Pat Speer

Wait! A feud I hadn't heard of? What the heck does Brent have against you?

California is more than 10% of the U.S. population, and well over 10% of the U.S. economy, and yet the last Republican president to spend even 10% of his U.S. travel days in California was, I do believe, Reagan. As I recall, it took Bush something like a year of his presidency to spend even one day in what is far and away the most populous and prosperous state, and Trump wasn't much better, only coming here to collect money from rich donors, and maybe once or twice stopping by to pretend he cared about the victims of a fire. It's a joke. The Republican Party lost California--the one-time center of the party, the launching pad of Nixon and Reagan--because it simply stopped trying, and decided the short game (attacking the immigrants piling into California) was better than the long game (embracing the immigrants piling into California, and teaching them Republican values). And now some idiot has got it in his head that Trump WON here??? That's either a joke or a sign of mental illness. Trump has about as good a chance of winning in California as he would winning in France or Germany, which is to say none at all. I mean, I hope no one is so stupid that they would fall for this nonsense. California was far and away the biggest prize in the election. If Trump stood even a 10% chance of winning here, he would have campaigned here. Let's not be daft.

To be clear, I would agree that you can't reject everything pushed by the LaRouche people just because it's been pushed by the LaRouche people. One of the first books to dig into the background of the Bush family--and to expose Prescott's ties to the...National Socialists of 1930's Germany--was a LaRouche-backed book. There was also a book about the history of America that I came across...that had a whole chapter on the secession of the Confederate states...that did a great job of busting one of Red America's myths--that the secession of the slave states prior to the war between the states reflected the will of the citizens of these states. In fact, as I recall, the citizens of some of these states voted to stay within the union, only to be ignored by the rich, slave-owning members of their state legislatures. Now, to me, this was interesting news... Unfortunately, the book went on to claim this was all part of a plot by the Masons...who were largely of Scottish ancestry...who were somehow puppets of the British crown, or some such thing. I lost interest at that point. I am an old dad, whose father was an old dad, whose father was an old dad, whose father was an old dad. As a result, the war between the states is not ancient history to me, as my great grandfather's elder brothers fought in the war. And that's not even to mention that my step-dad was a proud southerner who called the war "the War of Northern Aggression." In any event, the people who fought that war were not fighting on behalf of the British Empire, and would probably kill you if you said as much to their face. As stated in my previous post, moreover, I've spent some time with a number of LaRouche's followers, and their behavior was that of members of a cult. Keep in mind that I'm from Southern California, and that I live within walking distance of Spahn Ranch, and that I have had multiple conversations over the years with followers of, let's see, Synanon, Hare Krishna, EST, Scientology, a little-known cult figure named Tony Alamo, LaRouche, and, now Trump. And, rest assured, Trumpism is a cult, and Trump is a cult leader. There were a number of "parades" in my neighborhood over the last month, in which Trump's supporters raced up and down the streets waving their flags and honking their horns. I would approximate that the largest of these "parades" involved 200 cars, with approximately 500 flags flying out the windows or from the truck beds. Well, by quick count, I'd say 350 of these were flags with the word "Trump" in giant letters, and that the rest were American flags, Don't Tread on Me flags, Make America Great Again flags, or Marine Corps flags. In other words, there were no flags saying "Vote Republican" or "Vote Trump-Pence in 2020". As far as these people were concerned Pence was not even on the ticket, and Trump was the leader of the Trump party. It was TRUMP in giant letters. Trump, the leader of their cult.

Aha! Now it all makes sense.... Lyndon LaRouche. When Obama was the prez, there was a booth outside my local Post Office with a picture of Obama with a Hitler mustache. I assumed the men in the booth were diehard conservative types but found out within minutes they were from Planet LaRouche. Their problem with Obama, you see, was not that he was too liberal, etc, but that he was a puppet of the British Empire. There was a member of this forum, moreover, who was a follower as well, and she used to complain about The Beatles, not because she didn't like their music, but because she thought they were part of a British plot to destroy America by turning clean-cut kids into drug-taking hippies. I remember as well a discussion I had with a group of Larouche-kids at the Burbank mall. They assured me without batting an eye that Lyndon LaRouche was the most brilliant man in America, and that he'd invented all sorts of stuff and was a mathematical genius. Yeah, sure, he was a genius, much as L. Ron Hubbard...and Donald Trump.

FWIW, I live in a conservative area of California, and, even here, the idea Trump "won" the election is laughable. He is simply too hated. He is, without doubt, the most hated major party candidate in American history--well, at least, since Lincoln. This delusion that he actually "won" the election is just that--a delusion. Traditionally, a president "winning" an election with less than half the vote will acknowledge the closeness of the election, and shift to the middle. But Trump did exactly the wrong thing--he claimed he won in a landslide, and shifted to the right. Now, he's paid the price for his incompetence. Poor baby. The one good thing about this mess is that Trump once again said the quiet part out loud. He claimed the election was stolen from him this time, because he himself knows how easy it is to steal an election, and has experience doing so.

