>
>> So how did you derive the length of the bag in the Allen photo?
>>
>>
>>
>> >This shows that, in order for the 38 by 8 piece of cardboard to match th=
>e
>> >width of the bag in the news photo, it would have to have been leaning
>> >several yards closer to the camera, not inches.
>>
>> >The bags are most positively NOT of the same dimensions. Now, perhaps yo=
>u
>> >can find an innocent explanation for this. The best I can come up with i=
>s
>> >that the DPD or FBI felt sure Oswald did it, but was concerned about
>> >Frazier's contention the bag found in the depository was far wider than
>> >the bag he saw with Oswald, and decided to re-fold and down- size the ba=
>g.
>> >This might explain why the bag was never shown to the men who saw it in
>> >the depository, and claimed to sign it in the depository. Their signatur=
>es
>> >had been removed...
>>
>> >But then there's also the possibility the bag was replaced with somethin=
>g
>> >both smaller and bearing the prints of Lee Harvey Oswald.
>>
>> >And we needn't argue that DAY signed the bag in the depository so this
>> >would have been impossible...The other three men never mention him in
>> >relation to the bag. The bag was removed from the building before Day
>> >returned from taking the rifle over to his office. His report on his 11-=
>22
>> >activities fails to note he was there when the bag was discovered. The D=
John Fiorentino
2nd try answering my query re: your "bag" switcheroo theory, and I will
explain to you in several sentences, why you are simply "out to lunch."
John
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:ba333880-1c4b-402f...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
Sure, but in fairness to Lattimer's kookiness he would point out that the
photo of JFK on the right was taken years earlier, before all the
cortisone shots had created the imaginary hump which he sees in the photo
on the left.
And isn't your swim photo on the left reversed left for right?
Anthony Marsh
> Nonsense, Fiorentuno. Lattimer was completely out to lunch. When I
> show non-interested parties Lattimer's single-bullet theory drawing
> and tell them there are people out there who actually think it is an
> honest interpretation of the autopsy photos, they refuse to believe
> me. There is NO single aspect of the single-assassin theory as utterly
> void of credibility as Lattimer and his suggestion the back wound was
> actually higher on the back than depicted in the Rydberg drawings.
> Please give me a link where I can view your defense of Lattimer and
> his completely bogus theory.
>
>
> http://www.patspeer.com/lattimeran.jpg
> http://www.patspeer.com/latvlat.jpg
> http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>
I think one of the motivations for Lattimer to create his drawing was that
he thought the angle in the Rydberg drawings was not steep enough for a
SBT to hit Connally. The problem is that he started with the incorrect
notion that he needed a 25 degree downward angle for a SBT. If he can't
move the throat wound down and wasn't smart enough to think of tipping JFK
forward, then the only other way to get a 25 degree angle was to place the
back wound higher. If he didn't create that hump the higher location would
have been on the neck.
soilysound
I'm not quite sure what the argument here is. How does the tilt actually
help your case John? If its wider when titled then it's wider when flat on
too. The bag in the photo is, in the state it's in in the photo, wider
than the bag in evidence. The question for me is whether the bag is in the
same state in both photos, and that all depends on how the bag was
constructed.
Chuck Schuyler
>
> You just aren't following this.
>
> The tilt of the bag is more critical than how close to the camera you
> are.
>
> You need to tilt the bag as much as Montgomery is tilting it.
He won't do it.
He's afraid he may need to admit something about his bag theory that
he doesn't want to admit.
pjspeare
Your argument is pure smoke. The FBI and WC provided us with photos of the
bag in evidence. Like most evidence photos, they placed a ruler in the
photo so that people studying the photo in the future could approximate
the size of the item in evidence. Based on the photos and the testimony,
then, it has long been accepted that the bag in evidence is approximately
38 by 8. Bugliosi and others have used this number for decades.
So I had a photograph taken of a 38 by 8 object from what is obviously
close to the same distance using what I've been told by photo buffs is
obviously the same type lens. And this showed the bag in the news photo to
be much wider than the bag in evidence.
I, then, to counter the inevitable arguments that the bag in the news
photo was tilted to the camera, or that Montgomery was closer to the
camera, and that this slight difference made the bag appear far wider than
the 38 by 8 object in my re-enactment photo, created a comparison in which
the bag widths matched. When one looks at this comparison, it is clear as
day that the bag in the re-enactment photo would have to been 5 or 6 feet
closer to the camera in order for the two bags to match...which absolutely
positively rules out that a slight forward tilt in the news photo accounts
for the difference in apparent size.
Now you can either try to refute my proposition by taking a picture of a
38 by 8 object where it does look to be the same width, or you can accept
my proposition.
But claiming this methodology--a common-sense methodology used by police
forces everywhere--is not an effective way of establishing the relative
size of objects is just nonsense...particularly when you promote the photo
analysis of Robert Artwohl on your webpage--one of the most ludicrous and
unscientific studies of the photos I've seen.
I mean, really...one cannot claim that both the autopsy measurements
and Artwohl's study were accurate, can one?
http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
And, oh by the way, the blue star in the comparison below representing the
bullet entrance on the clothes has been measured from the top of the
collar, not the bottom. The blue star represents the distance to the
bullet hole on the clothes if JFK's ear was 6.2 cm--my approximate. The
beige star represents the distance if the ear is 8 cm--Artwohl's
approximate. Both are far too low to match Artwohl's entrance.
http://www.patspeer.com/coatcheck.jpg
P.S. Who changed the title of this thread? It was most certainly not
I.
On Oct 1, 11:28 am, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
David Von Pein
Quick Summing Up:
To think that the DPD "faked" a paper bag (seen in the Montgomery photos)
by late afternoon on 11/22/63 is just plain silly.
The cops have "LHO" evidence coming out of their ears (besides the bag) --
e.g., bullets, shells, prints, Oswald's gun, the Tippit murder.....and yet
they feel the NEED to fake a paper bag too?
Get real, Mr. Speer. The double-bag theory is just plain dumb (not to
mention totally unprovable, as are all conspiracy theories).
pjspeare
photo comparison showing that the two bags are not the same
proportions. Now, you can prove me wrong by accurately re-creating the
photo with a 38 by 8 object, or you can stick your head in the sand
and claim that what you are seeing just isn't true, and that leaning a
piece of paper 15 feet from a camera a few inches towards the camera
will make it appear 50% larger than its actual size. Take your pick.
As far as Lattimer, your failure to point me in the direction of one
photo comparison you think proves him correct, says it all. There's no
there there. You'd rather stomp your feet and insist he's right then
take a look at the historical record--which shows that when he thought
the photos would never be shown to the public, Lattimer told the
public the back wound was higher than in the Rydberg drawings. He
never thought the HSCA doctors would admit the back wound was 2 inches
lower than in the Rydberg drawings. He never thought he'd be exposed
in such a manner.
Which is why he rushed out Kennedy and Lincoln the year after the HSCA
issued its report exposing him as a nitwit, or fraud... He desperately
wanted to cloud the issue... and unfortunately succeeded.
Now put on your thinking cap. Lattimer admitted the entrance wound was
2 inches below a crease at the base of Kennedy's neck. He also claimed
this wound was at the level of Kennedy's chin. Now think. I know this
is hard. But when was the last time you saw a person with the base of
their neck 2 inches above their chin???
On Oct 1, 3:28 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Well, Speare first off the "link" you seek is me.
>
> 2nd try answering my query re: your "bag" switcheroo theory, and I will
> explain to you in several sentences, why you are simply "out to lunch."
>
> John
>
> "pjspeare" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:ba333880-1c4b-402f...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Nonsense, Fiorentuno. Lattimer was completely out to lunch. When I
> show non-interested parties Lattimer's single-bullet theory drawing
> and tell them there are people out there who actually think it is an
> honest interpretation of the autopsy photos, they refuse to believe
> me. There is NO single aspect of the single-assassin theory as utterly
> void of credibility as Lattimer and his suggestion the back wound was
> actually higher on the back than depicted in the Rydberg drawings.
> Please give me a link where I can view your defense of Lattimer and
> his completely bogus theory.
>
>
> On Sep 30, 7:56 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > The only "Crackpot analysis" is yours Speare.
>
> > Chad as right on in this regard as was Dr. Lattimer. I demonstrate this
> > amply in my book, and also explain why Baden was WRONG.
>
> > John F.
