Discussing The Mindset Of Conspiracy Theorists

[Pat Speer]

Even though he [Vincent Bugliosi] is a lawyer, he never...qualifies people like Zimmerman, Lattimer, or West in any way.

But Lattimer and Zimmerman merely conducted experiments that ANYONE (even a garbage man) could easily have conducted (if they had the proper materials and resources).

Lattimer merely set up some shooting experiments using a Carcano rifle, some skulls, some cardboard targets, etc., and started shooting at them.

And every single test he conducted is documented in his very good 1980 book "Kennedy And Lincoln", and he even filmed many of his experiments, such as the head shot stuff, which proves for all time that a skull WILL definitely travel TOWARD THE SHOOTER when it is struck from behind. EVERY one of Lattimer's skulls moved toward the gun when shot.

And yet, NONE of Lattimer's excellent reconstruction experiments hold any water with the disbelieving conspiracy crowd whatsoever. (Gee, I wonder why? Not.)

Do CTers dismiss Lattimer's FILMED head experiments just because he was a "piss doctor"?

What DIFFERENCE does it make what Lattimer's occupation was when it comes to THOSE particular hands-on experiments? A two-dollar hooker in high heels could have proved what Lattimer proved (assuming she had a Carcano, a human skull to shoot at, and a camera with film in it).

David, may I suggest you get off your rump and purchase a copy of the 1993 Chicago conference on the medical evidence? Because at that conference, Wallace Milam completely DESTROYED Lattimer's skull tests, and PROVED the skulls flew backward because they were recoiling from the ladders, which ALWAYS fell forward. He did this by re-producing Lattimer's tests, only with skulls nailed to the ladders, not just sitting on top. Sure enough, the skulls now ALWAYS fell forward, along with the ladders...

As discussed on my webpage, Lattimer was a bit of a loon, and somehow managed to twist his test results to suggest Oswald did it, NO MATTER what the results actually showed. And that's being kind.

From patspeer.com, chapter 12:

Although one might think Dr. Lattimer, a urologist, after having his interpretation of Kennedy's back wound location so thoroughly rejected by the nine forensic pathologists on the HSCA pathology panel, would simply revise his interpretation, but continue to push that the single-bullet theory was correct, one would be wrong.

Apparently, there was too much at stake. Not only had Lattimer staked his reputation on the thoroughly repudiated proposition that the back wound was well above the throat wound, the reputation of the Warren Commission, and, by extension, the Executive Branch of the Government, also hung in the balance. In 1967, and then again in 1968, the Justice Department had convened panels of doctors to interpret the photos. Both panels had asserted that the autopsy photos demonstrated that the back wound was well above the throat wound. In 1972, after becoming the first "independent" researcher allowed to inspect these photographs, Lattimer, amazingly, went even further, and emerged from the archives with the proposition that the back wound was even higher on the back than depicted in the drawings created for the Warren Commission. In 1975, Warren Commission lawyers W. David Slawson and Richard M. Mosk wrote an article for the L.A. Times arguing against a re-investigation of the medical evidence; in this article, they asserted "The evidence concerning the wounds conclusively dispels the idea of shots from the front...The wounds both slanted downward from Kennedy's back. This is clear beyond doubt from the autopsy and from the photographs and X rays of the body...to doubt the evidence of the wounds is to label as liars the doctors who examined the body, the pictures and the X rays for the commission."

Well, here, in 1978, were nine top pathologists, working for the House of Representatives, not only doubting the evidence of the wounds, but asserting it had been incorrect. They were, in the eyes of Warren Commission supporters like Slawson and Mosk, admitting that the autopsy doctors--the men upon whose integrity the entire single-bullet theory had been built--were liars, and that, by extension, Dr. Lattimer, who'd asserted that the biggest lie pushed by the autopsy doctors--that the back wound was well above the throat wound--was an understatement--was an even bigger xxxx.

So what was he to do? He could admit he was mistaken, and take a body blow to his credibility, or he could double down, and insist that he, a urologist, was the sole doctor to inspect Kennedy's autopsy photos and x-rays in the decade to properly interpret the vertical relationship between Kennedy's back wound and throat wound.

As Dr. Lattimer was an avid collector of Nazi paraphernalia, he was almost certainly familiar with the following passage from Hitler's manifesto, Mein Kampf:

"in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

In his 1980 book, Kennedy and Lincoln, Dr. Lattimer revealed that the repudiation of his findings by the HSCA pathology panel in 1978 had had no impact whatsoever on his unique interpretation of Kennedy's wounds. As a result, one is forced to wonder if his continuing to tout, in the absence of all evidence, and without any support among his fellow physicians, that the back wound was much higher on the body than the throat wound, is an example of a "big lie" in action...

Yep, when it comes to bald-faced lying about the murder of a president, Lattimer pretty much set the standard with Kennedy and Lincoln. While discussing Kennedy's throat wound, for example, he asserted, “any bullet that might have exited through this hole had had a definite downward course through Kennedy’s neck, rather than the relatively horizontal course …depicted in the official schematic diagram made by medical staff artist H.A. Rydberg.” Incredibly, even after the HSCA released a drawing of Kennedy taken from an autopsy photo showing his back wound to be, well, on his back, Lattimer chose to re-publish his 1972 drawing depicting the back wound to be at the level of Kennedy's chin, and the bullet to be descending on an even steeper trajectory through the President’s neck than in the drawings created for the Warren Commission. This trajectory, if projected forward from the back wound in the autopsy photos, amazingly, would have passed right through the President’s sternum, inches below the supposed exit on his throat.

