Pat Speer

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.

I've been to John's presentations and have talked with him in person about this stuff, and he seems convinced Veciana was letting Fonzi think Bishop was Phillips to cover up who he was really working for: Army intelligence. This is actually worse than Phillips' being Bishop, IMO. It's easy for people to think the CIA was off the rails and that true believers like Phillips were in on the assassination. But the possibility being pursued by Newman--that it was in fact a military coup using the CIA as a patsy--is far more problematic, IMO. Particularly in light of the subsequent expansion of the war in Vietnam. So I guess my concern is that you'll use Newman to suggest Phillips was not Bishop, and thereby get Phillips and the CIA off the hook, without examining the bigger picture including that Phillips' not being Bishop might actually be worse.

Are you claiming Phillips wasn't Bishop, or that there never was a Bishop? It's been awhile, but I seem to recall that Fonzi was able to place Phillips in a number of international locations where Veciana claimed he'd met Bishop. At least on the surface, the odds of that being a coincidence would be extremely small.

It's important to note that the mob and CIA were quite cozy in those days. It would seem to me that someone (say Marcello) would hire someone (say Maheu) to kill JFK and make it look like the Russians did it. Maheu would then have a few informal chats with a few of his CIA contacts (say perhaps Phillips) to find out who would be the perfect patsy. And Phillips would say "I have just the guy!" After that it was all CYA. LBJ would let it be known the country would be better off thinking it was a lone but, and most everyone would join him in assassinating the supposed assassin. It's kinda like Murder on the Orient Express, when you think of it. Only they had the wrong guy...

The most overlooked fact about Brennan is that he ID'ed Oswald under the proviso Oswald was not wearing the shirt whose fibers were found on the rifle. In other words, the commission could either accept his ID of Oswald, or accept that Oswald was wearing that shirt during the shooting, but.not both. That they tried to have it both ways is indicative of their prosecutor's zeal and is one of the strongest proofs the WC was a dog-and-pony show. That this simple and obvious fact has not been discussed on TV or in the mainstream press is an example of their willingness to push nonsense when it suits their purposes.

My understanding is that someone left a memo in the HSCA's files saying there was material on CE 567 and that it should be examined. In the 1990's John Orr, hoping the material would track back to Connally, successfully pushed for it to be examined. It turned out to be human tissue, with insufficient DNA to point to Kennedy or Connally. This wasn't what Orr had hoped for, so it was largely ignored. The problem, however, is that the skin on the bullet nose is the smoking gun that will re-open this case IF people will finally accept it for what it is. This skin could only have come from Kennedy's large head wound. It proves the bullet impacted at the supposed exit. This means two head wounds. When you read forensic books and journals this is clear as can be.

Could it be that what you think is his leg is a combination of his leg and the shadow of his leg and foot?

So the removal of frames sped up the action. This demonstrates that (should frames have been removed)the limo would have to have been moving much slower than is shown in the film. Well, that's completely counter-productive. When you actually study the early reports and documents regarding the Z-film, the FBI and WC were concerned the film was too fast, i.e., that the speed of the film was such that the shooting scenario would have been impossible for one man. This was such a problem, in fact, that the SS and FBI December re-enactments moved the location of the head shot further down the street than is shown in the film. In any event, the removal of frames without a correlating deception regarding the fps would have been obvious. And this feeds back to my earlier statement: someone needs to compare the Z-film with other films of cars in a parade, recorded and played-back at a known fps, to see if the movements of the crowd are comparable, or if the Z-film action appears sped up or slowed-down.

