Jump to content
The Education Forum

Pat Speer

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Pat Speer

  1. Pat Speer

    Fire Me?

    It's been awhile but at one point I read a great deal about the BOP screw-up, and who was responsible. And it comes down to this: the CIA botched it and tried to blame it on Kennedy. Kennedy told the CIA the BOP invasion could not point to the U.S., and screw up JFK's hopes for better relations with Latin America. They said OK boss, but secretly figured he'd bail them out if the invasion failed--which they knew was quite likely. Then came the invasion, and the landing in Florida of a phony plane supposedly flown from Cuba but actually flown by one of the exiles. This plane was supposed to sell the world that Cuban pilots were rebelling against Castro. But Adlai Stevenson figured out what was up and told JFK he didn't want to lie to the U.N. and say this wasn't a hoax. So someone--I recall it as being Rusk--told the CIA to cancel U.S. support for the next day's attack on the Cuban Air Force, which was to be performed by planes flown in from Guatemala. Now, here's the key that most ignore. Hunt and others flipped out about this and convinced Cabell to call Kennedy and get the support planes re-instated. So Cabell called but, according to Hunt, wilted and said no when Kennedy asked if these support planes were absolutely necessary. So the invasion proceeded without direct help from the U.S. military. And failed miserably. Now, here's the other key that most ignore. At this point JFK approved having American planes fly cover and protect the next wave of planes coming in from Guatemala. But someone (who was eventually named in a CIA Oral History with Jake Esterline) forgot to take into account time zones when planning this operation, and these planes arrived without cover, and were promptly shot down by the Cuban Air Force. Making matters worse, the surviving pilots from the first day's failure were reluctant to fly back to Cuba. As a result, the pilots in this second wave included several members of the Alabama Air National Guard, if I recall. So the role of the U.S. in the invasion became public knowledge anyway. Well, sort of. For several years the government told the world these men were mercenaries.
  2. My Tivo recorded a show I'd never even heard of called Timeless, presumably because it had a plot centered around the JFK assassination. I decided to speed through the show and see how it handled the question of conspiracy/no conspiracy. It didn't surprise. While the vast majority of MSM "news" shows continue to pretend there's a consensus Oswald acted alone, the vast majority of entertainment shows continue to suggest a conspiracy. In this instance, one of the characters warns a 17 year old JFK (who has temporarily been transported to the present) not to go to Dallas on 11-22-63. When this character returns to the present, he asks if it worked, and if JFK was able to serve a second term. To which one of the other characters, says no, of course not, he was assassinated in AUSTIN in 1963. While schlocky TV, this nevertheless underlines a point. Most Americans, IMO, continue to see JFK's death not as a quirk of history, but as an unavoidable step in the nation's progress. Unidentified "Forces" wanted JFK dead, pure and simple.
  3. Pat Speer

    live round in the chamber

    I may have just pieced that together myself. Baker and Truly saw him on the 4th floor as they descended. They were riding on the east elevator, which Sawyer could not have called back to the 4th. The west elevator was up on the 5th.with Dougherty. It seems clear, then, that Sawyer either raced back to the front elevator, or ran down the back stairs. I suspect the latter, based in part on his stating he came back "downstairs". Mr. BELIN. You went up to the top floor that the elevator would go to? Mr. SAWYER. That's right. Mr. BELIN. You got off, and were there officers there? Mr. SAWYER. There was one or two other officers with me. Mr. BELIN. Now when you got off, you say you went into the back there into a warehouse area? Mr. SAWYER. Storage area; what appeared to be a storage area. Mr. BELIN. Did you go into any place other than a warehouse or storage area? Mr. SAWYER. No. Mr. BELIN. Was there anything other than a warehouse or storage area there? Mr. SAWYER. Well, to one side I could see an office over there with people in it. Some women that apparently were office workers. Mr. BELIN. Now Inspector, what did you do then? Mr. SAWYER. Well, I didn't see anything that was out of the ordinary, so I immediately came back downstairs to check the security on the building.
  4. Pat Speer