In 1993, in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lattimer tried to explain this last discrepancy. He asserted that a large fat pad on Kennedy’s neck, aka the "hunch" or "hump," deflected the bullet downwards, and that Kennedy may have leaned forwards to talk to Connally just before he was shot at frame 224 of the Zapruder film. Astonishingly, Lattimer and the editors at JAMA had failed to realize that this proposed lean would lessen the degree of descent within Kennedy’s body, and make the 27 degree descent depicted in his drawing even more unlikely.

This was not all that surprising. By 1993, Lattimer had become something of a guru to his fellow single-assassin theorists, including JAMA's editor George Lundberg. As a consequence, in April 1993, he was invited to present his findings at an assassination conference in Chicago. Videotapes of this conference indicate that he was still 100% committed to his appallingly incorrect understanding of Kennedy's anatomy and wounds. As he showed the audience the Warren Commission's depiction of the single-bullet theory, CE 385, he explained: "I knew President Kennedy and this was not President Kennedy. President Kennedy had a big hump on the back of his neck from all the steroids he was taking. And the point of entry, for example, of the bullet, isn't down there (pointing out the entrance on CE 385), it's way up here (pointing to the back of the neck) at the level of the base of his chin." Later, when presenting his own drawing to the audience, he added: "The hump on the back of his neck brought the point of impact of the bullet up to the level of his chin and the downward course of the bullet coming out low on his neck, where Dr. Perry did the tracheostomy."

Well, this was just crazy talk. In Kennedy and Lincoln, Lattimer published a photograph of a shirtless Kennedy at Santa Monica Beach and claimed this photograph proved Kennedy's shoulders to be unusually high as a result of his Addison's disease. This was totally misleading. True, Kennedy's chin was below his right shoulder in the photo. But this was because he was leaning slightly forward, and to his left. His chin, tellingly, was not below his left shoulder. When one looks at other photos of a shirtless Kennedy taken after he'd contracted his disease, moreover, it becomes abundantly clear that his shoulders did not extend above his chin, and that his chin was at best at the level of the crease at the base of his neck. (The second shirtless photo of Kennedy on the slide above was taken in the mid-50's.)

I mean, just look at Lattimer's drawing, and compare it to the autopsy photo of the back wound... The autopsy photo proves the back wound to be inches below the point where Kennedy's shoulders connected to his neck. And yet, Lattimer's drawing presents this wound at the level of his chin. It follows then--yes, I know it's hard to believe that such a respected man could make such a crazy assertion--that Lattimer believed Kennedy's shoulders attached to his neck inches above his chin.

Don't believe me? Well, then consider that at the '93 Chicago conference, Lattimer showed the audience the JFK beach photo on the slide above, and pointed out the trajectory of the bullet through Kennedy's neck, beginning at the level of the light blue line on the slide above.

I mean, really, just who was Lattimer trying to fool?

Apparently, all of us...

Unfortunately, Lattimer’s actions on behalf of his beloved single-assassin theory extended way beyond his creating a flawed drawing or two, and/or his inability to see its inaccuracies. He helped sell a whole generation of doctors and devotees that the single-bullet theory was viable and supported by meticulous research. Since his work on the head wounds was equally misleading, many in the conspiracy community assumed he was some sort of government plant. Upon his death in 2007, however, another possibility was revealed--that he was every bit as eccentric and wacky as the wackiest conspiracy theorist. You see, buried within his obituaries was an astonishing fact--that among Lattimer's many collectibles and prized possessions was an historically significant item he'd purchased some years before at auction, for a reported 3,000 dollars...Napoleon's shriveled penis!

[David Von Pein]

You mean a bit like Lee Oswald was TRYING to get caught?

Well, I once postulated that very idea--Oswald left his popcorn trail on purpose. But, who knows?

But there's one big difference here---ALL of the actual evidence in the case points toward Oswald, while NONE of the evidence points toward any unknown, "mystery" shooters.

If we had a mystery shooter in the mix, wouldn't you think his gunshots would have left behind SOME tangible evidence in the limousine that wasn't immediately swept under the carpet by your band of evidence-manipulators? Just ONE hunk of bullet--or SOMETHING?

After all, we know (via my previous examples on this subject) that your collection of "Let's Get Oswald" patsy framers was totally retarded from Day 1.

I mean, allowing Lee Harvey to walk around on the lower TSBD floors at around 12:30 (or to possibly even waltz outside the building and get himself PHOTOGRAPHED by James Altgens, as Jim Garrison seemed to actually believe in 1967) just reeks of "patsy plotter incompetence" to me. Doesn't it to you?

Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

@Pat Speer (re Lattimer's ladder/skull tests):

Well, for Pete sake, what direction would you expect a NAILED-DOWN SKULL ON A LADDER to go if shot from behind? How could it go backward if it was NAILED to the ladder? (Did I misinterpret your "nailed" comment above, Pat? Because, if I didn't, this is laughable.)

