JFK Assassination Forum
JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion & Debate => JFK Assassination Plus General Discussion And Debate => Topic started by: Michael Walton on April 19, 2025, 02:20:38 PM
-
Pat Speer is one of the most straightforward, accurate and well-researched researchers in the JFK case. He did an outstanding job on this video he made and I highly advise new visitors to go to his website and discover many revealing and truthful bits. It's at patspeer.com.
But this video is one of the best:
There's no doubt in my mind that there was a conspiracy in this case.
-
Pat Speer is one of the most straightforward, accurate and well-researched researchers in the JFK case. He did an outstanding job on this video he made and I highly advise new visitors to go to his website and discover many revealing and truthful bits. It's at patspeer.com.
But this video is one of the best:
There's no doubt in my mind that there was a conspiracy in this case.
Pat Speer is a wonderful researcher who does not hesitate to tell other CTers when they are making fools of themselves, as he has done this very day at the Ed Forum when Vince Palamara posted a video to the effect that JFK HAD NO BRAIN after the assassination. By no means do I agree with all of Pat's conclusions, but I respect them and regard his site as a goldmine. I have had only a few Ed Forum and private interactions with him, but he has always been entirely gentlemanly. If you don't visit the Ed Forum regularly, you would be astonished at the utter crap someone of Pat's caliber has to put up with by the utter loons, including the current moderators who are so far into the ozone they would be my candidates for likely "cognitive infiltrators" (or non-cognitive infiltrators, as the case may be).
-
How about cutting "Vince" some slack? He is branching out with respect to the JFK Assassination. His many recent You Tube postings covering numerous JFK Assassination issues are very helpful. Especially for several generations that are Now just becoming interested in this murder investigation. Dog piling Palamara will Not solve this case. As to the Ed Forum, that place is too "stuffy" for me. Whenever there, I find myself anticipating a Ben Stein post of, "Bueller.................Bueller...................Bueller". Palamara, Rep Luna, Oliver Stone, etc, ALL attract attention to this Unsolved Murder Case. Bottom line, that's a very good thing. YOU can always go contrarian if you feel the need to set the record straight. You do Not need to stand on the shoulders of Speer to achieve this.
-
How about cutting "Vince" some slack? He is branching out with respect to the JFK Assassination. His many recent You Tube postings covering numerous JFK Assassination issues are very helpful. Especially for several generations that are Now just becoming interested in this murder investigation. Dog piling Palamara will Not solve this case. As to the Ed Forum, that place is too "stuffy" for me. Whenever there, I find myself anticipating a Ben Stein post of, "Bueller.................Bueller...................Bueller". Palamara, Rep Luna, Oliver Stone, etc, ALL attract attention to this Unsolved Murder Case. Bottom line, that's a very good thing. YOU can always go contrarian if you feel the need to set the record straight. You do Not need to stand on the shoulders of Speer to achieve this.
"Former" KGB* officer Vladimir Putin cherishes them all (and you, too), Storing.
*Today's SVR and FSB
-
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.
Anyway, he's very good at studying/finding primary sources, original material. He's a conspiracy version of Fred Litwin. But when he thinks, as it seems he too often does, that he can read a medical technical book for a month or two and opine on matters that people take decades-plus studying he is, as the saying goes, "over his skis". People spend decades and more on these highly technical issues. Then after earning their degree they often go back to school and study more; or keep up on the latest discoveries. It's not something you can pick up in a month or two. Or even a year. Or two. It's a lengthy process. It's why their education costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and they are paid that much for their work. Yet he thinks he knows this as well as these other men and women? Sorry, no.
Here is the CV of forensic pathologist Peter Cummings. He didn't earn this reading medical books for a year or two.
Link: https://www.bumc.bu.edu/anatneuro/files/2015/11/Peter-Cummings-M.Sc_.-M.D.-CV.pdf
"Dr. Cummings is board certified in anatomic pathology, neuropathology and forensic pathology. He earned his medical degree from the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, Ireland and completed his pathology training at the University of Virginia. He also earned a Masters degree in pathology from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia and a B.A. from the University of Maine. Formally, Dr. Cummings worked as a medical examiner at the Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. He was a member of the SwissAir Flight 111 identification team in 1998 and during the summer of 2002, worked on identification process of those who lost their lives in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center."
