Creative Speculation

> Pat Speer used measurements which could be explained and duplicated - far more than anything you've ever managed.

And yet he produced a diagram that's absurdly distorted, as is shown by my yellow arrows? It would appear that a more accurate statement would be, "Pat Speer misused measurements..."

> If you had bothered to read the text you would have no basis to say this, although it is predictable that you would have said it anyway.

Wrong again. I read it all the way to the end where he said:

Or maybe 3) Speer is wrong that the measurement was from the bottom of the mastoid process rather than the "bottom tip." Or maybe 4) Speer's guess about where 14 cm would fall on JFK's body is not accurate. But in other words, even without those possibilites, it's "obvious" to Speer that we should simply ignore what the photos clearly show -- even in his distorted version -- and just chalk that up to some distortion of perspective -- even though he's already over-corrected for that -- and instead assume that the 14 cm measurement and his interpretation of it are both accurate. It's "obvious" to Speer we should ignore the photos even though an X-ray shows a nick on the C6 vertebra, which also puts the bullet path above the throat wound (and along the path in my diagram, by the way), and even though Speer can't explain where this supposed distortion is coming from, since he already attempted to correct for the camera angle. And of course it's "obvious" to Speer that his interpretation of the 14 cm is so correct that we can ignore the verbal description of the path from the same autopsy report:



Where does that put the path, "arguille?" Given the absurdity of Speer's diagram, I can't say I'm very impressed with what's "obvious" to Speer. Or to you, since you're still trying to protect your "back-and-to-the-left" delusions by being willfully blind to the forward head-snap and its clear meaning.

> Your argument makes no sense, just as it made no sense when you first offered it.

Well, that just might be why you're a conspiracist and I'm not, which reminds me that I once tried to explain to you that the definition of a "valid" logical inference is that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, in the sense that if the premises are true then the conclusion cannot be false. If that isn't the case, then your logic is faulty, whether or not you can recognize the specific fallacy. Compare that definition to your reasoning that if Adams didn't see or hear Oswald when she went down the stairs, then that means Oswald wasn't on sixth floor. I just gave you three different ways your conclusion could be false, and the only response you could come up with is that you don't think those are possible. You say it "makes no sense" to you that's there is in inherent problem with reasoning based on what someone didn't see when there are reasons why they might not have seen something that did happen, or just might not remember it. Why, exactly, should I be influenced by what "makes no sense" to you if what apparently does make sense to you is not valid logic?

> "Wm Seger", you introduced yourself on this thread as skeptical but open-minded, and gradually it has been revealed that you are a partisan propagandist who spends apparently much of his time working on deceptive diagrams supporting the Single Bullet Theory and reading up on Neutron Activation Analysis. As a propagandist, you are by nature and trade impervious to reason, to argument, to analysis.

I've been a JFK conspiracists twice in my life, "arguille," once after I read a couple of books by conspiracy hustlers in the late 60s, and once after the HSCA and the "acoustic evidence" of a 4th shot. I thought the yarns spun by the hustlers was convincing when I didn't know all the facts and hadn't examined their arguments carefully, and I thought the acoustic analysis was very scientific until I learned that the very premise of it was too flawed for the math to mean anything. Sorry, but I'm older and wiser now, and "open-minded" and "self-delusional" aren't the same thing. You simply do not appreciate how weak your evidence and arguments are, and you will never know how open-minded I am until you actually have something that's convincing. True, after 50 years, I'm not holding my breath, but you never know...