Pat Speer

Got it, Don. It sounds like your complaint is not so much against those who disagree, as against those who once agreed but no longer do. I, too, find this confusing, but attribute it to a confluence of factors. One is that, unfortunately, many conspiracy theorists are not as informed as they should be. As a result, they can be swayed when the weight of the evidence suggesting Oswald's guilt suddenly registers. Another factor is time. There is an old expression that you shouldn't trust a young conservative or an old liberal. It is natural for many to grow conservative in their old age, and to write off many of their former beliefs as follies of youth. It is also true that those with a stake in society are less likely to question the basis of that society. As a consequence, a former "liberal" college student, once he becomes a successful businessman, might find himself feeling alienated by those questioning the official story on 9/11, and come to believe his own youthful belief that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy was equally mistaken. I see this thread in Myers and Bugliosi, among others. They are so put off by the "anti-Americanism" of conspiracy theorists that they find their own misrepresentation of the evidence easy to justify. "It's for a good cause"...etc. As far as Palamara, I suspect he's back on the fence. He told me recently that he loved my DVD on the medical evidence. Although it's possible, I sincerely doubt someone thoroughly convinced Oswald acted alone could make such a statement.

Don, I disagree... To be a conspiracy theorist, one only has to doubt the official conclusion that Oswald acted alone. One does not have to agree with other CTs on point A or Point B, just doubt the official conclusion. It's how it is now. And how it's been for 40 years... If I recall, the first big divide in CT-land came with Garrison. A number of researchers split off when he started claiming he'd solved the case and Shaw was CIA, etc. Another split came with Lifton and his body alteration theory. Another with Groden and Livingstone and their photo alteration theory. And still another with White and Fetzer and their Zapruder film alteration theory. With each split some head further down conspiracy road. Others stay put. Now, some of those who stay put might SEEM like they are single-assassin theorists, but in reality they believe what they've always believed. (That's not to say they are right, of course.) While I have long felt a conspiracy was likely, I really didn't know enough prior to 2003 to have an opinion. One of the first books I read in 2003 was Case Closed. I was, briefly, convinced that Oswald did act alone. In the pursuit of truth, however, I decided to use this thing called the internet and find out more. I found a number of websites on Case Closed, which pointed out its inaccuracies. I discovered the History Matters website and began reading about the medical evidence, and soon realized that the "official" interpretation of an autopsy photo was clearly incorrect. This led me to conduct my own investigation, not as part of a "team" but as someone sincerely interested in the truth. This investigation led me to a unique understanding of the medical evidence, and the crime itself. Now...should I decide that those reluctant to embrace my ideas--which I believe to be borne out by the evidence--are no longer CTs? Of course not... It follows, then, that people pushing film alteration, photo alteration, body alteration, and/or the deification of Jim Garrison should also get over themselves and recognize that those who refuse to follow them can still be CTs... and that no litmus test is necessary to be a conspiracy theorist. BTW, in recent years the single-assassin theorist crowd over at aaj has split in two over the nature of Kennedy's head wounds. They are as divided on this issue as the conspiracy crowd is on film alteration. If we, as CTs, focus on their differences, rather than our own, we can destroy the sense of security they provide those seeking to get off the fence, or just learning about the case. I mean, does it make any sense to YOU that the official location of the head wound entrance moved 4 inches between 1967 and 1968?

Tom, why do you keep saying those images are not the survey plat of 12/5? As demonstrated by...YOU...on this very forum, the 2/7 survey plat had a drawn-in line for the head shot at 313, and the number 267 written below the number 294. CE 585 and the plat in the Dallas Archives have no such line, and no such number, and match the trajectory of the 12/5 plat... There is also no evidence--and no reason to believe--that the Dallas DPD had anything to do with the 2/7 plat, which, after all, was just a redrawing of the 12/5 plat, with a new location for the final shot. I'm not sure if this has any bearing on your criticism of Shaneyfelt or not. I'm just trying to understand why you think those plats are of the 2/7 revision, and not the 12/5 SS plat.