The original film has been studied and the "frames-were-removed-to-speed-it-up" theory has been rejected, even by John Costella, if I'm not mistaken. The key, as I recall, was that each frame has a "ghost image" in the sprocket hole section, that connects it to the frame before. IOW, each of the available frames is linked to the frame before. Now, of course, there are some frames missing from the original. But no one proposes the limo made a sudden stop as Kennedy went behind the sign in the film. No, people presume frames are missing at the time of the headshot in the film. And the "ghost images" as I recall prove this to be a non-issue. So I think you're gonna need to study "ghost images," and the work of Rollie Zavada and others before you can make an effective argument frames were removed. Now, that said, I have never been entirely convinced the camera was running at 18.3 fps during the shooting. It may have been running a bit faster, IMO. A friend gave me a (non-functioning) camera that is identical to Zapruder's. And the guidebook and camera make no reference to 18.3 fps. I think the slowest is 24 fps. If I recall, the timing was determined by a spring, and the speed changed a bit as the camera wound down. The FBI, in its tests, determined the average speed to be 18.3 fps. Later, CBS purchased a number of identical cameras, and found the speed varied from camera to camera. I think it was something like 16-21 fps. In any event, CBS' concern the film portrayed a shooting scenario in which the shots were fired too close together led them to suggest the first shot missed--which was grossly at odds with the witness statements. Unfortunately, many followed suit, and now most TV specials and LN books insist the first shot missed--which is total BS, IMO. My concern on this issue was somewhat relieved when I saw--I think it was on YouTube--a version of the film that was sped up a bit. It didn't look natural. But maybe that's because I'm so used to viewing the film at its supposed rate. Perhaps, then, someone concerned the film was actually recorded at a faster rate than 18.3 fps could create a film of a car driving down the road with people in the background--film of a parade, perhaps--and then play this film at different speeds side by side with the Zapruder film. Such a study might lead to a convincing argument the car was traveling at a faster rate than it appears in the film, and that the timing of the shots was such that it would have been unlikely for one man to have fired the shots, even if the first shot missed.

I should be clear and not just make snarky comments. I liked Jim Marrs and conducted a filmed interview of him in 2005. (I should find it and put it online.) He was an extremely knowledgeable and entertaining guy. But I don't know if I would call him an expert. He was someone who collected items that sounded mysterious or problematic. But I'm not aware of him debunking any of the nonsense spewed by other CTs, or correcting his own nonsense. As for JVB, she's super-smart and very knowledgeable about the case. Which is problematic to her credibility, IMO. She's smart enough to make up a huge story, and then change it over and over again to make it more credible. Which is what she did, according to some who knew her when she first came forward... As for me, I suspect she knew Oswald and maybe even flirted with him. But I'm skeptical about the rest of her story. This brings me to McClellan. I suspect he was sincere in his suspicions of his former employer. But I've seen nothing to indicate he is an expert on the case. I know little of Gordon Ferrie and Zack Shelton, but would be surprised if they were experts on anything. The word "expert" is a tricky one for me. I've been called an "expert," but being called an expert only highlights how little I know about certain aspects of the case. So I reject the moniker. I reject it not just for myself but for anyone currently writing on the case (With the possible exception of John Newman...)

Yes, this is correct. But did you read my post, the whole thing? Tomlinson said the bullet he was shown looked just like CE 399. He could not identify the bullet he saw as CE 399, but it looked just like it. Well, you don't need to be a ballistics expert to tell the difference between a pointed-tip bullet and a round-nosed bullet. Tomlinson, the man who discovered CE 399, confirmed both before and after he spoke to Thompson that the bullet he was shown (CE399) looked like the bullet he'd discovered. Wright failed to make an initial report describing the bullet he saw. When he was subsequently shown CE 399 by the FBI he said it looked like it, but evidently he, like Tomlinson, refused to say for sure it was the same bullet. It wasn't till three years later that he spoke to Thompson. If he was shown a bullet he knew to be a fake in 1964, why the heck didn't he say something at the time? (Now, I know some will say he wasn't actually shown CE 399, and that the FBI report was a fake. But that doesn't pass a smell test. If they were gonna fake a report about Wright's being shown a bullet, it would have said he'd IDed it. And not that the only person in the chain of custody who'd iD the bullet was an FBI man, number 5 in the chain.) Now, do I believe the bullet found on the stretcher was CE 399? Yes, I suspect it was. For one, I'm not entirely convinced CE 399 was fired on the motorcade. If it was not, well, what would be the point of planting a bullet on the stretcher if it couldn't be traced back to the rifle found in the building? And if it was...well, the lack of damage to the bullet suggests a short shot, which can be taken to mean more than Oswald was involved. I just don't see CE 399's getting switched as a necessary part of a plot. And Tomlinson's statements to Marcus and Golz undermine Thompson and Aguilar's research into this matter.

Sure. Thanks, Gary. You can send it to me at pat@patspeer,com.

It appears the word "expert" has lost much of its meaning.

