Pat Speer

I had a friend who was a huge Alex Jones fan. He became excited when I told him I was at the barricades on the 50th. I had to let him down, though. The police were actually quite professional. It was Alex Jones who tried and tried again to cause a riot, so that the cameramen following him around could capture images of policemen beating on po' Alex Jones and his "warriors for truth." As far as the show put on by the City of Dallas... They had large screens in place so that those locked out by the barricades could see what was going on. It was fairly boring. While in Dallas that year, I spoke with many attendees of the Lancer and Judyth conferences, moreover, and it turned out that a number of them had been allowed to attend the gathering in Dealey. They just submitted their names online, and tickets were handed out by lottery. It was assumed no conspiracy theorists would be allowed to attend, but it turned out that no extensive background checks were conducted, and that many CTs were in fact allowed to attend. They just weren't allowed to speak.

I too praise Bart. While he is a Prayer Man advocate, he has helped make tons of material available to myself and others irrespective of whether or not it supports his chosen scenario.

There's no reason to believe the bottle in Sawyer's hand was the bottle found on the sixth floor. That bottle was taken out of the building by Montgomery and Johnson a bit later. The bottle in Sawyer's hands is most probably a beverage bought with his own money for his own use. Cops get thirsty, too.

This was once an area of great interest to me. There was a book that had an extended section on the companies in the Dal-Tex. It was grossly overpriced. And was not highly respected. So I asked around on this forum for more info on the Dal-Tex occupants. It was provided, as I recall, by Larry Hancock. So you might want to search this forum

My primary source for the story was one of those who believed the film showed Oswald. This was not his area of expertise, however. He was astounded that those who had pushed the Prayer Man possibility that saw the film did not pursue it further after seeing what he had seen. It is my conjecture that they knew from what they saw that the film, no matter the clarity, was not a smoking gun. So they moved on. As to the film itself, it was not the original film, but.a first generation copy in the hands of a collector. It was, even so, reportedly crystal clear. The original films, Darnell and Wiegman, to my understanding, remain in the archives of news agencies. These films could almost certainly be accessed and studied should someone with clout (i.e. moolah) approach these agencies and offer them money. But no one has done so, and at least one in the position to do so opted not to do so, once he saw the first generation copy of Darnell. As to the truth of the story...it came from one of the most reliable sources in all of research land, which is one of the reasons I don't want to reveal any more details. Some of those in attendance who have said nothing might feel that he has betrayed them by revealing their presence at the screening, and, of course, there's those pesky NDA's. As to what you and Andrej and others should take from this... You should take from this that if you want to see and study clearer versions of the films, you need to approach the owners of the original films and see what it would take to gain access. No rich and powerful CT will do it for you. They have had their chance. And they all passed...

OK. The story as I was told had a number of prominent researchers being shown a clear copy of the film. Some thought it showed Oswald, some thought it was inconclusive. My point is that if those who thought it showed Oswald really believed it showed Oswald, to a certainty, they would have arranged for the purchase of the film, or found some other way to get it or a similar copy of the film released. They didn't. They all moved on to other things. This suggests to me that a crystal clear copy of the film is inconclusive, at best. As to why these men have kept their silence... The owner of this film was trying to make money. He didn't want word to leak out that the film was inconclusive, as it might cut into its future value. So he made at least some of those in attendance sign NDAs in which they promised to not disclose what they had seen. Pretty awful, I know. But it appears to have worked. I know that at least one of those in attendance has read this thread. And has opted to say nothing...

Fine. I was sworn to secrecy about the details, and I don't remember them anyhow, so feel free to believe whatever you want. But rest assured that a clear version of the film has been viewed--by people who claimed it showed Oswald--and that none of them followed up on it in anyway. I'm not inside their heads, but to me it strongly suggests that they knew, deep down, that the film is far from conclusive. P.S. I'm surely not the only one who was told of this "screening". Maybe someone else will speak up and explain why--what?--four years have passed, and there hasn't been a peep from those who attended the screening.