>
> > "pjspeare" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> >news:487921ec-90e3-420a...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> > John, I deal with the neck crease etc ad nauseum on my webpage. You need
> > to deal with the fact that, with the Artwohl analysis, you are pushing a
> > "crackpot photo analysis" severely at odds with the findings of the HSCA
> > pathology panel, to whom you normally defer.
>
> >http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpghttp://www.patspeer.com/locat...
pjspeare
and it's Lattimer who reversed the image...
> >>http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpghttp://www.patspeer.com/locat...
soilysound
Who said anything about faking a bag on the afternoon? That's a red
herring like the idea someone planted a bullet on the stretcher at
Parkland. What actually seems to be happening is evidence is changing
after the fact, sometimes quite a bit later. I mean it could all just
be confusion and noise, but to suggest the entire bag story is
completely straightforward issue is a bit disingenuous.
And the Dallas police were actually in a position, the day or two
after the assassination, where their case against Oswald looked shaky.
The paraffin test was exculpatory, where there were no fingerprints on
the rifle, and some witnesses placed Oswald elsewhere. For a while,
the bag evidence was probably quite crucial to the case against
Oswald. If (and it's still an if for me) there was any bag tampering
going on, it probably happened in that time period not right after the
shooting when nobody knew what was happening.
pjspeare
switched. I am sure the bag in the news photo is wider than the bag in
the evidence photo. I'm also sure that the slight lean of the bag in
the news photo had no noticeable effect on its apparent size. Which is
why I created the Opposite Approach slide, which demonstrates that, in
order for the bags to match, the bag in the news photo would have to
have tilted or leaned YARDS closer to the camera...
pjspeare
of the 22nd or the morning of the 23rd (after Frazier refused to ID
the bag as the one Oswald had been carrying)... At that time the DPD
and FBI had not linked the rifle to Oswald, had not found Oswald's
prints on the rifle, had not linked the threads in Oswald's shirt to
the rifle, and had not found any prints in the sniper's nest other
than the one print on the box they thought was the sniper's seat...
They also had one eyewitness who initially said he could identify the
shooter, but then backed off and refused to do so after getting a look
at Oswald. In short, they didn't have much of a case...
Certainly you're not so naive that you think policeman never fake
evidence? If so, you need to read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Police_Troop_C_scandal
John Fiorentino
backing off that?
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:43f7f8f2-4ebc-4aba...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Anthony Marsh
> Anthony, I found the original uncropped version of this photo online,
> and it's Lattimer who reversed the image...
>
Thanks. How can you prove which is the correct orientation?
David Von Pein
>>> "David, if the bag was faked, it was most probably faked on the
evening of the 22nd or the morning of the 23rd (after Frazier refused to
ID the bag as the one Oswald had been carrying)." <<<
Huh??
So, you think that this bag (linked below) being held by Det. Montgomery
of the DPD is, in fact, a "real" and legitimate bag that WAS, indeed,
discovered by police in the TSBD on the day of the assassination?:
But you then think that the cops faked a DIFFERENT bag later on 11/22
(in the evening sometime)?
And the cops did this even though they ALREADY HAD A LEGITIMATE BAG
THAT WAS FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR IN THE SNIPER'S NEST?
Did the police then "plant" two of Oswald's prints on the fake bag?
In short -- Your theory is utter silliness and nonsense. The bag linked
above is obviously the very same bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest
with two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it (CE142). To believe anything
else is to believe in some really extraordinary crappola (aka:
conspiracist-invented shit).
Anthony Marsh
> Quick Summing Up:
>
> To think that the DPD "faked" a paper bag (seen in the Montgomery photos)
> by late afternoon on 11/22/63 is just plain silly.
>
> The cops have "LHO" evidence coming out of their ears (besides the bag) --
> e.g., bullets, shells, prints, Oswald's gun, the Tippit murder.....and yet
> they feel the NEED to fake a paper bag too?
>
Depends on the cop. The LA detectives had tons of evidence to convict OJ
Simpson, but one of them thought they needed to plant a bloody glove
just to tighten their case.
soilysound
> >>> "Who said anything about faking a bag on the afternoon?" <<<
>
>
> Pat Speer obvious is suggesting that very thing. (Duh.)
>
> Speer has Montgomery being photographed with a bag (on the afternoon
> of 11/22/63) that Speer is claiming is NOT the same bag as seen in
> CE142.
>
> Quite obviously, then, Speer is saying that Montgomery's bag must have
> been faked or manufactured prior to the photo being taken.
Pat isn't suggesting that at all (Not that I want to speak for him).
He's saying that at some point within the next 48 hours the bag
evidence might have been tampered with. The evidence for this is
persuasive. What it all means is a different matter.
John McAdams
wrote:
>> >> >summary of 11-22 says Montgomery found it. Richard Trask, in Pictures of
>> >> >the Pain, also proposes that Day signed the bag later that night, at DPD
>> >> >headquarters...
>>
>> >> That's all red herring stuff -- throwing up a cloud of "questions" to
>> >> avoid the main point.
>>
>> >> How did you derive the dimentions of the bag shown in the Allen photo?
>>
>
>I'm not quite sure what the argument here is. How does the tilt actually
>help your case John? If its wider when titled then it's wider when flat on
>too.
Good question, which is a bit difficult to answer since I can't get a
real clear answer as to what Pat did.
But he needs to recreate the Allen photo by holding the bag and
tilting it toward the camera -- just like Allen photo.
>The bag in the photo is, in the state it's in in the photo, wider
>than the bag in evidence. The question for me is whether the bag is in the
>same state in both photos, and that all depends on how the bag was
>constructed.
But the bag in evidence has Oswald's palm print and fingerprint on it.
How did they get there -- unless the bag in evidence is the one Oswald
used to bring the rifle in to the Depository?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>Chuck, I'm not sure why the bag was switched or even if it was
>switched. I am sure the bag in the news photo is wider than the bag in
>the evidence photo. I'm also sure that the slight lean of the bag in
>the news photo had no noticeable effect on its apparent size. Which is
>why I created the Opposite Approach slide, which demonstrates that, in
>order for the bags to match, the bag in the news photo would have to
>have tilted or leaned YARDS closer to the camera...
>
Why don't you just recreate the Allen photo -- tilt and all.
>On Oct 1, 3:44�pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 1, 1:28�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > You just aren't following this.
>>
>> > The tilt of the bag is more critical than how close to the camera you
>> > are.
>>
>> > You need to tilt the bag as much as Montgomery is tilting it.
>>
>> He won't do it.
>>
>> He's afraid he may need to admit something about his bag theory that
>> he doesn't want to admit.
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>
>Your argument is pure smoke. The FBI and WC provided us with photos of the
>bag in evidence. Like most evidence photos, they placed a ruler in the
>photo so that people studying the photo in the future could approximate
>the size of the item in evidence. Based on the photos and the testimony,
>then, it has long been accepted that the bag in evidence is approximately
>38 by 8. Bugliosi and others have used this number for decades.
>
>So I had a photograph taken of a 38 by 8 object from what is obviously
>close to the same distance using what I've been told by photo buffs is
>obviously the same type lens. And this showed the bag in the news photo to
>be much wider than the bag in evidence.
>
>I, then, to counter the inevitable arguments that the bag in the news
>photo was tilted to the camera, or that Montgomery was closer to the
>camera, and that this slight difference made the bag appear far wider than
>the 38 by 8 object in my re-enactment photo, created a comparison in which
>the bag widths matched. When one looks at this comparison, it is clear as
>day that the bag in the re-enactment photo would have to been 5 or 6 feet
>closer to the camera in order for the two bags to match...which absolutely
>positively rules out that a slight forward tilt in the news photo accounts
>for the difference in apparent size.
>
Why don't you try recreating the Allen photo? Just hold your bag the
same way that Montgomery is holding it in the photo.
And while you are at it, be sure you really are using the same sort of
lens.
Did Allen use a 50 mm.? Or did he use a 35mm.?
And is the photo of you on the site shot with a digital camera?
If so, the focal lengths are different. A 50mm. lens on a 35mm. film
camera is like a 35mm. lens on a digital camera.
>Now you can either try to refute my proposition by taking a picture of a
>38 by 8 object where it does look to be the same width, or you can accept
>my proposition.
>
.John
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
Huh?
The wound was 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process.
It was also 5.6 cm. below the nuchal crease.
You are simply ignoring Artwohl's analysis. You need to explain what
is wrong with it, if you don't like it.