I'm with Greg on this one. The bullet switch scenario is very shakey, IMO. Tomlinson thought the bullet shown him by the FBI was the bullet he'd discovered; he just refused to ID it because he hadn't put his initials on it. From chapter 3b at Patspeer.com: "A few days later, we see a 7-7-64 letter from the Dallas FBI office, written in response to a 5-20 letter from the Commission, asking them to establish the chain-of-evidence for a number of items. When discussing the chain-of-evidence for FBI C1/Warren Commission Exhibit CE 399, a near-pristine bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland hospital, an hour or more after the President and Governor were admitted, and purported to have caused Kennedy's back and throat wound, and all of Connally's wounds, it relates: "On June 12, 1964, Darrell C. Tomlinson...was shown Exhibit C1, a rifle slug, by Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum...Tomlinson stated it appears to be the same one he saw on a hospital carriage at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, but he cannot positively identify the bullet as the one he found and showed to Mr. O.P. Wright...On June 12, 1964, O.P. Wright...advised Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum that Exhibit C1, a rifle slug, shown to him at the time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963 which he gave to Richard Johnsen, Special Agent of the the Secret Service...He advised he could not positively identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found on November 22. 1963...On June 24, 1964, Richard E. Johnson...was shown Exhibit C1, a rifle bullet, by Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd, Federal Bureau of Investigation. Johnsen advised he could not identify this bullet...On June 24, 1964, James C. Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service...was shown Exhibit C1, a rifle bullet, by Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd. Rowley advised he could not identify this bullet as the one he received from Special Agent Richard E. Johnsen and gave to Special Agent Todd on November 22, 1963. On June 24, 1964, Special Agent Elmer Lee Todd...identified C1, a rifle bullet, as being the one he received from James Rowley, Chief, United States Secret Service." We note that the Secret Service has refused to swear by the bullet, and that an agent of the FBI itself, fifth in a line of possession, is the first to assert the bullet is the one found in the hospital. As this bullet has been linked to Oswald's rifle and is necessary to demonstrate that Oswald fired the lethal shots, this is problematic. Fortunately, the first men to see the bullet, Tomlinson and Wright, appear to agree with Agent Todd's identification. By now well familiar with the FBI's inadequacies, however, we decide to do a little digging. We uncover a 6-20 Airtel from Dallas Special Agent in Charge J. Gordon Shanklin to J. Edgar Hoover telling him that "neither Darrell C. Tomlinson, who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O.P. Wright, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from Tomlinson and gave to Special Agent Richard E. Johnsen, Secret Service at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet." As this memo specifies that Tomlinson and Wright could not identify the bullet, and as the letter sent to the Commission indicates they believed the bullets appeared to be the same, we find yet another reason to suspect the FBI's integrity, and to seriously question the Commission's reliance upon its services. The Switcheroo That Wasn't: a Brief Discussion In Which I End Up Defending The FBI (No, Really, I'm Not Kidding) The apparent contradiction between the FBI's 6-20-64 Airtel and 7-7-64 letter was just the beginning of the mystery surrounding the bullet. In November 1966, Josiah Thompson showed O.P. Wright a photo of the bullet supposedly found on the stretcher (by then dubbed Commission Exhibit CE 399) and asked him if CE 399 was in fact the bullet he'd remembered seeing on the day of the assassination. Amazingly, Wright told him that the bullet he'd handed the Secret Service on that day had had a pointed tip, while CE 399 had had a rounded tip. Wright then showed Thompson a bullet with a pointed tip like the one he'd remembered seeing. Thompson then showed Darrell Tomlinson a photo of a Mannlicher-Carcano bullet, along with the bullet shown him by Wright. While Tomlinson was reportedly non-committal, and couldn't remember if the tip was rounded like CE 399, or pointed like the bullet shown him by Wright, Thompson, and a large swath of his readers, took from Wright's statements that the stretcher bullet had been switched. Thirty-five years passed. In 2002, Thompson and Dr. Gary Aguilar finally contacted the FBI's Bardwell Odum, to see if he remembered Tomlinson and Wright saying CE 399 looked like the bullet found on the stretcher, per the FBI's 7-7-64 letter to the Commission, or their not identifying the bullet, per the 6-20-64 FBI memorandum. Amazingly, Odum insisted he had no recollection of ever handling CE 399, let alone showing it to Tomlinson and Wright. Now, for some this was a smoking gun. If Odum had never shown the bullet to Tomlinson and Wright, and the FBI letter said he had, and that they'd told him the bullet looked like the one they saw on 11-22-63, then someone was almost certainly lying. Deliberately. In December, 2011, however, I came across something that gave me great doubts about the smoke coming out of this gun. A transcript was posted on the alt.assassination.JFK newsgroup by author Jean Davison. This transcript, acquired by Ms. Davison from the National Archives, was of a 7-25-66 conversation between Darrell Tomlinson and researcher Ray Marcus. This transcript asserted that when asked if he'd ever been shown the stretcher bullet after giving it to Wright, Tomlinson had admitted "I seen it one time after that. I believe Mr. Shanklin from the FBI had it out there at the hospital in personnel with Mr. Wright there when they called me in." When then asked by Marcus if "Shanklin" and Wright had asked him if this bullet looked the same as the one he'd recovered on November 22, 1963, Tomlinson responded "Yes, I believe they did." When then asked his response to their question, he replied "Yes, it appeared to be the same one." Let's note the date of this transcript. This was months prior to Tomlinson's being shown the pointed tip bullet by Thompson. And yet, at this early date, he'd thought the bullet he'd been shown by "Shanklin" (more probably Odum--Tomlinson was unsure about the name of the agent and there is little reason to believe Shanklin--the Special Agent-in Charge of the Dallas Office--would personally perform such a task) resembled the bullet he'd found on the stretcher. This suggests, then, that his subsequent inability to tell Thompson whether the bullet was rounded or pointed was brought about by his not wanting to disagree with Wright. In November 2012, moreover, I found additional support for this suspicion. It was a 4-22-77 article on the single-bullet theory by Earl Golz for The Dallas Morning News, which reported "Darrell C Tomlinson, the senior engineer at Parkland who found the slug, told The News he 'could never say for sure whose stretcher that was ... I assumed it was Connally's because of the way things happened at Parkland at that time.' Tomlinson acknowledged he was not asked to identify the bullet when he testified before the Warren Commission in 1964. He said some federal agents earlier 'came to the hospital with the bullet in a box and asked me if it was the one I found. I told them apparently it was, but I had not put a mark on it. If it wasn't the bullet, it was exactly like it.'" So there it is. Tomlinson told Marcus in 1966 that he thought the bullet he'd found looked like CE 399, was less certain on this point when talking to Thompson later that year, and then returned to telling reporters the bullets looked the same by the time he talked to Golz in 1977. Either he'd misled Marcus and Golz, or was momentarily confused by the bullet Wright provided Thompson. Wright was a former policeman. Perhaps Tomlinson had momentarily deferred to his expertise. In any event, Tomlinson's recollection of the bullet over the years did not support Wright's recollection, and supported instead that he'd been shown CE 399 by the FBI in 1964, had told them it appeared to be the same bullet as the one he'd found on the stretcher, and had nevertheless refused to identify it. This scenario was consistent, moreover, with the FBI's 6-20-64 memo and 7-7-64 letter to the Warren Commission. It seems hard to believe this was a coincidence. As a result, Tomlinson's recollections cast considerable doubt on Wright's ID of a pointed bullet, and the scenario subsequently pushed by Thompson and Aguilar--that the FBI had lied in its 6-20 memo and 7-7 letter about the bullet--appears to be inaccurate."

