All Activity

April 25 404 BC Athens surrenders to Sparta 1507 on a world map, the word America first appears 1915 Allied Soldiers invade Gallopoli 1945 American and Russian soldiers link up at the river Elbe 2024 The Supteme Court hears arguments on whether President's are immune from prosecution Steve Thomas

Bump.

My distant memory tells me there were only 5 in the V.P.'s car, Jacks the Highway Patrol driver, Youngblood the S.S. agent in the front seat, Yarborough behind Jacks, Lady Bird centre back seat & LBJ behind Youngblood. Carter & Johns were in the car behind, seen in the Altgens photo with rear passenger door partly open. Varsity (Secret Service code name), a yellow 1963 Ford Mercury hardtop: Joe H. Rich of the Texas Highway Patrol (driver), Vice Presidential aide Cliff Carter (front middle), Secret Service agents Jerry Kivett (right front), Warren W. "Woody" Taylor (left rear), and Thomas L. "Len" Johns (right rear).

In his Chapter 5 at the MFF site, Bill Simpich states his guiding question: "Before JFK was killed, why did the Mexico City station hide all the evidence of the Oswald visit to the Cuban consulate from CIA Headquarters, while admitting the visits to the Soviet consulate? Or, to put it another way, why did Headquarters hide Oswald’s return to the United States and subsequent history as a pro-Castro activist from the Mexico City station? In other words, why was everything that might lead to a connection between Oswald and Cuba suppressed from the record before the assassination?" Is this really true? Did CIA MC hide this from headquarters? According to our transcripts, Oswald did not even mention his own name until his last call on October 1. This call came from a tap on the Soviet line, so how would CIA Mexico City know where Oswald was calling from or that he was the same man who had been referred to earlier at the Cuban consulate? Did headquarters really hide anything from MC? Why would they bother to notify Mexico City that Oswald had returned to the US or of his pro-Castro activities?

I think it leads to a man in plain clothing, it is confusing, would come from street dress(ing).

It looks like Hill eventually became LBJ's bodyguard.

Mortician Tom Robinson presents a huge problem to Pat Speer's distorted conception of the JFKA medical evidence so he resorts to doing a smear job on Robinson's testimony reminiscent of what he has done to Dr. Robert McClelland due to the huge problems McClelland presents to his project. It is thus appropriate to say that Speer has done a "McClelland job" on Tom Robinson. Recall Speer's highly deceptive presentation of Dr. McClelland's first day Admittance Note for President Kennedy in which Speer insults our intelligence with his claim that McClelland's Admittance Note is describing only one head wound (an entrance wound in the left temple McClelland described based upon Dr. Marion Jenkins's mistaken observation regarding same). The Note ALSO elsewhere describes a "massive gunshot wound of the head," consistent with all of his later descriptions of the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head, but Pat Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read the Note for ourselves to reveal his deception. _________________ PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas _________________ Speer, in doing one of his infamous "McClelland jobs" on Tom Robinson takes the art of deception to a new level. Speer simply straight out tells bald faced lies. Pat Speer's tells a series of lies about Tom Robinson as follows: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/30374-incision-made-on-jfks-head-kennedy-assassination-nothing-to-see-here-an-incision-made-on-jfks-head/?do=findComment&comment=534508 Pat Speer characterizes Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 HSCA testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple": But as can be seen in the transcript of Tom Robinson's 1/12/1977 below Tom Robinson testified that there was a little wound "at the temples in the hairline" on the right side that was "a quarter of an inch" in diameter, and was according to Robinson caused by "probably a piece of bone or a piece of the bullet" (but note that the ARRB questioning of Robinson in 1996 makes it clear that Robinson's opinions of the cause of the wound were ALL based upon what he overheard the pathologists saying as Robinson was not any kind of expert in pathology or ballistics). Pat Speer next characterizes Tom Robinson's 6/21/1996 ARRB testimony as Robinson saying "I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek": But when we consult the actual 1996 ARRB report we see that just as Tom Robinson did in his 1977 HSCA testimony, in his 1996 ARRB testimony Tom Robinson ALSO specifically describes the right temple wound separately from the shrapnel punctures in the cheek (See next to red arrow below). Tom Robinson additionally executed two drawings of the wound for the ARRB (one of which on a skull diagram is below). Then Pat Spear attempts to smear Doug Horne by writing "Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye." What Speer thinks we are all too stupid to read in the 1/12/1977 transcript of the testimony is that when Robinson was asked by HSCA attorney Andy Purdy whether the wound was "in the forehead region up near the hairline," Robinson replied in the affirmative, "yes." Speer's fraudulent representations about McClelland, Robinson, Jenkins, and virtually every other person he writes commentary about are an insult to our collective intelligence, but to him that doesn't seem to matter, because he thinks we are all too stupid to double check his deceptive claims...

