Pat Speer

Jim, I included Z-323 in my last post. You insist there is a white blob of bulging brain in Z-14 to Z-327. That means there is one in this image. I don't see it. I see the skull flap, and a shadow made by this flap on the right side of Kennedy's head. Can you show me what you take to be a "blob" as opposed to a skull flap? You also say there is a blow-out visible in 374. I don't currently have access to a copy of Hoax. I did look at this frame on the MPI DVD, however, and saw no such blow-out. Do you have a version of 374 with an arrow pointing to the blow-out?

This is complete and utter nonsense. Jack Yeah, of course it is. I see a contradiction between a film and a few statements and consider the possibility those making the statements lied, or at least exaggerated. (It certainly seems possible Chaney raced up to the lead car after the car left the plaza). You, on the other hand develop a theory that the film is fake, and then insist the film is fake and worthless beyond the fact it is fake EVEN IF it suggests a conspiracy. Because, by golly, the Dallas Police would never lie about such a thing... Here is a link to the Nix film: Nix Film Chaney and Jackson slam on their brakes about 15 seconds in. Do you 1) deny they slammed on their brakes? 2) think the Nix film was faked to include their slamming on their brakes even though this was never brought out in testimony, and would be highly embarrassing to the Dallas Police? Here are the descriptions of the shooting by Chaney and Jackson. Note that Chaney initially claimed Kennedy was hit in the face by the second shot, and then corrected his story to be that JFK was hit in the head by the third shot. Note also that Jackson admitted his coming to a stop, but later claimed the limo stopped when talking to a conspiracy theorist. Note also that both men noted a large wound on the right side of Kennedy's head and/or face, but made no mention of a blow out on the back of his head. From patspeer.com, chapter 5: James Chaney rode to the right and rear of the President. Despite the fact he was the closest witness behind the President and that he had a private conversation with Jack Ruby on the day following the assassination, Chaney was not questioned by the Warren Commission. (11-22-63 interview on WFAA, as shown on Youtube) “I was riding on the right rear fender...We had proceeded west on Elm Street at approximately 15-20 miles per hour. We heard the first shot. I thought it was a motorcycle backfiring and uh I looked back over to my left and also President Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder. Then, the, uh, second shot came, well, then I looked back just in time to see the President struck in the face by the second bullet. He slumped forward into Mrs. Kennedy’s lap, and uh, it was apparent to me that we were being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit. And then he instructed us over the air to take him to Parkland Hospital and he had Parkland Hospital stand by. I went on up ahead of the, to notify the officers that were leading the escort that he had been hit and we're gonna have to move out." (When asked if he saw the person who fired on the President) "No sir, it was back over my right shoulder.” (Note: some sources have it that Chaney also mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” and that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..” but I can not find a primary source for this part of the interview.) ((3-24-64 testimony of Mark Lane before the Warren Commission, 2H32-61) “James A. Chaney, who is a Dallas motorcycle policeman, was quoted in the Houston Chronicle on 11-24-63, as stating that the first shot missed entirely. He said he was 6 feet to the right and front of the President's car, moving about 15 miles an hour, and when the first shot was fired, "I thought it was a backfire." (12-8-63 AP article by Sid Moody) "His head erupted in blood" said Dallas patrolman James Chaney, who was 6 feet away from the president." (3-25-64 testimony of Marrion Baker before the Warren Commission, 3H242-270) “I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor.” (9-12-75 FBI report) “Chaney stated that as the President’s car passed the…(TSBD), he was four to six feet from the President’s right shoulder. He heard three evenly spaced noises coming seconds apart, which at first he thought to be motorcycle backfire. Upon hearing the second noise, he was sure it was not a motorcycle backfire. When he heard the third noise he saw the President’s head “explode” and realized the noises were gunshots. He said that the shots did not come from his immediate vicinity and is positive that all the shots came from behind him.” (9-17-75 FBI report) “after making a left turn off Houston Street and shortly after the car had passed the School Book Depository, Chaney heard a noise which sounded like one of the motorcycles close to the President’s car had backfired…Chaney said he glanced to his left at the two motorcycles on the opposite side of the President’s car…Within a few seconds after Chaney heard the first noise, he heard a noise again and turned to his right to try and determine what the noise was and where it was coming from…Chaney said he then looked straight ahead to avoid colliding with the curb and presidential car and then looked at the President just as he heard a third noise. Chaney said while he was looking at President Kennedy, he saw his head “explode.” Chaney said he was positive that all the noises he heard were coming from behind his motorcycle and none of these noises came from the side or the front of the position in which Chaney was located. Chaney said the noises were evenly spaced.” Douglas Jackson rode on the far right of the President. (Notes written on the night of 11-22-63 as reprinted in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979): Officer C “we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President’s car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look right at me. I could see a shocked expression on his face…I began stopping my motor…I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head; he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me.” (As quoted by Fred Newcomb in Murder from Within, an unpublished manuscript from 1974) ""Mr. Connally was looking toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That's the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Connally] got hit - because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was looking…kind of back toward me and…he just kind of flinched." "…that car just all but stopped…just a moment." (9-17-75 FBI report) “As the presidential vehicle was proceeding down Elm Street, and Jackson was turning the corner from Houston to Elm Street, he heard a loud (noise) which he first thought to be a motorcycle backfire. (He looked) at the Presidential car to see what the reaction was and observed Texas Governor John Connally turn to his right in the car. At the same time he heard a second noise and saw Connally jerk to his right. At this point, Jackson had just rounded the corner from Houston to Elm Street and he recognized the second noise as a definite gunshot…At this point, he was 15 to 20 feet away from the Presidential vehicle and he stopped his motorcycle in the street and looked toward the railroad overpass, directly in front of the Presidential car. He observed a police officer with his hands on his hips, looking toward the Presidential car. As this appeared normal, he then looked to his right and rear in the direction of the Texas School Book Depository and the intersection of Houston and Elm Street and observed many bystanders falling to the ground. He looked toward the Presidential vehicle and at the same time heard a third shot fired. He observed President Kennedy struck in the head above his right ear and the impact of the bullet exploded the top portion of his head, toward the left side of the Presidential vehicle. Jackson immediately knew that Kennedy had been hit and that the shot had been fired from his right rear.”