The "bit" about full sentences is conclusive. Hosty testified that his notes were full of abbreviations and not worth preserving. He also testified that a report written and signed by two FBI agents was more reliable than a draft written by one. Your proposal that he wrote full sentences for the benefit of others is just silly. Now, of course, he wrote the draft attributed to him. And he may have even wrote that Oswald was outside as a reference to Oswald's alibi. But these are just assumptions, and Hosty's own words over many many years indicate otherwise. So Bart's discovery is not "proof" of anything. It's a valuable discovery that helps support his chosen Prayer Man scenario. But it is not proof, or even close to it. Now, as to the Darnell and Wiegman films... People keep saying that maybe maybe someday we'll get a better copy and it will prove the issue one way or another. But they are in the dark. A copy reported to be extremely clear was located several years ago in a private collection, and this collector offered it to some of the mucky-mucks who are way too cool to post here. And they refused to buy it from him, or even attempt to raise the money from a go-fund-me or anything. And what's worse, these same people stopped clamoring for access to a better copy of the film, once they saw a copy they claim was crystal clear. Well, the implication is obvious. The film did not show Oswald. It showed someone who may have been Oswald, that these people wanted to be Oswald, but it was not the smoking gun they were hoping for.

Alright. This discussion belongs on another thread. But let me say in closing that it's clear you live somewhere where the people supported Trump because he claimed to represent conservative values, and where their attraction to him was based on something other than what attracted people to him in states like California, Texas, Florida, on down the line... I'm guessing...Utah?

Oh my. The paper discovered by Kamp was not Hosty's notes from the first interview, it was a draft of a report prepared sometime afterward. In Assignment Oswald Hosty says he grabbed a piece of paper and wrote down the time. He even presents this paper in his book. It has 3:15 written at the top of the page. The draft, however, has a sentence reading "On 11/22 at 3:15" blah blah blah. That's not what Hosty said he wrote. There is also the additional problem of the draft having complete sentences. That's not how one takes notes. In his WC testimony, Hosty was asked why the FBI didn't retain their notes. And he answered by asserting that reports are more valuable than notes. Mr. STERN. Did you give any consideration to retaining the notes in view of the turn that the case had taken? Mr. HOSTY. No. Mr. STERN. The intervening assassination? Mr. HOSTY. No; because this is the record and the notes would not be as good as this record, because the notes are not written out fully as this is. It would just be abbreviations and things of that type.

Ok, you're still not addressing the issue I have raised. The Hickey-did-it argument holds that Hickey accidentally shot Kennedy while lifting the rifle up to defend Kennedy. Menninger had a drawing created to demonstrate how this could have happened. In this drawing he had Hickey standing on the seat. I and who knows how many others have since demonstrated that the Bronson film proves this to be false--that Hickey was not standing on the seat. Now you are claiming he could have accidentally shot Kennedy while sitting down. You acknowledge for that matter that for this to have happened, Hickey would have to have been firing straight out from his face. I can not visualize how this could happen. Sure I can imagine him lifting the rifle up sideways and turning it to fire forward with his head at gun level, but this wouldn't have been an accident, it would have been him aiming forward and pulling the trigger. So how could his firing a rifle straight forward from his position have been an accident? Please demonstrate.

I brought this up earlier, but you ignored it. You acknowledge that if Hickey was sitting, his head would have been just above the level of the Queen Mary's windshield. Since you also claim the rifle was fired directly over the top of this windshield, you thereby have the rifle being fired from the level of Hickey's face, directly forward. Please create an illustration showing what this would look like, so we can compare it to the photographic and eyewitness evidence.

In the "official" evidence, even without the proposition Oswald was Prayer Man, Oswald had an alibi. He was on the lower floors at the time of the shooting. He was seen on these floors by Shelley, Piper and Arnold. Shortly after the shooting, he was seen on the second floor by Baker and Truly, who failed to notice anything indicating he'd just raced down the stairs. And then there were Adams, Styles, and Garner, whose recollections supported that no one had raced down the stairs. And finally there was Dougherty, whose actual statements indicated that someone other than Oswald had come down on an elevator as Baker and Truly ran up the stairs, but whose statements were spun into nonsense by the people tasked with selling the Oswald-did-it theory. In this theory, to be clear, the Oswald-did-it proponents placed Dougherty on the fifth floor by the elevator as Oswald raced past him downstairs. And yet, they have Dougherty failing to notice Oswald because...because he was retarded. As stated elsewhere, this was Joe Ball's favorite M.O.--to try to make problematic witnesses look retarded. My suspicion is that it wouldn't have worked in this case due to a plethora of other evidence, such as the failure of Dougherty to notice Jarman, Norman, and Williams, and the failure of them to notice him. There would also have been character witnesses, such as Roy Truly, who would begrudgingly admit that Dougherty knew how to tell time. In any event, from this it would have become clear that Dougherty did in fact take the west elevator up after the shooting, which would have then raised the question of who took this elevator down from an upper floor after Oswald had already been spotted on a lower floor by Baker and Truly. So, yeah, Oswald had an alibi, that may have stood up at trial, should there have been a trial. And I say "may have" only because, well, you never know, it could be that someone who wasn't supposed to be in the building was on the fifth floor with Norman, Jarman, and Williams, and that he took the elevator down while they raced down the stairs. Or some such thing. There are a number of possibilities. But there's no evidence for any of them, thanks to the various agencies cutting off their investigations once they realized they could pin the tale on the Oswald.