I've got a story or two about most of these bands... Here's one of them... I was a huge fan of The Clash, but didn't see them live until after Combat Rock came out. Then it happened. They came to L.A. to play the Hollywood Palladium with the English Beat as their opening act. Well, my friends and I weren't exactly slammers, but we liked to be up close, and usually stood on the edge of the pit. This time was no different. We stood on the edge of the pit during the Beat's set. Then came The Clash. With the opening chords of London Calling, the whole floor started thrashing and slamming, and someone stepped on the back of my shoe and pulled it loose, and then someone stepped on the toe and pulled off my shoe, and I was suddenly shoeless on a dance floor full of Doc Martens. This sucked. After a minute or so of getting my foot stomped however I looked down and saw my shoe. I reached down and made a play for it and... some jerk jumped up on my back and I was down on the floor underneath the crowd. Getting stepped on. And stepped on. And kicked. And I'm yelling but the people were packed together so tight and the music was so loud no one could hear me. Every time I tried to get my footing I got knocked back down. Evidently some people thought I was trying to steal their place or something because I distinctly recall getting punched on the back of the head a couple of times. I remember thinking I might die. And then the song ended. And people could hear me. And someone helped me to my feet. I remember the temperature difference. When you're down on the ground beneath a packed-in squirming crowd the temperature is unbelievable--like 120 degrees, and humid. So when I finally got my footing the sweaty eighty-degree room felt like a blast of fresh air. But that isn't the only thing I remember. I was shocked to find I was now next to the stage, right by a speaker, about 50 feet from where I'd been knocked to the ground. Well, I looked back towards my friends, who were now spread out in the crowd. And just as I did I saw something I will never forget--my shoe, flying through the air, and hitting The Clash's lead singer Joe Strummer right in the face. Right in his face. I can see it in slow-motion. Of course, it was Joe Strummer, so he shrugged off and went into the next song. The rest of the concert is a blur, but I remember a couple of things about the end of the concert. One is that my friends found me and I realized I didn't want to walk back to the car without my shoe, so I went up to the barricade in front of Joe's mike stand, and looked over the top. And there it was, among probably a dozen others--my shoe. I hailed a roadie and he gave it to me. I think it was only then, as the crowd was emptying out, and I was re-united with my shoe, that I realized how dehydrated I was. I'd been wearing a t-shirt, and a wind-breaker, and in the pocket of the windbreaker was a concert t-shirt I'd bought upon arrival at the venue. Well, amazingly, the shirt in my jacket pocket was so full of sweat I could wring it out like a wash cloth after a shower. And that wasn't the only sign I'd come close to collapsing. I realized that the piece of gum I'd been chewing had turned to powder. Literally. Powder. In any event my friends led me to the Gower Gulch mini-mart across the street after the show, and I guzzled down two Gatorades in less than a minute, after which I was still thirsty. I'm pretty sure we went to Tommy's on the way home, and that I ordered my standard order--a triple chili burger with cheese, extra chili.