Pat, First of all, others have "cracked the case" already. The dots connect themselves. See Salandria, Vincent. Fonzi, Gaeton. See Hancock, Larry. Or McKnight, Gerald. See Bamford, James. And Scott, Peter D. Once you adsorb the information these gentlemen have to share, and once you realize that properly prepared medical evidence trumps improperly prepared medical evidence, then the case falls neatly into place. Second of all, the T3 back wound isn't my claim, Pat. None of this is about me (except for the punk rock bit.) It is the observation of more than a dozen witnesses who had prolonged views of the stationary body. It is the location indicated by hard, physical evidence: the bullet holes in the clothes. It is the location recorded in properly prepared medical documents. It is the observation of a great American hero, Clint Hill. In my opinion there were two great American heroes in Dealey Plaza who tried to prevent Kennedy from getting shot. Clint Hill and Tosh Plumlee. We don't have documentation for Tosh -- if you buy his rap you buy it, that's it. Clint Hill, however, is a world renown bona fide American hero. He performed two acts of brave service to his country on 11/22 -- but in general Clint Hill only gets credit for one. The first we all know about -- the dash to the limo and the rescue of the First Lady. The second thing he did in the line of duty was even more significant. From Clint Hill's sworn statement (emphasis added): Pat, let's just think about this for a moment. In service to his country and to historical truth itself, Clint Hill observed a back wound six inches down from the neckline. This matches the location of the hole in the shirt, 5.75" below the top of the collar. Is T1 six inches below the neckline? Of course not! Could Clint Hill have mistaken "about 4 inches" for "about 6 inches"? When he was three years old, maybe! Do you know the difference between "about six inches" and "about four inches," Pat? I know I do! And to argue that Clint Hill didn't is pure witness bashing. There are more than a dozen other guys who, while serving their country, observed the low back wound at Bethesda. These men -- and one woman, Diana Bowron at Parkland -- have had their honor, their credibility, even their honesty challenged for 46+ years and I for one am sick of it. They never saw the body. The studied an autopsy photo that they singled out as "deficient as scientific evidence" but went ahead and based their conclusion on that! So you have a panel of guys who never saw the body conclude the wound was at T1 on the basis of a photograph they conceded was improperly prepared and prima facie inadmissible in court. From Vol 7 of the HSCA findings (emphasis added): And by what stretch of logic does the HSCA FPP T1 conclusion trump the often graphic descriptions of the low back wound by more than a dozen people who had prolonged views of the wound? Those measurements you're citing -- what was it, 13.5 cm below the mastoid process? -- were written in PEN on the autopsy face sheet. The other notations on the face sheet -- the dot consistent with T4, the signed verification -- were written in PENCIL. According to proper autopsy protocol the notations must be made in PENCIL. By what stretch of logic do you conclude that IMPROPERLY prepared autopsy evidence trumps PROPERLY prepared autopsy evidence? Are you claiming that George Burkley never saw the wounds? He was the only one present at both Parkland and Bethesda! I don't mean to get nasty here, Pat, but do you only study evidence that comports with your theories? Are you wholly unfamiliar with the autopsy face sheet diagram, which was properly marked "verified" in PENCIL? Are you wholly unfamiliar with the facts concerning Clint Hill, Roy Kellerman and Will Greer being sent to the morgue to view the wounds? All of them put the wound lower down his back! Sibert and O'Neill also prepared wound diagrams consistent with the lower back wound. Secret Service Agent Glen Bennett reported, "I saw a shot hit the Boss about four inches down from the right shoulder." The bullet holes in the shirt and jacket are 4 inches below the collar. Like Clint Hill, Glen Bennett nailed the location of the wound exactly! James Curtis Jenkins, autopsy-attendee, in BODY OF EVIDENCE pg 713: Here's a guy who had his nose in JFK's chest cavity and graphically described the low, non-transiting wound. Did he hallucinate it, Pat? Dr. John Ebersole attended the autopsy and told Dr. David Mantik in 1992 that the back wound was at T4! (KILLING THE TRUTH, Livingstone, pg 721). Chester H. Boyers was the chief Petty Officer in charge of the Pathology Department at Bethesda in November 1963. This is from Boyers signed affidavit: "Under the scapula" is consistent with T3. Then we have the holes in the clothes and the fact that custom-made dress shirts only have a fraction of an inch of available slack, and the Dealey Plaza photos show JFK's jacket dropping. That's concrete physical evidence of the T3 wound, well corroborated by the properly prepared medical evidence and the witness statements of more than a dozen people who had a prolonged view of the wound. 1) Because it is a blatant lie, a product of the cover-up we are working to expose. 2) Because you are then taking a prima facie case for conspiracy and putting it on a shelf which requires "experts" to evaluate. Why are you attempting to water down conspiracy evidence in order to support what is obviously a total fabrication? Cliff, you are the one who is trying to water down conspiracy evidence by needlessly arguing against the official findings when the official findings suggest more than one shooter. If T-1 is consistent with the single-bullet theory, why does EVERY single-bullet theorist move the wound upwards? The only witness you cited to claim the wound was at T-3 was Burkley. In all other cases, you have interpreted what they said as T-3. But the Sibert and O'Neill drawings, for example, place the wound exactly where it was on the face sheet, in line with the shoulder tip, which is T-1, T-2 at the lowest. You're not even logical. Clint Hill said "I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column." You then bizarrely insist there was no way he could mistake 4 inches with 6 inches. This is ludicrous. People make this kind of mistake all day long. You then prop up Bennett's approximation of "about 4 inches down from the right shoulder", and assume he means 4 inches down on the clothes. Well, what does Bennett mean by shoulder...the shoulder tip? The higher point where the shoulder muscles attach the neck? It is all too vague. YOU interpret Hill's "about 6 inches" and Bennett's "about 4 inches" to be the same location only because YOUR pet theory demands it. The back wound photo proves the bullet entrance was too low to support the single-bullet theory. As demonstrated in my videos, it proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Arlen Specter suborned perjury during the testimony of Thomas Kelley. Pretending this photo is a fake, or too confusing, or of no value, is just ridiculous. Not only would this photo have been allowed into evidence should the case have come to trial, it would have been the key piece of evidence convincing a jury that Oswald could not have acted alone.