You actually make a good point, David. I'm not sure if you are aware of some of the cognitive psychology studies discussed on my website, but in one of them a professor filmed a bunch of students passing a basketball amongst themselves. He then showed this film to students and others after asking them how many girl students there were or how many passes were made in the film. A lot of people answered correctly. He then asked how many noticed the gorilla in the film. Yep, at one point in the film a man in a gorilla suit walked into the middle of the magic circle of people passing the ball, and threw his hands up in the air. And yet less than half the people who'd just watched the film even noticed this, because their minds were elsewhere. So yeah, Oswald could have walked out and not been noticed by his coworkers. Or, come to think of it, even been standing at the back of the steps...

Without getting into the sloppy details, I watched way too many Trump speeches, read too many articles about Trump and his minions, and talked with way too many of his supporters in my purple congressional district. And it can not be reasonably argued that Trump was merely anti-illegal immigration. He and his supporters were adamantly against all non-white and non-Christian immigrants and the whole concept of "Make America Great Again" was code for "Make America white and Christian again." When one looks further at the meaning of the word "fascist" one should realize that this applies to Mr. Trump far and beyond that of most conservatives, and that it's actually quite appropriate. His wrapping himself in the flag...his enthusiasm for military parades...his vilification of the press...his demonization of his enemies...his refusal to concede an election...these are all plays from the fascist playbook.

"The notes I posted were published by Hosty himself, and are clearly actual notes." Of course the notes Hosty published after the WC concocted its story of Oswald's whereabouts were actual notes. But he only published some of his notes, as you acknowledge. It's no mystery why "then he [Oswald] went outside to watch P Parade" was not among them. "The piece of paper subsequently discovered by Kamp while combing through Blunt's files is clearly a draft for a report. it is a misnomer that reports are written based entirely on notes. Again, if you agree that Hosty wrote the note in question, I don't see what difference it makes whether he wrote it the 22nd or 23 rd or 24th. "People quite often don't write down what they think they'll remember." But Hosty *did* write that phrase down. "As far as the statements you think are an alibi--you're just assuming Hosty would have seen it that way, because you believe it means Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting. It doesn't say that." It plainly does: after eating lunch "he went outside to watch P Parade." "The statements of Carolyn Arnold and Jack Dougherty, moreover, suggest that Oswald may have thought of going outside, but then thought better of it, and went back inside to a lunch room. It seems possible, then, that Oswald told Hosty he tried to go outside, and that Hosty--alone among those observing the interview--thought he said he actually went outside." I am not going to credit your inference of things Arnold and Dougherty said over what Oswald himself was recorded to have said. We don't know what others at the questioning thought Oswald said. If they heard the same as Hosty they surely would have kept their mouth shut as they were framing him. You are seeing all this through a prism. Of course it matters if Hosty's words were written down when Oswald was in front of him, or were written down hours or even days later. And, of course, it matters that Hosty's words don't specify that Oswald was outside when the shots rang out. Hosty said numerous times over the years that Oswald said he was in the lunchroom when the shots were fired. Why is this without meaning? Why is this insignificant compared to what was written on one piece of paper within days off the assassination, that didn't even specify that Oswald was outside when the shots rang out?

I just realized that my last response didn't answer your question. Shelley said he was told to watch the front stairs by Truly. This would have to have happened after Truly raced into the building. The timing of this would indicate, furthermore, that Shelley was at the front stairs when Oswald came down 2 minutes later. So I suspect Oswald was telling the truth when he said he saw Shelley as he went outside. As far as Shelley lying...well, I think he probably did. Who would want to admit that he let a man accused of killing the President leave the building, particularly in that this man quite possibly killed a Dallas cop shortly thereafter? It was a little white lie. Nope. I never saw him. Well, really? If Oswald left via the front door, as claimed, how is it that no one saw him?