    John Newman on Antonio Veciana

    I spoke to John Newman about this at both conferences mentioned in his post. And I think John is right to say people should be wary of witnesses whose stories change, but that he is wrong in thinking we should throw Veciana's story out because his story changed. Fonzi accepted Veciana's story because the Bishop in his story ran a near parallel existence to Phillips' real life. He also observed that Phillips' own behavior suggested he was trying to hide something. Those facts don't disappear because Veciana changed his story (or corrected his story, take your pick) over the years. There's also this. While some have tried to portray Veciana's recent activities as an attempt to cash in and/or smear the CIA for what he viewed as a betrayal, this doesn't wash when you examine the steps leading to Veciana writing a book. As of 2013, he had no intention of writing a book. He was urged to come forward, however, by Marie Fonzi and his own son. He then acknowledged Bishop was Phillips and that he'd known it all along. He then came to Bethesda and both claimed Bishop was Phillips and defended the CIA. That's right. Veciana came to a prominent JFK assassination conference and spent a big chunk of his time defending the CIA. So, no, he's not some sour grapes guy trying to cash in. So what's left? Could he be, gulp, someone who lived a life without writing everything down, who has trouble remembering exactly what happened? God forbid such a person should exist on our planet, where everyone remembers everything exactly as it happened.
  5. Pat Speer

    live round in the chamber

    When I re-read all this stuff last year, I made a list of all the unidentified officers observed in the building, as well as the names of officers who were in the building but never made a statement. There were something like 6 references to unnamed officers, and 5 named officers who never made a statement. In short, the assassin or assassins could have escaped without problem should they have been police officers, or disguised as police officers. As far as Mooney, I'm pretty sure the men he saw were Inspector Sawyer and another unnamed DPD officer, who took the front elevator up to the fourth floor, ran to the back of the building, saw Baker and Truly as they came down on the east elevator, and then ran back down the stairs and out the front in order to close off the building.
  6. Pat Speer

    How Many Shells were found at the Scene?

    I spent a lot of time on this one and concluded the official story on this one is correct. The fire truck out the window in the shell casing photos proves the evidence photos were taken shortly after the shooting, and not that evening or the next day. And the boxes match the positions of the boxes in the Alyea film, taken before the arrival of Day and Studebaker. So, yeah, the photos taken by Day and Studebaker appear to be legit, which is as expected when one considers that all the early witnesses said they saw three shells. My one concern is that Alyea claimed Fritz picked up the shells, and his film does in my opinion show Fritz kneel down and pick up the third western-most shell. Well, this opens up the possibility Fritz took this shell with him, and that the third shell in the Day and Studebaker photos was a throw-down, of sorts. I spent a lot of time looking at this third shell and comparing it to various kinds of shells and could never convince myself it matched the other shells. But neither could I convince myself it did not match.
  7. Pat Speer

    live round in the chamber

    Fritz's comment about letting Day dust first was a reference to his letting Day dust the bolt to make sure there were no prints on it (the bolt, not the live round) before he ejected the live round. FWIW, I've read quite a bit on this topic over the last 2 years. And there are a number of presumptions on this matter that are incorrect. One surprising fact is that very few shell casings reveal verifiable fingerprints. A lot of the older books note that shell casings for fired rounds rarely show prints, but recent studies have shown that live rounds found at crime scenes also rarely reveal a print. It's something like one in a thousand. The small size of the surface area is a factor, as is the likelihood of smudging. And that brings me to another surprise. Although TV shows and movies always have the crime scene guys flipping out over a found weapon, and finding prints on the weapon, unless it was wiped down, this is a fantasy. The reality is that less than 10% of recovered weapons reveal an identifiable print, and that crime scene analysts focus instead on things like window panes and door knobs--places where the perp may have left a print without thinking. One of the great myths about this case, btw, is that Oswald (or anyone) wiped down the rifle. The supposedly smudged prints on the left trigger guard were not actually smudged, and could presumably have been matched to Oswald, should they have been his prints. That they were not makes me suspect they were not his prints. But there's another possibility. That Oswald--who was supposedly careful to avoid being seen with the bag on the way home on the 21st, and bringing the rifle into the building--would not have wiped down the rifle he was supposedly hiding and would later claim was not his, beggars belief. It suggests either that he did not fire the rifle, or that he did, and the DPD tried to frame him by putting his prints on the rifle, only to have the FBI shoot them down because they were afraid the prints would not survive a trial. Something like that....
  8. Pat Speer