Wait. I thought the eight experts said they thought the back of the head had been painted in. Now you have them agreeing with your opinion there's a blow-out on the back of the head in 374 that isn't seen earlier, etc. Is there a list of all their findings? Can you post a quality version of 374 showing this blow-out? And, I hesitate to ask, can you post an image of the "blob"? I assumed your references to the "blob" were to the orange blob in the degraded versions of Z-313. Now Jack says it's a white blob. Is it seen in the frame below? Because I don't see a "blob"; I see the underside of a piece of skull broken and flipped forward and still hanging by a thread of scalp on the side of Kennedy's head. The shape of this skull fragment, moreover, matches precisely the shape of the fragment shown in the right lateral autopsy photo. From patspeer.com chapter 18: Another aspect of the medical evidence which has convinced many of fakery or deception is the “wing” of bone visible in the autopsy photos. It seemed to move from photo to photo and change shape. After much thought, however, I developed an explanation for these changes. When one looks at the Zapruder film, one can’t help but notice the large opening on Kennedy’s skull apparent in the frames after 313. This opening appears to begin just in front of his ear. When one looks at the right lateral autopsy photo one sees exposed bone behind his ear, however, and in a location where there was reportedly no missing bone or scalp. This is a clear indication that this bone was dislodged from someplace else. And yet it’s still attached to scalp. After some consideration I realized that when the scalp exploded downwards in frame 313 the skull bones that were attached to the scalp were suddenly upside down, and began to peel away from the scalp from the bottom (which was formally the top) down. The large fragment found on the floor of the limo by Sam Kinney peeled all the way and fell to the floor. It can be seen flying downwards in the frames after 313. A section of bone lower down on Kennedy’s skull, possibly including his sphenoid bone, didn’t finish peeling away from the scalp, however. It was left dangling by a thread. The shape of this bone can be seen in shadow in frame 323. When Jackie Kennedy tried to close her husband’s head wound, she failed to flip this “wing” of bone back around to match up with the scalp, and left this “wing” dangling back behind Kennedy’s ear. This is apparent in the right almost-lateral autopsy photo. Not surprisingly, the shape of this wing matches the shape of the shadow in frame 323. When one looks at the back of the head photo, obviously taken a few minutes later, as Kennedy is now lying on his side, one can see that the “wing” of bone has suddenly changed. It is now far forward of the ear and of different proportions. I believe this is because it’s no longer a “wing” of bone, but a “wing” of scalp, the stubborn scalp that held the wing in place for so long. The dimensions of this scalp flap can be seen in frame 337. Possibly the wing fell off when the doctors moved Kennedy onto his side or possibly they removed it deliberately to better observe the large defect.