If you read his and Lovelady's testimony carefully, you'll see that they said the time they were on the front steps was longer or around the same time as the time they spent over by the train tracks. Well, the films show them leave the steps what? 30 seconds after the shooting, or something like that. This means that they would have returned to the building in time to see Adams and Styles as they came down. This really comes to light when Lovelady (as I recall) says they returned via the western dock and not the northern dock. Well, the WC had cut this dock off their exhibits, and Ball loses his composure for a second when he realizes they could have returned in time to see Adams. As far as the 10 to 12 minute estimates, etc, I think they were pressured into saying as much by people anxious to shut down Adams. But when you read their statements carefully you see that their statements actually support Adams. Shelley, for example, said he remembered talking to her but he couldn't remember on what floor. Well, Shelley, raced up up to the 4th floor with Sawyer, if I recall, at a time Adams was filmed outside. This leaves his seeing her on the first floor as the likely deduction. And Lovelady, as I recall, said he had a vague recollection of seeing her on his return. Or some such thing. In any event, their statements actually support that she ran down the steps. And I think Ball and Belin knew this. Which is why the memo on Garner was never mentioned, and buried in the records...

It's a deduction. Criminal Investigators, doctors, lawyers, etc. don't take notes in full sentences. Secretaries do. The notes I posted were published by Hosty himself, and are clearly actual notes. The piece of paper subsequently discovered by Kamp while combing through Blunt's files is clearly a draft for a report. it is a misnomer that reports are written based entirely on notes. People quite often don't write down what they think they'll remember. I know that when I was in college I wrote down maybe 1/5 of the info that was discussed in class. I would say further that when attending JFK conferences I write down maybe 1/10 of the info that is discussed in a presentation. As far as the statements you think are an alibi--you're just assuming Hosty would have seen it that way, because you believe it means Oswald was outside at the time of the shooting. It doesn't say that. The statements of Carolyn Arnold and Jack Dougherty, moreover, suggest that Oswald may have thought of going outside, but then thought better of it, and went back inside to a lunch room. It seems possible, then, that Oswald told Hosty he tried to go outside, and that Hosty--alone among those observing the interview--thought he said he actually went outside. I will grant you this, however. Hosty made numerous statements over the years in which he claimed Oswald confronted him during this first interview, because Hosty had been trying to talk to his wife. In Assignment Oswald, he added that Oswald subsequently apologized for this outburst. Well, if I'm remembering correctly, neither Oswald's yelling at Hosty, nor his subsequent apology, were mentioned in any of the reports on this interview published by the Warren Commission. And this leaves room to wonder what else was left out.

To be clear, Baker and Truly tried to call the elevator from the first floor, but it wouldn't come down. They thought it was stuck on the fifth, but it could have been the sixth. They then ran up the stairs. When they got to the fifth the west elevator was missing, so they took the east elevator up to the seventh floor, and from there went up on the roof. In the meantime, Jack Dougherty, who was a bit confused but was consistent on a few points which people tend to ignore, left the lunch room and went over to the west elevator, which was now on the first floor. He took it back upstairs and resumed work. A few minutes later, Baker and Truly came down from the roof, which was accessible by a hatch. The slamming of this hatch may very well have alerted Dougherty that something was going on above him. As they came down via elevator, moreover, Truly saw Dougherty on the fifth floor. It was then and only then that Dougherty came down and talked to Eddie Piper and was told the president had been shot. From this, Dougherty got it in his head that the sound he heard above him was a shot being fired at the President. But this never made any sense. Someone standing by the elevator on the fifth floor would not have heard a shot from the SN as coming from above, but as coming through the open windows in the SE corner inhabited by Norman, Williams, and Jarman. There's also this: the official story never made sense because 1) a man standing by the elevator on the fifth would have been just a few yards of open space away from anyone running down the stairs, and 2) Norman, Jarman, and Williams failed to see Dougherty on the fifth just after the shooting, and Dougherty said he was unaware of them as well--even though they would have been running around and yammering on on what was an otherwise quiet open warehouse floor. It seems clear, then, that Dougherty was telling the truth on one of the points on which he was consistent--that he took the elevator upstairs minutes after 12:30 and not before, and that he arrived on the fifth floor minutes after Norman, Williams, and Jarman had gone down to the fourth floor. This problematic possibility--which should have been investigated--was smoothed over and buried by Joseph Ball, who interviewed Dougherty and used this opportunity to make Dougherty look retarded, when he was not. It should be pointed out, moreover, that just weeks before this testimony there was a kerfuffle within the WC and it staff, due to Ball, Belin, and Specter's desire to interview witnesses off the record, figure out what questions not to ask, an then re-interview them on the record. This was most distasteful to Redlich. But Ball, Belin, and Specter prevailed after Warren stepped in and declared that he wanted as "clean" a record as possible. It should be noted as well that Ball was a legendary defense attorney, known for making prosecution witnesses look stupid or even retarded. In one of his most famous cases, he cleared a rapist by asking the victim to tell him the time on a clock, and then used the witness's inability to tell time to suggest she was so retarded that she couldn't possibly know if she'd been raped. Dougherty was just another one of his victims. (I apologize if anyone is offended by my use of the "R" word.)