Here's a treasure chest of blurbs... Malcolm Blunt’s encyclopedic knowledge of the inner workings of the CIA during the era of the Cold War is unrivaled. He is the Rosetta Stone for coded intelligence agency cables. Alan Dale’s discussions with Blunt offer an astonishing range of depth and details essential to anyone with an interest in understanding President Kennedy's murder and the hidden machinations of U.S. spy bureaucracies. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., president, Waterkeeper Alliance; author of American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family * * * Malcolm Blunt's brilliant work in the deep caves of the National Archives has opened up new perspectives on the Kennedy case for other researchers. Alan Dale's deft questioning of him in this book will help others to emulate his achievements. Peter Dale Scott, author of Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Dallas ’63, and The American Deep State * * * Malcolm Blunt, an English psychiatric support manager turned forensic analyst, taught me a crucial art: how to understand the flow of information inside the CIA. I thought I understood something of the subject, but Blunt took me to a new level of insight. Alan Dale's fascinating interviews evoke Blunt's ingenious methodology and his wry humor. For anyone who wants to gain a granular understanding of the CIA's paper flow in the 1950s and 1960s, Dale's aptly-named volume, The Devil is in the Details, is essential. Jefferson Morley, author of Our Man in Mexico: Winston Scott and the Hidden History of the Kennedy Years; Snowstorm in August, and The Ghost: The Secret Life of CIA Spymaster James Jesus Angleton * * * Have you ever wanted to be a fly on the wall listening-in on a conversation between two incredibly intelligent, informed and knowledgeable people as they discuss the CIA, the national security state during the Cold War, how the National Archives, maintains and hides records and documents, how the government hides and keeps its secrets, and the Kennedy assassination? Here’s your chance. Don't miss it. Dan Hardway, Attorney; Former staff investigator for the House Select Committee on Assassinations * * * The most penetrating, influential interviews present not as interrogations, but as dialogues between a deeply informed questioner and a topically masterful subject. Success may be measured in direct proportion to the trust and respect that develop to bridge the gap, so to speak – qualities delivered in abundance by Alan Dale and Malcolm Blunt throughout these historic exchanges. The comparison is inevitable and irresistible: it is as if George Smiley has materialized in twin form, intelligence gatherer and analyst at the top of their games. The light they shed on the JFK assassination and associated operations is unlike any illumination you have yet to experience. Charles R. Drago, co-founder of the original JFK Truth and Amnesty Commission (1997), author of the Introduction to George Michael Evica’s “A Certain Arrogance” (2011) and Afterword to H.P. Albarelli, Jr.’s “Coup in Dallas” (2020) * * * The devil is in the details -- also the light of truth. For nearly three decades, Malcolm Blunt has been digging through stacks of U.S. government documents and illuminating their meaning. It took an English citizen, working in his spare time and sidetracking his holidays, to burrow deeply into the hidden and hiding-in-plain-sight facts of the John F. Kennedy assassination -- the most earth-shaking American crime of the 20th Century. Countless Kennedy scholars, authors and independent researchers have come to depend on Blunt for eye-popping discoveries that previously eluded them. I count myself among this crowd. An envelope from England stuffed with photocopies from the always generous and highly credible Blunt would make my day as I was researching my books. David Talbot, author of the New York Times bestsellers, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America's Secret Government and Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years * * * Alan Dale describes how Malcolm fully immersed himself in the dark waters surrounding the JFK case. He emerges fully radiant and filled with light. We need two, three, many Malcolms! Bill Simpich, author of The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend, and State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double-Agents and the Framing of Lee Oswald, https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret.html.... * * * Malcolm Blunt is the best there is! I have studied the JFK assassination since the 1960’s and have had the opportunity to get to know several high-quality researchers. Many of them were specialists in one particular aspect of the assassination. Malcolm has an outstanding knowledge that extends to all aspects of this complicated historic event. I first had the pleasure of meeting Malcolm in November 1998 as I was about to go onstage for my presentation at the JFK symposium in Dallas. About 6 months later I saw him again in the lobby of the National Archives building in College Park, Maryland. From that point on we became the best of friends and inseparable as we spent hundreds of hours studying documents, every possible moment that the archives were open. Additionally, we shared accommodations and spent a great amount of time talking about the treasured discoveries we found in the documents. Malcolm is not only a remarkable researcher; he is also a very generous and loving man who has treated my family and I as part of his own. I cannot even begin to express my thanks to this extraordinary man for mentoring me for all these years, as I have learned so much from Malcolm. With Love, Bill Drenas, Historian, Researcher and Consultant * * * It is the mission of the Assassination Archives and Research Center to obtain, preserve and disseminate information on political assassinations. The founding fathers of this country understood that in order to be their own governors a people must “arm themselves with the power knowledge gives.” British researcher Malcolm Blunt’s knowledge of the internal operations of Cold War intelligence agencies is peerless. To put the matter Bluntly, this collection of conversations with Alan Dale is a fascinating and groundbreaking penetration of the secrecy which warps the roles of all major players on the global stage. James (Jim) H. Lesar, president, Assassination Archives and Research Center, https://aarclibrary.org/ * * * The name “Malcolm Blunt” is synonymous with phrases such as “trusted source” and “detailed insight” in relation to JFK records. That became apparent to me long before I knew anything else about him. It is not mere hyperbole. His abilities in these areas were always going to bring him into the sunlight as the most well-known private source of documents and interpretations of same, outside of the Mary Ferrell Foundation. No mean feat for a lone and modest individual without even a website to call home! With much gratitude, I recommend these interviews to all who care… Greg R. Parker, author of Lee Harvey Oswald’s Cold War, founder of the ReOpenKennedyCase (ROKC) Forum and curator of JFK essays at the Natural Causes website, https://gregrparker.com/ * * * When one studies the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, one quickly realizes that there were really two assassinations. One was the assassination of the man. And the other was the assassination of the truth. With The Devil is in the Details, Alan Dale presents a series of conversations with perhaps the utmost expert on this second assassination, Malcolm Blunt. Rich in detail, these conversations with Blunt unveil an aspect to the Kennedy assassination unseen but to a select few. But they're not without their humor. In reading these interviews, in fact, one can't help feeling like a fly on the wall eavesdropping on the most interesting conversation at a D.C. hotel. We should feel fortunate then that Dale had the good sense to record these conversations, and publish their transcripts, so we could read them and learn from them, and read them again. Bravo, Alan! Pat Speer, Researcher, author and producer of The Mysterious Death of Number 35, http://www.patspeer.com * * * Since 1945 the United States has covertly developed, quietly sustained, and lavishly funded a parallel secret government controlled and directed by law enforcement agencies and several federal intelligence organizations, chiefly the Central Intelligence Agency. A propaganda system of nonpareil power mask their diabolical work. In ferreting out their massive, tangled, and hidden records while besting their foot soldiers in the bureaucracy Malcom Blunt is without peer, his work legendary. Alan Dale has done scholars and the nation an important service with his fine, clear, and helpful account. David R. Wrone, Emeritus professor of history, University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, author of JFK Bibliography and The Zapruder Film * * * In a world full of paradoxes, it takes a Brit to really understand America’s historic archives – and our deep political history. And few have mastered those as well as Malcolm Blunt, a true scholar and gentleman. Russ Baker, Founder and Editor-in-Chief of WhoWhatWhy.org, author of the New York Times bestseller Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years * * * America does not know that over 2 million pages of documents were declassified 22 years ago on the JFK assassination. Those pages redefined the scope and the nature of President Kennedy's murder. Malcolm Blunt is one of the few who has read and collected many of those documents. Not many people know who he is, but for those who do know, he is a hidden hero in the Kennedy case. James DiEugenio, author, Destiny Betrayed, Editor at https://kennedysandking.com/ * * * Allow me to paraphrase from the acknowledgements in The Road to Dallas (p. 494): "Malcolm Blunt has tried to familiarize himself with every JFK document in the archives in College Park. I was fortunate to sit next to him during several of my trips there and found his tips to be invariably accurate and useful." David Kaiser, author of The Road to Dallas * * * One of the best things that happened to me as a JFK researcher was meeting and befriending Malcolm Blunt. I got to know Malcolm in the early 1990s. Malcolm and I were there from the earliest days of the newly formed Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) which had the power to acquire and declassify JFK assassination records. No one had spent more time following the ARRB than I and no one has spent more time in Archives II acquiring and reading the documents than Malcolm. Almost everything I would want to do as a JFK researcher Malcolm has already done. Joe Backes, Independent researcher

I'm good friends with Alan Dale, and he generously allowed me a peek at this endeavor. It won't be everyone's cup of tea, as much of what is discussed will be up in the clouds. But that's kinda the point. Imagine you're standing at a conference and you hear two guys yammering away in the corner. And that you gradually make your way over to that corner to find out what they're talking about. And that you find you can only understand half of what they're saying, but find it interesting as heck anyway. That's kinda what this is like. It elevates the case and humanizes it at the same time...

I took my son to a special screening of Plan 9 a few years ago. It was in the cemetery where some of the scenes were filmed. He got very upset when I criticized the special effects in the film, as he didn't think they were all that bad. He did like it when the head alien goes on a rant and yells "All you, of Earth, are idiots!" Good fun.