-
How about cutting "Vince" some slack? He is branching out with respect to the JFK Assassination. His many recent You Tube postings covering numerous JFK Assassination issues are very helpful. Especially for several generations that are Now just becoming interested in this murder investigation. Dog piling Palamara will Not solve this case. As to the Ed Forum, that place is too "stuffy" for me. Whenever there, I find myself anticipating a Ben Stein post of, "Bueller.................Bueller...................Bueller". Palamara, Rep Luna, Oliver Stone, etc, ALL attract attention to this Unsolved Murder Case. Bottom line, that's a very good thing. YOU can always go contrarian if you feel the need to set the record straight. You do Not need to stand on the shoulders of Speer to achieve this.
I'm perfectly happy to cut Vince slack. At worst, he's a genial goof and at best has done some interesting work. He was once actually pleased that I gave one of his books a 3-star Amazon review instead of the knee-jerk 1-star review he expects from most LNers. Nevertheless, he posted an absurd YouTube video and Pat Speer called him on it, coincidentally just this morning.
The Ed Forum stuffy? That would hardly be my word. I left on perfectly good terms - Kathy Beckett said she was sorry to see me go and that I would be welcome back at any time. It has descended so far just in the couple of years since I left that it is having the internet forum version of a Near-Death Experience. As lead moderator, they replaced a foaming-at-the-mouth Harvey & Lee enthusiast with a foaming-at-the-mouth 9/11 Truther who thinks everyone who disagrees with him is a CIA-sponsored cognitive infiltrator. It's more like Looney Tunes than stuffy.
-
Pat Speer is one of the most straightforward, accurate and well-researched researchers in the JFK case. He did an outstanding job on this video he made and I highly advise new visitors to go to his website and discover many revealing and truthful bits. It's at patspeer.com.
But this video is one of the best:
There's no doubt in my mind that there was a conspiracy in this case.
I have been very impressed by Pat Speer's chapters on the X-Rays and head wounds. I would say that he's second to none on those two aspects of the case. Which makes me rather uncomfortable with this presentation of his. I'm not convinced that he's right in saying that Lawrence Angel and others were wrong. Pat has proven them to be wrong on other findings of theirs though. The 6.5mm opaque object being one. Pat has the rear scalp being reflected from right to left, not from the top down, as is typical. Perhaps, he addresses that in part 2.
-
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.
Anyway, he's very good at studying/finding primary sources, original material. He's a conspiracy version of Fred Litwin. But when he thinks, as it seems he too often does, that he can read a medical technical book for a month or two and opine on matters that people take decades-plus studying he is, as the saying goes, "over his skis". People spend decades and more on these highly technical issues. Then after earning their degree they often go back to school and study more; or keep up on the latest discoveries. It's not something you can pick up in a month or two. Or even a year. Or two. It's a lengthy process. It's why their education costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and they are paid that much for their work. Yet he thinks he knows this as well as these other men and women? Sorry, no.
Here is the CV of forensic pathologist Peter Cummings. He didn't earn this reading medical books for a year or two.
Link: https://www.bumc.bu.edu/anatneuro/files/2015/11/Peter-Cummings-M.Sc_.-M.D.-CV.pdf
"Dr. Cummings is board certified in anatomic pathology, neuropathology and forensic pathology. He earned his medical degree from the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin, Ireland and completed his pathology training at the University of Virginia. He also earned a Masters degree in pathology from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia and a B.A. from the University of Maine. Formally, Dr. Cummings worked as a medical examiner at the Massachusetts Office of the Chief Medical Examiner. He was a member of the SwissAir Flight 111 identification team in 1998 and during the summer of 2002, worked on identification process of those who lost their lives in the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center."
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.
-
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 BS: 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!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Actually, I have found quite the opposite to be true. Early on, I started a thread on the Ed Forum making the point that so many of the CTers seemed to be extremely left-leaning characters with a deep emotional involvement with JFK. They have a near-utopian idea of what the country would be like if JFK and RFK had lived. Their theorizing almost works in reverse: the country is so deep in the grip of Dark Evil Forces that these same Dark Evil Forces "must" explain the JFKA and RFKA. Jim DiEugenio and his ilk epitomize this mindset to the point of almost irrational worship of JFK's memory. I don't say this is an accurate stereotype of all CTers, but it did scream off the pages of the Ed Forum and I believe it's more accurate than the stereotype you offer.
I recall reading Walt Brown's description of his emotional meltdown, at the age of 15, when the JFKA occurred. (He was once one of the leading CTers and I believe still holds a vast horde of records from his DPD friend Jay Harrison.) I found it bizarre. I was going on 14. It meant little to me then or now. Hate JFK? Why would I or anyone hate JFK, who would scarcely even qualify as a Democrat these days? What is there to hate about JFK? Why would hating JFK make the LN narrative more appealing than some of the conspiracy theories? I just see no logic here.