>And, oh by the way, the blue star in the comparison below representing the
>bullet entrance on the clothes has been measured from the top of the
>collar, not the bottom. The blue star represents the distance to the
>bullet hole on the clothes if JFK's ear was 6.2 cm--my approximate. The
>beige star represents the distance if the ear is 8 cm--Artwohl's
>approximate. Both are far too low to match Artwohl's entrance.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/coatcheck.jpg
You are going to need to explain where you got your blue entrance
line.
It's way too low.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 2:37�am, David Von Pein <davevonp...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Quick Summing Up:
>>
>> To think that the DPD "faked" a paper bag (seen in the Montgomery photos)
>> by late afternoon on 11/22/63 is just plain silly.
>>
>> The cops have "LHO" evidence coming out of their ears (besides the bag) --
>> e.g., bullets, shells, prints, Oswald's gun, the Tippit murder.....and yet
>> they feel the NEED to fake a paper bag too?
>>
>> Get real, Mr. Speer. The double-bag theory is just plain dumb (not to
>> mention totally unprovable, as are all conspiracy theories).
>
>Who said anything about faking a bag on the afternoon? That's a red
>herring like the idea someone planted a bullet on the stretcher at
>Parkland. What actually seems to be happening is evidence is changing
>after the fact, sometimes quite a bit later. I mean it could all just
>be confusion and noise, but to suggest the entire bag story is
>completely straightforward issue is a bit disingenuous.
I would suggest that trying to throw it in doubt is disingenuous.
>
>And the Dallas police were actually in a position, the day or two
>after the assassination, where their case against Oswald looked shaky.
>The paraffin test was exculpatory,
No.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/factoid2.htm
>where there were no fingerprints on
>the rifle,
No, there was a palmprint on the rifle.
>and some witnesses placed Oswald elsewhere.
Huh?
What witness was that?
>For a while,
>the bag evidence was probably quite crucial to the case against
>Oswald. If (and it's still an if for me) there was any bag tampering
>going on, it probably happened in that time period not right after the
>shooting when nobody knew what was happening.
How did Oswald's palmprint and fingerprint get on the bag?
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>Fiorentino, let's pretend I have no bag switcheroo theory. I have a
>photo comparison showing that the two bags are not the same
>proportions. Now, you can prove me wrong by accurately re-creating the
>photo with a 38 by 8 object, or you can stick your head in the sand
It's your claim. *You* need to recreate the Allen photo properly.
>and claim that what you are seeing just isn't true, and that leaning a
>piece of paper 15 feet from a camera a few inches towards the camera
>will make it appear 50% larger than its actual size. Take your pick.
>
>As far as Lattimer, your failure to point me in the direction of one
>photo comparison you think proves him correct, says it all. There's no
>there there. You'd rather stomp your feet and insist he's right then
>take a look at the historical record--which shows that when he thought
>the photos would never be shown to the public, Lattimer told the
>public the back wound was higher than in the Rydberg drawings.
Citation!
>He
>never thought the HSCA doctors would admit the back wound was 2 inches
>lower than in the Rydberg drawings. He never thought he'd be exposed
>in such a manner.
>
>Which is why he rushed out Kennedy and Lincoln the year after the HSCA
>issued its report exposing him as a nitwit, or fraud... He desperately
>wanted to cloud the issue... and unfortunately succeeded.
>
Huh?
You are endorsing the HSCA? If so, good for you, but you need to
explain how they "exposed" Lattimer.
>Now put on your thinking cap. Lattimer admitted the entrance wound was
>2 inches below a crease at the base of Kennedy's neck.
Which is correct.
>He also claimed
>this wound was at the level of Kennedy's chin. Now think. I know this
>is hard. But when was the last time you saw a person with the base of
>their neck 2 inches above their chin???
>
You need to post citations about what Lattimer "claimed."
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
>John, if you think Artwohl's proposed entrance location on the left
>lateral autopsy photo has the entrance at T-1, as in the HSCA's
>analysis, or even C-7, you've been hoodwinked.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>
>As you can see from the images on the bottom right corner of the slide
>below, from your old friend Chad's now-defunct website, the Artwohl
>entrance is about C-5.
>
>http://www.patspeer.com/zimcom.jpg
>
I just flat don't follow you.
Zimmerman's analysis produces a result virtually identical to
Artwohl's.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
David Von Pein
>>> "Pat isn't suggesting that at all." <<<
Yes, I realize that now. (And I've since deleted that post of mine.)
Pat is suggesting something just about as silly, however.
John Fiorentino
Chad as right on in this regard as was Dr. Lattimer. I demonstrate this
amply in my book, and also explain why Baden was WRONG.
I also examined the photos (not the originals as Lattimer did) with him on
several occasions in NY. I re-examined them myself. I had them reviewed by
2
pathologists.
The autopsy photos indicate he was right.......sorry
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:43f7f8f2-4ebc-4aba...@x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
compulsion to appear on definitive truth seeking programs like "Black-Ops"
radio etc., where the "real" scoop on the JFK assassination is revealed, I
will simply ask a question re: his "bag-switcheroo" theory.
Riddle me this:
Why (how) in the world could the DPD be involved in a "bag-switcheroo"
conspiracy re: the bag found in the TSBD and photographed shortly
thereafter in front of the building in the hands of Det. Montgomery when
at THAT time:
They had talked with neither Frazier or Randle?
In the case of Buell Wesley, he wasn't even arrested until approx 10pm on
the eve of 11/22/63.
Hmmmmm?
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:5c1bba34-6a08-48c4...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
soilysound
> >>> "David, if the bag was faked, it was most probably faked on the
>
> evening of the 22nd or the morning of the 23rd (after Frazier refused to
> ID the bag as the one Oswald had been carrying)." <<<
>
> Huh??
>
> So, you think that this bag (linked below) being held by Det. Montgomery
> of the DPD is, in fact, a "real" and legitimate bag that WAS, indeed,
> discovered by police in the TSBD on the day of the assassination?:
>
>
> But you then think that the cops faked a DIFFERENT bag later on 11/22
> (in the evening sometime)?
>
> And the cops did this even though they ALREADY HAD A LEGITIMATE BAG
> THAT WAS FOUND ON THE SIXTH FLOOR IN THE SNIPER'S NEST?
>
> Did the police then "plant" two of Oswald's prints on the fake bag?
>
> In short -- Your theory is utter silliness and nonsense. The bag linked
> above is obviously the very same bag that was found in the Sniper's Nest
> with two of Lee Harvey Oswald's prints on it (CE142). To believe anything
> else is to believe in some really extraordinary crappola (aka:
> conspiracist-invented shit).
It's a bit odd that we hold a photo taken by a newspaper of something
as evidentially more important than the actual crime scene
photographs, which mysteriously show no bag. Can you explain CE1302?
Anthony Marsh
Which is meaningless, as the HSCA pointed out.
pjspeare
entrance on Chad's lateral autopsy photo, when compared to the anatomy
drawing on his website, showed that his and Artwohl's entrance was at C-5,
not C-7. The spine in the neck runs at an angle. I suspect Chad projected
downward from the entrance along the angle of the spine and said a-ha, the
bullet entrance is at C-7. He didn't realize at that time that he was
supposed to project horizontally. When one does, it's absolutely 100%
clear Artwohl's entrance is at C-5, not C-7. This is made clear on my
slide.
As Chad's shirt experiments showed that the back wound was at the highest
C-7, his work, which you supported, completely debunks Artwohl's work. So,
which is it....? Is the wound at C-5, or C-7/T-1? As Chad was found of
saying...
On Oct 2, 5:50 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
John McAdams
>Wrong, John. Zimmerman's experiments proved Artwohl incorrect. The
>entrance on Chad's lateral autopsy photo, when compared to the anatomy
>drawing on his website, showed that his and Artwohl's entrance was at C-5,
>not C-7. The spine in the neck runs at an angle. I suspect Chad projected
>downward from the entrance along the angle of the spine and said a-ha, the
>bullet entrance is at C-7. He didn't realize at that time that he was
>supposed to project horizontally. When one does, it's absolutely 100%
>clear Artwohl's entrance is at C-5, not C-7. This is made clear on my
>slide.
>
All you are doing is asserting this.
I have a choice between believing you or believing the top forensic
pathologists in the country who reviewed the evidence for the HSCA.
The back wound is 5.6 cm. below the nuchal crease. The ruler in the
back photo shows that.
Do you deny that or not?
Do you deny that 5.6 cm. below the nuchal crease is C7/T1?