Except that's just not true, Michael. The WC staff had numerous viewings of the Z-film and realized that Connally was hit within a second or so of JFK. That was one problem. The other one was that they didn't know what happened to the bullet (they believed) exited Kennedy's throat. The thought occurred that perhaps the throat bullet hit Connally, and that was why he reacted so soon after Kennedy. The May 24, 1964 re-enactment was done for the specific purpose of determining if the SBT made sense in light of the position of the men in the limo. The SS and FBI--who had long claimed the films showed three hits, JFK, JBC, JFK--reluctantly agreed to participate. In a warehouse afterwards, moreover, Specter tried to line up the wounds, and found that JFK's back wound was too low for the.bullet to have exited his neck and hit JBC in the armpit (or at the very least that people would suspect as much if they saw the photos.). So he lied about it, and got the SS and FBI to lie about it as well. This is discussed in great detail on my website and was the subject of several of my presentations, including the sole presentation on the SBT at the 50th anniversary of the WR conference held at Bethesda. (Warren Commission attorney Burt Griffin was in the audience, but he stormed out when I presented the evidence Specter lied.) In any event, Tague was not considered a problem until an article came out about him on 6-5-64. He was brought in to testify on 7-23. This was just for show. Specter had finished his chapter in which the SBT was described over a month before.

A quick response. I hope this helps.