Thanks. I think this may have been later that night, and that this photo may have been taken by the FBI. It makes me wonder if there are other photos from the crime lab and what they show. Unfortunately, our friend John Hunt--who, strangely enough, remains the only researcher to spend time in the archives copying the FBI bulky files--could have told me, or shown me, if not for his unfortunate passing.

Uhhh... Those aren't Hosty's notes. What you think are Hosty's notes are the beginnings of a draft for a report written within a day or two of the assassination. It seems clear Hosty was going by memory as very little of this was in his original notes. It seems probable in fact that he cut a lot of this out of his subsequent report, seeing as it didn't jive with the recollections of his co-writer, Bookhout. Here are his original notes. The only reference to Oswald's departure from the building is on page 2, and says that Oswald "chose to go home because of confusion". So I was wrong in suggesting he misinterpreted his notes, as the incident was not even mentioned in his notes, and was something he thought he remembered later. P.S. I have done a mountain of research into the goings on in the building and it seems near certain Oswald was not on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. It seems likely, moreover, that the actual shooter took an elevator down after the shooting and arrived on the first floor just after Adams and Styles went out the back, Lovelady and Shelley went back to the front of the building, and Baker and Truly went upstairs. There is strong reason to believe, moreover, that Shelley was standing by the front stairs when Oswald came down from the second floor, and that he did, in fact, tell Oswald it was okay to leave.

I have a similar memory, and it helped inform my views on the case. One of the "myths" perpetuated about the case was that Johnson roped Warren onto his commission because he felt Warren's credibility would help silence those claiming Russia was involved, and that this would help him avoid a nuclear war. I suspect/know the opposite is true. Johnson knew damn well that Warren had no credibility with those likely to blame Russia, and that Warren had instead had massive credibility with those likely to blame HIM. His roping Warren onto the commission was thereby designed to save his own butt, and if he brought up nuclear war it was as a threat, e.g.. "You know, Earl, if this investigation wanders off the reservation and it looks like there was more to it than this commie nut Oswald, well, this could have political consequences, whereby I would be forced to use our military, and this could lead to a nuclear exchange. You don't want that, do you, Earl? Bob McNamara says 39 or 40 million could die in such an exchange. We can't have that on our consciences, now, can we, Earl?" And I suspect/know this because one of my earliest memories is of a bumper sticker. I saw it on one car, and then another, and then another, to the point where I finally asked someone what it meant. It read "Impeach Earl Warren."

Per Jean Paul's suggestion, I tried to move the curtain rod story to its own chapter. Google sites was "improved" last year and I'm still trying to figure out what got improved. I spent roughly 100 hours last year trying to fix what this "improvement" had done to my website. (It scrambled and changed the size of all the images.) Now I find that I can't just duplicate a chapter and remove what I don't want in that chapter to create a new chapter. I think that instead of creating a new page it created a new site, that can be linked to but not linked back or some such thing. In any event, The Curtain Rod Story remains in Chapter 4g until I can figure out how to make Chapter 4h co-exist with the rest of the site.

Just spit-balling here... It's pretty silly to push that Hosty took full-sentence notes in the room. So...when were these notes written? A day later? Two days later? Is it possible he misinterpreted his shorter more cryptic notes? There's also this: The P Parade would mean the motorcade. When did the last cars drive by the TSBD? Is it possible Oswald said he walked out and saw the end of the motorcade? Or even that he walked out to see the motorcade? But missed it? Hosty's notes are not the smoking gun people like to pretend they are...