The Dallas police came up to the Paine home around 2:30. They later created a phony report saying it was 3:30...but it was actually around 2:30. And we know this for a whole bunch of reasons. But the key one is this: Ruth Paine gave them Oswald's phone number and they used a reverse look-up to get Oswald's address. They then sent a car out to the rooming house. Well, this car got to the rooming house around 3, if I recall. So how could they have got there before they were told the phone number through which they obtained the address? Yeah, I know. Some prefer to think eegads this means they knew Oswald's address BEFORE they got out to the Paine's! But no, that's silly. All the evidence points to then coming out at 2:30 outside that unsigned and undated report. Typo? I don't think so. They may have been trying to conceal that they knew Oswald had carried a bag that morning BEFORE the DPD in the building "discovered" a bag. I mean, they're told he carried a bag, and then PRESTO, Montgomery walks out to the building with a bag. .

We can agree on some of it, Rick. The Parkland witnesses on average recalled a hole, not flap, but hole, at the rear of the top of the head. And the Z-film and autopsy photos show this wound to be above the right ear. So there's a dilemma. Which is more likely to be correct? The recollections of emergency room doctors or the autopsy photos taken of the deceased? The medical establishment is clear on this--it always defers to the autopsy report and photos.

FWIW, I was asked to help prepare questions for an interview to be conducted before Hemming died, in which he told all, so to speak. I didn't know that much about him, but compared his statements to the HSCA, Twyman, Weberman, and this forum to look for holes, and found plenty. I was then invited down to Florida to conduct the interview myself. But received word before departure that Hemming was sick, and that he'd backed out. I went down to Key West anyway, and was glad I did. While there, someone called up Hemming and asked him if he wanted to talk to me. He did, and my wife ended up driving around for an hour while I talked with Hemming on this other guy's cell phone . I concluded Hemming was mostly full of it, talking all this macho crap, but unwilling to put a coherent story down on paper. Previous to our conversation he'd told me he'd fought at Dien Bien Phu. When I confronted him on this by pointing out he was a high school senior at the time, he tried to tell me he'd graduated early and was sent over right away, or some such thing. While it remains possible Hemming knew a thing or two, it seems doubtful we'll ever be able to figure out what was what, due to his unparalleled love of BSing and muddying the waters with stuff much worse than mud.

I've had several chats with John about this, and have witnessed several of his presentations, and I believe he's heading towards claiming there was no Maurice Bishop, and that Veciana made up the whole story. The dynamite in all this is that he thinks Veciana did this upon orders from the military. And that the military did this to cover up their own involvement in...something. In our talks, I have tried to point out to John that none of this would make any sense unless Phillips was indeed Bishop, and that Veciana had been asked to point the finger at Phillips in particular. I mean, the drawing, and the overlap between Phillips and Bishop's career, is uncanny. As I recall, John said he hasn't got to this yet, but is convinced all the background info provided by Veciana about Bishop--about their meetings, etc--is an orchestrated lie. Having met Veciana and his son briefly, and having witnessed their appearance at the Bethesda conference, and having had several long talks with Marie Fonzi, however, I am not as yet convinced Veciana was lying as part of some master plan, however. It just strikes me as odd that a man at the end of his life would go public and admit he knew the CIA was somehow involved with Oswald, and that he failed to say anything about this for years afterwards because he used to think JFK had had it coming. This isn't what one would call a heroic story. The only motivation, then, would be that he was either still being run (which seems doubtful) or that he had a sincere desire to come clean (and show some respect for his friend, Fonzi). As far as flaws in John's analysis, yeah, I think there's a BIG one. John leaps upon every inconsistency in Veciana's recollections as evidence of lying. What he needs to do, IMO, is read some books on cognitive psychology and human memory. If he did so, he would realize that inconsistencies are to be expected, and are not signs of lying, but of the passage of time, and our susceptibility to outside influence. I have studied the medical evidence and eyewitness evidence as much as anyone, and I can tell you that if one was to apply John's standard re Veciana to the Parkland and Bethesda medical witnesses and closest Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses, one would be forced to conclude many of them were XXXXX, and probably not the actual witnesses we know them to be. It's that bad. So, in short, I tend to give Veciana a break on all this. 1. He may have exaggerated his relationship with Phillips, and concealed his much closer relationship with the military, for the presumed reason he was still cultivating a relationship with the military when he spoke to Fonzi, etc. And then decided to leave this out of his book. 2. He may have seen someone with Phillips he thought was Oswald, but was mistaken. 3. More credible to me, and perhaps more important, then, is Veciana's claim Phillips tried to use Veciana's cousin (as I recall) for propaganda purposes...to dummy up evidence for a Cuban connection to Oswald. (I'll be interested to see if John can find any evidence for this one.) Perhaps Larry knows more on this last matter... Larry?

Once upon a time, the Rush to Judgment transcripts provided by the Wisconsin Historical Society were available on John McAdams' site. That's probably where I found it.

Question for David Lifton. I don't remember where I heard this---but it was my understanding Feinman got disbarred because he'd lost his cool while representing a number of CTs against Gerald Posner's publisher. Assuming this is true, it would be unfair to use his disbarment to suggest he was a lousy lawyer. A passionate advocate for his fellow CTs, yes--but a lousy lawyer, no.