I've got book-length chapters on this stuff on my website. (They are free.) In short, I initially believed the back of the head photo was fake because the wound appeared to be in a different location than it was shown on the other photos and x-rays. After months of studying photos of tattoos on the the top of the head from different angles, however, I realized that this was wrong, and that the photos and x-rays are in fact consistent. As far as the casket stuff, my friend Matt Douthit looked into this far more than I, and he found that the statements of the witnesses were wildly inconsistent on this front. Of course, that doesn't prove there was no switcheroo. But I can say this with 100% conviction. If the body was in fact altered to suggest a single assassin, it was a complete fiasco, as the medical evidence and autopsy protocol strongly suggest there were two head shots, and that the bullet creating the back wound did not transit. Now, it only makes sense to me that if the body was doctored to conceal a conspiracy, that the photos and reports on the autopsy would also conceal a conspiracy. But they don't. They are clear evidence for conspiracy. I mean, there are two parts of every report. The facts and the conclusions. The facts in JFK's case fail to align with the conclusions. Well, this suggests to me that no alteration was performed on the body, and the medical evidence is legit. Now, the saddest thing about all this, IMO, is that most researchers have missed the forest for the trees. By first focusing on the supposed alteration of the body, and then the supposed alteration of the photos, X-rays and Z-film, they have overlooked the freakin' SMOKING GUN handed to them by the Clark Panel. The Clark Panel moved the entrance wound on the back of JFK's head 4 inches when they couldn't resolve that there was no evidence within the brain that a bullet traveled on the trajectory described by the Warren Commission. They just moved the wound. This happened over 50 years ago. This should be common knowledge. And yet, when I talked to non-JFK buffs, such as the nurses at the hospital, a number of them said they heard the autopsy photos were fake, or that Kennedy was shot by one of the Secret Service men. But none of them had ever heard the 100% historical fact that a secret panel moved the entrance wound to a location where no one saw the wound, once they realized the trajectory as initially proposed made little sense. This always gets eye rolls. "Are you sure? Why haven't I heard of this?" All the energy spent arguing about alteration would have been far better spent, IMO, simply reporting on the facts of the case, free of conjecture, free of spin.

Boswell was describing the skull after the scalp was pulled back and shattered skull fell to the table.

It's crystal clear to me that Audrey Bell was a fabricator, riffing off stuff she'd read in books, and making up stories to make herself seem important. There's no record of her being at Kennedy's side. She never mentioned seeing JFK's head wound in any of her official reports, and only started talking about it decades later. Having spent some time in hospitals, and having spent a lifetime at the dinner table with nurses and bio-med technicians, it's clear to me her story of being shown JFK's head wound is balderdash. Let me make an analogy. Let's say one of JFK's most famous speeches was not recorded, and that only a transcript remains. Then jump ahead 25 years or so. One of LBJ's speechwriters is interviewed by someone writing a sensational book on Kennedy. And this speechwriter claims he walked up to Kennedy in the middle of the speech and helped him re-write the ending--something that was not reported or mentioned in the transcript, and not corroborated by JFK's own speechwriters, who were in attendance at the speech. Would you believe him? I suspect not.