Don, FWIW, when I created my database for the eyewitnesses a few years back, I noticed the confluence of Chaney stories, with the claim he sped up just after the shots, etc. The Nix film, however, shows both Chaney and Douglas Jackson slamming on their brakes at the time of the head shot. (This, in turn, led to other cars slamming on their brakes and quite possibly led to the perception the limo itself came to a stop.) Chaney and Jackson were supposed to be serving as BODYGUARDS and not just escorts. Thus, their slamming on their brakes to protect themselves at a time when the President needed their protection would almost certainly have been considered an embarrassment to the City of Dallas and the State of Texas, etc. We should recall here that the Attorney General of Texas made a side deal with Warren that he would not conduct his own investigation as long as the WC treated Texas fairly, which one can only interpret as ignoring the evidence of DPD incompetence and possible complicity. It should come as no surprise then to see that neither Chaney nor Jackson was interviewed by the FBI about what they saw and did during the motorcade, and were not called to testify by the WC. In this light, I suspect the "Chaney sped up" story was an orchestrated lie designed to hide that Dallas' finest cowered in terror when put to the ultimate test.

From my perspective as a layman not entirely familiar with the photographic issues, this thread seems to have run aground. Despite Jack's protests, Tink and Jerry's observation that the film studied by the Hollywood group is a fifth generation image undoubtedly undermines the group's observation that the back of the head appears painted in. When one watches Groden's assasination films DVD, one can see several different copies of the Z-film, copies of copies, or even copies of copies of copies. On several of these the explosion of blood and brain in frame 313 looks like an orange blob. On his best copy, however, this blob is less orange and less blobbish. The MPI DVD, moreover, shows this "blob" not to be orange, and not to be a blob, but a spray of blood and brain in most every direction. This thread is also confusing in that Dr. Fetzer keeps bringing up activities he believes the Z-film should show, should it be authentic, that it doesn't show. This is a completely unrelated argument, as I understand it. While he is correct if he is trying to make the point that the clarity of the film is beside the point if what it shows never happened, he is incorrect if he thinks this supports that what the Hollywood group thought was an altered image was indeed an altered image, and not just an artifact created through what is in essence photographing a photograph. I mean, no one is suggesting that the film fails to show Chaney's drive for glory because it's just too blurry, are they?

