Pat Speer

Yes, you say Mark Oakes interviewed her on video, but I don't believe you say anywhere that the video you are showing is Mark Oakes' video. I think that should be in the title or at least before you mention your book. Like I said, I know you're one of the good guys. But I still feel the disgust I had from about 15 years ago when some creep started a video channel of JFK related interviews, which largely consisted of interviews taken from Rush to Judgment. And said nothing about Rush to Judgment or even Mark Lane in the titles, or anywhere on the Channel. We both remember the music industry. I remember the horror when I realized that young people thought it was fine to share music via the internet, and that all music should be free. Well, some of these video channels are even worse, IMO. It's not only taking someone else's work and trying to make money off of it, but it's letting people assume you've created the content. Like, listen to this, it's this new song I wrote... it's called "Stairway to Heaven."

Bill O'Reilly''s story about being on the doorsteps was a big stinkin' lie. This was exposed right after his book came out. Gaeton Fonzi's wife Marie checked her husband's records and found that O'Reilly had been in contact with Gaeton in the days leading up to George D's suicide and that he'd called Gaeton from Dallas I think it was that morning. Fonzi's docs can be found on the Mary Ferrell foundation website.

You are correct, Joe. And here, once again, no one got fired over this. Right now his name escapes me but the officer tasked with guarding the ramp was made a scapegoat, but I don't believe he was punished in any way. So this once agains supports that some decision was made from on high that Oswald (and then Ruby) were solely at fault. I remember reading somewhere about the origins of the term "lone-nutter". I think most people today assume it's strictly a reference to Oswald. But it was originally used as a denunciation of the official theory holding that a "lone-nut" acting entirely on his own killed Kennedy, and then a "lone-nut" acting entirely on his own killed Oswald.

One of the most telling snippets about the assassination, IMO, is the SS detail's drinking on the night before. No, I don't think they got drunk because they knew what was coming. I think they got drunk a lot, and that night was no different. But it's telling because the powers that be decided not to punish anyone, because they thought it would be unfair to cast blame for the assassination on anyone besides Oswald. Er, let's see.. You're a bodyguard. You're hungover on the job and your boss gets killed. But you don't get punished because the new boss doesn't want anyone but Lee Harvey Oswald to be blamed. Lucky. If Oswald wasn't a patsy from the get-go, he most certainly was within a few days of the assassination. I mean, think about it. Although the FBI decided to punish some of its agents for their "mistakes" they did so in secret, and Hoover lied about it to the WC. This strongly suggests, then, that it had been decided from on high (that is, by LBJ) that Oswald was entirely to blame, and that no one in the government was to be assigned even the slightest blame.

I disagree. The selection of Oswald as patsy sent the whole MIC into CYA mode. And besides....Who was at the head of the government upon JFK's death? Johnson... Hoover... Men who were almost certainly compromised and would have no interest in pursuing the truth... While I can't say the "mob did it" is my preferred scenario, I think it quite silly to rule it out. Ruby, after all, was not connected to the MIC. He had multiple connections to the mob, however, and may have been given "an offer he can't refuse.".

I sense you have a bias against dismembered gangsters. Shame on you.

Hey, Vince, if you're reading this. I started to watch the video Bill mentioned but grew irritated that there seemed to be no sourcing for the video. I know you're one of the good guys but I found this disappointing. (I mean, who is the interviewer? Mark Oakes?) I've had footage from my videos used without permission by someone who wanted to take credit for discoveries I've made. This individual not only refused to re-word his video to acknowledge he was presenting one of my discoveries, he said that it was people like me who were the problem...that I was the reason the case hadn't been solved. I have also had people ask if they could cut and paste all the witness quotes on my website, and put it out as a book, under their name. One of them even grew angry when I told him that while my list of witness quotes was 3-4 times the size of any other data base of quotes, that it was nevertheless incomplete, as there were witness statements provided William Manchester (and now housed at Wesleyan University), and The Sixth Floor Museum (as part of its oral history program) that would be costly to uncover. He asked me if I planned on buying all these documents, because he really wanted to claim "his" book held "all" the witness statements. So I apologize for being sensitive about this. But I think any video posted on a YouTube channel comprising footage from other videos should give credit in the title of the video, or at the very least, list the videos used in its creation at the beginning of the video.