    The Future of the Education Forum

    I should have been more clear in my post. The current make-up of this forum is about as civil a group as I have seen. A few people have been rude to each other. I suspect they all will get over it. The level of nastiness is currently a 3 on a scale of 1 to 10, IMO. This forum has at times been as high as a 7, I would say. Other forums on which I've posted, the JFK assassination forum, all.assassination.jfk, alt.conspiracy.jfk, JFKfacts, the IMDB discussion forum for the film JFK, and numerous discussions on Amazon and youtube, have ranged between 5 and 10. There was at one time a character on alt.assassination.jfk, who used to send me emails telling me that my family was destined to burn in hell. There was another guy on youtube who was always trying to get me out in the hills so he could show me what a good shot he was, which my family took as a threat. In sum, then, the bad behavior currently on this forum is minor in comparison to what we've seen on this forum in the past, and what I've seen elsewhere. P.S. McAdams was never a member of this forum.
  9. Pat Speer

    The Future of the Education Forum

    As a long-time member, and an occasional participant in other forums. it's clear to me that this forum remains the most civil forum on the assassination, in which a multitude of views are presented. Many of the other forums have given up, and are little more than excuses for people to yell at each other. Long may it run.
  10. A strange thing happened at the 2013 Wecht Conference; Josiah Thompson and Robert Groden, appearing one after the other, offered up the same "new" theory regarding the shooting. And this was that Kennedy was hit twice in the head within a second or so, with the first shot impacting at Z-313. So....Thompson's recent change is still in line with the bang-bang heard by the witnesses. The second head shot (which I believe he says came from behind) just came in a bit later than he'd previously believed.
  11. I looked back through it. The over-all point seemed to be that the critics were biased and hadn't proved someone else did it, and that therefore the public should be satisfied the Warren Commission was right. That's backwards, IMO. If the WC failed to consider all the evidence, or properly analyze the evidence it did consider, that's a problem, no matter who points it out, no matter the over=all quality of their analysis. There were parts in there that were just pathetic, IMO. I mean, writing off the problems with the back wound location by claiming the mark on the face sheet was just an 'errant dot"? Without even noticing that this mark was in line with the measurements? That's propaganda. Not analysis.
  12. I don't have it on my site, but I found it on Weisberg's, here: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Associated Press/Dallas Times-Herald/Item 01.pdf While the article was released over 5 or 6 days in most papers, the Dallas Times Herald released it as a Sunday supplement, as a "public service." P.S. I haven't re-read it yet, but my recollection is that it was every bit as bad as the CBS program.
  13. I agree that by 67 the CIA had been roped into Johnson's web of self-protection. I tried to put this all in context in chapter 1... From chapter 1 at patspeer.com: That the "clearing" of Johnson's name was a major factor in the commission's creation is confirmed, moreover, by a memo written by Warren Commission counsel Melvin A. Eisenberg. While reporting on the Warren Commission's first staff conference of 1-20-64, Eisenberg recalled in a 2-17-64 memo that Chief Justice Warren had discussed "the circumstances under which he had accepted the chairmanship of the Commission," and had claimed he'd resisted pressure from Johnson until "The President stated that the rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson. Others, if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives." Eisenberg's account of Warren's statements was supported, for that matter, by Warren Commission Junior Counsel--and subsequent Senator--Arlen Specter in his 2000 memoir Passion for Truth. In Specter's account, Warren claimed that Johnson had told him "only he could lend the credibility the country and the world so desperately needed as the people tried to understand why their heroic young president had been slain. Conspiracy theories involving communists, the U.S.S.R., Cuba, the military-industrial complex, and even the new president were already swirling. The Kennedy assassination could lead America into a nuclear war that could kill 40 million people..." And this, apparently, wasn't the only time Warren admitted Johnson's worries extended both beyond and closer to home than the possible thermo-nuclear war mentioned in his autobiography. In his biography of Warren, Ed Cray reported that Warren once confided to a friend that "There was great pressure on us to prove, first, that President Johnson was not involved, and, second, that the Russians were not involved." And yet Warren refused to put Johnson's fears he'd be implicated on the record. While he was interviewed a number of times in his final years about the creation of the Warren Commission, Warren never admitted