Gary was a mixed bag. He was quite active behind the scenes in the early days of the forum. If you asked a dumb question or made a weak claim he would send you a PM telling you you should do your homework, but if you turned around and asked him about where to find such and such a quote, or who took what photo, etc, he could be very generous with his help. While it's easy for some to say Gary sold out for money, I'm not so sure that's the case. Year after year of veterans fighting over the same old stuff, and newbies popping up thinking they know it all when they don't know scat, will wear on a guy. I've come to know a lot of the vets of the case. Most of them are as closed-minded as Gary. The problem, for me, was that Gary's position at the sixth floor elevated him into a position where the media would seek him out and prop him up as THE expert, when he was far from it. He knew a lot, but made some brain-dead mistakes on the bullet trajectories, etc. On a personal note, there was an outtake to one of the TV specials on which Gary consulted that strongly supported my research. The producers didn't need to, but they put it up on youtube shortly after the special aired on TV. I've always suspected Gary had something to do with that, and have always felt grateful for it.

I hope I'm wrong, but I spoke to Stu about this some months back, and my understanding is that Stu was given access to books and articles written by Hunt, which included some but nowhere near all of the materials Hunt had scanned from the archives. The more valuable treasure trove, IMO, is the raw files of the scans Hunt made at the archives. I spoke to John about these on multiple occasions, and he assured me he'd scanned thousands of FBI, WC, and HSCA working papers, along with hundreds of photos never published by the government or the media., and that he'd planned on placing these online, where they would be available to the research community at no cost. Among these scans, of course, were a number that John published and/or shared in his lifetime. Included in this batch were the x-rays of the Harper fragment, the original FBI photos of the bullet fragments removed from Kennedy's brain, John's scan of the lift of the palmprint purportedly pulled from the rifle, and a number of previously unseen photos of the paper bag purported to have been used to smuggle the rifle in the building,. And oh yeah, a couple of previously unseen photos of the May 24 re-enactment of the shooting in Dallas. For those who haven't seen these items. they are available on my website. There are a few items from John on my website, however, that few if any have noticed. As an example of the kind of stuff John uncovered, but then brushed aside when he got sucked down the RFK assassination rabbit hole, I present the image below. This is a combination of three different drawings created for the HSCA trajectory analyst Thomas Canning, that were subsequently scanned by John. They make clear, IMO, that the HSCA was fudging the trajectory analysis, and that they really had no idea where the bullet exited from Kennedy's head. Here it is... From patspeer.com chapter 15...

I hate to pile on, but I have to agree with Gary on this point. While a theory holding that Kennedy's body was altered prior to its inspection at Bethesda might hold water, the theory Connally's wounds were altered prior to their inspection at Parkland is really really really out there. David, don't make us wait for your book. Who fiddled with Connally's wounds? And when did he/she get access to his body?