That the bullets shot into cadaver wrists were ALL more damaged than CE 399 has long been considered a major problem for the SBT. It is what drew Cyril Wecht to take an interest in the case. Those propping up the SBT claim, however, that CE 399 was traveling at a slower velocity than the test bullets. I go through this in great detail on my website. It turns out, in the end, that the simulations of the SBT performed by the WC strongly suggest that the bullet would have to have been traveling at a greatly-reduced velocity, i.e. a subsonic bullet of small caliber...the kind recommended in the CIA's Manual on Assassination. Larry Sturdivan, in his book The JFK Myths, tried to disguise this fact, by presenting a series of numbers that made no sense. From patspeer.com, Chapter 11: For those lost in the details, here is a quick chart summarizing the confusing and contradictory claims of Olivier and Sturdivan: Velocity of a WCC/MC bullet: OLIVIER 1964 STURDIVAN 1978 STURDIVAN 2005 as it leaves the muzzle 2,160 f/s 2,000 f/s 2,130-2,190 f/s upon impact with Kennedy’s neck 1,904 f/s 1,700-1,800 f/s 1,985-2,045 f/s upon impact with Connally’s back 1,772 f/s 1,600-1,700 f/s 1,780-1,880 f/s lost within Connally’s chest >400 f/s 400-(600 f/s) (1,180-1,480 f/s*) upon impact with Connally’s wrist none given 1,100-1,300 f/s 400-600 f/s lost within Connally’s wrist 82 f/s (400-600 f/s) (245-485 f/s) upon impact with Connally’s thigh “very low” approx. 700 f/s 115-155 f/s at which M/C bullets deform on bone while traveling sideways none given 1,000 f/s 1,400 f/s (numbers in parentheses are implied, not stated) P.S. Notice how, late in life, Sturdivan tried to clean up the nonsense pushed by Olivier and himself in their WC and HSCA testimonies, by substantially lowering the velocity of the bullet upon impact with Connally's wrist. He did not do this through additional tests. He just doubled or even tripled the amount of velocity lost in Connally's chest because he thought it looked better. It didn't. Olivier testified that his goat tests demonstrated that a bullet grazing off a rib as it did on Connally would lose less than 400 f/s velocity, and Sturdivan upped this to as much as 1,480 f/s. Why? The presumption is that he'd decided that Connally was bigger than a goat. But there's a problem with this. It's b.s. Forum member Gary Murr was able to obtain a copy of the autopsy report written on one of the goats, and the wound track within the goat was the same distance as the wound track within Connally.

As discussed in the chapter, the shooting of skulls off of ladders was a scam. The impact of the shots forced the skulls to rock the ladders forward. The skulls then recoiled off the ladders. If the skulls were dangling in the air, as per Chambers' suggestion, they would have moved forward. This isn't even remotely secret. Larry Sturdivan testified before the HSCA on the tests performed in 1964, in which the skulls were shot off of table tops. They all moved forward.

I discuss a number of tests (performed for the WC, TV, or research articles) on my website. Chapter 16, in which I discuss a number of shooting simulations performed on melons and skulls, and how the results of these simulations were spun to deceive the public, might be of particular interest. Since you mention Hathcock, the thought occurs that you are interested as well in attempts at replicating the timing of the shots. There is a great deal of material on this in Chapter 4g.

I was talking to Matt the other night. He pointed out that there were 2. I think I only listened to the first 1. I don't know if you know my story but I was off the grid for most of last year battling cancer. I assume that's when the second one occurred.

Thanks. I remember listening to your "debate" with Matt Douthit. I thought you both handled yourselves fairly well.

I don't mean to pick on you, Bill, but as soon as I saw your name I thought "Oh no, I hope the Ed Forum doesn't become the JFK Assassination Forum, where a thread will go on for a hundred pages, with the last 98 largely name-calling." So, do you have any criticism of Bugliosi's book that you would like to share?