Cliff, you've got it completely backwards. It is your desire to "crack the case" that leads you to claim the back wound is at T3. The HSCA FPP said it was at T1. The measurements created at the autopsy suggests they were correct. Having the wound at T1, moreover, is so problematic to the single-bullet theory that it led the HSCA's trajectory expert to move the wound back upwards. So why pretend the wound was at T3, when the only evidence placing it at T3 is a written approximation by one man, a man who never even studied the president's wounds? Why not just accept the approximation at T-1, and PUMMEL the LNT community with the FACT that THEIR version of the single-bullet theory is completely refuted by the government's top "experts"? http://www.patspeer.com/cognitive2.jpg

No chance, pal. I brought hardcore political punk rock into Reno Nevada beginning in 1979: formed two hardcore political punk bands 7 Seconds and Section 8 and infused them with my political fervor; promoted Blag Flag twice in Reno in 1981 when they couldn't get a show anywhere on the West Coast due to the violence of their audiences...I could go on, but my innate modesty forbids it... OK, Cliff, you might have me on the whole punk rock thing, but I spent many an evening in the company of Eazy-E, Ice Cube, Ice-T, Snoop Dogg, etc as well as Bad Religion, Black Flag, X, Mudhoney, etc. I was an invited guest to Nine Inch Nails' and Smashing Pumpkins' first shows in L.A. (Smashing Pumpkins played a midnight show at a drag club in West Hollywood.) I hung out backstage with Einsturzende Neubaten. (Germans have some serious BO.) Prince flew me to Minneapolis to play me his new record. Rodney King drove out to Simi Valley to buy me lunch and pick my brain. (Yes, I actually got in the car with him.) So I've got Indie/alt cred to burn.

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world think he didn't exist. "Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..." Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match... http://originalsevenseconds.com/ I think I got you beat, Cliff. I was the indie buyer for a large music wholesaler with a 30 store chain of its own and had hundreds of meets, greets, and meals with members of N.W.A., Black Flag, Bad Religion, The Replacements, The Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc... not to mention folks like David Cassidy... Roadrunner Records considered me so helpful in breaking Slipknot they sent me a gold record plaque. But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now. That's the kind of job which will keep you young, Pat. To what does the "breaking Slipknot" comment relate? These guys, fresh from the cornfields of Iowa, have sold millions of records. I'm partly responsible.

Kaiser Sose said the greatest trick the devil ever played was make the world think he didn't exist. "Maybe Varnell is Disinfo..." Nah. I got street cred bona fides none of youse can match... http://originalsevenseconds.com/ I think I got you beat, Cliff. I was the indie buyer for a large music wholesaler with a 30 store chain of its own and had hundreds of meets, greets, and meals with members of N.W.A., Black Flag, Bad Religion, The Replacements, The Beastie Boys, Red Hot Chili Peppers, etc... not to mention folks like David Cassidy... Roadrunner Records considered me so helpful in breaking Slipknot they sent me a gold record plaque. But I was so much older then I'm younger than that now.

With all due respect, I think you may be missing my point. Gary Mack is a member here and should post for himself. Or start his own blog. I object to the process -- it just creates a slanted field, imo. Pamela, not to defend Gary, whose recent television appearances have annoyed the heck out of me, but I believe he doesn't post here because of his job. In the eyes of many it might appear inappropriate. His sending emails to people when he wants to post has both its advantages and drawbacks. While it allows him the "privilege" of appearing above the fray, it also prevents him from adequately defending himself. Back in November, I posted an email from him regarding the program The Ruby Connection, in which he tried to defend himself. As with criticisms of his performance in Inside the Target car, however, his "defense" only got him in deeper. As a result, I can't help but think he'd fare better if he'd just get his feet wet and post his own comments. He certainly couldn't do any worse.

