Education Forum closing yet again...

[Dawn Meredith]

I have not trusted Pat for many many years. If his research is shit- and it is- then what does that tell you?
David glad you called him out on his illogical nonsense. Illogical if he is a LEGIT researcher.

Dawn

This from a long time well known JFK researcher who has asked to remain nameless :

"Speer is despicable! A spook. Stupid. narcissistic. Plagiarizes then twists what he steals"

Dawn.

[Cliff Varnell]

I think Pat Speer is one of the best posters Simkin ever had. And, just as important, he comes off as a damn good human being.

So an easily debunked lie becomes compelling when it comes from a nice guy?

Even if I don't always agree with the guy, he brings quite a lot of data per post and pretty compelling arguments.

Sure, if you buy the notion every witness to JFK's back and throat wounds got it wrong -- all in the same way!

Do you find it compelling to argue that the best way to locate the back wound is a photograph where it's "difficult or impossible" to accurately locate the back wound.

The worst evidence is the best -- all the witnesses have it wrong -- evidence improperly prepared trumps evidence properly prepared.

This is a horror show, I don't care if you raise Mr. Rogers from the dead...

His strange position in the research community only enhances his credibility in my book - I can't fathom how you have to have the same interpretation over reams of complicated data to be considered an equal in the critical community.

Pat sez the back wound was at the base of the neck. Same as LNers.

"Reams of complicated data." That's the hand of the cover-up. Keep us busy, as Vincent Salandria warned.

Busy as beavers while the central issue of the case is never seriously addressed in its entirety -- what happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds?

Lifton and Horne have their answers, but their scenarios are far from the only ones.

The night of the autopsy the docs had the body right in front of them and speculated he was struck with a round that didn't show up on x-ray, a high tech weapon.

The supporting evidence for this conclusion is hefty, but I won't get into it now.

Problem is members of the Boomer Generation automatically equate high-tech weaponry with James Bond, Get Smart, Dick Tracy...can't see the evidence in front of them because they are afraid they won't be taken seriously.

Few Boomers are capable of understanding the first thing about the JFK assassination because the evidence leads them somewhere their pop cultural conditioning won't allow them to go.

[Bob Prudhomme]

I think Pat Speer is one of the best posters Simkin ever had. And, just as important, he comes off as a damn good human being.

So an easily debunked lie becomes compelling when it comes from a nice guy?

Even if I don't always agree with the guy, he brings quite a lot of data per post and pretty compelling arguments.

Sure, if you buy the notion every witness to JFK's back and throat wounds got it wrong -- all in the same way!

Do you find it compelling to argue that the best way to locate the back wound is a photograph where it's "difficult or impossible" to accurately locate the back wound.

The worst evidence is the best -- all the witnesses have it wrong -- evidence improperly prepared trumps evidence properly prepared.

This is a horror show, I don't care if you raise Mr. Rogers from the dead...

His strange position in the research community only enhances his credibility in my book - I can't fathom how you have to have the same interpretation over reams of complicated data to be considered an equal in the critical community.

Pat sez the back wound was at the base of the neck. Same as LNers.

"Reams of complicated data." That's the hand of the cover-up. Keep us busy, as Vincent Salandria warned.

Busy as beavers while the central issue of the case is never seriously addressed in its entirety -- what happened to the bullets that caused the throat and back wounds?

Lifton and Horne have their answers, but their scenarios are far from the only ones.

The night of the autopsy the docs had the body right in front of them and speculated he was struck with a round that didn't show up on x-ray, a high tech weapon.

The supporting evidence for this conclusion is hefty, but I won't get into it now.

Problem is members of the Boomer Generation automatically equate high-tech weaponry with James Bond, Get Smart, Dick Tracy...can't see the evidence in front of them because they are afraid they won't be taken seriously.

Few Boomers are capable of understanding the first thing about the JFK assassination because the evidence leads them somewhere their pop cultural conditioning won't allow them to go.

Well said, Cliff.

[Dawn Meredith]

Great post Cliff. Nice to see you back.

Dawn

[Albert Doyle]

Give David Josephs credit too. You can't ignore Lifton and, especially, Horne on Bethesda and still have credibility (IMO).



Speer missed the fact that Dr Paul Peters was actually using two hands to outline the occipital exit wound. Speer thought the higher hand was covering the area the doctor was referring to. If you look closer Dr Peters is using two hands to outline a large area in the rear where McClelland drew his wound. Just the opposite of what Speer was contending. Dr Peters is re-affirming a rear wound in both photos:


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....873&page=6


.

[Cliff Varnell]

Give David Josephs credit too. You can't ignore Lifton and, especially, Horne on Bethesda and still have credibility (IMO).



Speer missed the fact that Dr Paul Peters was actually using two hands to outline the occipital exit wound. Speer thought the higher hand was covering the area the doctor was referring to. If you look closer Dr Peters is using two hands to outline a large area in the rear where McClelland drew his wound. Just the opposite of what Speer was contending. Dr Peters is re-affirming a rear wound in both photos:


http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index....873&page=6


.

I regard the subject as the Grand Rabbit Hole in the case. The JFK critical research community has its collective head so far up JFK's unknowable head wound(s?) it can't see daylight...

:tampfeet::


Hi Dawn, great to be back!

David Josephs is a true mensch. So is Don Jeffries.

[LR Trotter]

Being a long time member of the Baby Boomer Generation, I am not sure I agree with Mr Varnell's critical assessment. Being a HS student on 11/22/63, I remember the day fairly well. I also remember JFK as US President, especially in October, '62. And, the LHO lone gunman story sounded a little strange until Sunday, 11/24/63, when it became very strange.
:hock::

[Jerry Ellis]

I've already downloaded the contents
http://www.httrack.com/

Magda, Out of curiosity, with HHTrack how long did it take?

[Marc Ellis]

"....Few Boomers are capable of understanding the first thing about the JFK assassination because the evidence leads them somewhere their pop cultural conditioning won't allow them to go."

I lol'd when I read that. It's true. But maybe give the boomers some credit too. 70+% of them don't believe the official story either.

A related area writers sometimes raise is authentication or the chain-of-custody. There is no way to authenticate so many exhibits in this case. Thus, they would be inadmissible as evidence against Oswald. Hell, even Kennedy's brain can't be authenticated. It vanished.

Super-lawyer Bugliosi aside, LHO would walk if I were a juror on his case. I might consider a conspiracy count against him. But homicide? No way. The prosecution's case was screwed up from the beginning.

They think Garrison's case was a mess? Too bad they never got a chance to prosecute Oswald. That would have been a circus that made Garrison's case look prudent and cautious by comparison.

[Magda Hassan]

I've already downloaded the contents
http://www.httrack.com/

Magda, Out of curiosity, with HHTrack how long did it take?

I think that depends on the specs of your computer and what other programmes you might use while it is working. The more recent your CPU and larger the memory your computer has the quicker it will be. It took me quite a while to download (2 days) but then I had an ancient computer with only 2GB memory and an old Celeron CPU. Plus I was still abusing my computer having several, usually 10 or more, pages open and other downloads and streaming, telephony etc. I also ended up downloading the whole of the forum accidentally and not just the JFK section. So I didn't want to interupt it once it got going and I realised. If you have a recent computer and just want the JFK section and maybe a couple of others it shouldn't take more than a few hours. HTTrack is a very good programme and I've used it on other sites to preserve research and information. Highly recommend it. Suitable for Windows, Mac and Linux.
Edit: It only downloads the public pages that are searchable. But that's all you want anyway. Or would know about. It doesn't download any private pages/sections or things like PMs etc