In fact, I've always contended that Lattimer's skull tests are MORE impressive since the skulls were just lying there (untethered) on the ladder. With a "FREE TO MOVE ANYWHERE" situation of a skull that was not tied down in some way...and STILL having the skulls go backward, it seems more impressive to me.

And the "ladder recoil" junk is just that....junk (IMO). When I view those films of Lattimer's, I see the skulls flying backward BEFORE the ladder ever tips backward (which I think is the excuse given by some CTers for why Lattimer's skulls went backward).

The ladder seems to be going FORWARD, while the skull moves BACKWARD. What is deceiving about that, Pat? I really do not see what the complaint is on this?

Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

@Pat Speer (re Lattimer's ladder/skull tests):

Well, for Pete sake, what direction would you expect a NAILED-DOWN SKULL ON A LADDER to go if shot from behind? How could it go backward if it was NAILED to the ladder? (Did I misinterpret your "nailed" comment above, Pat? Because, if I didn't, this is laughable.)

In fact, I've always contended that Lattimer's skull tests are MORE impressive since the skulls were just lying there (untethered) on the ladder. With a "FREE TO MOVE ANYWHERE" situation of a skull that was not tied down in some way...and STILL having the skulls go backward, it seems more impressive to me.

And the "ladder recoil" junk is just that....junk (IMO). When I view those films of Lattimer's, I see the skulls flying backward BEFORE the ladder ever tips backward (which I think is the excuse given by some CTers for why Lattimer's skulls went backward).

The ladder seems to be going FORWARD, while the skull moves BACKWARD. What is deceiving about that, Pat? I really do not see what the complaint is on this?

C'mon, Dave, use your head. The force impacting on the skulls is coming from behind. This knocks the skulls forward. All the skulls in Olivier's tests moved forward. So why did Lattimer's skulls fall backward? Now, hmmm, why is that? Milam thought it was because they were bouncing off the ladders. So he attached the skulls to the ladders. Sure enough, when this was done, the skulls fell forward along with the ladders to which they were attached. This proved Lattimer's tests to be nonsense.

Alvarez's melon tests, where he hung a melon from a rope and shot it to see which way it flew, were also bogus. The skull is much much harder than a melon rind. As a result, the amount of energy expended upon entering a skull--energy pushing the skull forward--is much greater. It follows then that where the forward explosion of the melon's contents pushed the remaining part of the melon backward, the initial movement of a skull would be forward. This, as stated, was the case in Olivier's tests in 64. All the efforts since then designed to prove heads fly back to the shooter have been bogus.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Pat Speer

[David Von Pein]

C'mon, Dave, use your head. The force impacting on the skulls is coming from behind. This knocks the skulls forward. All the skulls in Olivier's tests moved forward. So why did Lattimer's skulls fall backward? Now, hmmm, why is that? Milam thought it was because they were bouncing off the ladders. So he attached the skulls to the ladders. Sure enough, when this was done, the skulls fell forward along with the ladders to which they were attached. This proved Lattimer's tests to be nonsense.

You've got to be kidding me!

Good heavens, Pat...use YOUR head!

If the skull is NAILED to the ladder (and not even on a "neck"-like spring to provide some freedom of movement for the skull), OF COURSE the skull has to go forward. How could it possibly go anywhere else?

In effect, then (if I'm interpreting your comments about Wallace Milam's experiment correctly), Milam was PROHIBITING any kind of rearward movement at all by nailing down the skulls.

You can't see the logic of what I'm getting at here, Patrick? C'mon.

Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

All the skulls in Olivier's tests moved forward.

I just found the Olivier testimony that Pat was probably referring to--it's in the Rockefeller Commission records. Here's what Olivier said about his '64 skull tests and the direction of the skull movement:

Q. Have there been any instances in which you have done firings into the head?

A. We have done firings into human skulls filled with gelatin and coated with gelatin, and we have even put goat skin on it to simulate the human scalp.

Q. Have you been able to observe the nature of the movement of the skulls?

A. The skulls that we shot invariably rolled away from the gun. And this was a reason for this, that you didn't get any jet effect, because the gelatin that we used was 20 percent gelatin, this was our simulant for tissue. We also used it as a simulant for the brain.

There is one bad thing about that. If you want to see this movement, the gelatin is too elastic, it recovers, in other words, any gelatin that expands out comes back like a rubber band. So it didn't fly loose from the skull to get a jet effect.

Q. You mean such as brain tissue might?

A. Right.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier_a.htm

Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Like I said, Lee...human beings are inherently stupid. Your unbelievably stupid and reckless-beyond-belief "patsy framers" are proof of that, it would appear.

And Lee H. Oswald WAS human (well, almost anyway).

Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

C'mon, Dave, use your head. The force impacting on the skulls is coming from behind. This knocks the skulls forward. All the skulls in Olivier's tests moved forward. So why did Lattimer's skulls fall backward? Now, hmmm, why is that? Milam thought it was because they were bouncing off the ladders. So he attached the skulls to the ladders. Sure enough, when this was done, the skulls fell forward along with the ladders to which they were attached. This proved Lattimer's tests to be nonsense.