Maybe a male "Karen?"

Apparently Pat thinks that it is Horne himself relaying the above lines.

Tom Robinson: I think I saw a small wound that was not a bullet hole by the temple. Tom Robinson, nineteen years later: I think I saw two or three tiny wounds by the right cheek. Doug Horne, fourteen years after that: Robinson said he saw a bullet hole high on the forehead above the right eye. Apparently some think this makes perfect sense.

This is one of the most back-assward things I've ever read. Not one prominent researcher, not even Mantik, finds Horne's theory convincing.You know, cause you asked him, that Mantik doesn't buy into Horne's ridiculous theory Humes cut the large fragment from the head. Now I actually wish Horne was more credible. But he's just not. 1. Compare Reed's testimony to what Horne claims Reed claims. If you do you will see that Reed saw Humes cut into the head to remove the brain AFTER Reed and Custer had taken the x-rays, but Horne needs it to be before, since these x-rays show missing frontal bone...so he simply claims it was before. 2. Compare Robinson's testimony and statements to what Horne claims he saw. Robinson told Horne he saw two three tiny holes on the cheek. Horne claims he actually saw a bullet hole high on the forehead. Robinson has also claimed he saw a blowout wound on the side of the head, but Horne, as I recall, just ignores this and claims any description of a large wound on the front or side of the head prior to Humes' cresting such a wound is a lie. 3. Compare James Jenkins' description of what he took to be an entrance wound by Kennedy's ear, along with Mantik's and Chesser's subsequent descriptions of this wound as one by the ear, and then watch Horne in JFK: What the Doctors Saw pronounce that Jenkins' was really describing a bullet hole high on the forehead. It's embarrassing... for all of us...thinking there was more to it than Oswald...to be associated... with this stuff...

What is a Kent?

The real, actual "fake news" media outlets continue to circle the toilet bowl... https://www.barrons.com/news/us-conspiracy-website-gateway-pundit-declares-bankruptcy-72141b2b

Just cut back on your Starbuck lattes!

It's bizarro only in your mind, Pat. If Horne told the story, it would make perfect sense.