Thanks, Greg. Before I got sick, I was working on either summarizing my research in a book, or putting out a series of books about the case. But I got sick and then google scrambled my website. So I spent the time I would have spent converting the website into a book re-building the website. If my health holds up, I may yet convert it into a book. But I will have to consult with a lawyer first. A lot of images on my website--that I would love to put into a book--are presented under the belief the fair use doctrine applies. But I'm fairly certain it would not apply should I publish these images in a book, or even sell advertising on my website. As far as your question...I think those claiming the mob couldn't have done it are engaging in wishful thinking. It may be more fun and spy vs. spy-y to assume the CIA did it, but a mob-did-it scenario is in my view a heckuva lot worse. I mean, if the CIA did it or the Pentagon did it or they both did it, it follows that they did it for political purposes--to save the world from JFK, who they viewed as a threat to their world order. But if the mob did it, with the help of some anti-Castro Cubans, and perhaps a few rogue CIA agents, it would appear they did it for less-noble reasons: greed, revenge, etc. Now, to me that is worse. If the mob did it, and LBJ and Hoover used their influence to make sure the investigation went nowhere, it can be taken as an indication that the government in 1963 was largely corrupt. To me, that's a bigger nightmare than Dulles and the boys ridding the world of what they viewed as a com-symp president. But perhaps that's my own bias. I got sick last year and my doctors told me I was poisoned at my former place of work. The lawyer who said he'd look into it slowed down his looking once he realized my former boss had been to prison on drug charges, and probably had little scratch. I told him he needed to aim higher and try to find out who tested the property--a known toxic waste site--or who signed off on letting employees work on a site that had not actually been tested. My instincts tell me that someone was bribed. I was buyer at a record distributor, and I was offered hundreds of bribes, and saw co-workers get pay raises in cash under the table, and saw my boss steal a million or two from store receipts so his wife could make a movie about how wonderful he was--and I reported most of this to the FBI when it was clear the company had been cleaned out by some professional criminals. And nothing was done. 9/11 happened and the FBI told me they were no longer investigating white collar crimes. We did business with an export company owned by an Iranian. The FBI told me they could continue their investigation if I could provide evidence this man was using illicit profits to fund terrorists, or some such thing. He was a former Iranian policeman who'd fled Iran when the Ayatollah took over. It was total bs. So my life experience tells me that corruption and institutional stupidity rule the day, and that no secret order of body alterers and film alterers need to have been involved. When you're rich or powerful you can get people to lie for you all day long, and the WC and their staff knew what they were supposed to find. And voila! They found it.

Let me be clear. If I attack you it is not because you are onto something. It s because I'm in a cranky mood and I consider your posts an embarrassment to this forum. It's called the Education Forum, not the "Let's make stuff up because it sounds cool" Forum.