You've got to be kidding me!

Good heavens, Pat...use YOUR head!

If the skull is NAILED to the ladder (and not even on a "neck"-like spring to provide some freedom of movement for the skull), OF COURSE the skull has to go forward. How could it possibly go anywhere else?

In effect, then (if I'm interpreting your comments about Wallace Milam's experiment correctly), Milam was PROHIBITING any kind of rearward movement at all by nailing down the skulls.

You can't see the logic of what I'm getting at here, Patrick? C'mon.

Sorry, David, but you're showing your lack of understanding of the issues. The issue is not whether the jet effect exists, it is whether the amount of forward momentum impacted on a skull by a bullet is greater than the jet effect of the fluid rushing out of the front of the skull. Alvarez and Lattimer claimed the jet effect was greater. But they took short cuts in their tests.

When one conducts the tests properly their theory is disproved.

Take a look at it this way... What caused the ladders to inevitably tip forward in Lattimer's tests? The forward momentum imparted by the bullets on the backs of the skull, correct? Well, in a human being, would the skull be attached to the body upon which it rests?

If so, then why are they unattached in Lattimer's tests?

If you really believe the fluid erupting from a skull will shoot the skull back toward the shooter, then, for this to have any relevance to the Kennedy assassination, you should also believe it will do so when attached to the object on which it rests. You clearly do not.

P.S. Milam was not prohibiting the skulls from going backward. They were as free to tip the ladders backward as they were to tip them forward. And yet the impacts on the skulls always tipped them forward.

Edited March 7, 2011 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

All the skulls in Olivier's tests moved forward.

I just found the Olivier testimony that Pat was probably referring to--it's in the Rockefeller Commission records. Here's what Olivier said about his '64 skull tests and the direction of the skull movement:

Q. Have there been any instances in which you have done firings into the head?

A. We have done firings into human skulls filled with gelatin and coated with gelatin, and we have even put goat skin on it to simulate the human scalp.

Q. Have you been able to observe the nature of the movement of the skulls?

A. The skulls that we shot invariably rolled away from the gun. And this was a reason for this, that you didn't get any jet effect, because the gelatin that we used was 20 percent gelatin, this was our simulant for tissue. We also used it as a simulant for the brain.

There is one bad thing about that. If you want to see this movement, the gelatin is too elastic, it recovers, in other words, any gelatin that expands out comes back like a rubber band. So it didn't fly loose from the skull to get a jet effect.

Q. You mean such as brain tissue might?

A. Right.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/olivier_a.htm

Both Olivier and Sturdivan later used the "our gelatin was too elastic" excuse in order to help support the jet effect, but they were clearly blowing smoke. Sturdivan told the HSCA, in fact, that the jet effect was nonsense. After becoming buddies with Lattimer, Zimmerman and Canal, etc, however, he suddenly changed his mind. Olivier had been using standard ballistics gelatin in 1964. It's not as if Lattimer's brain simulant was a more accurate simulant.

[David Von Pein]

Did Milam simulate the skulls being on a pivoting "neck" type of device, as JFK's head was on in Dealey Plaza when he was shot? Or were Milam's skulls nailed squarely (and firmly) to the ladder?

If it's the latter option, I think Milam's tests are not valid and do not simulate the proper conditions of a human head on a human (pivoting) neck.

Edited March 7, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Pat Speer]

Did Milam simulate the skulls being on a pivoting "neck" type of device, as JFK's head was on in Dealey Plaza when he was shot? Or were Milam's skulls nailed squarely (and firmly) to the ladder?

If it's the latter option, I think Milam's tests are not valid and do not simulate the proper conditions of a human head on a human (pivoting) neck.

I believe they were nailed firmly to the ladder. FWIW, I don't think he was trying to demonstrate that heads always go one way or the other; I'm pretty sure he was just trying to show that Lattimer's tests were a sham. Which they were...

[Len Colby]

+ My latest

Back to the bold burgundy. Portions snipped for clarity.

= My latest replied in bold and preceded by equals signs (=)

<snip>

= Lawyers and witnesses / candidates and handlers rehearse likely questions and answers all the like sometimes those answers are accurate sometimes they are not.

What an utterly contentless rationalization. Angleton was the Counter-Intelligence chief of the CIA, and if the CIA had no connection to Oswald there would have been no need to rehearse an answer to the simple question: Was Oswald a CIA agent? Haldeman obviously felt this rehearsal was significant, not routine.

+ If he wanted to tell his readers Oswald was a CIA agent why did he do so in such roundabout way?

=Haldermona never said directly that LHO was CIA or that the agency was directly involved in the assassination.

It's an obvious subtext given Haldeman's reference to Angleton's denial that Oswald was CIA and Nixon's insistence that Hunt and the burglars were a scab that shouldn't be opened.

+ This has previously been discussed; we are going in circles, why didn’t he say this directly?

=The part about “No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made” leads us back to the Russo/Gratz theory

Only if you take the statement out of context and spin it to suit your world view.

+ You seem to have lost sight of the fact the book was aimed at the general public not the assassination community. Based on what they wrote the interpretation that LHO was CIA is one only likely to be reached by the latter.