>As Chad's shirt experiments showed that the back wound was at the highest
>C-7, his work, which you supported, completely debunks Artwohl's work. So,
>which is it....? Is the wound at C-5, or C-7/T-1? As Chad was found of
>saying...
>
I simply can't follow your logic -- assuming there is any logic.
Explain how Chad's C7/T1 analysis conflicts with Artwohls.
>
>
>On Oct 2, 5:50�pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
>> On 30 Sep 2009 23:01:23 -0400, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>>
>> >John, if you think Artwohl's proposed entrance location on the left
>> >lateral autopsy photo has the entrance at T-1, as in the HSCA's
>> >analysis, or even C-7, you've been hoodwinked.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/doityourself.jpg
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/sbtredux.jpg
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/location3.jpg
>>
>> >As you can see from the images on the bottom right corner of the slide
>> >below, from your old friend Chad's now-defunct website, the Artwohl
>> >entrance is about C-5.
>>
>> >http://www.patspeer.com/zimcom.jpg
>>
>> I just flat don't follow you.
>>
>> Zimmerman's analysis produces a result virtually identical to
>> Artwohl's.
>>
>> .John
>> --------------http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
>
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
cdddraftsman
> Lowry, you are hereby challenged. Recreate the news photo with a piece
> of cardboard 38 by 8--the supposed proportions of the bag in the
> photo-- and see if it looks anything like it. This is how the FBI and
> Secret Service tested the backyard photos. This is how, according to
> books on the FBI, photo analysis is performed. Do it. See what you can
> come up with.
>
> Failing that, and proving your absolute failure to counter anything
> I've written without stooping to deception and insults, you should
> just go away.
>
>
Pat Speer , you can't look at objects in photo's and just arbitrarily
say they don't match up .
FYI there are mathmatical formula's to determine and resolve these
types of anomolous
blips that pop up in this case :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#hscaphoto
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/autopsy2.txt
Or see John F.'s post below ....
BTW you ran from this analysis also :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/ShapeofJFKsNeck311.jpg
and this :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/JFKWoundChin4.jpg
and this on the chin relationship to back wound :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/lattimeran-full11.jpg
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/JFK101.jpg
I suggest picking up this book and get your facts straight :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/PhotoFakery.jpg
end ....
tl
cdddraftsman
>
> That's fun to play around with the clothes, but you seem to forget that
> there was ALSO a hole in the shirt, which was NOT bunched up like the
> coat. And you need to deal with the actual autopsy photos, which are real.
> The wound is BELOW the top of the right shoulder. Anyone who depicts the
> wound as being ABOVE the top of the shoulders is lying.
>
>
Ooops !
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/ShapeofJFKsNeck311.jpg
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/24Degrees.jpg
Bump !
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/JFKWoundChin4.jpg
tl
cdddraftsman
wrote:
> You know I've read much on this thread, and still fail to see EXACTLY what
> your point is Speare.
>
> John F.
>
>
He confuses motion with progress . Then he quantifies this with a overload
of graphics to prove his miniscule points . Go figure , I can't . I have
caught him in a few big whoppers which would tend to cast suspicion upon
his entire investigative prowess :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/PatSFig1.jpg
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/PatSFig2.jpg
I'm sure if you wanted to waste tons of time you could similarly
dismantle the entire patspeer.com website .
tl
cdddraftsman
> Nonsense, Fiorentuno. Lattimer was completely out to lunch. When I
> show non-interested parties Lattimer's single-bullet theory drawing
> and tell them there are people out there who actually think it is an
> honest interpretation of the autopsy photos, they refuse to believe
> me. There is NO single aspect of the single-assassin theory as utterly
> void of credibility as Lattimer and his suggestion the back wound was
> actually higher on the back than depicted in the Rydberg drawings.
> Please give me a link where I can view your defense of Lattimer and
> his completely bogus theory.
>
>
"The line of damage through the neck into the throat
There is a widespread belief among JFK researchers that after Dr. Finck
was unable to use his finger to probe the path of the bullet that entered
JFK's neck/upper back, that was the end of it, and any connection to the
wound in the lower throat was tenuous and guesswork. In fact, these two
wounds are connected much more tightly than that: the autopsy surgeons
found at least three more sites of inner damage that formed a straight
line between the two wounds. Here are the passages from the autopsy report
that describe these wounds:
Back/neck wound (page 3)
"Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border
of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is
measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14
cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."
Throat wound (page 3)
"Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third
and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely
gaping irregular edges. (The depth and character of these wounds will be
further described below.)"
Back/neck wound and throat wound again (pages 4–5)
"2. The second wound presumably of entry is that described above in the
upper right posterior thorax. Beneath the skin there is ecchymosis [escape
of blood into the tissues from ruptured blood vessels] of subcutaneous
tissue and musculature. The missile path through the fascia and
musculature cannot be easily probed. The wound presumably of exit was that
described by Dr. Malcolm Perry of Dallas in the low anterior cervical
region. When observed by Dr. Perry the wound measured "a few millimeters
in diameter", however it was extended as a tracheostomy incision and thus
its character is distorted at the time of autopsy. However, there is
considerable ecchymosis of the strap muscles of the right side of the neck
and of the fascia about the trachea adjacent to the line of the
tracheostomy wound. The third point of reference in connecting these two
wounds is the apex (supra- clavicular portion) of the right pleural
cavity. In this region there is contusion of the parietal pleura and of
the extreme apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. In both
instances the diameter of contusion and ecchymosis at the point of maximal
involvement measures 5 cm. Both the visceral and parietal pleura are
intact overlying these areas of trauma."
Thoracic cavity (page 5)
"The bony cage is unremarkable. The thoracic organs are in their normal
positions and relationships and there is no increase in free pleural
fluid. The above described area of contusion in the apical portion of the
right pleural cavity is noted."
Lungs (page 5)
"The lungs are of essentially similar appearance the right weighing 320
Gm., the left 290 Gm. The lungs are well aerated with smooth glistening
pleural surfaces and gray-pink color. A 5 cm. diameter area of purplish
red discoloration and increased firmness to palpation is situated in the
apical portion of the right upper lobe. This corresponds to the similar
area described in the overlying parietal pleura. Incision in this region
reveals recent hemorrhage into pulmonary parenchyma."
Summary (page 6; third paragraph)
"The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the
scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the
supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This
missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the
apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused
the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and
made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. As far as can be
ascertained this missile struck no bony structure in its path through the
body."
My summary
The autopsy doctors are telling us that five points of damage formed a
straight line between the entry of the bullet high in the back/neck and
its exit low in the throat: (1) the entrance wound just above the right
shoulder blade; (2) the tissues and muscles just inside that wound; (3)
the top of the right lung and protective tissue; (4) the right strap
muscles of the neck and the trachea, both near the point of exit; and (5)
the exit wound in the low throat.
Nonmedical people may understandably find this series of wounds and the
strong evidence they collectively present hard to picture. Dr. John K.
Lattimer, the first non-Warren physician to examine the photos and X-rays
from the autopsy that were being stored in the National Archives,
anticipated this problem and prepared the following drawing and
commentary, which appear on pages 180 and 181 of his 1980 book Kennedy and
Lincoln: Medical & ballistic comparisons of their assassinations.
Lattimer's explanation of the diagram :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/LattimerSBTDiag.jpg
"This diagram of the neck wound is based on personal observations of the
photographs and X-rays. Because the National Archives requested that no
tracing be made, it is not precise. Its purpose is to clarify the relative
positions of the wounds in the neck and the various findings which
together indicated that all were consistent with the entry of a bullet
into the upper back that ranged downward and medially through the base of
the neck and exited low on the trachea in the midline, just below the
collar button, causing a nick in the knot of the necktie. The findings
were:
A. Bullet Hole in Back of Suit Collar and Shirt. The coat and shirt were
probably humped up on the back of the President's neck (see fig. 83) when
the first bullet struck him. The FBI found a punched-in round hole in the
back of the coat consistent with a 6.5 mm bullet, with the broken cloth
fibers bent inward, indicating that this was a wound of entry. The cloth
fibers of the shirt were bent inward in the same manner. Traces of copper
from a bullet such as Oswald used were found on the margins of this hole
in the coat by the FBI, also indicating that it was a wound of entrance.
B. Bullet Hole in Back. The bullet hole in Kennedy's upper back, about two
inches below the crease of his neck, and about two inches to the right of
the midline.