DO THE RESEARCH. Here, I've done it for you... From chapter 19d: One of the first books to report on the ARRB interviews orchestrated by Horne was Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). This anthology presented competing and overlapping takes on the medical evidence by Dr. Gary Aguilar and Dr. Mantik. Now, to focus on but one deception of many included in this book, we shall note that in his chapter Dr. Mantik claimed "Tom Robinson, the funeral home employee who restored JFK's head (nope, that was Ed Stroble)...described a wound...above the right eye, near the hairline." And that Mantik then cited White House photographer Joe O'Donnell's recollection he saw a photo showing such a wound as support for what he, Mantik, was now claiming Robinson had claimed. But this conspiracy gold was poop. The reality was that Robinson described a small wound which he insisted was not a bullet wound. And that he specified, on different occasions, that this tiny wound was by the temple, or even on the right cheek, but never above the right eye. And the reality is that O'Donnell's claim he saw a wound above the right eye in a photo was also suspect. Basically, O'Donnell told Horne, in the same interview in which he described being shown an autopsy photo, that he and Jackie Kennedy had spent a day together editing the Zapruder film. Well this is absolute rubbish, invisible rabbit kind of stuff. And that's not the only red flag suggesting O'Donnell was less than credible. O'Donnell similarly claimed he'd been shown this photo (for which there is no record) by White House photographer Robert Knudsen, whose family claimed he'd told them he'd been the only photographer at the autopsy--an assertion which Mantik would have to have known was false after studying Gunn's and Horne's interviews where witness after witness failed to recall Knudsen's even being present at the autopsy. Now, the since-deceased Knudsen had been interviewed for the HSCA, and had told them he'd developed photos taken at the autopsy. But he never said anything under oath about his taking the photos himself or his seeing an entrance wound on the forehead in the photos he'd developed, and his family, who told Horne and the ARRB he'd told them all sorts of wild stuff--well, even they failed to recall his describing such a wound. But it's worse than that. When Knudsen was interviewed by the HSCA on 8-11-78 he gave no signs of holding back. He said a lot of stuff which many would find incredible, including that after looking through the autopsy photos supplied him by his interviewer he thought photos were missing in which probes had been placed in the body. But he said nothing about a missing photo showing a hole in the forehead. In fact, he recalled but one photo of the head wounds (and that was one showing a wound in the right rear) and snapped "Here, this is it." when shown photo 37h, a photo showing the top of the head from above which failed to show the supposed entrance hole on the forehead and the supposed exit hole in the middle of the back of the head. Now, there was one curious exchange, where Knudsen was asked if the photos just shown him were "not inconsistent"with the ones he saw in 1963, and responded "No. Not at all." But that was just confusing human speak. I mean, if someone were to ask you if their recollection is not inconsistent with your recollection of an event, it is as likely that you would answer "no" to mean they are not consistent as it is for you to answer "no" to mean they are consistent. I mean, I get confused just writing about this. As Knudsen was asked this question after being shown a series of photos with which he expressed no disagreement, moreover, and as Purdy failed to follow up by asking how they were inconsistent, we can and should assume Knudsen meant that the photos were not inconsistent with his recollections...and that his only real complaint was that some photos (the ones he recalled with the probes) appeared to be missing. So... to sum up, the only one to claim Knudsen saw a small wound on the forehead, or even shared a photo showing such a wound, was O'Donnell, who Knudsen's family had never even heard of, and whose connection to Knudsen was nebulous, if not non-existent. O'Donnell was a dubious source with a dubious claim. Now observe how Mantik's, well, stuff...rubs off on Horne. In Volume 2 of his magnum opus Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (2009) Horne discusses Tom Robinson's description of a small wound by the temple, and takes Mantik's lead and pretends Robinson was actually describing a bullet wound above the right eye. When summarising the HSCA's 1977 interview of Robinson, Horne writes: "Robinson also spoke of a small hole in the temple near the hairlline, which was so small it could be hidden by the hair." Horne then reads the mind of Andy Purdy, the man interviewing Robinson, and claims: "Purdy asked Robinson to clarify which side of the forehead it was on, which tells me that Robinson said 'temple' but had actually pointed to his own forehead rather than to his temple. Robinson responded to the question by saying 'the right side,' thus confirming that it was indeed in the right forehead near the hairline." What the??? Horne makes a ridiculous assumption and then claims his assumption (Robinson meant forehead and not temple) is confirmed by Robinson's saying it was on the right side. Well, hello, there is a temple on the right side of the head! One can not simply declare that someone saying there was a mark on the right side of the head by the temple actually said it was a bullet hole high on the forehead. That's insulting to, well, everyone... But it gets worse. On page 599 of Inside the ARRB, Horne claims Robinson's 1-12-77 recollection of a wound by the temple "is consistent with Dennis David's account of seeing Pitzer's photos of a small round wound high in the right forehead, and of Joe O'Donnell's account of Robert Knudsen showing him a photo depicting an entry wound high in the right forehead." Now, we'll get to David and Pitzer in a minute, but what's important here is that we realize that, according to his widely-disseminated notes, researcher Joe West asked Robinson about the wounds on 5-26-92 and was told instead of "(approx 2) small wounds in face packed with wax", and that when Horne himself spoke to Robinson on 6-18-96, Robinson once again failed to mention a small wound by the temple, and instead claimed he saw "two or three small perforations or holes in the right cheek." And that all this led Horne to assert, on page 612 of Inside the ARRB, that Robinson's 1996 recollection of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with his 1977 recollection of a small wound by the temple. So, you can follow the bouncing ball, right? In Fetzer/Mantik/Horne Bizarro world, Robinson's description of two or three small wounds on the cheek is consistent with Joe O'Donnell's claim there was a bullet hole high on the forehead.

Unlike Horne, Pat Speer routinely kicks inconvenient facts under the rug. In contrast, Doug Horne studies all the facts he can find and comes up with a cogent hypothesis that explains it all. What Pat scoffs at here is too much for his thought process to handle. But for most intelligent people it makes perfect sense given what evidence we have. JFK's body was indeed delivered to Bethesda Hospital well before it's official arrival time. Most likely it was flown in by helicopter from the airport. It arrived in a plain shipping casket, not the ornate bronze one that it was put in at Parkland.