= so does his use of ‘connection’ rather words like ‘involvement’, ‘role’ etc. Why would he only say they were ‘connected’ if he believed they were the assassins?

Assassins wouldn't be "connected"? Your semantic hair-splitting is amusing.

+ Saying “the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA” would be an incredible understatement if he thought they were covering up the fact they had orchestrated his murder.

Varnell:

How about this crucial aside, which I will examine more closely later:

(Interestingly, an investigation of the Kennedy assassination was a project I suggested when I first

entered the White House. I had always been intrigued with the conflicting theories of the assassination.

Now I felt we would be in a position to get all the facts. But Nixon turned me down.)

No endorsement of the Lone Gunman theory there, or the Castro-did-it scenario.

= I didn’t say he exposed the Gratz theory in every sentence, those fit both his and yours.

He doesn't expose the Castro-did-it scenario in any sentence. He clearly raised the possibility that Oswald was a CIA agent.

And what about that bit in the Watergate tapes where Nixon says to Haldeman:

When you get the CIA people in say, “Look, the problem is that this will open up the whole Bay of Pigs thing again.” So they should call the FBI in and for the good of the country don’t go any further into this case. Period.

"For the good of the country." How does that point to Fidel Castro?

= Once again it fits the Russo/Gratz theory as much as yours (if not more so), the discovery that the CIA triggered the assassination by their failed attempts on Castro would be scandalous.

The failed attempts on Castro were already public knowledge in 1972. Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson had written about it in a syndicated column on March 7, 1967; Jack Anderson followed-up in a Wash Post article on January 18, 1971, "6 Attempts to Kill Castro Laid on CIA".

+ As Pat pointed out these were considered unconfirmed rumors till they were documented by post-Watergate investigations.

How would it have been "bad for the country" if it were thought that Castro had retaliated for those attempts? Once those attempts became public it was an obvious conclusion for many people. The "bad for the country" statement makes more sense in the context of CIA agents killing Kennedy.

+ I’m amused by your ostrich imitation, do you really fail to see how the CIA’s inept and illegal attempts to murder a foreign leader led to the assassination of a popular president could be "bad for the country"?

Nixon spoke of Hunt and the Watergate Cubans thusly:

"...You open that scab there's a hell of a lot of things... tell them we just feel that it would be very detrimental to have this thing go any further. This involves these Cubans, Hunt, and a lot of hanky-panky that we have nothing to do with ourselves..."

The attempts to kill Castro were a scab that had been opened years before. It wasn't a secret. There would have been no "detrimental" consequences if it were reported that Castro killed Kennedy in retaliation. In fact, it would have been a boon to the Kennedy-haters. They could have claimed that Kennedy brought it on himself, and they could paint Castro as an assassin at the same time.

A win-win for the hard right wingers who hated both Kennedy and Castro.

+ You can’t see how the CIA repeatedly failing to kill the leader of a small Third World country and that leading to that leader assassinating the president of the most powerful country on earth would be "detrimental"? It definitely would NOT have been a boon to the CIA. Although word about the attempts may have gotten out years before but obviously it was news to Hardermona and he expected it to be news to his readers because he described them as being “according to Schorr” rather than established.

=If he Nixon meant that the CIA had killed Castro he would have said something like “for their own good” because they would be face life in prison or the death penalty.

I had no idea you were so intimate with Richard Nixon that you can speak for the man. Where did you have the opportunity to become so familiar with him, Colby?

"For the good of the country" obviously doesn't refer to the kill-Castro plots, which were public knowledge, or to the Castro-did-it scenario, which had been broadcast far and wide before JFK's body was cold.

The "for the good of the country" comment only makes sense if Nixon thought Hunt and the Watergate Cubans were involved in 11/22/63.

+ See above.

True he didn’t say specifically that LHO was the LONE gunman but since he mentioned no other shooters that seems implicit, in any case he nailed Oswald as the shooter and the scenario spelled out very clearly was the Russo/Gratz ‘Castro did it’ theory, emphasis added.

…as an outgrowth of the Bay of Pigs,

the CIA made several attempts on Fidel Castro's life

…

[…]

Unfortunately,

Castro knew of the assassination attempts

all the time [and said] . On September 7, 1963…"Let Kennedy and his brother Robert take care of themselves, SINCE THEY, TOO, CAN BE THE VICTIMS OF AN ATTEMPT WHICH WILL CAUSE THEIR DEATH."

After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic cover-up. MANY OF THE FACTS ABOUT OSWALD UNAVOIDABLY POINTED TO A CUBAN CONNECTION.

[Cites 3 examples of LHO’s ties to Cuba]

In a chilling parallel to their cover-up at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA. No mention of the Castro assassination attempt was made to the Warren Commission by CIA representatives.

[Discusses CIA cover up]

This is what I mean about slimey rhetoric. You cut out the part where Angleton rehearsed denying that

Oswald was a CIA agent!

= As I said before I won’t stoop to your level, I also “cut out” LHO’s 3 connections to the Castro regime as both had already been posted and were not directly relevant. He (whoever he was) never said LHO was CIA but did say he was a supporter of Castro.

