Discussion:
Pat Speer and the 7x2 fragment "outside of the skull"
(too old to reply)
donald willis
2019-04-15 19:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Pat Speer and the 7x2 fragment "outside of the skull"

Pat Speer seems to be the most ardent critic of Dr. David Mantik on the
subject of the 6.5mm object seen in the A-P x-ray. In "A New Perspective
on the Kennedy Assassination", an online publication, he concludes that
the "supposedly 6.5mm fragment on the back of the head was really the 7x2
fragment removed [at JFK's autopsy] from behind the eye". Fair
enough--the experts disagree even about what's the back and what's the
front of the head in the x-rays. Not promising for anyone.

Speer's more interesting conclusion, however, is that the "so-called 6.5mm
fragment... removed at autopsy... was actually on the OUTSIDE [caps mine]
of the skull". If so, then Speer seems to be saying that it was a
ricocheting fragment, and thus not part of the bullet which hit JFK in the
head. One implication, if Speer is correct: Even less of the head-shot
bullet than previously thought was recovered. Another: It now becomes
more likely that at least some of the bullet fragments found in the
Presidential limo did not come from the head shot, but from ricochets from
outside the car.

Speer's conclusion here seems possible: Comdr. James Humes testified to
the Warren Commission that, as the autopsy progressed, "fragments of
various sizes would fall to the table". But notice that Speer seems to
alternate between terms--"behind the eye" and "outside of the skull".
Which was it? Seems to indicate two different areas. Humes seems equally
vague.

One good point which Speer makes is that the "6.5mm" measurement started
with the Clark Panel, though the latter did not explain how this figure
was arrived at. Perhaps its members simply wanted to keep their findings
consistent with the WC's findings of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet at large.
Keep things neat, uncontroversial.

Before Speer arrives at his 6.5mm fragment=7x2 fragment, he complicates
the issue with a different line of reasoning, hypothetically positing an
"innocent explanation": "Light spots" on x-rays "can be caused by 'Fixer
or water on film before development'." He moves on from this detour to
the 7x2 conclusion. As Paul Seaton has noted (invoking Sherlock Holmes):
"This is a two pipe problem, Dr. Watson."

Some ballistics expert should take up the "fixer" idea to see if it could
account for the anomalies which Mantik found with the 6.5mm fragment, such
as the "phantom image (of an authentic bullet fragment) seen inside the
6.5 object... consistent with double exposure in the x-ray darkroom".
("The John F. Kennedy autopsy x-rays: The Saga of the largest 'metallic
fragment'")

In the end, Speer comes close (advisedly, only "close") to suggesting that
the 6.5mm fragment is both the 7x2 fragment AND a spot of "fixer". Oh, he
doesn't quite do that, but the detour seems like a cheat, invoked only to
be discarded, an intentional attempt simply to obfuscate things and negate
Mantik .

Whether or not someone eventually convincingly nullifies Mantik's
assertion re a "fragment" added to the original x-ray--which assertion, in
the meantime, all but proves conspiracy--the Clark Panel, with its "6.5mm"
guesstimate, temporarily at least contributed to the cover-up of the
conspiracy.

dcw
Ramon F Herrera
2019-04-16 01:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Pat Speer and the 7x2 fragment "outside of the skull"
Pat Speer seems to be the most ardent critic of Dr. David Mantik on the
subject of the 6.5mm object seen in the A-P x-ray. In "A New Perspective
on the Kennedy Assassination", an online publication, he concludes that
the "supposedly 6.5mm fragment on the back of the head was really the 7x2
fragment removed [at JFK's autopsy] from behind the eye". Fair
enough--the experts disagree even about what's the back and what's the
front of the head in the x-rays. Not promising for anyone.
Donald:

I will repeat the following guiding principle until my tongue and
fingers become unusable.

Why exactly should we give much credence to the work of an utterly
unqualified individual such as our most esteemed Pat Speer?

No, I am not claiming that Pat's work is a total waste. In fact, his
YouTube video about the "blob" that they could not placed properly
(which way is up, again?) in our august Congress is excellent.

The last time that Pat and I had a public interchange (long ago, before
I was banned from the "Education" forum), he had this to say about my
work, which was in a nutshell: "Let's call the AUTHORITATIVE entities,
ie. our top schools and centers of scientific research".

This was his reply:

"Ramon, you get a 'E' for effort, best of luck in that direction"

Pat is simply terrified of approaching universities. He DID try, though,
posting flyers in his nearest school -a strategy mostly applied when
looking for roommates- but the response was nil. I wonder whether the
Internet was available those days?

I will continue with Pat's story later but for now, let's make sure that
everybody understands the following fact, stated at the very entrance of
my/your/our video channel:

https://vimeo.com/user69083377

Currently, the number of individuals (notice how I never use the term
'researcher', those shoes are too big for my tiny feet) occupied on the
numerical aspect of the shooting is ONE.