I did complain at the supermarket. Soon enough, we’ll have to eat only twice a day because food is now so expensive.

it was Joe O'Donnell. 13 years ago or so, I was reading the New York Times and came across an article about a former U.S. Information Agency photographer who had recently passed, whose passing had ignited a scandal. Because his obituary had listed a number of famous photos he'd taken, when he had in fact not taken these photos. It turned out that, although he had taken some famous photos in the aftermath of the A bomb in Japan, he had been signing and selling photographic prints for decades of photos that he had not taken==all of which were Kennedy-related. An investigation followed and led to his family admitting he'd been suffering from dementia and had developed an unhealthy obsession with the Kennedys. This was, of course Joe O'Donnell, one of the few people in history whose obituary led to a retraction. In any event, I read a number of articles on this situation, and saw that Cecil Stoughton, the White House photographer who'd accompanied Kennedy to Dallas, and had taken the Johnson swearing-in photos, had said he'd never heard of O'Donnell, and that, if I recall, U.S. Information Agency photographers did not interact much with White House photographers or the first family. Well, hell, I thought, and went back and read the notes of the interviews of the Knudsen family, and found they said they'd never heard of O'Donnell. And then re-read the notes on Horne's interview with O'Donnell, in which he reported that O'Donnell had claimed he'd performed a private showing of the Zapruder film for Jacqueline Kennedy, and that the two of them had edited the film together. Well, that was it, I thought, the man was obviously suffering from dementia when he claimed Knudsen had shown him some photos. But, wait, how would he have known Knudsen had claimed he'd taken some photos? I then remembered that Knudsen had written an article in which he claimed he'd taken photos...and that the HSCA had then called him in to testify and that he'd told them he'd developed photos taken by others. In any event, I shared this info with the research community in the hopes people would stop citing O'Donnell as an important witness. And have instead witnessed men like Mantik and Horne continue to cite O'Donnell as credible, when they know full well he is not. Now, recently, after re-reading all of this stuff, I feel a little more charitable towards O'Donnell. We Know Knudsen developed photos. So the possibility exists Knudsen DID show O'Donnell some photos, and that O'Donnell had simply mis-remembered the nature of these photos

This is a perfect example of Pat Speer slandering a researcher. First he misrepresents the researcher's evidence. Then he states the researcher's conclusion based on that evidence... which of course makes no sense due to Pat's misrepresentation. And so, he concludes, there is something wrong with the researcher's thinking.

Yeah, but that wasn't till 1966. When Roselli claimed that Castro had sent some hitmen to the U.S. to kill Kennedy in retaliation for him trying to kill Castro. Which, BTW, I don't believe given that I believe the assassination plotters were CIA. And the CIA certainly wouldn't have acquired their hitmen from Castro. That's interesting. I'd like to see that report. I think it is likely that LBJ trusted what Hoover had to say about there being a real possibility of a communist plot. Hoover said publicly very early on (Nov. 25?) that Oswald was the lone gunman. But on Nov. 29 he said the following to LBJ by phone: "This angle in Mexico is giving us a great deal of trouble because the story there is of this man Oswald getting $6,500 from the Cuban embassy and then coming back to this country with it. We're not able to prove that fact, but the information was that he was there on the 18th of September in Mexico City and we are able to prove conclusively he was in New Orleans that day. Now then they've changed the dates. The story came in changing the dates to the 28th of September and he was in Mexico City on the 28th. Now the Mexican police have again arrested this woman Duran, who is a member of the Cuban embassy... and we're going to confront her with the original informant, who saw the money pass, so he says, and we're also going to put the lie detector test on him."

A serious researcher would offer to pay Denis for his great find, otherwise he might end up complaining about the expensive food at his grocery store.

I know that you seen the series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" now who was that guy that seen the bullet hole in the temple? Was it O'Donnell or someone that knew a name close to O'Donnell?He was an older gentleman. One picture it was there & one picture it wasn't there. You have to know who I'm taking about? Was it a Joe? Pictures came from a Knudsen set?

The medical evidence is overwhelming.They probably starting cutting & searching there for a bullet.

You are not a Kent, but that's pretty close.