C. Halo around Bullet Hole. The bullet hole had around it a faint but
definite halo, or circumferential bruise, typical of a wound of entry from
a high-speed bullet.
D. Spine Struck by Bullet. Tiny slivers of bone could be seen in the upper
(rear) area of the bullet track on the A-P X-ray film of the right
shoulder and neck area. Since no lateral X-ray film was taken of this
area, it was possible to determine only that they lay near the high (rear)
end of the bullet track, but not the exact distance they lay from the
surface. They were near the tip of the transverse process of the cervical
vertebrae, which the bullet obviously grazed. They are represented
diagrammatically only. (See fig. 82.)
E. & F. Pleura and Lung Bruised. The autopsy report described a 5 cm
bruise on the dome of the right pleura and also on the upper tip of the
right lung, but no perforation of either, compatible with the passage of a
high-speed bullet close above this point.
G. Air in Tissues. There were tiny traces of air, visible in the X- rays,
in the tissues along the bullet track, near the hole in the trachea.
H. Hole in Trachea. There was a ragged hole in the right side of the
trachea, seen by the surgeons at Parkland.
I. Tracheostomy. There was a gaping 6.5 cm transverse tracheostomy
incision low on the neck where the Dallas surgeons had enlarged the bullet
hole in order to insert a tracheostomy tube. (See fig. 80.)
J. Holes in Front of Shirt. There were 1 cm vertical slits in both sides
of the overlapping portion of the shirt immediately below the collar band
and touching it just below the collar button. (See fig. 84.)
K. Nick in Necktie. There was a nick or crease through only the outer
layer of fabric of the lower left side of the knot, compatible with the
passage of a spinning 6.5 mm bullet at high speed. A bloodstain extended
downward from this nick. (See fig. 85.) (J. K. Lattimer, Resident and
Staff Physician, May 1972)"
My comment
This striking analysis by Dr. Lattimer removes any remaining doubt that a
bullet from the rear entered high on Kennedy's back/neck and exited at the
bottom of his throat, just as the Warren Commission concluded it did. From
here it must have hit either Connally or the limousine. Since Connally was
hit in his right back by a nonpristine bullet and that part of the
limousine was not hit by any bullet, it is obvious that the bullet from
Kennedy also passed through Connally. This clearly and simply establishes
the single-bullet theory".
Prof/ Kenneth Rahn
The Academic JFK Assassination Site
Stressing physical evidence and critical thinking
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/JFK.html
cdddraftsman
> pjspeare wrote:
> > Nonsense, Fiorentuno. Lattimer was completely out to lunch. When I
> > show non-interested parties Lattimer's single-bullet theory drawing
> > and tell them there are people out there who actually think it is an
> > honest interpretation of the autopsy photos, they refuse to believe
> > me. There is NO single aspect of the single-assassin theory as utterly
> > void of credibility as Lattimer and his suggestion the back wound was
> > actually higher on the back than depicted in the Rydberg drawings.
> > Please give me a link where I can view your defense of Lattimer and
> > his completely bogus theory.
>
>
Rubbish ! LBJ who was close to JFK said he looked like a "Spavined
Hunchback"
tl
cdddraftsman
> Quick Summing Up:
>
> To think that the DPD "faked" a paper bag (seen in the Montgomery photos)
> by late afternoon on 11/22/63 is just plain silly.
>
> The cops have "LHO" evidence coming out of their ears (besides the bag) --
> e.g., bullets, shells, prints, Oswald's gun, the Tippit murder.....and yet
> they feel the NEED to fake a paper bag too?
>
> Get real, Mr. Speer. The double-bag theory is just plain dumb (not to
> mention totally unprovable, as are all conspiracy theories).
John Locke : "The countless conspiracy books which strenuously argue
to the contrary constitute one of the largest bodies of fraudulent
work ever created".
Pat Speer has added a tremendous pimple upon that Mt. Everest !
:-)
tl
cdddraftsman
>
>
> Now put on your thinking cap. Lattimer admitted the entrance wound was
> 2 inches below a crease at the base of Kennedy's neck. He also claimed
> this wound was at the level of Kennedy's chin. Now think. I know this
> is hard. But when was the last time you saw a person with the base of
> their neck 2 inches above their chin???
>
>
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/JFK101.jpg
And
Pat Speer continues to postulate based upon inaccurate JFK physique :
http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/ShapeofJFKsNeck311.jpg
tl
David Von Pein
>>> "The wound was 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."
<<<
I'm curious -- Where did you get this figure from, .John?
The autopsy report and Boswell's face sheet indicate "14 cm.", not 13.5.
John McAdams
wrote:
>
>
>>>> "The wound was 13.5 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."
><<<
>
>I'm curious -- Where did you get this figure from, .John?
>
>The autopsy report and Boswell's face sheet indicate "14 cm.", not 13.5.
HSCA.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=39095
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
Brigette Kohley
sometime late at night after Frazier refused to ID it, or the next
morning, by the FBI, using the TSBD paper sample taken for comparison
purposes. I feel quite sure that IF the bag was switched, the one in
the news photo was the bag actually discovered, and that the one in
the Archives was the one created. The possibility the DPD or FBI
switched the bags would help explain 1) why Vincent Drain wrote a
report claiming the bag found in the sniper's nest failed to match the
paper used in the TSBD 2) why no DPD photo of the bag was taken at the
crime scene or at the crime lab, prior to its being returned by the
FBI 3) why the bag was never shown to Montgomery, Johnson, and
Studebaker, who testified as to its discovery, and why it was shown to
Lt. Day by both the WC and the FBI, even though he was apparently not
present at its discovery, and 4) why Chief Curry later said the bag
was "probably" the bag found in the depository.
As far as your dig at black op radio, you are apparently unaware that
1) I told the listeners to black op they should read McAdams' site, if
just to see what they are up against...and 2) John McAdams was on
black op radio last week.
On Oct 3, 8:44 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Since Speare appears to be motivated by an (apparent) overwhelming
> compulsion to appear on definitive truth seeking programs like "Black-Ops"
> radio etc., where the "real" scoop on the JFK assassination is revealed, I
> will simply ask a question re: his "bag-switcheroo" theory.
>
> Riddle me this:
>
> Why (how) in the world could the DPD be involved in a "bag-switcheroo"
> conspiracy re: the bag found in the TSBD and photographed shortly
> thereafter in front of the building in the hands of Det. Montgomery when
> at THAT time:
>
> They had talked with neither Frazier or Randle?
>
> In the case of Buell Wesley, he wasn't even arrested until approx 10pm on
> the eve of 11/22/63.
>
> Hmmmmm?
>
> John F.
>
> "pjspeare" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »
pjspeare
The vertebrae in the neck are at an angle. When one projects back from
C7 at the angle of the spine, one might claim that the Artwohl
entrance was at "the level of C7". But that's not how doctors measure
wound locations. They measure based upon the horizontal plane. And the
Artwohl entrance is on the horizontal plane of C5, as demonstrated by
Chad's own exhibits, included on this slide. Follow the numbers down
below Kennedy's ear 1...2...3...4...the horizontal plane of the
Artwohl entrance (also known as 5).
http://www.patspeer.com/zimcom.jpg
On Oct 3, 7:05 pm, John McAdams <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote:
pjspeare
>
> tl
Lowry, your cropping of the beach photo to prove your point says it
all. The full photo proves Kennedy was leaning forward and that his
torso was leaning to its left, lifting his right shoulder when
compared against his chin. The photo you're using has been cropped and
reversed, no doubt to hide Kennedy's posture.
pjspeare
> On Sep 30, 7:58 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> > You know I've read much on this thread, and still fail to see EXACTLY what
> > your point is Speare.
>
> > John F.
>
> He confuses motion with progress . Then he quantifies this with a overload
> of graphics to prove his miniscule points . Go figure , I can't . I have
> caught him in a few big whoppers which would tend to cast suspicion upon
> his entire investigative prowess :
>
>
> I'm sure if you wanted to waste tons of time you could similarly
> dismantle the entire patspeer.com website .
>
> tl
Absolute nonsense, draftsman. Your slides reveal nothing except that
I'm right. The whole point of the exercise was to prove that 14 cm
below the mastoid is clearly on the back and not on the neck. None of
the Clark Panel disputed this. None of the HSCA FPP disputed this.
None of the autopsy doctors disputed this when testifying under oath
for the ARRB.
