2) Does Pat Speer cherry pick witness testimony?
Well, who doesn’t? When people make an argument they list the evidence that supports their case. Most of the JFK assassination books and discussion on these forums consists of people presenting an argument and giving the evidence to support it. One could go the other direction and list all the conflicting evidence and not draw a conclusion, but that’s not a satisfying endeavor. There is too much conflicting evidence throughout the case, not just among the medical evidence; this is why assassination researchers argue all the time and don’t consolidate one unified position to counter the Warren Report.
"Who doesn't cherry pick witness testimony?" I'll tell you who, Curme: Honorable researchers who fully and fairly present evidence that conflicts with their conclusions and then fully and fairly deconstruct said evidence to illustrate its fatal flaws.
On this thread Greg Burnham said,
“Accepting the notion that all shots originated from behind Kennedy is but the very first and most important step in concluding that Oswald could have possibly acted alone. Without that fundamental premise there is no 'Oswald was the lone gunman' argument."
"I completely agree with that, however that doesn’t mean that we should reject scenarios where all the shots actually did come from the back. There is a lot of evidence that there were multiple shooters from the back. It is possible that the shot from the grassy knoll or storm drain was a loud, smoky diversionary shot, to attract attention to the grassy knoll and allow shooters in the TSBD and/or Daltex building to get away. I think it helps to keep an open mind on these issues."
Greg Burnham replied:
Why resort to speculation as to the purpose of alleged shots from the grassy knoll and/or storm drain? That is entirely off topic.
We have evidence that either supports, refutes, or is neutral with respect to various conclusions as to the points of origin of the shots responsible for the President's wounds. In this instance, there is compelling evidence that shots originating from both the front and the rear of Kennedy struck their target. When a researcher disregards, misrepresents, omits, or distorts evidence--including witness testimony--that does not conform to his or her pet theory it is intellectually dishonest AT BEST.
--- In response to the following question elsewhere in the thread: "Does Pat Speer cherry-pick witness testimony?" -- You [Curme] began your reply with: "Well, who doesn't?" [cherry pick witness testimony] ---
I am appalled by your response on several levels.
First, while it would be disingenuous for me or anyone to deny that each of us carries some amount of bias, it is also important to note that an honest broker recognizes this potential bias in themselves, rejects it rather than embraces it, and fights to resist it interfering with their pursuit of the truth.
Second, while it would be entirely appropriate for me to object to your position regarding "cherry picking" evidence on purely moral and ethical grounds, I prefer to take a more dispassionate approach. Namely, "cherry picking" is a logical fallacy known as Special Pleading, and is therefore not sound reasoning.
Third, your having correctly identified and admitted that Pat Speer is guilty of the logical fallacy of Special Pleading, colloquially also known as "cherry picking," is, at the very least, instructive as to how we should judge the soundness of his arguments and/or the reliability of his conclusions.