Pat Speer

It's just weak sauce, IMO. There's some confusion about the whereabouts of a certain right wing general on the night of the shooting. And someone thought he saw someone who may have been him at the autopsy. That's just not enough to say he was at the autopsy, let alone running the autopsy or whatever. As I recall, the general "in charge" of the autopsy was General Wehle. If memory serves Wehle was in charge of the military district of the Washington area, including Arlington. He thereby had jurisdiction over the body. In any event, it seems clear he was the voice from the crowd proclaiming he was in charge of the autopsy. It would not be surprising, moreover, if he smoked cigars. I believe Richard Lipsey, Wehle's assistant, is still alive. Perhaps someone should contact him and find out if Wehle smoked cigars before they continue pushing that a man no one ID'ed as being at the autopsy was actually running the autopsy. Now, as far as LeMay... The secrecy and/or confusion about his whereabouts may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. The assumption among many was that the U.S. was under attack. As a consequence his travel plans may have been disguised and/or withheld under the belief he was in danger should his plans be known. We'll probably never know. But the leap to thinking he was really at the autopsy telling the doctors what to do is just silly, IMO. I mean, if he was part of a coup, his talents would have been better spent elsewhere, preparing the military for a takeover, whatever, than telling doctors what to dissect etc. That would have been Burkley's job, if anyone's.

I agree. We have to separate the wheat from the chaff and the meat from the crap. And the LeMay story is the latter.

You have it all scrambled, of course. 1. 5 or 6 steps per half second would be two steps for every three frames. Does Willis do that? Of course not. You make ridiculous claims based on nonsense. 2. Jean Hill never said what you keep pretending she said. She marked her location on a hastily-drawn map. This location was almost halfway to the underpass and across from some steps--pretty much where she is shown in the films but nowhere near where you keep pretending she said she was standing. 3. It was Mary Woodward and her crowd who yelled out to Kennedy. If you actually read the statements and testimony you would know this. 4. Jean Hill's statements got less reliable over time, not because she recanted anything, but because she added in a bunch of crap to please the conspiracy crowd. 5. The same goes for Beverly Oliver. It's Beverly Oliver, not Betty. Beverly.

This is wrong on all counts. A girl Rosemary's age could run 8 mph or more for a short sprint. That's roughly 12 ft per second. That is what is shown in the film. And no, Mary Moorman and Jean Hill are not in this footage. As demonstrated repeatedly, the Hill exhibit has Moorman and Hill roughly halfway to the underpass across from some steps, very close to where they are shown in the films, and nowhere near where you continue to pretend they were standing.

Jeremy is correct. I looked into this years ago and found the illusion they were different was caused by the different perspectives of the cameras.

"Mayor's car?" LOL! That's the LBJ back-up car. Obviously. The Mayor's car was a convertible.

This is so wrong it's laughable. There are plenty of historical figures who were not convicted of crimes whose behavior was abominable. The verdict of history is not validated or dismissed in a courtroom. Scopes was found guilty, but he won the case. O.J. Simpson was acquitted but he lost the case. In the eyes of history, he is guilty as hell. Richard Nixon, for that matter, kept the Vietnam War going for political reasons, at the expense of hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives. He was never tried for this. He was forced from office by the Watergate scandal. He was not convicted of a crime, but admitted to committing a crime when he accepted the pardon granted by Ford. Dubya attacked Iraq based on bogus evidence. History has not been kind to him. Now some people give him a pass because he wasn't as bad as Trump. But when you look at his record it was abominable. P.S. As far as Mueller's "no evidence" claim, there will always be an asterisk, many of Trump's closest associates refused to cooperate, and there was no cooperation from Russia. The investigation was conducted with its hands tied behind its back, and with a gun to its head. Mueller should have looked at Trump's finances, for example, but this was not pursued for fear the investigation would be shut down immediately. Contrast that with the Whitewater investigation, which subpoenaed a dress so it could be tested to see if the President's baby batter was on the fibers. Would such a subpoena have been obtained against Trump? Of course not. Trump's corrosive and corrupt attitudes tainted every bit of the executive branch during his reign of awful. It was so bad that one of the biggest suck-ups in history--Bill Barr- eventually jumped ship. So, no, Trump was not convicted of Russiagate, but we can rest assured he was guilty as hell and got away with it. As he has most everything in his painfully-long sociopathic life...

