Pat Speer Has Done an Excellent Job

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Cummings makes the argument that the Bethesda pathologists got it right in their placement of the entry wound. Pat Speer has previously made the case that the Bethesda pathologists got it right as well. With this presentation, he is saying otherwise.

This is an older video, isn't it? I was sure that he now says otherwise? That is the entrance was lower and not near the cowlick?

Yes, Cummings says that, among other things, the skull fractures on the x-rays radiate from back to front, from an entrance lower and near the hairline. Then they radiate perpendicular to that as the skull expands. It all makes sense to me. Meaning the Clark Panel and HSCA panel were wrong. He had access to the original materials, the x-rays/photos/clothing, and says the photos and x-rays are much clearer than anything online.

Here's his interpretation:

[Jon Banks]

Mr. Speer does really terrific work but on the fundamental question of a conspiracy, which he believes happened, he is flailing around. He admits that he doesn't know who shot JFK, who the shooters were. That is, he doesn't know whether it was the CIA or the mob or anti-Castro Cubans or some combination of them. Or even some other group. Fine, good for him for admitting this. Very few conspiracists say "I don't know."

But he says he knows with "100% confidence there was a conspiracy"? He knows this? So he says he has no idea who the shooters were (he's absolutely sure Oswald wasn't one of them) but they, again whoever they were, were working together? How can he know this with 100% confidence? Obviously, as the HSCA said, if there was a second shooter then JFK was "probably" killed as a result of a conspiracy. But "probable" is not 100%. That sounds pedantic but I don't think it is.

The problem is, you put all skeptics of the LN narrative in the same bucket as "conspiracists".

It's perfectly reasonable to note the inconsistencies and problems with the JFK assassination investigations without speculating about the identities of the shooters or the mastermind of the conspiracy. To be a "conspiracy theorist" you have to have a "theory", not just mere skepticism about the Warren Commission's conclusion or other investigations.
 
Speculation is fine so long as you're honest about the fact that what you're claiming is speculative and not proven.

But avoiding speculation while just focusing on the facts is a more respectable stance.

[Tim Nickerson]

This is an older video, isn't it? I was sure that he now says otherwise? That is the entrance was lower and not near the cowlick?

Yes, Cummings says that, among other things, the skull fractures on the x-rays radiate from back to front, from an entrance lower and near the hairline. Then they radiate perpendicular to that as the skull expands. It all makes sense to me. Meaning the Clark Panel and HSCA panel were wrong. He had access to the original materials, the x-rays/photos/clothing, and says the photos and x-rays are much clearer than anything online.

Here's his interpretation:

I was wondering why Pat looked so young.

[Royell Storing]

The problem is, you put all skeptics of the LN narrative in the same bucket as "conspiracists".

It's perfectly reasonable to note the inconsistencies and problems with the JFK assassination investigations without speculating about the identities of the shooters or the mastermind of the conspiracy. To be a "conspiracy theorist" you have to have a "theory", not just mere skepticism about the Warren Commission's conclusion or other investigations.
 
Speculation is fine so long as you're honest about the fact that what you're claiming is speculative and not proven.

But avoiding speculation and while just focusing on the facts is a more respectable stance.

   Yeah, and the above also needs to be applied to: (1) the SBT, and (2) the Lost Bullet  of said bullet striking a traffic light/support beam too. 
   There are those that have access to far more Detailed film, photos, and X-Rays than 95% of those writing books and posting observations/opinions here and elsewhere. And this 5% continue to horde this assassination material. Just look at the clarity in the :40 seconds of the Original Darnell Film that NBC recently released. What possible justification can there be for sequestering this assassination material for 61+ yrs? None!   

[Michael Walton]

Vince P is a kook and only in it for the money. His absolutely ridiculous story that the SS was involved is just that - ridiculous. And I'm glad Pat S. puts him and all of the other kooks on the spot at the Ed Forum, which is garbage BTW.

[Royell Storing]

Vince P is a kook and only in it for the money. His absolutely ridiculous story that the SS was involved is just that - ridiculous. And I'm glad Pat S. puts him and all of the other kooks on the spot at the Ed Forum, which is garbage BTW.

   Depends on your definition of "involved". The SS was definitely involved in the Cover-up, even if they might have been following "orders". The SS Stole the JFK Body, and they Stole the Murder Scene = JFK Limo. SS was combing through the JFK Limo as it was mid-air being flown back to DC. SS was "involved". No question about it. 

[Michael Walton]

Another outstanding video by Speer. The level of real-world research and accuracy is amazing. Pat would have been a great spokesman for the anti and deeply flawed official story that a lot of nuts on here are always defending. Their level of inability to even apply an iota of critical thinking is equally astounding.

But I've always known why - it's simply because they're all Kennedy haters so therefore, there's no conspiracy. That's the ONLY reason.

[Tom Graves]

The level of real-world research and accuracy [by Speer] is amazing. Pat would have been a great spokesman for the anti and deeply flawed official story that a lot of nuts on here are always defending. Their level of inability to even apply an iota of critical thinking is equally astounding. But I've always known why - it's simply because they're all Kennedy haters so therefore, there's no conspiracy. That's the ONLY reason.

You're full of beans.