Part 1376 of my "JFK Assassination Arguments" series includes a variety of my posts and comments covering the period of May 1—31, 2024. To read the entire forum discussion from which my own comments have been extracted, click on the "Full Discussion" logo at the bottom of each individual segment.
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
I have frequently experienced that exact type of attitude being aimed at me by conspiracy theorists during the last 20+ years—at this forum and also at every other Internet forum I've joined since 2003—without exception.
Most CTers I've encountered just simply cannot stand having their unprovable and untenable theories torn to shreds by anyone—be it an LNer or a fellow CTer like Patrick J. Speer. Such conspiracists prefer fantasy over reality (and facts).
Sad indeed. But that's the way it is. At least that's been my experience since plugging in my first computer in September of 2000.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Pat, given the wholly-untenable alternative(s) that would have no choice but to be true in order for the Single-Bullet Theory to not be true, I do indeed believe that the SBT can be categorized as more of a "fact" versus merely a "theory".
After weighing all of the possible options and alternatives, it couldn't be clearer to me that the single-bullet conclusion is by far the best solution. And it's rather incredible to me that so many people have such a hard time seeing the obvious truth that resides within those three controversial letters—S.B.T.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
1. The Rydberg drawings are, of course, a total mess. Both of the entry wounds are in the wrong place. Those drawings are completely worthless and useless. But I think the Warren Commission was doing the best they could with what they had....i.e., the memory of Dr. Humes and the total lack of relying on the best evidence for the wound locations---the autopsy photos.
The silliness of the WC's decision to not rely on or thoroughly review the autopsy photos still boggles the mind. A crazy, nutty decision to be sure. So, the LNers and CTers are therefore left to fight about the awful Rydberg drawings.
2. Re: the strap muscles and Arlen Specter's placement of those muscles. It's not that important in the long run, in my view, because the totality of the evidence indicates that the bullet which struck JFK in the upper back most certainly did make its way thru Kennedy's upper body without hitting any bone and without doing any severe damage to any internal structures in the body. And this is true regardless of the precise location of the strap muscles.
Key Fact Reminder --- No bullets were found in JFK's body. That's a fact, and it's a fact that most certainly supports the idea that one bullet traversed the President's upper body from back to front. (And I don't think it's a very good idea to utilize Paul Landis' recent 2023 anti-SBT story. Here's why.)
3. Dr. John Lattimer's work on the JFK case was quite solid and factual (IMO). CTers, of course, totally disagree. Like Lattimer, I believe the bullet (CE399) did, indeed, traverse JFK's upper back and neck and emerge from the throat intact to go on and hit John Connally. No other alternative, IMO, comes even close to matching the known facts (and wounds) in this case.
4. Re: Dr. Vincent P. Guinn and his NAA studies --- Let's all ponder the "What Are The Odds?" question after probing Dr. Guinn's findings HERE.
5. Yes, in my opinion, the HSCA was most certainly incorrect in its assessment that JFK was showing signs of being struck by a bullet as early as Zapruder frame 190. And I think the proof that the HSCA was dead wrong about that timing issue can be found later in that same Zapruder Film, in frames 224 thru 226. Because if Kennedy was hit as early as Z190, then there's no way we'd be seeing JFK doing what he's doing with the hands as late as Z226. That jerking upward of his hands would certainly have occurred well prior to Z226 if he had been hit as early as Z190.
PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Well, Pat, let's assume just for the sake of this discussion that Dr. Guinn was, indeed, a big fat liar (as you apparently believe). I'd still like to know what you think the odds are of a multi-gun conspiracy taking place in Dallas, with bullets from more than just a single rifle striking the two limo victims, and yet, after the bullets stopped flying, NOT A SINGLE BULLET OR FRAGMENT from any non-Oswald gun turned out to be large enough to be tested in order to positively eliminate Oswald's rifle as the source for ALL of the bullets and fragments that hit any of the victims on Elm Street?