I'll deal with your hypocritical smears in another post. For now, let's stick with your characterization of the Angleton-Sullivan rehearsals as -- "Discusses CIA cover up." Haldeman never used the phrase "Oswald was a Castro agent," but he did introduce the possibility that Oswald was a CIA agent. That doesn't fit your world-view, so you mis-represented it. Slimey rhetoric, indeed.

<snip redundancies>

Haldeman never referred to Oswald as either a lone nut or an agent of Fidel, but he very clearly

suggested that Oswald may have been a CIA agent.

= No, he directly suggested that LHO was working the behest of the Castro regime a few times and only once made a comment that could be interpreted as suggesting he was CIA.

"Behest of the Castro regime"? What "behest"?

Haldeman clearly raised the possibility Oswald was CIA. Nixon clearly suggested that the Watergate Cubans and Hunt were involved in the Kennedy assassination. The "scab" was already off the Castro assassination attempts. It was old news. That Hunt and the Watergate Cubans were involved in the JFK assassination was big news, indeed.

+Halderman suggested that LHO was a Castro sympathizer much more directly than he (supposedly) suggested he might have been CIA. Nixon’s comments more easily could be interpreted as suggesting Hunt and the Cubans were tied to the BoP, which was tied to the attempts which lead to 11/22.

Again, you apparently are incapable of processing information that doesn't conform to your world view.

= The cognitive dissonance is yours not mine

Thus spake the Black Knight.

And when Nixon said, "It's likely to blow the whole Bay of Pigs" he might have been reminding Helms, not so gently, of the cover-up of the CIA assassination attempts on the hero of the Bay of Pigs, Fidel Castro -- A CIA OPERATION THAT MAY HAVE TRIGGERED THE KENNEDY TRAGEDY and which Helms desperately wanted to hide.

One could just as easily conclude that Haldeman was saying that the Bay of Pigs triggered anti-Castro Cubans to kill Kennedy. This is much more likely considering the fact that the Watergate Cubans were part of the effort to kill Castro.

= If that was what he meant to suggest then explain why he wrote “Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time”

I take it to mean Haldeman felt it was unfortunate that Castro wasn't assassinated, due to the fact Fidel knew of the plots against him.

The sequence of the text make this unlikely, the next thing he mentions was Castro’s threat and the next sentence begins “After Kennedy was killed….”. Then he goes over LHO ties to Castro. So it goes:

1) The CIA tried to kill Castro

2) Castro found out about them

3) He threatened JFK

4) JFK was killed

5) The CIA covered up their attempts on Castro.

6) The assassin was a Castro sympathizer.

=and then included the Castro threat that JFK and RFK could also “be the victims of an attempt which will cause their death."

A threat or a warning? If Castro were plotting to kill JFK do you think he would issue a threat that could be used as a pre-text for an American invasion?

+ I’m not saying this what happened only that this was Haldermona’s version thus any lack or realism could be his/theirs. Personally I interpret his comments as a warning to the Kennedy’s to call off their dogs. Above you said the spin would be that “Kennedy brought it on himself” how would it be a “pre-text for an American invasion” you can’t have it both ways.

Hunt and the Watergate Cubans were not agents of Fidel Castro.

+ See above

Neither was Oswald, and Haldeman doesn't say that he was.

+See above

=And then follow that with LHO’s support of Castro and say that this lead to a cover-up? Any remotely neutral reading of that passage would be “the CIA assassination attempts on…Fidel Castro…triggered the Kennedy tragedy”

Yes, it triggered Kennedy's murder at the hands of the very same people who were plotting Castro's murder.

+ As I noted above “the book was aimed at the general public not the assassination community” the former would be unlikely to reach the conclusion you did.

=The burglars being part of BoP and the assassination attempts fits both scenarios. Investigation of the burglars could lead to discovery of the attempts which could lead to (if that were the case) the discovery that this lead to JFK being killed in retaliation.

You're obviously ignorant of the fact that the attempts on Castro were already public knowledge. Much of the US military/intelligence/foreign policy establishment wanted to pin the JFK assassination on Castro, and would likely have welcomed the promotion of that conclusion under any circumstances.

+See above

<snip redundancies>

And having a "Cuban connection" doesn't necessarily implicate Castro since it was Cubans who were trying to kill him.

= Nonsense because as spelled out above the three things he cited which ‘connected’ LHO to Cuba indicated support of not opposition to Castro.

Not if he were a CIA agent, a possibility Haldeman clearly entertained.

+ See above

In his September '63 speech did Fidel Castro threaten JFK with murder, or was he warning that the forces once directed at Castro could be re-directed at Kennedy?

= Either on its own or in context the former is the reasonable interpretation Haldermona introduced the quote with “Unfortunately, Castro knew of the assassination attempts all the time”

Unfortunately Castro wasn't assassinated -- the standard American right-wing sentiment.

I'm glad to see that you've gotten off the "DiMona made it all up" tip, Colby.

= Who says I did?

Your inability to pivot from DiMona making up "a sentence or two" to DiMona making up entire conversations and writing entire portions of the book.

Of course, your inability to admit error will prevent you from acknowledging this.

Edited March 8, 2011 by Len Colby

[Cliff Varnell]

Great Cliff you now have the forum's most sex obsessed member in your corner you must be right!