in these interviews what he'd readily told his friends and the commission's staff--that Johnson had railroaded him onto the commission in part to clear himself. In fact, Warren said the opposite. When interviewed by Warren Commission historian Alfred Goldberg on March 28, 1974, to be clear, Warren told Goldberg the opposite of what he'd told Eisenberg and Specter (and presumably Goldberg) in 1964. Instead of claiming Johnson told him "Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government wishing to see the Presidency assumed by President Johnson," Warren now related "There were of course two theories of conspiracy. One was the theory about the communists. The other was that LBJ's friends did it as a coup d'etat. Johnson didn't talk about that." It seems likely, then, that even Warren thought it improper that the Chief Justice of the United States, the head of the Judicial Branch of Government, be hired by the head of the Executive Branch of Government, the President, in part to clear his name. Now, it's not as if Warren's fellow commissioners had a problem with serving this higher purpose... John McCloy, Wall Street's man on the Commission, told writer Edward Epstein on June 7, 1965 that one of the commission's objectives was "to show foreign governments we weren't a South American Banana Republic." Well, seeing as the expression "Banana Republic" is not a reference to countries whose leaders have been killed by foreign enemies, but to countries whose leaders have been killed by domestic enemies, who then assume power, this is most certainly a reference to Johnson. And it's not as if this was all a big secret. The December 5, 1963, transcripts of the Warren Commission's first meeting reflect that Senator Richard Russell, Johnson's long-time friend and mentor, admitted "I told the President the other day, fifty years from today people will be saying he had something to do with it so he could be President." And it's not as if Washington insiders weren't also in the know. In 1966, columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak published Lyndon B. Johnson: The Exercise of Power. In this book, they discussed the creation of the Warren Commission as follows: "There was first the question of the assassination itself. Inevitably, irresponsible demagogues of the left and right spread the notion that not one assassin but a conspiracy had killed John Kennedy. That it occurred in Johnson's own state on a political mission urgently requested and promoted by Johnson only embellished rancid conspiratorial theories. If he were to gain the confidence of the people, the ghost of Dallas must be shrugged off." Now, should one still doubt that Johnson was as least as concerned with suspicions of himself as of the Soviets, there is confirmation from an even better source: Johnson himself. In a rarely-cited interview with columnist Drew Pearson, cited in a November 14th, 1993 article in The Washington Post, Johnson admitted that, in his conversation with Warren, in which he convinced Warren to head his commission, Johnson brought up the assassination of President Lincoln, and that rumors still lingered about the conspiracy behind his murder 100 years after the fact. According to Pearson, Johnson admitted telling Warren that "The nation cannot afford to have any doubt this time." Well, this says it all. The doubt, according to Johnson, the nation could not afford to have, was doubt about Southern and/or military involvement in the assassination. The rumors about Lincoln's death, after all, revolved largely around his being murdered by The Confederate Army as revenge for his successful campaign to re-unite the States, or his being murdered by his Secretary of War, or his being murdered by his Vice-President, a Southerner named JOHNSON. And Johnson repeated these concerns in his presidential memoir, The Vantage Point: Perspectives on the Presidency 1963-1969, published 1971. Of the national mood on 11-24-63, after the man accused of killing President Kennedy, Lee Harvey Oswald, a purported communist-sympathizer, was shot down while in police custody, by Jack Ruby, a man with connections to organized crime, Johnson wrote: "The atmosphere was poisonous and had to be cleared. I was aware of some of the implications that grew out of that skepticism and doubt. Russia was not immune to them. Neither was Cuba. Neither was the State of Texas. Neither was the new President of the United States." And, should one have doubts so many men--not only those working for the commission, but those working for the Secret Service, FBI, and CIA--would agree to give Johnson a free pass, in the name of national security, etc, one should consider that some of these same men defended the conclusions of the Warren Commission for these very same reasons...and left a "smoking gun" document in the National Archives as proof of their activities. Here is a link to this document. The Smoking Gun Document One might wish to take a quick look at it before returning to our discussion... This document, released in 1993 as a result of the 1992 JFK Records Act, which was passed in the aftermath of Oliver Stone's movie JFK, was written on January 4, 1967, at a time when questions