Governor Connally was, in fact, quite clear in his belief he was struck from behind. I have collected his numerous descriptions of the shooting on my website. Here are the quotes i've collected from the last years of his life. (ABC News interview shown on the 20th and 25th anniversaries of the assassination, 1983) "I heard a sound that I thought was a rifle shot. So I looked in the direction from which I thought the shot came, and then suddenly I felt an impact like someone had walked up behind me and hit me with a doubled-up fist right in the back. And it knocked me over. And before I could straighten up I saw that I was literally just covered with blood and I knew I had been hit badly, and I assumed, probably fatally." (9-19-88 interview recounted in American History Illustrated, November 1988) "I was looking to my right," he says, 'and then I heard a shot. It was a rifle-shot...This was not a backfire or a firecracker. Right away, the thought came to me that this was an assassination attempt. I started to turn toward my left to look back at President Kennedy. I was sure that the shot had not hit me. I heard it, but I did not sense being hit by it. As I turned, I felt like someone had doubled up his fist and hit me hard just below the right shoulder blade. I knew I had been hit by a second shot. Those shots had come so fast I thought maybe someone was working an automatic weapon, or maybe two or three people were shooting. I looked down and saw blood all over me. I said 'My God, they're going to kill us all!' I nearly doubled up. I fell over into my wife's lap. Then I heard the third shot. It hit the President hard. It made a loud noise as it hit. I couldn't see the President. But I knew he was hit. His brain tissues had been blown out onto me." (The Men Who Killed Kennedy, broadcast 1988) “I heard what I thought was a rifle shot. I immediately reacted by turning to look over my right shoulder because that’s where the sound came from. I didn’t see anything out of the ordinary and was in the process of turning to look over my left shoulder when I felt a blow in the middle of my back as if someone had hit me with a doubled-up fist about like that. The blow was of such force that it bent me over, and I immediately saw that I was covered with blood, and I knew I’d been hit. And I said “Oh, my God, they’re going to kill us all. And I heard another shot. There was a last shot almost like that, and I immediately saw blood and brain tissue all over the back of the limousine.” (1988 interview broadcast in CBS program Who Killed JFK: the Final Chapter?, 11-19-93) "I heard what I thought was a rifle shot. I thought the shot came from behind me. (He turns right) And I didn't see anything, so I was in the process of turning to look over my left shoulder into the back seat. I had not gotten turned to my left to see the President when I felt a sharp blow like someone had walked up behind me and hit me with a closed fist. The force of the blow was strong enough to bend me over and I saw immediately that I was covered with blood. And I said "My God, they're gonna kill us all!" Nellie then pulled me over in her lap and put her head down on mine and said "Be still. Everything's gonna be alright!" I was still conscious. Then I heard another shot. I knew it had hit because it sounded with an impact (slaps hands) that loud. And after that shot, the car, our clothes, were covered in blood, and even chunks of brain tissue." (11-16-88 Cox News Service article by Seth Kantor found in the Henderson, North Carolina Times-News) (Describing the impact of the shot) "It was like somebody had walked up behind me and hit me with a closed fist in the back"... 'I didn't hear that second shot. I felt the blow. Then I saw I was drenched with blood. I knew I'd been hit. I said 'My God, they're going to kill us all!' Then Nellie (Mrs. Connally) pulled me into her lap. I heard another shot, what I thought was a rifle shot (he slammed his hands together again). I heard the impact of it, which was very loud, a very distinct impact. I was conscious. I was lying down. I was looking straight into the back of the back seat. And after that shot had hit, I saw blood and tissue all over the blue velour covering of the presidential limousine. All over my clothes. My eyes were open. I knew what I saw. There was no question in my mind but what there were three shots. I did not hear the second. I only heard two. Nellie heard three, There weren't four. They didn't come from the grassy knoll. They all came from the same direction. From behind...they developed the theory that the president and I were hit by the same bullet and that one missed completely. I don't believe that. Never have believed that. They posed that question to me during the Warren Commission and I didn't believe it then; don't believe it now.'" (11-21-88 appearance on ABC's Nightline) "The man fired three shots. He hit three times. He hit President Kennedy twice and me once...There were three shots...The President got hit by the first one. I got hit by the second. And he got hit by the third." (Interview shown on C-Span, 6-15-91) "We turned onto Elm Street to go under the overpass, and I heard this sound that I thought was a rifle shot. I turned to look over my right shoulder because that's where the sound came from to see if I could see anything. I didn't. And I was in the process of turning to look over my left shoulder when I felt an impact as if someone had hit me with a closed fist right in the middle of my back. The force was strong enough where it knocked me over and I saw that I was covered with blood. So, frankly, I thought I had been fatally hit. My wife pulled me down in her lap. She was seated on the jump seat to my left, and I was seated on the jump seat directly in front of the President. She pulled me down in her lap, (claps hands) and about that time I heard another shot, about that loud, a smack. And my eyes were open, I was conscious, and I saw the blue velour interior of this presidential limousine covered with blood and brain tissue." (On whether there was a conspiracy) "I don't know. I was there...I wasn't conscious of what was happening until Monday morning when I woke up enough to watch the funeral procession in Washington. If Oswald had a conspirator working with him, he's never been identified. A lot of strange things happened surrounding the assassination that there's no good explanation for. This gives rise to all the suspicions." (When asked about the Warren Commission) "Basically, the Warren Commission, I think, did a good job. I think they probably overlooked some things that they could have got into. I think the autopsy, the whole autopsy matter, was badly handled. I think the research on the president's body was not well done. But this is at the request of the Kennedy family." (Interview with Larry King on CNN, January, 1992) "I thought I heard a rifle shot...I turned to look over my right shoulder because that's where the sound came from. And I saw nothing out of the corner of my eye and I turned to look over my left shoulder. About the time I got square again, Larry, I felt a blow (slaps hands together) about like that, as if someone had hit me in the back with a closed fist. It knocked me over and as I looked down I was covered with blood... Conscious, and I said 'My God, they're gonna kill us all!'...I said it out loud...No pain, nope...just a thud. I felt no pain after that. Nellie then immediately pulled me down into her lap. And about that time ((slaps hands together) we heard another sound, another rifle shot. The loud smack was the bullet hitting the President's head... Immediately after that smacking sound the whole car was covered with blood and brain tissue. There were chunks of brain tissue as big as my little finger on my clothes." (1-28-92 letter to Dr. Louis Kartsonis, published in San Diego Magazine, September 1992) "I did not see the President after any of the shots on November 22. My wife saw him reach up and grasp his throat after the first shot, then saw him no more because she pulled me down in her lap and put her head down over mine after the second shot which hit me. I think the first shot hit the President. I think the second shot hit me and I think the third shot hit him. I know there are those that disagree but I am absolutely convinced that this is what happened." (CBS interview broadcast in "Who Killed JFK? Facts, Not Fiction" 1992) "To me, it's just inconceivable that the first shot that went through the throat, through the neck, entered my back. I don't believe that. I don't wanna believe that. They can't run enough tests to make me believe that." (Interview in the Discovery Channel program The End of Camelot, broadcast 1993) "I felt like someone hit me in the back with a balled-up fist. It knocked me over. And I looked down and I was covered with blood. And I said 'My God, they're gonna kill us all!" (In History’s Shadow, 1993, co-written with Mickey Herskowitz) “It was almost exactly 12:30 PM, November 22, 1963 when we followed the motorcycle escort onto Houston Street and past the ugly brick building where Lee Harvey Oswald waited with his scrambled egg off a mind. People were still jostling for a better view. The noise of the motorcycles, the clearing of the mechanical lungs, b-r-r-o-o-m, competed with the rising cheers, and at first many people thought what they heard was the backfire of a motorbike. I knew it wasn't. I had been to war, hunted, handled guns all my life. And even if there had been time to wonder, within seconds the evidence was all over us. The first shot struck the President in the neck. His hands flew to his throat, a reflex. I turned, and felt the blow against my back. My body was aligned in such a way that the bullet passed through my chest, shattered my right wrist, and lodged in my thigh. It is remarkable, over the years, how many people have tried to tell me where I was shot, and how. I never argue with them. I only need to consult my scars. I was still conscious when the third shot blew off part of John Kennedy's head...Everything I saw, heard, and felt is consistent with what was visible in the frame-by-frame analysis of the film taken by Abraham Zapruder, a Dallas merchant who became an accidental historian: The first shot passed through the neck of John F. Kennedy. I saw him clutch his throat. The second shot was the one that struck me; of this I have no doubt. Nellie had pulled me to her when the third bullet blew across the car a spray of the President's brain." (Final words on the subject) "I happen to support the major findings of the Warren Commission. I believe there were errors, including the so-called “magic bullet.” My ear and my body told me that I was not wounded in three places by a bullet that hit President Kennedy. I remain convinced that he was hit twice, and I once, by three separate shots.”