You are correct, Jack, in that my words implied you felt the film was worthless, when your position, as I understand it, is that what's depicted in the film is worthless, as it is ALL a fabrication, and that its only value is that it provides an avenue through which researchers such as yourself can prove alteration. Which brings me back to the key question... If the Hollywood 8 come forth and claim in a report that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted in in certain frames, doesn't that suggest that the other frames in which nothing has been painted in are actual frames from the assassination, and are of some value? Or do you really expect people to believe that the creators of the film screwed up and depicted a wound on the back of JFK's head, and then went back and painted it in on their FAKE film?

Jim, I withdraw my "defense" of Bill Kelley. While I had assumed by his support for Horne that he was all aboard the alteration express, some of the posts you cited suggest that perhaps he is not so sure. Now for some simple questions... You keep saying that some Hollywood film "experts" agree that the back of Kennedy's head has been painted out on the film. You present this as proof the film is a forgery. Jack White has similarly said that the film has been altered and is of no evidentiary value. Isn't this a contradiction? If the back of the head has been "altered", and this alteration can be detected, doesn't it suggest that 1) the other frames are not altered, and 2) that the unaltered frames, including the much earlier frames proving that Kennedy was not leaning far enough forward to support the single-bullet theory, are actually of value? If not, WHY not? Do you really expect us to believe: 1) that "they" created a fake film, and THEN decided to paint in the back of the head on the fake film? and 2) that arguing the Z-film is fake has a better chance of succeeding in discrediting the LN crowd than arguing that the single-bullet theory is a fraud, and using the evidence already accepted by the vast majority of the public--the Z-film--to do it? Have you even studied the HSCA? Do you realize that: 1) their medical "experts" believed the single-bullet theory only possible if Kennedy was hit behind the sign in the Z-film; 2) their photo experts concluded he was hit almost a second before he was behind the sign in the Z-film, and 3) the trajectory expert hired to show Kennedy to have been leaning far enough forward before he was behind the sign was so brazenly dishonest he claimed the Z-film showed Kennedy to be leaning further forward before being hit in the back than in the frames just before the fatal impact at frame 313...a conclusion entirely out of sync with the Z-film? So...the Z-film debunks the single-bullet theory. And the LNs know it. Which is why program after program arguing against a conspiracy has relied on cartoons and "simulations" in order to misrepresent what is shown in the Z-film... So...should we really then push that the Z-film is a "forgery" and of "no value" when it single-handedly destroys the single-bullet theory, and thus the single-assassin conclusion? If so, why? I swear sometimes it appears to me that you'd rather have 20 to 30% of the people believe the government killed Kennedy and pulled off this incredibly convoluted cover-up than have 70 to 80% of the people believe some unnamed group killed Kennedy and the government covered it up. Am I wrong? Is pointing the finger at the government itself, as opposed to a few select individuals within the government, or the mafia, or LBJ and his cronies, more important than convincing historians and the mainstream media what seems obvious to most everyone on this forum--that more than one shooter fired at President Kennedy, and that Oswald wasn't among them?

Classic, Jim. In your zeal to shut down all debate about the obviously debatable question of whether or not the film is a forgery, you have attacked Bill Kelly, one of the biggest supporters of Horne's work, and someone who apparently believes the film is a forgery. By pointing out that the Sixth Floor's history of the film leaves out Hawkeye Works etc, he was calling the Sixth Floor's history into question, not that the film went to Hawkeye Works. Am I wrong, Bill?