The Russiagate story was almost certainly true. It's always best to flip things around to get some perspective. 1) If Hillary had called for Russia to release Trump's tax returns and two hours later her staff was provided his tax returns by Russia, we would have grounds for believing she was colluding with Russia. 2) if Hillary's campaign manager provided Russian oligarchs with election data so Russian bots could target American voters, we would have grounds for believing she was colluding with Russia. 3) If Chelsea Clinton met with Russians who then offered their help in getting her mom elected, we would have grounds for believing she was colluding with Russia. 4) If Hillary's personal lawyer was trying to cook up a sweetheart deal in Moscow during the election, and was ordered to lie about it by Hillary, we would have grounds for believing she was colluding with Russia. 5) if Hillary's personal dirty tricks czar--who'd been accused of lying about his relationship with Wikileaks and Russia--was pardoned (the acceptance of which is an acknowledgement he'd committed a crime) before he might be forced to tell all he knew about Hillary's relationship with Russia, we'd have grounds for believing she was colluding with Russia. 6. If Hillary had met with Putin and then taken his side against the American intelligence services, and had actually physical cowered in his presence for all the world to see, we would have grounds for believing she was colluding with Russia. No matter how much some want to believe that evil Hillary colluded with the msm to pick on poor Donnie, it it a 100% pure major fact that history will not treat trump kindly. Just as Jeff Davis, a hero to many in his time, has gone down in history as a traitor, so will Trump.

This has probably been discussed, but I'll throw it out there in case it has not. Zapruder was panning along with a moving object while filming. As a result 1) The stationary objects in the background would be blurry in comparison to the objects of his focus, namely the limo and its occupants. This blur would increase moreover as the limo came abreast of him. It's like watching a train rush past. You can see everything real clear as it comes towards you but the background becomes a blur as it nears and you turn your head to follow the train's progression. 2) This, of course, assumes he was panning at the exact speed of the limo. The street on which the limo was traveling was curved, and the limo did not travel at a consistent speed. As a result, it would not just be the background that gets blurry, but the limo itself when Zapruder's panning rate exceeded or lagged behind the speed of the limo. 3) This latter event leads to another strange circumstance. Should Zapruder's panning rate have lagged behind the speed of the limo at certain spots of the film, the background could very well have been in focus while the limo would look blurry. As a consequence, in any film of a moving object in which the cameraman is panning along with the object, there could be frames in which the background is blurrier than the object being filmed, and there could be frames in which the object being filmed is blurrier than the background.

That is not lawyer-speak. It's clear that whoever wrote this wrote it for Trump's ego, and fully understood the language and the over-reach would make this DOA. If this wasn't written to make him feel good, he would have a heckuva case against his lawyer.

FWIW, I once spent some time tracking down all the Perry statements regarding the throat wound. And the fact is he never changed his story. He always said that it appeared to be an entrance wound. Under pressure from Moore and perhaps others, he testified that it could have been an exit wound. And he was correct to do so. Emergency room doctors are not trained to analyze wounds as to entrance and exit and studies have shown that they are wrong a large percentage of the time when they guess. What is important, however, is that he said it appeared to be an entrance because it was so small. This is inconsistent with its being an exit for a tumbling bullet, as proposed by Lattimer and Baden, etc. Now some have claimed it was so small because the tie limited the stretching of the skin at exit. Under such circumstances an exit wound can appear to be an entrance wound. But Dr. Charles Petty, the HSCA Pathology Panel's top expert on wound ballistics, wrote a textbook during his stint on the HSCA, and claimed that a shored wound of exit is nevertheless larger than the entrance. The HSCA, of course, claimed the back wound was much larger than the throat wound. IOW, Petty knew damn well the small size of the throat wound was a huge problem for the single-assassin solution, and apparently convinced himself and others they should just ignore Perry's assessment of the size of the throat wound, and instead assume it was three or four times larger than he claimed. They made similar assumptions regarding the head wounds and the bullet fragments. IOW, they dismissed problematic evidence whenever it led from the single-assassin solution. When I first read the report of the HSCA's pathology panel, I was astounded that the supposed experts on the Kennedy assassination medical evidence had missed the many smoking guns within the report. Over and over again, the panel had added footnotes saying basically "We've decided to ignore what the autopsy doctors said regarding the location of the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's head, and what the Parkland doctors said regarding the size of the throat wound, and, oh yeah, for good measure we've decided to pretend the bullet exited intact, and that the Harper fragment was from the side of the head, not top." These were like arrows pointing the way. They said "We are not following the evidence because the evidence points in a direction deemed unacceptable by our friends in the Justice Department, and because we dare not contradict the findings of Russell Fisher and the Clark Panel." This, IMO, should be the focus of discussion on the medical evidence. Why did Baden and the boys dismiss the evidence and deliberately embrace the wrong conclusions? Now, some have told me they were engaged in confirmation bias. If so, well, then, perhaps the behavior of the WC can be explained away in the same manner. Perhaps, then, the truth of the assassination was not buried by some evil cabal, but buried by an army of dullards more interested in getting ahead and telling their boss what they know he wanted to hear than they were in solving a mystery.