This is another example of Len Colby's slimey rhetoric, proving he can stoop very low, indeed.

Cliff, Len has a point, IMO.

A point to smearing me with guilt-by-association with Morrow?

Up through the mid-70's, when the HSCA was formed, many of those within the mainstream of American politics who were nevertheless intrigued by the idea Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy were of the Castro probably did it persuasion. This included, as I recall, not only Haldeman but Sen. Richard Schweicker, who famously claimed that Oswald had the "fingerprints of intelligence" all over him.

Where did either Haldeman or Schweiker come out and say they thought Castro did it?

"The fingerprints of intelligence" points to...intelligence.

Haldeman said he was intrigued by all the theories relating to the JFK assassination. By citing Angleton's rehearsed denials, Haldeman clearly underlines his suspicion that Oswald was CIA and a conspiracy killed Kennedy.

Hunt and the Watergate Cubans don't point to Castro involvement, do they?

Schweicker was to be Reagan's running mate in 76. Do you think Reagan would have picked a conspiracy theorist claiming the CIA killed Kennedy as his running mate? I don't.

Contentless speculation.

The thinking of these men--and of men like Schorr for that matter--was that Oswald was a CIA agent somehow caught up in a plot to kill Kennedy, and that he either pulled the trigger himself or was framed by PRO-Castro Cubans to look like he pulled the trigger, and that the CIA opted to cover the whole thing up rather than let the truth sneak out. At the time, this made sense to them.

I can't recall any such theory -- CIA agent Oswald set up by pro-Castro Cubans? Could you specifically cite anywhere in THE ENDS OF POWER that notion is forwarded?

You need to cite specific quotes by Haldeman, Schweiker and Schorr. Your characterization of Haldeman's thinking on this issue can't be supported by what he wrote in THE ENDS OF POWER.

There is no mention of "pro-Castro" Cubans, only the anti-Castro Cubans at Watergate who, along with Hunt, formed a scab which, once opened, lead to the Kennedy assassination.

The only "pro-Castro" guy was Oswald, the suspected CIA agent. There were no "pro-Castro Cubans" around, Pat.

And how would the claim that pro-Castro Cubans killed Kennedy drive Richard Helms, a man of legendary reserve, to grip his armchair and shout denials?

How does "pure dynamite," Haldeman's description of "the Bay of Pigs thing," describe this widespread Castro-did-it

theory?

You need to back up your assertions here, Pat.

Cite the relevant quotations of these men before you enlighten us with your insight.

The plots against Castro discussed by Pearson and Anderson were considered RUMORS up until the mid-70's, when the government finally admitted they were true.

Considered by whom? Pearson and Anderson enjoyed great credibility in the news media. The official response may have been to dispute them as "rumors -- I'm sure you can provide examples of this, right? -- but surely you don't think the Castro-did-it claim would drive Richard Helms into a "violent" state, do you?

Around the same time it came out that the FBI had destroyed a note written by Oswald, AND that Dulles had told the WC in executive session that HE would lie to hide that Oswald was his agent, unless the president himself asked him not to. This led many of those normally within the mainstream to suspect that the plots had SOMETHING to do with the assassination, and that Oswald may have been an agent.

They took the easy way out, of course. That Kennedy was actually killed BY the CIA, or by the military, and that men like Garrison and Weberman were onto something, was a minority opinion, I'm fairly certain, until the 80's and 90's.

I'm fairly certain you haven't grasped the obvious JFK-assassination subtext in THE ENDS OF POWER.

Helms wasn't desperate to keep the Castro plots secret. He was desperate about something else related to the Kennedy assassination, likely Oswald's having the fingerprints of intelligence all over him.

Edited March 9, 2011 by Cliff Varnell

[Pat Speer]

Great Cliff you now have the forum's most sex obsessed member in your corner you must be right!

This is another example of Len Colby's slimey rhetoric, proving he can stoop very low, indeed.

Cliff, Len has a point, IMO.

A point to smearing me with guilt-by-association with Morrow?

Up through the mid-70's, when the HSCA was formed, many of those within the mainstream of American politics who were nevertheless intrigued by the idea Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy were of the Castro probably did it persuasion. This included, as I recall, not only Haldeman but Sen. Richard Schweicker, who famously claimed that Oswald had the "fingerprints of intelligence" all over him.

Where did either Haldeman or Schweiker come out and say they thought Castro did it?

"The fingerprints of intelligence" points to...intelligence.

Haldeman said he was intrigued by all the theories relating to the JFK assassination. By citing Angleton's rehearsed denials, Haldeman clearly underlines his suspicion that Oswald was CIA and a conspiracy killed Kennedy.

Hunt and the Watergate Cubans don't point to Castro involvement, do they?

Schweicker was to be Reagan's running mate in 76. Do you think Reagan would have picked a conspiracy theorist claiming the CIA killed Kennedy as his running mate? I don't.

Contentless speculation.

The thinking of these men--and of men like Schorr for that matter--was that Oswald was a CIA agent somehow caught up in a plot to kill Kennedy, and that he either pulled the trigger himself or was framed by PRO-Castro Cubans to look like he pulled the trigger, and that the CIA opted to cover the whole thing up rather than let the truth sneak out. At the time, this made sense to them.