"JFK Numbers Is Dead, Long Live JFK Numbers"
https://vimeo.com/325943801

-Ramon
JFK Numbers

#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
Ramon F Herrera
2019-04-17 01:25:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by donald willis
Pat Speer and the 7x2 fragment "outside of the skull"
Pat Speer seems to be the most ardent critic of Dr. David Mantik on the
subject of the 6.5mm object seen in the A-P x-ray.?? In "A New Perspective
on the Kennedy Assassination", an online publication, he concludes that
the "supposedly 6.5mm fragment on the back of the head was really the 7x2
fragment removed [at JFK's autopsy] from behind the eye".?? Fair
enough--the experts disagree even about what's the back and what's the
front of the head in the x-rays.?? Not promising for anyone.
I will repeat the following guiding principle until my tongue and
fingers become unusable.
Why exactly should we give much credence to the work of an utterly
unqualified individual such as our most esteemed Pat Speer?
No, I am not claiming that Pat's work is a total waste. In fact, his
YouTube video about the "blob" that they could not placed properly
(which way is up, again?) in our august Congress is excellent.
The last time that Pat and I had a public interchange (long ago, before
I was banned from the "Education" forum), he had this to say about my
work, which was in a nutshell: "Let's call the AUTHORITATIVE entities,
ie. our top schools and centers of scientific research".
"Ramon, you get a 'E' for effort, best of luck in that direction"
Pat is simply terrified of approaching universities. He DID try, though,
posting flyers in his nearest school -a strategy mostly applied when
looking for roommates- but the response was nil. I wonder whether the
Internet was available those days?
I will continue with Pat's story later but for now, let's make sure that
everybody understands the following fact, stated at the very entrance of
https://vimeo.com/user69083377
Currently, the number of individuals (notice how I never use the term
'researcher', those shoes are too big for my tiny feet) occupied on the
numerical aspect of the shooting is ONE.
"JFK Numbers Is Dead, Long Live JFK Numbers"
https://vimeo.com/325943801
I am preparing a videoclip series called "Sleeping With The Enemy",
subtitled: "I Have Found The Enemy and It is Us". This is one of the
most powerful factors in JFK activism:

"Dedicated to All Webmasters of the JFK Murder Forums"


Back to our illustrious (*) Pat Speer. For years, I have been trying to
persuade him to work together. In fact, since I am engaged in projects
which are very demanding (filling a 8-story building with highly detailed
3D models, plus streets, vehicles, determination of weapon brand, bullet
trajectories and caliber, etc). I told him:

"Pat, I have a great project, it is the easiest one in my plate. I have
obtained permission from the National Archives to bring a high end film
digitizer into the room where the X-rays are kept, I have located a
world-class research group in Berlin who are able to verify whether the
X-films are genuine and extract a 3D model, I have several cranium models
with 3D designers that can carve the injuries, I have started
relationships with most of the Notable Doctors. You know Aguilar, right?
You produced a video with him. The project is almost ready. What do you
say you take over? I need ZERO credit."

For a while, he simply gave me radio silence. After the Trial of Lee he
finally replied to my e-mails. My last request was:

"Would you at least put a link in your website, pointing to the work being
done by the JFK Numbers projects?"

Still waiting for a reply.

Tragically, Pat is not the exception but the rule.