That would explain the puffs of smoke on the knoll. Problem solved.

Cool. Apparently he saw the same article and wanted to see the actual letter with Perry's handwriting.

I don't think that answered the question. Someone called me out of the blue yesterday and asked my help in finding Carlier's communication with Perry. I had it, so I sent it to him. I would have sent it to you should you have asked. It's not all that important, but I would like to know if he called me on your behalf.

O.K. What's going on? I supplied someone with a copy of this letter from Perry to Carlier just yesterday and within hours here you are posting it online. This is fine, as I'm fairly certain Francois posted it here to begin with. But I'd like to know if this person was contacting me on your behalf.

There was a study done years ago which showed that for every person to attend Woodstock, many times that amount claimed they'd been at Woodstock. For Texans, it is the same with the JFK assassination. "Oh sure, I was there. I looked across the street and saw the shooter. Blah blah blah." When I compiled my database of witness statements I found that several motorcycle officers just turning onto Houston as the final shot rang out claimed they saw the whole shooting, etc. It's human nature. One can see this in oneself, for that matter. At least I can in me. When I was in the record biz I sometimes hung out with rap labels. There were times when dope was passed around, and I would occasionally take a puff. Well, when I would tell this story it usually came out that I got stoned with Snoop Dogg, when the reality was I just took a few puffs with people from his label who told me it was his dope.

The FBI and SS had completed their re-enactments using alternate automobiles by early December. The WC pushed for a more honest re-enactment on May 24. There is no evidence the limo ever returned to Dallas.

That's stop-motion animation. The skeletons were essentially miniature action figures. It took months and months to film the movements of the skeletons. As I understand it, Ray Harryhausen would film a frame, move the skeleton a 1/16 of an inch, or whatever, and film another frame. The action sequence of the humans would be filmed separately, with part of the image blocked out. The skeleton film would then be added onto the film of the humans in the area that was blocked out. This was a time-consuming effort, performed by a man considered the master of his craft. And yet when you watch the humans fight the skeletons there are all sorts of giveaways that they are not really in the same shot. So, no, this footage does not make the wholesale alteration of the z-film within days of the shooting seem possible. Just the opposite.

To be fair, just as some are bent towards claiming "Alteration! Alteration!" whenever they see something they don't understand, others are just as bent towards claiming no alteration even when it is obvious. 15 years ago or so I started a thread in which I proved that the famous photo of "Kennedy's foot hanging over the side of the limo" had been doctored by the Dallas Morning News, and that this doctored photo and bogus claim had then been repeated in the SS report on the assassination. It was not Kennedy's foot, but had been made to appear as such by someone (presumably Tom Dillard). This may have been innocent, but it certainly made the paper a lot of money as this image was then reprinted across the country. Unfortunately, it also damaged the integrity of the witness statements, as several witnesses took to claiming they saw Kennedy's foot dangling over the side of the limo after this photo was published. In any event, I was able to demonstrate the doctoring of this photo by finding an un-doctored version of the photo that was published in the Saturday Evening Post. Or not. In what became one of the longest and most contentious threads in the forum up to that time. some (most notably Gary Mack) insisted that they could see no evidence of doctoring in the photo as published by the Dallas Morning News, and that the obviously un-doctored photo published in the Saturday Evening Post must have been the one that was doctored. There was also some discussion of whether or not the "foot" could have actually been a hand. This all goes to demonstrate that what people "see" is filtered through their biases. To prove alteration, then, one should find an alternate version of the same image, and demonstrate the difference, and explain why this could not have come as a result of copying, etc. In the case of the Miller photo, the photo was sold to the Dallas Morning News, which then published an altered version of the photo along with a misleading caption. Apparently, the Saturday Evening Post then got access to the original photo, and published it a few weeks later. The point is, then, that an original photo existed that was altered when published in a newspaper. This was common practice at the time. The photo of Oswald with a rifle was altered for publication on the cover of Life, if I recall. This was common practice. But the type of alteration proposed on this and other threads--the wholesale creation of a fake film using pieces from other films and other frames, etc, was not common practice. Sure, movies and TV splice together numerous takes to make a seamless-appearing action sequence, and today they add in CGI to boot, but these have edits. And no one purports that these sequences are the original footage. A series of experts have looked at the Z-film and have concluded it was the in-camera original, i.e.original footage. I don't see how one can argue that an obviously fake drawing of a penguin's being inserted into a series of film frames over the course of weeks if not months can be compared to the type of alteration proposed for the Z-film. It's apples and dinosaurs.