And even you agree...for you claim that the Rydberg drawings were not
made to scale. You seem completely oblivious to the FACT that Humes
lied and told the WC measurements had been used to create the 3 life-
sized drawings and that this would undoubtedly have led the WC to
believe back wound was where it is on the drawings, on the neck.
John Fiorentino
I don't believe we've "met" here before.
Rather than dissect your entire piece, I'll reproduce my seminal question
then add just a few comments.
Riddle me this:
Why (how) in the world could the DPD be involved in a "bag-switcheroo"
conspiracy re: the bag found in the TSBD and photographed shortly
thereafter in front of the building in the hands of Det. Montgomery when
at THAT time:
They had talked with neither Frazier or Randle?
In the case of Buell Wesley, he wasn't even arrested until approx 10pm on
the eve of 11/22/63.
Hmmmmm?
As for .John appearing on "Black-Ops" - It's one thing to try and defend a
position on ANY medium and another to promote it.
John F.
"Brigette Kohley" <groov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:19cf9e36-4019-4fa6...@w37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> read more ?
Anthony Marsh
Close enough for a WC defender.
Anthony Marsh
> On Oct 1, 7:44 am, pjspeare <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote:
>> Nonsense, Fiorentuno. Lattimer was completely out to lunch. When I
>> show non-interested parties Lattimer's single-bullet theory drawing
>> and tell them there are people out there who actually think it is an
>> honest interpretation of the autopsy photos, they refuse to believe
>> me. There is NO single aspect of the single-assassin theory as utterly
>> void of credibility as Lattimer and his suggestion the back wound was
>> actually higher on the back than depicted in the Rydberg drawings.
>> Please give me a link where I can view your defense of Lattimer and
>> his completely bogus theory.
>>
>>
>
> http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Single-Bullet_theory/Line_of_damage/Line_of_damage.html
>
> "The line of damage through the neck into the throat
>
> There is a widespread belief among JFK researchers that after Dr. Finck
> was unable to use his finger to probe the path of the bullet that entered
> JFK's neck/upper back, that was the end of it, and any connection to the
False, not widespread and in fact many realize that the autopsy doctors
attempted to probe the wound and prepared to dissect it when they were
ordered to stop.
> wound in the lower throat was tenuous and guesswork. In fact, these two
> wounds are connected much more tightly than that: the autopsy surgeons
> found at least three more sites of inner damage that formed a straight
> line between the two wounds. Here are the passages from the autopsy report
> that describe these wounds:
>
> Back/neck wound (page 3)
>
> "Situated on the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border
> of the scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is
> measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion process and 14
> cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."
>
> Throat wound (page 3)
>
> "Situated in the low anterior neck at approximately the level of the third
> and fourth tracheal rings is a 6.5 cm. long transverse wound with widely
> gaping irregular edges. (The depth and character of these wounds will be
> further described below.)"
>
> Back/neck wound and throat wound again (pages 4?5)
A deliberate lie by a WC defender. JFK was not a hunchback as Lattimer
depicts. Notice the angle he portrays. About 25 degrees downward. Not the
correct angle, but what Lattimer thought he had to produce to get a SBT.
> "This diagram of the neck wound is based on personal observations of the
Another lie. The diagram is NOT based on the autopsy photos. It is a lie
to support the SBT.
> photographs and X-rays. Because the National Archives requested that no
> tracing be made, it is not precise. Its purpose is to clarify the relative
> positions of the wounds in the neck and the various findings which
> together indicated that all were consistent with the entry of a bullet
> into the upper back that ranged downward and medially through the base of
> the neck and exited low on the trachea in the midline, just below the
> collar button, causing a nick in the knot of the necktie. The findings
> were:
>
> A. Bullet Hole in Back of Suit Collar and Shirt. The coat and shirt were
> probably humped up on the back of the President's neck (see fig. 83) when
> the first bullet struck him. The FBI found a punched-in round hole in the
> back of the coat consistent with a 6.5 mm bullet, with the broken cloth
> fibers bent inward, indicating that this was a wound of entry. The cloth
> fibers of the shirt were bent inward in the same manner. Traces of copper
> from a bullet such as Oswald used were found on the margins of this hole
> in the coat by the FBI, also indicating that it was a wound of entrance.
>
You talk about fibers, but what about the LOCATION of the hole in the
shirt? Several inches BELOW the collar.
> B. Bullet Hole in Back. The bullet hole in Kennedy's upper back, about two
> inches below the crease of his neck, and about two inches to the right of
> the midline.
>
> C. Halo around Bullet Hole. The bullet hole had around it a faint but
> definite halo, or circumferential bruise, typical of a wound of entry from
> a high-speed bullet.
>
You have no basis for saying "high-speed." Are you arguing that the
weapon had a much higher muzzle velocity than Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano?
All lies.
Anthony Marsh
> On Sep 30, 1:16 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony_ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> That's fun to play around with the clothes, but you seem to forget that
>> there was ALSO a hole in the shirt, which was NOT bunched up like the
>> coat. And you need to deal with the actual autopsy photos, which are real.
>> The wound is BELOW the top of the right shoulder. Anyone who depicts the
>> wound as being ABOVE the top of the shoulders is lying.
>>
>>
> Ooops !
>
> http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/ShapeofJFKsNeck311.jpg
> http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/24Degrees.jpg
>
As I said, all lies.
> Bump !
>
> http://i212.photobucket.com/albums/cc291/cdddraftsman/JFKWoundChin4.jpg
>
JFK was not leaning forward like that when he was hit. Even the WC
depictions and HSCA depictions of the SBT show JFK sitting perfectly
upright. So does the Zapruder film and the Croft photo.
> tl
>
>
pjspeare
wrote:
Sorry about the confusion, John. Any post from Brigette is in fact a post
from me, Pat Speer. Brigette is my significant other. One of our computers
is set up to automatically sign her into google groups, and sometimes I
forget to sign out and then back in before posting.
> Hello Brigette:
>
> I don't believe we've "met" here before.
>
> Rather than dissect your entire piece, I'll reproduce my seminal question
> then add just a few comments.
>
> Riddle me this:
>
> Why (how) in the world could the DPD be involved in a "bag-switcheroo"
> conspiracy re: the bag found in the TSBD and photographed shortly
> thereafter in front of the building in the hands of Det. Montgomery when
> at THAT time:
>
> They had talked with neither Frazier or Randle?
>
> In the case of Buell Wesley, he wasn't even arrested until approx 10pm on
> the eve of 11/22/63.
>
> Hmmmmm?
>
> As for .John appearing on "Black-Ops" - It's one thing to try and defend a
> position on ANY medium and another to promote it.
>
> John F.
>
> "Brigette Kohley" <groovyst...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> ...
>
> read more »
John Fiorentino
the question?
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:7c5e8d1a-3b0b-4f41...@x25g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> read more ?
cdddraftsman
> This is not exactly rocket science.
AAMOF non of www.patspeer.com is "rocket science" , science , scientific
or uses the scientific method. It's more like opinion based pseudoscience
with over the top 'slick willy' graphics as a smoke screen. What would
posses you to create such a boondoggle ?
Incredible .
tl
pjspeare
If you mean your question about when the bag could be fabricated...I
already did.
John, IF the bag was switched, it only makes sense it was switched
sometime late at night after Frazier refused to ID it, or the next
morning, by the FBI, using the TSBD paper sample taken for comparison
purposes. I feel quite sure that IF the bag was switched, the one in the
news photo was the bag actually discovered, and that the one in the
Archives was the one created. The possibility the DPD or FBI switched the
bags would help explain 1) why Vincent Drain wrote a report claiming the
bag found in the sniper's nest failed to match the paper used in the TSBD
2) why no DPD photo of the bag was taken at the crime scene or at the
crime lab, prior to its being returned by the FBI 3) why the bag was never
shown to Montgomery, Johnson, and Studebaker, who testified as to its
discovery, and why it was shown to Lt. Day by both the WC and the FBI,
even though he was apparently not present at its discovery, and 4) why
Chief Curry later said the bag was "probably" the bag found in the
depository.
On Oct 4, 8:08 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Well, since you and Brigette are 1 in the same. Would you like to tackle
> the question?
>
> John F.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
John Fiorentino
Drain wrote TWO reports................Hid FIRST indicated the paper
MATCHED. The reason the second said it didn't is because that sample he
examined was taken from the TSBD (weeks) I believe, (I could be wrong on the
exact time as I'm going from memory) later.