Yikes. I'm surprised about the quality of this list. To me, a "hero" is not someone who is primarily focused on promoting themselves and/or their theories, but someone who acquires and shares previously hidden information. To that end, there are really only a few true "heroes" on this case. I would nominate Harold Weisberg, Jim Lesar, Mary Ferrell, Rex Bradford, Malcolm Blunt, Debra Conway, and John Hunt, for starters. For those not in the know, Weisberg and his attorney Lesar freed more JFK assassination documents via the Freedom of Information Act than all the other researchers (and media conglomerates) combined. He then shared these documents with other researchers. Ferrell collected tons of stuff from the very beginning, and then shared her collection with others. Bradford created the historymatters and Mary Ferrell Foundation websites, without which a ridiculously ill-informed research community would be even more ignorant. (Note that Ollie Curme deserves honorable mention for funding the Ferrell site.) Blunt dug through the archives for years, and is now sharing much of his stash via Bart Kamp on the DPUK website. Debra Conway is basically JFK Lancer--which still hosts a valuable website, but which once hosted a much-belated research forum, and yearly conferences. John Hunt is a bit trickier. As noted by Gary Murr, John scanned tons of otherwise unavailable and basically unknown documents at the archives, and shared many of these with the public via his online posts, research papers and presentations. The trouble is he'd promised, going back to when I first met him in 2004, to share all of these materials with the public for free, but never got around to doing so before his untimely demise. (So it's kinda like looking a gift horse in the mouth. John gave us a lot. But he had so much more to give.) If one is to move to a second round, moreover, one need not look further than our very own Gary Murr and Larry Hancock, who have both increased our understanding of the case, and shared previously unseen documents and images. Bravo Gary and Larry.

I suspect Specter was shown the NPIC analysis. I explain why in chapter 3b: April 22, 1964 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD FROM: Melvin A. Eisenberg SUBJECT: Conference of April 14, 1964, to determine which frames in the Zapruder movies show the impact of the first and second bullets. On April 14, 1964, a conference was held to determine which frames in the Zapruder film portray the instants at which the first and second bullets struck. Present were: Commander James J. Humes, Director of Laboratories of the Naval Medical School, Bethesda, Maryland; Commander J. Thorton Boswell, Chief Pathologist, Naval Medical School, Bethesda; Lt. Col. Pierre A. Finck, Chief of Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; Dr. F.W. Light, Jr. Deputy Chief of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, and Chief of the Wound Assessment Branch of the Biophysics Division; Dr. Olivier, Chief of the Wound Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal; Messrs. Malley, Gauthier, Shaneyfelt, and two other unidentified agents of the FBI; Messrs. Kelley and Howlett of the Secret Service; and Messrs. Redlich, Specter and Eisenberg of the Commission staff. A screening was held of the Zapruder film and of slides prepared by LIFE from the film. Each slide corresponded with a separate frame of film, beginning with frame 171. The consensus of the meeting was as follows: (a) The President had been definitely hit by frames 224-225,when he emerges from behind a sign with his hands clutching his throat. (b) The reaction shown in frames 224-225 may have started at an earlier point - possibly as early as frame 199 (when there appears to be some jerkiness in his movement) or, with a higher degree of possibility, at frames 204-206 (where his right elbow appears to be raised to an artificially high position). (c) If the reaction did not begin at 199 or 204-206, it probably began during the range of frames during which the President is hidden from Zapruder’s camera by a sign, namely, frames 215-24. cc:Mr. Rankin Mr Belin Mr. Willens Mr. Specter Mr. Redlich Mr. Eisenberg Mr. Ball (d) The President may have been struck by the first bullet as much as two seconds before any visible reaction began. In all likelihood, however, the maximum delay between impact and reaction would be under one second, and it is possible that the reaction was instantaneous. Putting this in terms of frames, the President may have been struck as much as 36 frames before any visible reaction is seen. If the visible reaction begins at 199, the President may have been struck as early as 163, if the visible reaction begins at 204-206, he may have been strtuck as early as 168-170, if the visible reaction begins while the President is behind the sign, he may have been struck as early as 179-188. (e) The velocity of the first bullet would have been little diminished by its passage through the President. Therefore, if Governor Connally was in the path of the bullet it would have struck him and (probably) caused the wounds he sustained in his chest cavity. Strong indications that this occurred are provided by the facts that (1) the bullet recovered from Governor Connally's stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist and (2) if the first bullet did not hit Governor Connally, it should have ripped up the car, but apparently did not. Since the bullet recovered from the Governor's stretcher does not appear to have penetrated a wrist, if he was hit by this (the first) bullet, he was probably also hit by the second bullet. (f) If Governor Connally was hit by the first and second bullets, it is impossible to say definitively at what point, or by what point, he had been hit by the second bullet. (g) Governor Connally seems to straighten up at frames 224-226, and may be reacting to a wound at this point. (If so, it would be a wound from the first bullet). (h) Governor Connally seems to begin showing an expression of anguish around 242. If he was hit with two bullets, this expression may have resulted from his second wound. (i) After Governor Connally straightened up at frames 224-26, he starts to turn to the right. As a result of this turn, at no time after frame 236 was Governor Connally in a position such that a bullet fired from the probable site of the assassin would have caused the wound in his chest cavity which Governor Connally sustained--that is, after frame 236, the Governor presented a side view to the assassin rather than a back view.* (j) It is not possible to say whether prior to 236 Governor Connally was ever in a position such that one bullet could have caused the five wounds he sustained. (k) As in the case of the President, Governor Connally could have conceivably been hit two seconds before he begins to react, but the maximum likely time interval between hit and reaction is one second, and the reaction may have been instantaneous. The likelihood of an instantaneous reaction is particularly great in regard to the wrist wound, since pain is usually felt more quickly in a limb than in the torso. */ Mr. Specter disagrees with this, and feels the Governor was in position to receive the chest wound up to 242. Analysis of the Memos on the April 14 Conference These memos tell us quite a bit about the mindset of the Warren Commission attorneys and FBI. The stated reason for the conferences—to decide the impact times and locations of the first two shots—reveals a built-in bias. The eyewitness evidence available so far suggests that the head shot was the second shot heard by most witnesses, and yet this inconvenient truth is not even to be considered. The attitude of everyone at the conference seems to be that “We have a piece of film that may show three separate hits. Kennedy shows a reaction between 199 and 224, Connally shows one between 224 and 236, and Kennedy is hit at 313. Therefore, those are our three shots." Never mind that a number of witnesses heard a shot after the head shot. Never mind that the majority of witnesses indicated that the last two shots were bunched together. Never mind that our study of the rifle indicates that the first two shots would have to have been at least 51 frames apart… The memos reveal a few other wet spots on the slow-motion whitewash. On “d” of the memo by Eisenberg, he writes that everyone agrees that Kennedy could have been hit 2 full seconds, as early as frame 163, before he reacted. This is nonsense. NOT ONE eyewitness reported a two second delay in Kennedy’s response to the first shot. Even worse, Kennedy is actively waving and smiling at the crowd after frame 163. It hardly seems likely he would be waving and smiling at the crowd if he’d even heard a loud shot, let alone been hit by one. It seems likely, therefore, that these 2 seconds are a “gift” to Arlen Specter, to give him some wiggle room should he need more time to have the shots make sense. That Specter was looking for this wiggle room is demonstrated by his lone dissent in the memo’s “i.” Here he is bucking the crowd in an effort to pick up just 6 more frames. Is it just a coincidence that by Specter taking 163 as the earliest time for a hit on Kennedy, and by his insisting on 242 as the latest time for a hit on Connally, a first shot 163, second shot 242, and final shot 313 shooting scenario is made possible, and that this would place the last two shots closer together than the first two? Is it possible that Specter, who had counted interviewing all the bystanders as one of his earliest objectives was, in fact, acutely aware that the scenario accepted by the others after watching the Zapruder film failed to match the testimony of the eyewitnesses? Was he, in fact, looking for ways to make it all fit? Also interesting is Specter’s selection of frame 242 as the frame by which Connally must have been hit. Frame 242 was, let’s remember, the frame selected as the moment of impact on Connally in the secret analysis of the film performed at the National Photographic Interpretation Center in November and December. It seems clear from this that someone from the Secret Service told Specter their findings. Specter did, in fact, work closely with the Secret Service throughout his investigation. He was later to admit that Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley showed him an autopsy photo, apparently without the knowledge of their superiors.