surrounding the assassination were beginning to be taken seriously, and appear in mainstream publications like Life Magazine, the New York Times, and The Saturday Evening Post. It is a CIA document, and it proposes that the CIA chiefs around the world to whom it was directed "employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories." Note that it says "Destroy when no longer needed" across the bottom. We were never supposed to know about this. Note also that January 1967 marks the precise time the so-called mainstream media pulled back from its criticisms of the Warren Commission, and started focusing its criticism on the critics. CBS News, most pointedly, had started an investigation of the Warren Commission months before, but had changed its direction around this same time, after former Warren Commissioner John McCloy crawled onboard as a top secret adviser. But note, primarily, the stated purpose of this propaganda push. It says nothing about the danger Americans might think a foreign power killed Kennedy. It says nothing about preventing World War III. Instead, it says, in so many words, that all this talk of conspiracy is starting to circle in on President Johnson and the CIA, and that would be bad for business. Here are the relevant paragraphs: 1. Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy's assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder. Although this was stemmed for a time by the Warren Commission report (which appeared at the end of September 1964), various writers have now had time to scan the Commission's published report and documents for new pretexts for questioning, and there has been a new wave of books and articles criticizing the Commission's findings. In most cases the critics have speculated as to the existence of some kind of conspiracy, and often they have implied that the Commission itself was involved. Presumably as a result of the increasing challenge to the Warren Commission's Report, a public opinion poll recently indicated that 46% of the American public did not think that Oswald acted alone, while more than half of those polled thought that the Commission had left some questions unresolved. Doubtless polls abroad would show similar, or possibly more adverse, results. 2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization. The members of the Warren Commission were naturally chosen for their integrity, experience, and prominence. They represented both major parties, and they and their staff were deliberately drawn from all sections of the country. Just because of the standing of the Commissioners, efforts to impugn their rectitude and wisdom tend to cast doubt on the whole leadership of American society. Moreover, there seems to be an increasing tendency to hint that President Johnson himself, as the one person who might be said to have benefited, was in some way responsible for the assassination. Innuendo of such seriousness affects not only the individual concerned, but also the whole reputation of the American government. Our organization itself is directly involved: among other facts, we contributed information to the investigation. Conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments. Now note that, according to this last paragraph, this trend towards accusing Johnson was, in the eyes of the writer of this dispatch (undoubtedly one of the CIA's top officials), "a matter of concern to the U.S. government," including the CIA. This more than suggests that this order to "employ" the CIA's propaganda assets to help clear Johnson's name did not originate within the CIA itself... but from elsewhere in the executive branch. Quite possibly Johnson himself... In October 2007, the Johnson Presidential Library released a batch of previously withheld recordings of President Johnson's phone calls while President. Most interesting of these was a January 11, 1967 phone call between Johnson and his most trusted adviser, Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas. This call built upon similar calls with Fortas on October 1 and October 6, 1966; it was made, moreover, just one week after the "smoking gun" document was written. In this call, amazingly, Johnson drops his guard completely, and tells Fortas that he believes Senator Robert Kennedy--his predecessor's brother--and Robert Kennedy's supporters are behind the recent spurt of books and articles on the assassination. He claims, moreover, that: "They've started all this stuff...they've created all this doubt...And if we'd had anybody less than the attorney general--ah, the chief justice--I would've already been indicted." And should one think Johnson exaggerating here, and stating something that he didn't really believe, one should consider that he said similar things even after Robert Kennedy was dead and buried. As reported by Robert Caro, in his 2012 epic The Passage of Power, Johnson dropped his mask yet again during the August 19, 1969 recording of an oral history for the Johnson Library. He declared: "I shudder to think what churches I would have burned and what little babies I would have eaten if I hadn't appointed the Warren Commission." He also offered a slightly different and no doubt more honest