So, when you start to get your facts straight, maybe we can continue.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:27a3b585-f95d-4f89...@12g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> read more �
pjspeare
Bugliosi's book and made the mistake of believing it. I actually
researched Drain's memos on the bag, and proved Bugliosi wrong here:
On Oct 7, 11:20 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Rather than waste much of my time......lets just take your Drain contention.
> Drain wrote TWO reports................Hid FIRST indicated the paper
> MATCHED. The reason the second said it didn't is because that sample he
> examined was taken from the TSBD (weeks) I believe, (I could be wrong on the
> exact time as I'm going from memory) later.
>
> So, when you start to get your facts straight, maybe we can continue.
>
> John F.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
>>> "I [Pat Speer] actually researched Drain's memos on the bag, and
proved Bugliosi wrong." <<<
Pat Speer did nothing of the sort:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fabc4a8e3183d717
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c481188f151a81f1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f7bd35dd260dd82
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51a876603ebf7462
John Fiorentino
and much of the info. in the supporting volumes.
I suggest you try that.
James C. Cadigan examined the bag, not Vincent Drain. The bag found in the
TSBD on 11/22/63 was made from the same materials (paper and tape) as
those obtained by the DPD on 11/22/63. The bag also had Oswald's palmprint
and fingerprints on it. Also material fibers.
The second sample was not obtained until 12/1/63 in an effort to try and
reconstruct the bag which had become discolored from testing. Cadigan
found those materials did not match the original bag.
I could explain much more of this, but really don't want to waste anymore
time.
What Gary Shaw, (whom I personally don't care for) and Vince Bugliosi did
or didn't do, really doesn't concern me.
Your investigative techniques are really quite amateurish. And of course
these issues were settled YEARS ago.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:e5a77181-eeee-440e...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> read more ?
Anthony Marsh
> Sorry Speare, but I haven't read Bugliosi's book. But I have read the
> WCR and much of the info. in the supporting volumes.
>
> I suggest you try that.
>
> James C. Cadigan examined the bag, not Vincent Drain. The bag found in
> the TSBD on 11/22/63 was made from the same materials (paper and tape)
> as those obtained by the DPD on 11/22/63. The bag also had Oswald's
> palmprint and fingerprints on it. Also material fibers.
>
No, not same. Similar. By the time the FBI got around to examining the
paper from the TSBD, that roll had been used up and they examined a
different roll. Perhaps similar to the same type of paper used by hundreds
of businesses in the area. Or perhaps identical to the shipping paper used
to mail the rifle to Oswald.
John Fiorentino
correct about that.
John F.
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4ace55fd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
pjspeare
said the bag and sample were similar, or the re-written report. You
claimed it was the first report. As discussed in my essay, the FBI
long ago admitted the truth, and that they changed the report weeks
after it was written without making any notation that it had been
changed. You were 100% wrong.
Now, while we're discussing things about which you're 100% wrong, will
you please share with us your interpretation of the level of the back
wound? I mean, was it around T-1, as the HSCA claimed, or C-5, as
proposed by Artwohl? Or even higher, as proposed by Dr. Lattimer in
his skeleton exhibit?
http://www.patspeer.com/latskeleton.jpg
On Oct 8, 10:13 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Sorry Speare, but I haven't read Bugliosi's book. But I have read the WCR
> and much of the info. in the supporting volumes.
>
> I suggest you try that.
>
> James C. Cadigan examined the bag, not Vincent Drain. The bag found in the
> TSBD on 11/22/63 was made from the same materials (paper and tape) as
> those obtained by the DPD on 11/22/63. The bag also had Oswald's palmprint
> and fingerprints on it. Also material fibers.
>
> The second sample was not obtained until 12/1/63 in an effort to try and
> reconstruct the bag which had become discolored from testing. Cadigan
> found those materials did not match the original bag.
>
> I could explain much more of this, but really don't want to waste anymore
> time.
>
> What Gary Shaw, (whom I personally don't care for) and Vince Bugliosi did
> or didn't do, really doesn't concern me.
>
> Your investigative techniques are really quite amateurish. And of course
> these issues were settled YEARS ago.
>
> John F.
>
> "pjspeare" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:e5a77181-eeee-440e...@o9g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> Fiorentino, you are 100% wrong about the bag. It seems you read
> Bugliosi's book and made the mistake of believing it. I actually
> researched Drain's memos on the bag, and proved Bugliosi wrong here:
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang...
> ...
>
> read more »
John Fiorentino
Can you produce the TWO Drain reports with HIS signature on BOTH?
I'd like to see that.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:b3fbbb24-e886-42fe...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.patspeer.com/latskeleton.jpg
> read more �
John Fiorentino
research and stop trying to re-hash things which whether you happen to
know it or not were resolved years ago.
I just can't waste time trying to educate someone who simply has an agenda
that is based in fantasy.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:b3fbbb24-e886-42fe...@e4g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
http://www.patspeer.com/latskeleton.jpg
> read more ?
pjspeare
click on the links you'll see that everything I say is 100% supported
by the record.
Drain's first report said the bag didn't match the paper sample. This
report was re-written under orders from Hoover.
On Oct 9, 1:27 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> You're out in left field. My suggestion to you still stands. Do more
> research and stop trying to re-hash things which whether you happen to
> know it or not were resolved years ago.
>
> I just can't waste time trying to educate someone who simply has an agenda
> that is based in fantasy.
>
> John F.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
John Fiorentino
Can you produce the TWO Drain reports with HIS signature on BOTH?
I'd like to see that.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:eb5e112f-3328-4863...@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> read more �
pjspeare
What nonsense! The FBI reports submitted to the Warren Commission don't
have signatures... The second corrected one has Drain's initials, however.
Which suggests he was actively involved in its creation, and that his
later insistence he knew nothing of the incident was a lie.
On Oct 12, 11:21 am, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Try answering the question Speere....
>
> Can you produce the TWO Drain reports with HIS signature on BOTH?
>
> I'd like to see that.
>
> John F.
>
> "pjspeare" <pjspe...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
>
> news:eb5e112f-3328-4863...@p10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Fiorentino, you should read this essay...and learn something. If you
> click on the links you'll see that everything I say is 100% supported
> by the record.
>
> http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Proof_the_FBI_Chang...
> ...
>
> read more »
David Von Pein
Pat Speer's whole argument about how the FBI was lying and covering up
stuff and that Hoover was up to no good (which is obviously the BIGGER
point that Speer is trying to make via his 4/13/09 article at Mary
Ferrell's site, vs. the lesser point of attempting to prove that author
Vincent Bugliosi is a big fat liar too) is an argument that explodes in
Mr. Speer's face after taking one quick look at what J. Edgar Hoover told
Jesse Curry 11/23/63:
"The paper of the wrapping and the tape, Q10 [the bag found in the
Sniper's Nest], were found to have the same observable physical
characteristics as the known wrapping paper and tape, K2 [the sample taken
from the Depository on 11/22/63], from the Texas Public School Book
Depository." -- Via a 11/23/63 letter from J. Edgar Hoover to Dallas
Police Chief Jesse E. Curry
Source:
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-004.gif
And here's page #1 of that document (which shows the date: "November
23, 1963"):
http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/14/1420-001.gif
So, unless conspiracy theorists like Pat Speer now want to believe that
Mr. Hoover's 11/23/63 letter to Curry is a lie or a fake of some kind,
then we have the proof in writing--SIX DAYS PRIOR TO VINCENT DRAIN'S
NOVEMBER 29TH REPORT--that the 11/22/63 paper sample taken from the Book
Depository had the "same observable physical characteristics" as the paper
bag found on the sixth floor (CE142).
Therefore, Patrick J. Speer has absolutely nowhere to run when he suggests
that the FBI was changing stuff around on November 29 to make Oswald look
guiltier....because Hoover's letter to Curry was written almost a week
prior to EITHER of the Vincent Drain documents.
===================================================
DOWN THE "DRAIN" (ALL 4 PARTS):
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fabc4a8e3183d717
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/c481188f151a81f1
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2f7bd35dd260dd82
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/51a876603ebf7462
===================================================
John Fiorentino
ALL FBI 302's are SIGNED. Just as Vince Drain signed the one which
indicated the bag and paper were the same. The "corrected" version on the
Ferrell site and supplied by Mack is cut off at the bottom, is it not?
So, let's see the Drain 302 with his signature, (you know the "corrected"
one) the same one Drain claims no knowledge of, and the one which you
accuse him of "lying" about.