Gabriel is in the Old Testament.

I started to read it but within the first few sentences I had to stop. It was not a busy parking garage filled with cars honking their horns. That's total crap. If there's a legitimate reason for the car honks, it's that the car in which Oswald was to be taken out was backing up into a crowd of people, and the driver wanted them to step aside. As you probably know, the armored car was supposed to be a diversion, and Oswald was supposed to be taken in the car that can be seen in the films. My big question about the whole event is why Fritz jumped so far ahead of Oswald, and then took so long to respond to Ruby's shooting Oswald. As the number one bodyguard, tasked with walking in front of Oswald, and viewing the crowd for suspicious behavior, he could very well have been distracted by the car's backing up. Trying to get the car in the right position could also explain why he stepped ahead of Oswald. But if you watch the news footage, he continues staring away from Oswald for a few seconds after the shot. This suggests to me that he knew what was happening and didn't really want to be a part of it. Now, the one area of research which hopefully someone better equipped than I can get at, is if Fritz was told the car was already in place before he came down with Oswald. If so, whoever told him that is the guy to look at. If the car was in its proper position when they came down, after all, Ruby would not have had such easy access to Oswald.

It could be coming, Ben. China has supposedly agreed to help Russia out with military equipment, which will lead to a backlash against them. I mean, that's pathetic, on two fronts. 1. Russia needs help crushing a country with 1/10 its military might, if that? 2. China is so stupid it's willing to help Russia? If I was living in Taiwan I would be very very worried... If China is really gonna help Russia, militarily, it's probably to create a diversion while they make moves on Taiwan. And we thought murderous dictators were oh so last century!

DVP and I were on the same side of some issues. One of these was that Bugliosi was 100% in the wrong to quote Mantik's claim Reclaiming History was a "masterpiece" on his book cover. He had to have known the context--that Mantik was saying it was a masterpiece of a one-sided argument, and not a balanced book full of new insights. Another was that the full video of the mock trial should have been made available so people could see what was really said, and not what Showtime deemed worthy of the edited version shown in the U.S. It's a travesty, IMO, that the full version has never been shown or made available. As far as defending Bugliosi's misrepresentation of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, I quoted an authority on the misrepresentation of witness statements. His name was Vincent Bugliosi. And he was not just slightly guilty of hypocrisy. He spent a substantial part of his book doing what he promised he wouldn't do--take statements out of context and edit statements to change their meaning. There can be no defense of this. Like I said, no one even tried.

I also could not make it through Bugliosi's mountain of nonsense. But I did write a response to his book in which I focused on his misrepresentation of witness statements and his utter hypocrisy. You can read it here: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter19bvincentbistherealoliverstone P.S. I posted excerpts from this on some JFK forums back in the day and not one of his supporters was willing to defend him. And for good reason.

I still believe that one of the most revealing articles ever written about the assassination was the Jack Anderson/Drew Pearson article claiming the people tasked with killing Castro killed Kennedy instead. It was put out after Bobby came out against the war, almost certainly at the request of LBJ. It thereby served as cover for LBJ--if the Warren Commission was a cover-up, it was a cover-up designed to protect Bobby. But that just wasn't true. While Bobby may have told someone they should try to kill Castro, he would never have approved the use of the mob in doing so. In any event, the participation of CIA-affiliated anti-Castro Cuban/mob figures in the assassination, should it have been revealed, would almost certainly have led to the CIA being dismantled. And there wasn't anyone in the agency who would ever let that happen. Richard Helms would spend the rest of his life claiming those doubting Oswald was a lone assassin were victims of Russian propaganda. He saw the whole assassination in terms of how it could be used against the CIA. There can be no doubt that he, among others, would thereby have ordered a full-on cover-up of anything linking Oswald to the CIA, or anything suggesting CIA-affiliated scumbags were involved. I mean, Kennedy was dead. I'm sure he saw his role not as finding Kennedy's killers, but protecting the agency from fallout. So, yes, an LBJ/CIA-cover-up of what was essentially a mob hit makes perfect sense to me.