version of how he got Warren to chair his commission. Leaving off the bit about the Russians launching nukes should they think we blamed them for killing Kennedy, he admitted he'd actually pressured Warren through a call for domestic tranquility. He said he told Warren: "When this country is threatened with division, and the President of the United States says you are the only man who can save it, you won't say no, will you?" And that Warren responded, "No, sir!" So there you have it, straight from the horse's--ah, President's--mouth. Johnson felt that his having left-wing icon Earl Warren chair the commission investigating President Kennedy's murder not only stopped Kennedy's brother Robert Kennedy from having him (Johnson) investigated as a suspect, but stopped him (Johnson) from actually being indicted for Kennedy's murder. Which leads us back to the "smoking gun" document... Note that one of the arguments the CIA plans on using to assure the world Johnson is above reproach is "Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc. Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy." Well, this is grossly unfair. Robert Kennedy did not participate in the investigation of his brother's murder. He never even read the report of Earl Warren's commission. This argument is also familiar. On November 4 1966, just when critics of the Warren Commission started gaining traction, President Johnson made a similar argument at a press conference. He offered: "The late, beloved President's brother was Attorney General during the period the Warren Commission was studying this thing. I certainly would think he would have a very thorough interest in seeing that the truth was made evident." (Note that this was well after Johnson first started musing that the "beloved President's brother," Robert Kennedy, was behind all these critics...) This argument was then repeated by those closest to Johnson. A January 1968 letter to the New York Times by John Roche (subsequently quoted in its January 5 edition), offered: "Any fair analysis of Sen. Robert Kennedy's abilities, his character and of the resources at his disposal as Attorney General would indicate that if there were a conspiracy, he would have pursued its protagonists to the ends of the earth." Roche was a "Special Consultant" to Johnson, his so-called "intellectual in residence." Roche had written Johnson a memo on 11-23-66 urging Johnson to make countering the critics of the Warren Commission a "top priority" of his administration. And the residue of this sticky business stuck to Johnson for the remainder of his days. In 1971, Johnson published The Vantage Point, his presidential memoir. On page 25, he relates: "One of the most urgent tasks facing me after I assumed office was to assure the country that everything possible was being done to uncover the truth surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy. John Kennedy had been murdered, and a troubled, puzzled, and outraged nation wanted to know the facts. Led by the Attorney General who wanted no stone unturned, the FBI was working on the case 24 hours a day and Director J. Edgar Hoover was in constant communication with me." Well, this was bullxxxx of a presidential magnitude. Johnson knew full well that Robert Kennedy barely followed the FBI's investigation, and most certainly never "led" it. Kennedy even put this on the record, signing a statement to the Warren Commission declaring ""As you know, I am personally not aware of the detailed results of the extensive investigation in this matter which has been conducted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation." What's worse, Kennedy's statement was an understatement...a gross understatement. The June 4, 1964 memo of Warren Commission counsel Howard Willens, in which Kennedy's signing such a statement was proposed, admits "The proposed response by the Attorney General has, of course, not been approved by him, or on his behalf by the Deputy Attorney General. It represents a revision of an earlier letter which I did show to them during my conference with them earlier today. At that time the Attorney General informed me that he had not received any reports from the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation regarding the investigation of the assassination." And it's not as if Robert Kennedy later studied these materials. Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach, in a 10-8-69 oral history performed for the Kennedy Library, admitted that Robert Kennedy "didn't approve" of the Warren Commission and never read its report. He said further that "I like to think that deep down he understood that it had to be done" and that, whatever his feelings on the matter, "he understood that he had to endorse it..." Katzenbach then added: "but he wouldn't read it." So...gulp...President Johnson was not only so paranoid he thought Robert Kennedy was behind the rumors he'd killed President Kennedy, and so concerned about these rumors he thought that only his appointing Chief Justice Earl Warren to chair the commission investigating President Kennedy's murder had saved him from an indictment for murder, and a reputation as one of the world's most evil men, but so ruthless he was willing to use Robert Kennedy's deep remorse over his brother's murder, and resultant failure to promptly investigate his brother's murder, to suggest what he (Johnson) undoubtedly KNEW was untrue--that Robert Kennedy, President Kennedy's brother, ("Bobby"), had led the FBI's investigation into President Kennedy's murder, and cleared Johnson of all wrong-doing. Well...would an innocent man behave in such a manner?