Simple really.
John F.
"pjspeare" <pjsp...@AOL.COM> wrote in message
news:d40c10e4-12dd-4b7d...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> read more ?
pjspeare
essay on the Drain documents, I state quite clearly that ALL the other
documents suggest the paper sample matched the bag. I also deliberately
avoid any conjecture on which version of Drain's report was accurate. So
your suggestion that my raising doubt about this point is paranoid
nonsense. (Perhaps you should become a conspiracy theorist,)
But if you really want to go there, let's go. Drain accompanied the prime
evidence to Washington. He stayed with this evidence at the FBI Crime Lab
during testing. It follows, then, that he may not have even read the
letter to Curry detailing the results of the FBI's tests, and that his
11-29 report on the bag may have been written based purely on his memory.
It follows from this that he may have heard someone SAY something in
Washington, which made him think the paper didn't match. He may also have
heard conjecture that the gun was brought to work in the bag, and to have
assumed from this that the DESIRED or EXPECTED result was that the bag
would NOT match the paper at the building, and have gotten mixed up. Who
knows?
Unfortunately, he either forgot about the incident or chose to lie about
it later when given the chance to straighten out the record.
As far as Hoover...please. It is an historical fact that the FBI failed to
properly investigate the case and had no clue whether Oswald was even
capable of performing the shooting at the time they gave the President a
report claiming Oswald had acted alone. It is an historical fact that they
then leaked their ill-informed conclusions to the press. It is an
historical fact that, in order to give the shooter enough time to fire the
shots, they moved the head wound location 40 feet further down the road
from its obvious actual location. It s an historical fact that FBI experts
mis-represented the likelihood of gsr landing on Oswald's cheek, and the
degree to which the rifle was out of alignment. It is also a fact that
Hoover perjured himself while testifying. But if you want to think the
Feebies were just awesome, go ahead.
Brigette Kohley
and looking through CD5, you'd see that none of the FBI reports are
signed, and only a minority have been initialed...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=93
On Oct 12, 8:32 pm, "John Fiorentino" <johnfiorent...@optonline.net>
wrote:
> Speere, you are the one full of nonsense>
>
> ALL FBI 302's are SIGNED. Just as Vince Drain signed the one which
> indicated the bag and paper were the same. The "corrected" version on the
> Ferrell site and supplied by Mack is cut off at the bottom, is it not?
>
> So, let's see the Drain 302 with his signature, (you know the "corrected"
> one) the same one Drain claims no knowledge of, and the one which you
> accuse him of "lying" about.
>
> Simple really.
>
> John F.
>
> ...
>
> read more »
cdddraftsman
>
> - Show quoted text -
It's getting to be a hysterical fact that Pat Speer accomplished what
no other human being that ever graced the landscape of Dealey Plaza
was able to do . Become a overnight JFK assassination expert on all
things forensic , ballistic , medical , firearms etc. etc. in a short
3 year cramming session . Wonder what the odds are of this being
true ?
Shades of Robert Groden :
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#oj
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#2ndrifle
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm#rotate
With about 10,000 more mistakes .
So you never did reply :
Why do we get the honor of educating you about the assassination as
you plunder along investigating leaving a train wreak behind you a
mile long ?
You seem to have bestowed upon us a debt we can never fully repay :-)
tl
PS : Maybe someone should check to see if the first ammendment rights
apply to www.patspeer.com ? Any mention of writing that stretches
creduity beyond the breaking point ?
John Fiorentino
thereon. I don't need an education in FBI 302 procedure.
YOU need to produce the WHOLE document.
John F.
"Brigette Kohley" <groov...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c9bcef8-790c-4233...@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=93
> read more ?
pjspeare
draftsman, although I've been researching the case for 6 years, you are
correct in that the bulk of my assassination research fell within a three
year period. But you seem to miss a key fact. I worked on it FULL time.
You can search high and low, and you won't find many other researchers to
have done so.
As far as this specific point... I was always curious about the two
versions of Drain's report. I knew Bugliosi's explanation was nonsense
because of the dates on the report. I spent a few days researching it on
the Mary Ferrell website, and approached Rex Bradford about his hosting an
essay on the bag at the website, with links to all the documents. I
exchanged a few emails with Gary Shaw and Paul Hoch. This helped fill in
the blanks. I decided then to write the essay without judging which
version of the report was correct, so that people like you could read the
essay and learn something without feeling the need to fight back, and
launch yet another ad hominem attack. I guess I underestimated your
"sensitivity".
>
> With about 10,000 more mistakes .
>
> So you never did reply :
>
> Why do we get the honor of educating you about the assassination as
> you plunder along investigating leaving a train wreak behind you a
> mile long ?
>
> You seem to have bestowed upon us a debt we can never fully repay :-)
>
> tl
>
> PS : Maybe someone should check to see if the first ammendment rights
> apply towww.patspeer.com? Any mention of writing that stretches
cdddraftsman
> draftsman, although I've been researching the case for 6 years, you are
> correct in that the bulk of my assassination research fell within a three
> year period. But you seem to miss a key fact. I worked on it FULL time.
> You can search high and low, and you won't find many other researchers to
> have done so.
>
> As far as this specific point... I was always curious about the two
> versions of Drain's report. I knew Bugliosi's explanation was nonsense
> because of the dates on the report. I spent a few days researching it on
> the Mary Ferrell website, and approached Rex Bradford about his hosting an
> essay on the bag at the website, with links to all the documents. I
> exchanged a few emails with Gary Shaw and Paul Hoch. This helped fill in
> the blanks. I decided then to write the essay without judging which
> version of the report was correct, so that people like you could read the
> essay and learn something without feeling the need to fight back, and
> launch yet another ad hominem attack. I guess I underestimated your
> "sensitivity".
>
>
In general :
So you don't approve or think thats normal ?
What I'd like to see is less speculation , more context , treat JFK
Official Investigators like humans who are bound to make tons of mistakes
for a ton of reasons that seem to elude you completely .
When I see investigators doing the JFK thing , they're most likely
disinterested , sloppy , no big deal , not too worried about criticisms
because they know the spider waits for the fly in the background . Waiting
for a decent interval before he tears into the work with wreckless abandon
.
Every sentence , every conclusion , every bit of evidence will come under
attack , so they're specific only when necessary , and as vauge as
possible in general , whenever evidence is in question . SOP for USG work
.
To get twisted out of shape because exhibits , evidence , testimony , and
conclusions aren't 100% compatible shouldn't be read as sinister .
AAMOF when it does read 100% perfect get out your Sherlock Holmes outfit
because thats the time to look for a coverup and conspiracy , not the
opposite way around as you seem to think .
Again this lost on you totally . I start to question your motivation .
Fully half of what you write , if sinister in reality , would have to have
attached motives that lack a sensible theory to back up the assertion made
against them . Leaves me clueless . I get done reading your essays and my
head is spinning like a top .
People who put together these reports are continually amazed as to what
others ascribe to them as their motivation for churning out scurrilous and
deceptive work . With what they have to work with it's a miracle they
accomplished what they did .
This also depends on your political lens you see the 'Deed' through . This
should be avoided . IOW's even if you were to take a more disciplined ,
scientific approach , the abstract painting up close would still makes no
sense . Step back and the image becomes clear .
Prof. Rahn
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/JFK.html
"The "debate" of the last 40 years has been a false one. The genuine
issues were hijacked by critics who, knowingly or not, broke the rules of
data-handling and thinking and dominated the debate by decibels and
doggedness. In so doing, they misled the American public into thinking
there was any sort of reasonable doubt about the assassination, which
there most assuredly is not .... This site shows that the proper
investigative techniques lead inevitably to the strong conclusions that
JFK was almost certainly killed by a lone gunman firing from the Texas
School Book Depository, that he was almost certainly acting alone, and
that he was almost certainly Lee Harvey Oswald .... This site focuses on
the most important pieces of evidence with the most important time-tested
techniques, and shows that the assassination is a very simple thing to
understand. It only becomes murky when you make it so by using flawed
reasoning or weak evidence .... The goal of this web site is enlightenment
through proper investigative procedures".
How many years do you think it took Ken , just to come to this one
conclusion ? :
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/Scientific_topics/Physics_of_head_shot/Physics_of_the_head_shot.html
I just take it after the 6 year study , you forgot to study the most
important aspect of investigative inquiry , thats all I'm saying . This
takes years of polishing before you become a expert at it .
end ....
tl ...
..
.