So it's come down to this. Yawn. If you knew anything about this case or the people on this forum you'd know that I have engaged in many a debate with Von Pein and McAdams, and have routinely mopped the floor with them. I have sections on my website about them, and their inability to come to logical conclusions regarding a number of aspects to the case. As far as yourself, well, it appears you have dreams of being the new Ralph Cinque, someone who cherry-picks statements and evidence in the service of non-sensical theories that waste everyone's time. I mean, I came to this forum because Larry Hancock was on here discussing the Cuban connection, and John Simkin was offering up tons of historical perspective. And now, the most active poster is yourself. That's a long way down. And I think you know it. If you didn't you would read my "material" and realize that there is a mountain of evidence demonstrating that Kennedy was just where the Newmans said he was and just where the films show him to have been, at the time of the head shot. S.M. Holland (11-22-63 statement to Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H480, 24H212) “the President’s car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come over from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first one but that was the only puff of smoke I saw…After the first shot the President slumped over and Mrs. Kennedy jumped up and tried to get over in the back seat to him and then the second shot rang out. After the first shot the secret service man raised up in the seat with a machine gun and then dropped back down in the seat. And they immediately sped off.” Austin Miller (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H485, 24H217) “I saw a convertable automobile turn west on Elm off Houston Street. It had proceeded about halfway from Houston Street to the underpass when I heard what sounded like a shot a short second two more sharp reports. A man in the back seat slumped over and a woman in a bright colored dress (Orange or Yellow) grabbed the man and yelled. One shot apparently hit the street past the car. I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks.” Malcolm Summers can be seen diving to the ground in Zapruder frame 345. (11-23-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H500) “The President’s car had just come up in front of me when I heard a shot and saw the President slump down in the car and heard Mrs. Kennedy say, “Oh, no,” then a second shot and then I hit the ground as I realized these were shots. Then all of the people started running up the terrace away from the President’s car and I got up and started running also, not realizing what had happened. In just a few moments the president’s car sped off.” Emmett Hudson (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H481) “This day I was sitting on the front steps of the slopping [sic} area and about half way down the steps. There was another man sitting there with me. He was sitting on my left and we were both facing the street with our backs to the railroad yards and the brick building. At the same time the President's car was directly in front of us, I heard a shot and I saw the President fall over in the seat." Charles Brehm (11-22-63 article in the Dallas Times Herald) "A sobbing carpet salesman told police minutes after the shooting the president appeared to have been hit twice. 'The first time he slumped and the second one really blasted him.' These were the words of Charles Drehm... 'After the first shot, the President's wife rose slightly to hold the President and they both went down in the second shot. He was definitely hit badly,' Mr. Drehm said. Mr. Drehm said the President was half-standing, waving to the crowd, when he heard the first of two shots. He said after the President was knocked down, apparently by the second shot, the President's car roared underneath the triple underpass." (Later in the article) "The witness Drehm was shaking uncontrollably as he further described the shooting. 'The first shot must not have been too solid, because he just slumped. Then on the second shot he seemed to fall back.' Drehm seemed to think the shots came from in front of or beside the President. He explained the President did not slump forward as he would have after being shot from the rear. The book depository building stands in the rear of the President's location at the time of the shooting...Drehm said he was within 10 feet of the President at the time of the shooting. 'It was definitely a rifle,' he said." Charles Hester Charles Hester was sitting on the knoll with his wife as the President passed by. His panicked response to the shots led some in the press cars and press busses to think they had something to do with the shooting. In the Wiegman film, they can be seen crouching down back by the white arcade. This is also shown in the Altgens photo above. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H478) “My wife Beatrice and I were sitting on the grass on the slope on Elm Street where the park is located. When the President Kennedy’s car got almost to the underpass, I heard two shots ring out. They sounded like they came from immediately behind us and over our heads." John Chism (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H471) “we were directly in front of the Stemmons Freeway sign…When I saw the motorcade round the corner, the President was standing and waving to the crowd. And just as he got just about in front of me, he turned and waved to the crowd on this side of the street, the right side; at this point I heard what sounded like one shot, and I saw him “The President,” sit back in his seat and lean his head to his left side. At this point, I saw Mrs. Kennedy stand up and pull his head over her lap, and then lay down over him as if to shield him. And the two men in the front seat, I don’t know who they were, looked back, and just about the time they looked back, the second shot was fired." Jean Newman (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H489, 24H218) “My name is Jean Newman, I live with my parents, my father's name is G.C. Kimbriel. I work at the Rheem Manufacturing Company. I was standing right on this side of the Stemmons Freeway sign, about halfway between the sign and the edge of the building on the corner… The motorcade had just passed me when I heard something that I thought was a firecracker at first, and the President had just passed me, because after he had just passed, there was a loud report, it just scared me, and I noticed that the President jumped, he sort of ducked his head down, and I thought at the time that it probably scared him too, just like it did me, because he flinched like he jumped. I saw him put his elbows like this, with his hands on his chest...the motorcade never did stop, and the President fell to his left, and his wife jumped up on her knees…I just heard two shots” A.J. Millican (11-22-63 handwritten statement to Sheriff Bill Decker, 19H486) “I was standing on the North side of Elm Street, about half way between Houston and the Underpass… Just after the President’s car passed, I heard three shots..." Hugh Betzner was on Elm Street, 30 feet or so to the east of Phil Willis. (11-22-63 statement to Dallas Sheriff’s Department, 19H467) “I then ran down to the corner of Elm and Houston Streets, this being the southwest corner. I took another picture just as President Kennedy’s car rounded the corner…I ran on down Elm a little more and President Kennedy’s car was starting to go down the hill to the triple underpass. I took another picture as the President’s car was going down the hill on Elm Street. I started to wind my film again and I heard a loud noise. I looked up and it seemed like there was another loud noise in the matter of a few seconds." Note that Betzner's photo shows the Kennedy limo in its location around Z-186, and that the first shot he heard rang out just afterwards... And so on...

Uhhh... I hope you realize that from the perspective of those in the TSBD, the trees blocked off their view for some distance beyond where they were sitting/standing. As far as the Newmans...EEGADS! The Newmans said from the beginning that they lay on top of their children after seeing JFK's head explode in front of them. Their location was captured in numerous photos and films. Are you saying--really saying--that they ran down the street for 20 or 30 yards before laying down on the grass? And, if so, do you think they were deliberately deceiving the public when they indicated the fatal shot came from behind them, from a location west of the TSBD? In your scenario, after all, a shot from behind them would have been coming from the TSBD...

Wait. Are you musing that someone could put down a rifle, pick up another, and re-gain his target, in less than the time it would take him to re-load? That seems unlikely. On a single-shot rifle, yes, but on the presumed assassination rifle, no.

Yet another cop out. Simple question, John. Was Bill Newman spreading disinformation when he went on TV at 12:45 PM and said the following: "the President’s car was some fifty feet in front of us still yet in front of us coming toward us when we heard the first shot and the President. I don't know who was hit first but the President jumped up in his seat, and I thought it scared him, I thought it was a firecracker, cause he looked, you know, fear. And then as the car got directly in front of us well a gunshot apparently from behind us hit the President in the side of the temple." Simple question: yes or no. You can do it.