I can't recall any such theory -- CIA agent Oswald set up by pro-Castro Cubans? Could you specifically cite anywhere in THE ENDS OF POWER that notion is forwarded?

You need to cite specific quotes by Haldeman, Schweiker and Schorr. Your characterization of Haldeman's thinking on this issue can't be supported by what he wrote in THE ENDS OF POWER.

There is no mention of "pro-Castro" Cubans, only the anti-Castro Cubans at Watergate who, along with Hunt, formed a scab which, once opened, lead to the Kennedy assassination.

The only "pro-Castro" guy was Oswald, the suspected CIA agent. There were no "pro-Castro Cubans" around, Pat.

And how would the claim that pro-Castro Cubans killed Kennedy drive Richard Helms, a man of legendary reserve, to grip his armchair and shout denials?

How does "pure dynamite," Haldeman's description of "the Bay of Pigs thing," describe this widespread Castro-did-it

theory?

You need to back up your assertions here, Pat.

Cite the relevant quotations of these men before you enlighten us with your insight.

The plots against Castro discussed by Pearson and Anderson were considered RUMORS up until the mid-70's, when the government finally admitted they were true.

Considered by whom? Pearson and Anderson enjoyed great credibility in the news media. The official response may have been to dispute them as "rumors -- I'm sure you can provide examples of this, right? -- but surely you don't think the Castro-did-it claim would drive Richard Helms into a "violent" state, do you?

Around the same time it came out that the FBI had destroyed a note written by Oswald, AND that Dulles had told the WC in executive session that HE would lie to hide that Oswald was his agent, unless the president himself asked him not to. This led many of those normally within the mainstream to suspect that the plots had SOMETHING to do with the assassination, and that Oswald may have been an agent.

They took the easy way out, of course. That Kennedy was actually killed BY the CIA, or by the military, and that men like Garrison and Weberman were onto something, was a minority opinion, I'm fairly certain, until the 80's and 90's.

I'm fairly certain you haven't grasped the obvious JFK-assassination subtext in THE ENDS OF POWER.

Helms wasn't desperate to keep the Castro plots secret. He was desperate about something else related to the Kennedy assassination, likely Oswald's having the fingerprints of intelligence all over him.

Cliff, reading The Ends of Power is one of the things that led me to study the JFK assassination. While reading it, I never thought, even for a second, that Haldeman (as well as other pols like Johnson, Connally, Ford, and Bush who thought there was more to the story than had been uncovered by the WC) thought the CIA killed Kennedy in a coup. They thought--or at least so it appeared to me at that time based on their statements and behavior--that the CIA attempts on Castro, when coupled with Oswald's pro-Castro stance--was too much a coincidence, pure and simple. As the ONLY newspaper articles linking these two events were those by Pearson/Anderson, and were almost certainly coordinated with Johnson and designed to blame BOBBY for JFK's death, moreover, it is easy to see, in retrospect, why they found this so intriguing.

Now, you want me to re-read The Ends of Power and envision that H.R. BOB Haldeman, as conservative a man as has ever served a president, believed the CIA killed Kennedy, and that Nixon knew about this, and was using it to his own advantage. Sorry, I just don't have the time.

You really need to go back and read the old articles and watch the old programs on the assassination, IMO. The majority of those presenting a case for conspiracy presented a case where the Russians or the Cubans were somehow behind it. I spent years on this forum arguing against these scenarios with Gratz. So I doubt them as much as you do. Although those scenarios are no longer viable, we shouldn't forget that they were once quite prevalent, and that there'd almost certainly never have been an HSCA if some of those voting to re-open the case weren't thinking it would lead to Castro.

Which brings me back to Anderson. He was among them. If he was as respected as you claim then you should also acknowledge that those following his lead would suspect that Castro turned a hit team around to kill Kennedy, in other words...that Oswald was caught up with PRO-Castro Cubans.

[Steve Duffy]

Like I said, Lee...human beings are inherently stupid. Your unbelievably stupid and reckless-beyond-belief "patsy framers" are proof of that, it would appear.

And Lee H. Oswald WAS human (well, almost anyway).

Let us just thank each other for, once again, wasting each others time and energy and go our separate ways, Dave.

I suppose the world I live in is far bleaker than yours? I suppose my mental illness where my own government, and yours over there, has been filled with crooks, cheats and liars for a long, long time is just something that I will have to learn to live with and hope there is a cure for one day? I suppose that things like the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II have been signed in to help your Republic and democratic principles of government? I suppose the legislation that was created to stop me protesting within a mile of the Houses of Parliament was done to help save us from terrorism? I suppose these government reports we get given from time to time I really just need to accept as being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? If there are any glaring untruths jumping out at me I need to just remind myself that it is simply the "kook" wanting to get out again?

I obviously don't think rationally? If I only reminded myself more often "We KNOW XYZ because we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy."

Now that really is a deduction technique that will really help create a better future world for my daughters. "We KNOW Saddam Hussein had WMD because WE KNOW he hated our freedoms."

Okay? I think I'm ready to be interviewed by O'Brien now.

Great post Lee...really admire your work, and reasons.