-Ramon
JFK Numbers
Brutally Sincere Pictures

(*) il??lus??tri??ous
/i??l??str????s/
adjective: illustrious

Well known, respected, and admired for PAST achievements.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-18 01:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ramon F Herrera
Post by donald willis
Pat Speer and the 7x2 fragment "outside of the skull"
Pat Speer seems to be the most ardent critic of Dr. David Mantik on the
subject of the 6.5mm object seen in the A-P x-ray.  In "A New Perspective
on the Kennedy Assassination", an online publication, he concludes that
the "supposedly 6.5mm fragment on the back of the head was really the 7x2
fragment removed [at JFK's autopsy] from behind the eye".  Fair
enough--the experts disagree even about what's the back and what's the
front of the head in the x-rays.  Not promising for anyone.
I will repeat the following guiding principle until my tongue and
fingers become unusable.
Why exactly should we give much credence to the work of an utterly
unqualified individual such as our most esteemed Pat Speer?
No, I am not claiming that Pat's work is a total waste. In fact, his
YouTube video about the "blob" that they could not placed properly
(which way is up, again?) in our august Congress is excellent.
The last time that Pat and I had a public interchange (long ago, before
I was banned from the "Education" forum), he had this to say about my
work, which was in a nutshell: "Let's call the AUTHORITATIVE entities,
ie. our top schools and centers of scientific research".
"Ramon, you get a 'E' for effort, best of luck in that direction"
Pat is simply terrified of approaching universities. He DID try, though,
posting flyers in his nearest school -a strategy mostly applied when
looking for roommates- but the response was nil. I wonder whether the
Internet was available those days?
I will continue with Pat's story later but for now, let's make sure that
everybody understands the following fact, stated at the very entrance of
https://vimeo.com/user69083377
Currently, the number of individuals (notice how I never use the term
'researcher', those shoes are too big for my tiny feet) occupied on the
numerical aspect of the shooting is ONE.
"JFK Numbers Is Dead, Long Live JFK Numbers"
https://vimeo.com/325943801
-Ramon
JFK Numbers
#FreeTheCranium
#FreeTheBlueprints
You are decades behind.
7x2 what? Inches, feet?
Someone is imagining a 7x 2 object and then calling it a x 2 fragment.
There was no such fragment on the head. One WC lacky said he saw a 6.5mm
HOLE on the back of the skull and used that as proof that an Oswald
bullet hit the back of the skull. What the moron did not know is that
Oswald bullets were not exactly 6.5mm in diameter as he thought.
They are actually 6.8mm in diameter. So he lied about everyhing and
fabricated evidence to try to frame Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
2019-04-18 01:52:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by donald willis
Pat Speer and the 7x2 fragment "outside of the skull"
Pat Speer seems to be the most ardent critic of Dr. David Mantik on the
subject of the 6.5mm object seen in the A-P x-ray. In "A New Perspective
on the Kennedy Assassination", an online publication, he concludes that
the "supposedly 6.5mm fragment on the back of the head was really the 7x2
fragment removed [at JFK's autopsy] from behind the eye". Fair
enough--the experts disagree even about what's the back and what's the
front of the head in the x-rays. Not promising for anyone.
Speer's more interesting conclusion, however, is that the "so-called 6.5mm
fragment... removed at autopsy... was actually on the OUTSIDE [caps mine]
of the skull". If so, then Speer seems to be saying that it was a
ricocheting fragment, and thus not part of the bullet which hit JFK in the
head. One implication, if Speer is correct: Even less of the head-shot
bullet than previously thought was recovered. Another: It now becomes
more likely that at least some of the bullet fragments found in the
Presidential limo did not come from the head shot, but from ricochets from
outside the car.
Speer's conclusion here seems possible: Comdr. James Humes testified to
the Warren Commission that, as the autopsy progressed, "fragments of
Bullet fragments or skull fragments. Show me these fragments.
Post by donald willis
various sizes would fall to the table". But notice that Speer seems to
alternate between terms--"behind the eye" and "outside of the skull".
Above the right eye.
Post by donald willis
Which was it? Seems to indicate two different areas. Humes seems equally
vague.
One good point which Speer makes is that the "6.5mm" measurement started
with the Clark Panel, though the latter did not explain how this figure
We are not allowed to name who gave birth to that lie, but he should have
known better. The designation of a bullet caliber is not based on the
diamter of the bullet. It is based on the diameter of the bore.
Post by donald willis
was arrived at. Perhaps its members simply wanted to keep their findings
consistent with the WC's findings of a 6.5mm Carcano bullet at large.
One particular "expert" was dedicated to the cover-up.
Post by donald willis
Keep things neat, uncontroversial.
Before Speer arrives at his 6.5mm fragment=7x2 fragment, he complicates
7x2 what? inches, miles?
Post by donald willis
the issue with a different line of reasoning, hypothetically positing an
"innocent explanation": "Light spots" on x-rays "can be caused by 'Fixer
or water on film before development'." He moves on from this detour to
"This is a two pipe problem, Dr. Watson."
I like Pat Speer, but sometimes he was reluctant to call a lie a lie.
Post by donald willis
Some ballistics expert should take up the "fixer" idea to see if it could
account for the anomalies which Mantik found with the 6.5mm fragment, such
What 6.5mm fragment? Show me which one you mean.
Post by donald willis
as the "phantom image (of an authentic bullet fragment) seen inside the
6.5 object... consistent with double exposure in the x-ray darkroom".
("The John F. Kennedy autopsy x-rays: The Saga of the largest 'metallic
fragment'")
In the end, Speer comes close (advisedly, only "close") to suggesting that
the 6.5mm fragment is both the 7x2 fragment AND a spot of "fixer". Oh, he
doesn't quite do that, but the detour seems like a cheat, invoked only to
be discarded, an intentional attempt simply to obfuscate things and negate
Mantik .
Whether or not someone eventually convincingly nullifies Mantik's
assertion re a "fragment" added to the original x-ray--which assertion, in
the meantime, all but proves conspiracy--the Clark Panel, with its "6.5mm"
guesstimate, temporarily at least contributed to the cover-up of the
conspiracy.
Close enough for government work.
Post by donald willis
dcw
Loading...