  14. I don't believe in Mockingbird to the extent most who believe in it believe in it. In fact, I think the belief in "mockingbird" when it comes to the JFK assassination is a bit of a cop-out. Yes, there are times when the CIA wants to defend itself or push a particular position, and uses its friends in the media to place stories favorable to its position. Of that, I have no doubt. But when I look at the assassination and its aftermath, I see Johnson and suck-ups to Johnson as the main culprits. The whitewash known as the Warren Commission was not a CIA operation, IMO, although Dulles was there looking after the CIA's interests. No, it was a defend Johnson operation, from the get-go. Whether or not Johnson was involved in the assassination, it seems clear his greatest fear was that an honest investigation would somehow point back at him. And so he created a commission in large part to clear himself. If Trump had a lick of sense he'd have done the same thing with the Russia investigation, that is, appoint a presidential commission to get to the bottom of it that was designed not to get to the bottom of it. I mean, just imagine... he could have manned it with people like Stanley McChrystal, David Petraeus, Rudy Giuliani, Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, John Bolton, Alberto Gonzales, Mike Huckabee, Orrin Hatch, Michelle Bachman, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Clarence Thomas, and Sarah Palin... In other words, the A team.
  15. When one looks back on the history of this case, it's clear there was a window--from mid--66 to late 67--when the research community had a lot of supporters among the MSM. That tide began to turn in June 67, when CBS aired a four part special saying there was nothing to the talk of conspiracy, and the AP pushed out a multi-part series saying pretty much the same thing, that was published in almost every paper in America. Tink's book came out just after this. And the Johnson Administration reacted to it the same way it had Inquest, Rush to Judgment, and the Manchester book---through a strong offense. In Tink's case, it was with a lawsuit from Life, and the creation of a secret panel to counter his observations about the bullet trajectories (AKA, The Clark Panel).
  16. If you send me your friend's email address at pat@patspeer,com, I can forward it on to Thompson.
  17. I've read the Sat Post article. It was basically a summary of Six Seconds in Dallas. Apparently, this scared the bejeesus out of the Johnson Administration. Soon thereafter, Ramsey Clark convened his secret panel to debunk Thompson. FWIW, I saw Thompson last weekend. He's still looking for a publisher for Last Second in Dallas. We'll see.
  18. A little bit of background is in order, Michael. This forum was conceived and designed as an avenue through which authors could reach their readers. Its founder, John Simkin, invited numerous authors to the site, and encouraged them to use the site for Q and A about their books. In other words, marketing. It was a successful model, for that matter. At various times in its history, this site has hosted comments by authors such as Nathaniel Weyl, William Turner, Mark Lane, Josiah Thompson, David Lifton, Dan Moldea, Walt Brown, Jim DiEugenio, Jim Fetzer, David Mantik, Larry Hancock, Barry Errnest, Peter Janney, and Joseph McBride, as well as a number of historical figures (of varying credibility) such as Dennis David, Gerry Hemming, Daniel Marvin, Harry Dean, Tosh Plumlee, and Judyth Baker. It has also hosted thousands of comments by figures related to the Watergate scandal (Douglas Caddy, Alfred Baldwin, and Tim Gratz). Now, to be clear, the forum may not have sold many books, but it has inspired some great conversations. The original thread on Larry Hancock's book Someone Would Have Talked stretched on for hundreds if not thousands of posts over several years. So, in short, David Lifton is not only allowed to promote his research and theories on this forum, he has actively been encouraged to do so.
  19. I've been looking for a piece of info about the rifle, but have been unsuccessful. I'd like to know the outside measurement for the rifle barrel--its width from side to side and top to bottom. If anyone knows an official source for this info, or has a Carcano on which they could measure, it would be much appreciated. Note: I've been told the rifle barrel is .66 inches, or thereabouts. But this didn't seem right. I've seen photos of the end of the barrel in which the open part of the barrel in the middle is clearly wider than the width of both sides of the metal on the outside. And the inside part of the barrel is what? .26 inches? So it seems unlikely the sum of open space and outside barrel could be over .6 inches. Thanks, Pat
  20. Pat Speer