Very interesting, Doug. But I think, to nail this down, you're gonna have to have more than Merritt's say-so. Some questions which, if addressed in the upcoming book, could prove most helpful. 1. Are there any government documents proving Shoffler worked for military intelligence? 2. Does Merritt have any files or notes on the men he was told to have sex with, and are there indications in the files on these men that they were ever persons of interest? Are any of these men, outside of yourself, alive today and willing to acknowledge he had sex with them? 3. Does Merritt have any photos or diary entries or witnesses or anything to prove his long-time personal relationship with Shoffler? Is there any evidence, outside of Merritt's say-so, that Shoffler was even gay? 4. Is there any evidence, outside Merritt's say-so, that Sirica was under the influence of Williams? Williams, as I suspect you are well aware, not only represented the DNC during Watergate, but Connally. He later represented Helms. He was Gerry Ford's first choice as DCI, before Bush. He was lifelong friends with Robert Maheu. His proximity to Sirica would almost certainly have led Nixon--who on the White House tapes complains about the IRS' investigation of Billy Graham, and asks that they investigate Williams instead--to have pushed for a different judge. I don't recall; is there any evidence Nixon did so? Or was his close association with Williams a secret? 5. Outside of his ill-treatment of you, Sirica pretty much played ball with Nixon's justice department, and was perfectly happy letting the whole affair get swept under the rug, until McCord sent him his letter announcing the burglars were under orders from above. (At least that's how I remember it.) If Sirica was part of some CIA/Williams/DNC plot to destroy Nixon, as I think you are suggesting, wouldn't he have made sure the McCord letter was written BEFORE the 1972 election? Or was there an agreement from almost the beginning to put Ford in office, as claimed by your old nemesis Ashton Gray? Just looking for some clarification as to how all these pieces fit together...

I have never thought that David Lifton's body alteration theory depends on proving that the ZFILM is fake. It seems to me that body alteration is entirely consistent with what we see in the ZFILm. Can anyone tell me what I am missing? What you're missing is that the Z-film shows a gaping hole above and in front of Kennedy's ear, and the Parkland witnesses thought this hole was a few inches further back on Kennedy's head. From this, those holding the body was changed between Parkland and Bethesda have had to expand their theory to incorporate that the film proving the Parkland doctors to be incorrect was a fraud. They have also had to attack the credibility of witnesses like Newman and Zapruder, who depicted the large head wound in the exact location it is in the Zapruder film on television before half the country even knew Kennedy had been shot.

But Jim, why would the government fake a film suggesting that there was no impact on the back of Kennedy's head at frame 313? Is it your contention that the government tried to fake a film suggesting one shooter from behind, but, did a really bad job? Or do you, when watching the Zapruder film, honestly say to yourself, "Yep, that sure looks like the work of one man firing from behind?"

Let'em go, Jack! This is pure comedy gold! "Yes, sir" = "No" "about where the tie is" = "exactly where the tie is" "above" = "overlaying" And what's truly hilarious is a lone nutter citing how a shirt is properly fit. Hey Todd! A properly fit tucked in custom-made dress shirt tailored for a suit with a "suppressed waist" (JFK's prefered cut) only has THREE-QUARTERS OF AN INCH of available slack. Excess slack around JFK's midriff could have ruined the lines of his Updated American Silhouette cut jacket. Your SBT needs more than 3 inches, Todd. Pet-Theorist Pat Speer only requires 2 inches of non-existent slack. Don't bother these guys with the facts, Jack! I wasn't kidding, Cliff. I hadn't read much of this thread beyond the argument over the words. Are you really saying that the hole in the neck was higher than knot on the tie? If so, please show how this could be given the location of the wound shown on the autopsy photos. Or are you insisting they are all fake? You are aware, I take it, that the whole argument about the wound being above the tie was started by Weisberg at a time when no one in the research community had seen the photos... and that this argument is currently of little value given that the HSCA FPP has conceded that the back wound was lower than the throat wound...

Jack, a few years back you posted an image showing why you believed the bullet hole in the neck was at the level of the shirt collar. What's changed?

Bravo, Josiah. You are absolutely correct. If you'd proposed some wacky theories that were easily knocked down, discrediting the entire CT community in the process, it would be one thing. But most of what you wrote about in SSID had short strong legs, and embarrassed no one other than the WC and its lawyers. While one prone to suspicion might also argue that your book, even with its merits, was designed to distract from the research of others, no one attacking you on this forum has named one book or researcher whose work was ignored in favor of your own. Their basic argument--that your book was designed to prop up a bogus Z-film at the expense of other evidence--makes little sense. I mean, really, how can convincing people something shows a conspiracy be considered an effort to convince people there was NOT a conspiracy when the piece of evidence used to show a conspiracy is UNCHALLENGED by those holding there was no conspiracy??? Are we to believe your efforts were meant to fail, but that you were so good in your role as a double-agent that you accidentally succeeded? FWIW, I built upon your research of the witnesses and created a database quoting their descriptions of the shots in chronological order. (This can be found in chapters 5 thru 9 at patspeer.com). While I was able to come to conclusions not reached in SSID (It's quite clear from my analysis there was a shot after the head shot) I by no means suspect you'd deliberately deceived me by not coming to this same conclusion. I thought you might find that refreshing.