Throughout this thread, there has been some discussion about what constitutes a reasonable plan for a special op. I have some insight into this. One of my best friends was a Lt. Col.in U.S. Special Forces. He lectured me numerous times about the importance of P.A.C.E. P.A.C.E. is the bedrock of a special op. It holds that you not have one plan for your op, but four: your Primary plan; your Alternative plan; your Contingency plan; and your Emergency plan. If the first doesn't work, you move to the second, and so on. While one should doubt--strongly doubt--that the assassination called for a shot from the front and body alteration afterwards, one can not rule out that a shot from the front was part of an emergency plan--that only became necessary when the first shot failed to kill Kennedy.

One of the many surprises to come to me when I was a buyer in the record industry was when a children's record came out featuring Bob Dylan singing "This Old Man." I used to sneak it onto mix tapes to blow people's minds. In any event, I suspect this song is a key to understanding "Murder Most Foul." Well, how, do you ask? The last part of "Murder Most Foul" has Dylan saying "Play this," and "Play that"--with the thisses and thats not all being songs." At one point, he even says "Play six." This ties into the old children's song, in which an old man plays numbers. In this context, then, Dylan takes over from the DJ who is playing the songs on JFK's radio and becomes an "old man" playing songs and images in his own head, while he tries to make sense of American history. He concludes by adding his own song--the song-he's singing/reciting,--onto his "playlist." Note also that the old man in "This Old Man" goes "rolling home", which ties into Dylan's masterwork "Bringin' It Alll Back Home." "Murder Most Foul" is Dylan's ultimate conclusion about the land of his birth, and it may very well be his final song, period. (Thanks, Bob!) This old man, he played one He played knick-knack on my drum With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played two He played knick-knack on my shoe With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played three He played knick-knack on my knee With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played four He played knick-knack on my door With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played five He played knick-knack on my hive With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played six He played knick-knack on my sticks With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played seven He played knick-knack up to heaven With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played eight He played knick-knack on my plate With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played nine He played knick-knack on my spine With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home This old man, he played ten He played knick-knack now an' then With a knick-knack paddywhack Give your dog a bone This old man came rolling home

It's a mistake to assume Dylan was anti-pop. Dylan started out as a wanna-be rock n roller, discovered folk and Woody Guthrie, made a name for himself as the next Woody, and then tried to make his way back to his pop/rock n roll roots. The signal of the "Mexican Radio" station broadcasting Wolfman Jack's radio show reached most of the country. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Dylan grew up listening to Wolfman Jack on the radio, and considered him a hero. Now, that said, Dylan is the king of double-meanings. As a result, it wouldn't surprise me at all if he mentioned Wolfman Jack in part to conjure up the image of Jack Ruby as The Wolfman. The Wolfman, after all, occasionally lost all self-control, and became homicidal, much as Belli claimed for Ruby.

I saw an article about what celebrities have done during the coronavirus shutdown, that listed Dylan's release of the song as one of the best things anyone has done. So some within the MSM are noticing. The underlying theme of the song is that the assassination is central to both our history and our culture, to such an extent even that the Star-Spangled Banner (our national anthem) should be re-named the Blood-Stained Banner. It's hard to argue with that.