You are reminding me once again of why I stopped posting on the JFK Assassination Forum. It shouldn't be a constant game of "Gotcha!", Bill. Why can't it be "I'm sorry, Joe, but I believe you made a couple of mistakes"? And then list the mistakes. The Education Forum--at its best--has been a place where people can disagree with one another or correct each other without making it personal, or exchanging insults. It hasn't always been successful but most of those posting here "Get it". Do you "Get it", Bill? Or are you just here to ruffle feathers? P.S. I respect a lot of researchers who I nevertheless think are wrong on a number of issues, of varying importance. If you wish to start a thread on whether or not certain researchers should be held in high esteem, that might be of value, but only if you are respectful and are open to discussing the merits of Posner, Bugliosi, Lattimer, Sturdivan, etc. I once had a discussion with John McAdams about the nature of lying. He tried to convince me that when Jim Garrison or Oliver Stone say something that isn't true, they are lying, but that when men like Arlen Specter or Michael Baden say something that isn't true, they are simply mistaken, as "they would have no reason to lie." Are you of a similar mindset--where you think the errors in Joe's video demand correction, but where the errors or lies in say, Bugliosi's book, do not? Is it a two-way street? Or are you only here to "own" the CTs?

Rex Bradford, David. Rex. There was a researcher named Clint Bradford--I think I even met him once--but I believe he has been inactive for a decade or more.

A bit of background, W. Bill Brown has been a regular on the JFK Assassination Forum for years. He's spent most of that time taking potshots at other members of that forum. His presence here is a bit like a Fox News disciple being given a slot on MSNBC. Sorry, Bill, but that's my recollection and interpretation. You can change it, however. Quite easily. 1. Play nice. 2. Post well-thought-out arguments, and not just recitals from the WC and Bugliosi volumes. In fact, you can prove me wrong by starting a thread listing some WC and VB conclusions you think are in error. Just a thought.

Up to the ARRB, one man and his lawyer (Weisberg and Lesar) were responsible for the release of more JFK assassination documents than all the nation's news networks, book publishers, and professional historians combined. It was a national disgrace. When you look through old newspapers you see that year after year the media published stories regarding recent discoveries gathered from recently-released documents, but when you read closely you realize that none of the papers themselves were ever behind the release of these documents. Oliver Stone's JFK, of course, brought about the release of many more documents. It's interesting to ponder just where we'd be today without Weisberg and Stone.

I am also curious. Is it possible Pool was quite elderly when he spoke to the HSCA? Do we know his age?

Here is Larry's post from a few pages back: "BTW- Ruth Paine was either "misremembering" or dissembling when she denied that she had spoken to Oliver Stone in Max Goode's movie. In 2013, I asked Oliver at the Wecht 50th anniversary program why he had changed the names of the Paines to Williams but did not change the names of any other important characters. He said it was because the Paines threatened to sue him and his production company. Too bad Max did not know this when he interviewed her. She made it sound like Oliver was either afraid to contact her or ignored her because she would contradict his thesis. Even if it was the Paines' lawyer who contacted Stone, her statement was inaccurate. And she did that laugh when she said that which is her "tell" when she is being evasive. I wish Max had also grilled her on the phone message from the employment office. She was evasive with Liebler who was not interested in getting a straight answer." I assumed you were defending her position (or what Larry interpreted as her position.) Will you acknowledge then that Oliver Stone, whatever his failings, was almost certainly not afraid to contact Ruth Paine?

You're playing (and I don't mean Bingo). Both statements can be true. 1. The Paines wouldn't talk (as in having a long talk) to Oliver. 2. They communicated in some way (whether in a short conversation or perhaps even in writing) that they would sue. See how easy things can be when one uses a little common sense? I mean, honestly. Oliver Stone was scared to talk to Ruth Paine? Are you kidding? To paraphrase Corleone, if history has shown us anything it's that Oliver Stone is not afraid to talk to anyone!

So Pool tells the HSCA that the only person who can confirm he was even there is Tomlinson, and there's no record that anyone--ever--asked Tomlinson about Pool? Am I getting this right?

Hey, Vince, did the HSCA talk to Tomlinson? And did he confirm that Pool was with him when the bullet was discovered? It suddenly occurs to me that Pool may have been telling a story.

I don't think he was responding to us, at all. I think he is just frustrated with the parade of attacks on his movie and book, most of which come from people he does not respect.