Why can't we all just get along? The Oswald didiots are virtually united in their affirmation of the single-bullet theory. This theory can be ripped to shreds. I'm sure if someone put together a book containing all the evidence the theory is bogus, it would both turn the tide of media acceptance of Posner and Bugliosi back on itself, and unite the CT community. How about it?

I'm not exactly sure what this argument about "Just about where your tie would be" is about, or if it's of any importance whatsoever, but I noticed that Todd was linking to a website in which the WC testimony has been re-typed, and I've found some of these transcripts to be in error. So I double-checked Carrico's testimony at the history matters site, where the WC's volumes have been scanned in and not re-typed, and have found that Carrico's recorded statement was indeed "Just about where your tie would be" and that Specter, on the next page says "you put your hand right above where your tie is", and Carrico says "Yes, sir, Just where the tie--". Well, fellas, this is a bit vague. While Weisberg and others have always assumed the "above" was a reference to the vertical relationship, Carrico's "just where the tie" only makes sense if he's referring to a location occupied by the tie. In that context, then, Specter's "above" would seem to mean "on the surface overlaying", and not "at a point more vertical than" the tie. While this might sound strange, we should recall that in our earliest years we were told to put our hand OVER heart during the pledge of allegiance, and that this meant to put our hands "on the surface overlaying" our hearts, and not "at a point more vertical than" our hearts. This interpretation of Specter's words is reinforced by Carrico's clear claim the hole was below the Adam's Apple. It's hard to see how a hole below the Adam's Apple would be more than a few mm above the tie.

Josiah, I, too am surprised by the continued attacks on your integrity. But I think I've identified part of the problem. Most of the researchers, here and elsewhere, prefer to believe our cumulative knowledge is growing, and the case for conspiracy is getting stronger. And you have failed to embrace any "discoveries" made in recent years, and appear to have actually backpedaled from some of your earlier discoveries. Now, I know you worked with Aguilar on CE 399 a few years back, and that this led to some interesting discoveries suggesting that the darned bullet was not even the bullet found on Ronnie Fuller's stretcher. So I know you're not adverse to "new" developments... So I guess what I'm saying is that some of the doubts about you would dry up if you were to come forward with something that added to the case for conspiracy... Anything on the horizon? Please say yes. ***Upon closer review of Josiah's recent posts it's clear he subscribes to Don Thomas' claim Z-313 shows a jiggle response, and that this indicates the shot was fired from nearby, and not the TSBD. This answers my question, and ought to end any speculation about his turning into a LNer anytime soon.

Bill, you might find the following story amusing. At one point I found a used copy of Specter's book in a NYC bookstore. It was autographed by Specter, with a personal note to Charles Robbins' parents. Well, heck, I felt like I had to buy it. The price was written on the inside cover: 20 bucks. By the time I got to the register, I had found two or three other books of interest. I added the total in my head. It was about 50 bucks. When they rang me up, however, my total was only about 30 bucks. I didn't complain, and figured they had an ongoing sale. When I got outside and looked at the tape, however, I realized they'd only charged me a buck for Specter's book. I then remembered that the sales clerk had scanned the bar code on the back of the book. Clearly, they had his book in their system as a cut-out worth only a buck, and hadn't changed it to account for the fact the only copy of the book in the store was autographed. I felt guilty for a second. But only a second. Somehow paying 20 bucks for an autographed copy of Specter's book felt like an obligation, while paying only a buck for this same book felt like a just reward. BTW, if you're ever in a sit down with someone with the ability to re-open the case, you might want to show them Part 2 of my video series, in which I use Specter's own statements to demonstrate the VERY STRONG likelihood---IMO, strong enough to convince a jury--that he engaged in a deliberate deception regarding JFK's back wound location, including suborning perjury, in order to sell the single-bullet theory to the Warren Commission. Boy, do I wish I'd been at the Wecht Conference in 2003 to confront him on this point... His head might have exploded...

I've received a number of complaints about this in the last few months, so Doug is not the only one currently on hold. I wrote John an email to ask him why this is. Pat