I think that's an important "What are the odds?" question to ask, because that's precisely what did occur in this JFK murder case. No bullets or fragments exist in this case that were definitely determined to be from some OTHER non-Oswald gun.
With or without any Neutron Activation Analysis entering into the discussion, what I just said above is a proven fact. And it's a proven fact that conspiracy believers should be a little concerned about. Wouldn't you agree?
And the traditional CTer responses of "Nothing in this case can be trusted" and/or "Everything's been faked" are worn-out and unprovable responses that reek of conspiracy theorist desperation. Would you not agree, Pat?
David Von Pein
May 5, 2024
================================
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
And, of course, it is YOU (and you alone) who now gets to decide who has "lied" and who hasn't, is that it?
And a member now gets punished for expressing his OPINION about a particular subject, eh?
Pat seems to really believe that McClelland (in his initial report) was talking about a large wound in the left temple. I think Pat is dead wrong on this McClelland/Left Temple subject. McClelland's "left temple" reference, as you and others have correctly pointed out earlier, was referring to the alleged ENTRY wound that McClelland said was being pointed out by Dr. Jenkins.
This was, of course, all just one big misunderstanding on McClelland's part. But Pat Speer evaluates this situation differently. And Pat's certainly entitled to his opinion....as am I and all other EF forum members.
So what it boils down to is ---- You, Sandy, are penalizing Pat for having a different opinion than yours. I don't think that's fair.
SANDY LARSEN & PAT SPEER SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
It's kind of fun watching two conspiracy theorists calling each other liars on a daily basis now. I'm enjoying it. Even though such accusations are, of course, in direct violation of one of the most fundamental rules of this forum [The Education Forum]....
"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of lying." -- Education Forum Rules and Membership Behaviour *
But I guess if you're a moderator (or two), you can get away with such infractions. And maybe that's why we can now write out the word LIAR at this forum without it being X'ed out. Perhaps the mods removed that restriction so they themselves can utilize that word more often and more freely (on each other). Nice. 😁
* This forum rule about calling members liars has now been reworded by Administrator/Moderator Sandy Larsen. The new rule, put in place about an hour after Larsen decided to call Pat Speer a liar in one of his forum posts, now reads like this:
"No member is allowed to accuse a fellow member of posting a falsehood without definitive proof of it being so."
And Sandy Larsen seems to think that he has "definitive proof" that Pat Speer lied in various forum posts.
What a crock. **
** Within minutes of my posting the words "What a crock" on the forum, Sandy Larsen deleted my entire post and imposed this penalty against me, prohibiting me from posting on The Education Forum for 24 hours.
That was Crock #2 for the day.
Ah, well....such is life at a JFK Assassination Internet forum. 😁
SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You, Sandy Larsen, just don't seem to understand Pat Speer's basic point.
I think Pat is most definitely incorrect regarding his evaluation of the "McClelland/Left temple" matter. Pat is overstating the importance of this brief hospital admission note.
Plus, after reading over that admission note again just now, it's fairly clear that Dr. McClelland does tell us, on Page 1 of the two-page admission note, that he did, indeed, see a large wound in President Kennedy's head when he says that JFK had suffered "a massive gunshot wound of the head". McClelland just didn't give the specific details concerning the exact location of where that "massive wound" was situated on the President's head.
And I don't think that McClelland's reference to a "left temple" wound on Page 2 of his admission note is referring to the "massive gunshot wound of the head" that he mentions on Page 1. I think the (erroneous) "left temple" reference is meant to indicate the place on JFK's head where Dr. McClelland at that time (at 4:45 PM on 11/22/63) thought the bullet had entered the President's head.
But at least I understand the basic point that Pat Speer is trying to get across (even though Pat is wrong, IMO). You, Sandy, apparently cannot grasp that point at all.
David Von Pein
May 6-8, 2024
================================
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Prior to reading this 1964 newspaper article on May 10th, 2024, I had never heard about any of this "William Bobo" secrecy surrounding Lee Oswald's grave and burial....
David Von Pein
May 10, 2024