Bravo! When I first got sucked into this quagmire I noticed the same thing... That there was a constant re-shuffling of the "facts" by both sides, and that they weren't even using the same set of facts. This led me to eventually leave John McAdams' newsgroup. It just went round and round. In a real discussion, IMO, there would be the occasional concession by both sides. I mean, it's such a complicated bit of history there's no way that a bunch of politicrats (the WC and its staff), working part-time, could have figured it all out. They didn't. So why do some, even today, act as though the WR is the word of God? And, similarly, how could a bunch of armchair detectives, many of whom know nothing of the case beyond what they've read on conspiracy websites, or in conspiracy literature, figure it all out? I tried a different approach. I spent a tremendous amount of time reading LN arguments, the official reports and testimony of the WC and HSCA, and LN books by Posner, Lattimer, Bugliosi, Sturdivan, etc. While at the same reading tens of thousands of pages in forensics journals, radiology journals, psychology journals and textbooks on these fields. And this led me some original thoughts and discoveries. I never expected people to embrace my conclusions. It was my hope instead that others would up their game and do some serious research as well. But instead we have people either ignoring the pieces of WC scrap that leads anywhere but where the WC said it did, OR re-assembling the scrap in increasingly bizarre ways where it may very well become fashionable some day to hold that poor old Oswald didn't even go to work that day.

Oh my Lord, we must have been through this before. 1. On 11-22, Oswald said he changed his pants at his rooming house but apparently said nothing about his shirt. (The shirt Mary Bledsoe insisted was filthy). 2. That night, the shirt he was wearing while arrested--which was not IDed by any of his co-workers as a shirt he'd worn that day-was taken from him and flown to Washington to be tested by the FBI. 3. Something is already fishy. Lt. Day of the DPD and Vincent Drain of the FBI both claimed all the evidence sent to the FBI (which would include the shirt) was transferred at 11:30. Problemita: Oswald was caught on camera still wearing this shirt roughly an hour later. 3. The next morning fibers from this shirt were found wrapped around the butt plate on the rifle. As no prints were found on the rifle, and no one IDed Oswald as the shooter, this was one of the most important pieces of evidence linking Oswald to the shooting. 4. When asked that day about his trip to his rooming house. Oswald told the DPD and FBI he'd changed his pants AND shirt, and that the shirt he had worn at work had been a reddish shirt with a button-down collar. 5. No such shirt was mentioned in the numerous listings by the DPD, FBI, and WC, of Oswald's clothing recovered at the rooming house. As a result, the non-existence of this shirt was used by LNs to suggest Oswald lied about everything and had simply made up the shirt. 6. About ten years ago, however, I prevailed upon the archives to sell me some color photos of a supposedly brown shirt found in the rooming house I suspected was the reddish shirt. Sure enough, it was both reddish and filthy--and was almost certainly the shirt Oswald had said he'd worn to work. 7. When when one looks at the FBI's testimony about the fibers found on the rifle, for that matter, it gets even uglier. The fibers were found ON TOP of fingerprint powder. This led the FBI to offer as ;pure conjecture that Lt. Day--whose job involved inspecting the rifle for fibers BEFORE dusting--had not noticed the fibers and had inadvertently wrapped them around the butt plate while rapidly brushing the fingerprint powder. Another probelmita: Day had attended the FBI's course on fingerprinting and the FBI's course had stressed that one should not brush rapidly, for fear of brushing away a print. 8. Of course, there's another problem, a big problem. One can search through forensics journals and textbooks for years and years--I know I have--and not find any other incident in the history of police work in which a tuft of fibers was found neatly wrapped on the butt plate of a rifle. Individual fibers are sometimes found on greasy rifles, or in the mechanism, etc. But a tuft neatly wrapped around the butt plate? Never happened! (And it didn't happen this time, either!) It should be clear to anyone aware of these facts (yes, even the ghost of Bugliosi and his sycophants), moreover, that someone (most probably Day and/or Drain) planted these fibers on the rifle to implicate Oswald in the crime. It doesn't mean Oswald was innocent. But it may provide a motive for his murder. Think about what a smart attorney could do with these facts. It could provide a reasonable doubt in the minds of a jury. Now think about the fact that Oswald was murdered as he was on the verge of getting such a lawyer. Well, hell, if you're the DPD you can't have this commie killer dragging your department through the dirt. Better off having him get killed--in which the DPD would look like clowns--than letting him get off because you faked evidence. I mean, think about it. Dozens if not hundreds of other men convicted by Wade and Fritz could very well have received new trials as a result of this one massive screw-up. The commie killer had it coming, man!