    Question about the rifle

    Thanks, Bart and Peter. Although I've long thought the palm print supposedly lifted from Oswald's rifle was a fake, I never realized how unlikely it was on its face. The print is contained within a one inch wide lift...which would have to have been wrapped around a barrel barely half that size. This necessitates then that the lift came from both sides of the barrel. The whole thing just smells. I mean, why not use a smaller piece of tape, or cut the tape down to a more reasonable size? I think the answer is fairly obvious....because the lift wasn't pulled from the barrel, but from a flat surface, perhaps even a table-top.
  21. Pat Speer

    Question about the rifle

    Thanks, Ron, But let me follow-up. Is the outer metal on your 30-30 barrel noticeably wider than the gap between? It would have to be, right? I've seen pictures of a Carcano barrel where the gap is noticeably wider than the outer metal. This leads me to suspect the width of the barrel would be about .5 inches. not .66, as I've been told.
  22. Pat Speer

    Lee Henry Oswald

    While I haven't studied the CIA behavior in Mexico as much as I would like, I did stumble upon something which may or may not be well-known. I certainly found it interesting. Here's my train of thought.. I believe the CIA created a file on Lee Henry Oswald long before the assassination. It's theorized that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico shortly before the assassination. I believe the real Oswald was there, and was observed by a mole (or caught on a bug) in the Soviet Embassy, and that a false record was put into the files to protect this mole's identity (or the existence of the bug). This false record included fake phone calls made to the embassy--the transcribers couldn't be trusted to merely create fake transcripts from whole cloth, perhaps they were even being tested. I believe this is what Helms meant by citing "sources and methods" as a reason for the CIA's lies. It should be remembered here that tapping phone lines in Mexico was not illegal for the CIA, and that the existence of these taps would have to have been suspected by the KGB, but that having actual bugs within the walls of the embassy would have to have been considered of the utmost secrecy. The Lopez Report (the HSCA report on Oswald in Mexico) reflects that on one of the transcripts Oswald called the Soviet Embassy and identified himself as Lee Oswald, and went on to tell his story, spelling out everyone he spoke to inside the embassy, etc. I believe this was planted information, that is, information derived from the mole, or the bug--but put into the record in such a way that a mole within the CIA would not know the CIA had a spy of its own (or a bug) within the Embassy. Probe Magazine Interviews with HSCA Deputy Counsel Robert Tannenbaum in 1996 and former HSCA Counsel Richard Sprague in 2000, however, indepently report that the transcripts said the caller in Mexico identified himself as "Lee Henry Oswald." If so, since the Lee Henry Oswald file at the CIA preceded this incident, it would indicate the impersonator is working off flawed CIA information. They have thus left their fingerprints on their charade. Are the actual transcripts available? While it's possible Sprague and Tannenbaum have maintained contact, and jointly remembered the story incorrectly, if they haven't, the chances of them both remembering this story incorrectly in the same way would have to be considered miniscule. Or perhaps I'm simply wrong that the Lee Henry Oswald file preceded this incident. I'd appreciate some help sorting this out.
  23. Pat Speer

    Martin Hay Reviews Bugliosi Jr.

    I think some of those believing "Oswald did it because well he must've, right, we don't have any solid evidence towards any other shooter in Dealey Plaza that we can name anyhow" are open-minded enough to recognize that the SBT is wacky. And are desperately flailing to come up with some way it could be Oswald without the SBT... I see them as being on the road to a sudden realization... "Oh my God, maybe it wasn't Oswald, after all!" But for one thing... These SBT-doubters have spent years if not their whole working life working with law enforcement, and the fabrication of evidence and/or false testimony of the DPD and/or FBI is not something they are able to consider.
  24. Pat Speer

    Buell Wesley Frazier

    Having talked to Frazier a number of times about his friendship with Oswald, and having heard him speak publicly about his friendship with Oswald, I can say that there is nothing to Paul's speculation there was more to their friendship (a term which is stretching the facts a bit) than meets the eye. Frazier was a country boy, but he was curious about the world and wished he were more educated. He admired Oswald for a couple of reasons. One is that Oswald seemed worldly and educated--he'd traveled, and he read the paper every day. And two is that he had a gentle demeanor, whereby he would explain politics to those with an interest (including Frazier) and take the time to play with kids. In short, Frazier thought Oswald was a good guy. That doesn't mean he was in love with him.