I have forwarded your message to the last email address I have for Gary. He may or may not answer. If he does, I will send it to you. On the date, you may be right. I may be misremembering. It was about 30 years ago. Jack For those following this thread, Gary did respond, through Jack. He let me know that he found the document in the mid 70's and that the 12-18 airtel I thought I'd discovered was the subject of an article in the May 1985 issue of The Third Decade. Intriguingly, the document change was discussed in the January and March issues as well. These issues and articles can be found here: The Third Decade These articles of course raise a question. If Vincent Bugliosi was aware of Jack's article in the Continuing Inquiry, and thought it enough of a problem to try and debunk it, why didn't he acknowledge these subsequent articles confirming Jack's claim? He began research for his book in 1986. These articles were fresh at the time. Was he unaware of The Third Decade? Or was he trying to pull a fast one?

Jack, thanks for your response. I have forwarded the questions to your email address. FWIW, my belief that Shaw found the document as early as 1977 comes from reading his words on page 185 and 186 at the 1977 Critic's Conference: Critic's conference

Although I never met Judith, I feel I have lost something with her passing. I thank you, John, for sharing.

Jack, as you know, in 1980 you wrote an article in The Continuing Inquiry about J. Gary Shaw's finding of an 11-30-63 FBI document on the paper bag. This document, as you know, was nearly identical to a document located at CD5 page 129 of Warren Commission's files, with the one difference being that it said the paper bag and the paper sample taken from the TSBD were found "not to be identical." You may not realize, however, that I recently discovered in the FBI files a document confirming that the Dallas FBI, at the request of headquarters, had changed this page on 12-18-63. This confirms your speculation that the changing of the page was a deliberate act by the FBI, and proves that Vincent Bugliosi's explanation for this document is nonsense. Congratulations... This document can be viewed here: 12-18 airtel. Anyhow, in concert with the Mary Ferrell Foundation, I'm trying to write an essay on this find, and need your help. In a 2007 post on this Forum you told me that Shaw had found this document in the seventies. This contradicts the claim in many articles on Shaw's find, which places his find in 1980. After a little investigation, however, I found that you are correct, and that Shaw had told the HSCA about this document at the 9-16-77 critic's conference. So... 1. When, to your recollection, did Shaw first find the document? 2. Where, if you can recall, did he find the document? (In the Warren Commission's files? The FBI's files? Which file?) 3. What happened to the document? (Did Shaw just put it back in the box after making a photocopy? If it was loose, did he bring it to the attention of the Archives? Has anyone besides Shaw seen the original document in the files?) Your help appreciated, Pat P.S. If anyone else knew Shaw and has any additional details that can help fill in the blanks, your help will be appreciated as well.

Tom, the link you posted was not to the FBI plat of 2/7, but to the SS plat of 12-5. As stated, YOU have posted the FBI plat on this website and demonstrated that the head shot trajectory for frame 313 at frame 265 was penciled in. The plat in the DPD files has no penciled-in line. If the 12-5 plat is different than the one in the DPD files, please post the trajectory box from this plat so we can see for ourselves. As far as your Connally not shot till just in front of Altgens theory, the Z-film shows blood in Connally's armpit before you claim he was shot. Is this, in your opinion, because the Z-film has been altered, or that frames have been removed, so that what it appears to have taken place at one part of the plaza, actually happened further down the street? Just trying to "get it".

Don, the "tangled mess" of the backyard photos involves the following facts. The records show that the DPD found two photos and a negative (as I recall) and gave the WC two photos and one negative. Well, what's wrong with that? Well, they also gave them a blow-up from the photo with the missing negative, and this was determined to have been a first generation print. This proves the DPD "lost" a negative. Flash forward a decade. A third photo emerges. It turns out there are two copies of this third photo. Both at one time in the possession of former DPD officers. The HSCA inspects these photos, and decides that they are ALSO first generation prints taken from the original negative. They talk to Studebaker from the crime lab. He confirms he made copies for his fellow cops as souvenirs. The HSCA thereby comes to the unspoken conclusion the DPD "lost" two negatives. This is problematic. How do we know these guys didn't steal even more important evidence? Flash forward two more decades. A former employee of the Dallas crime lab tells his story in First Day Evidence. He swears that no negatives disappeared, and that the copies handed out within the DPD were made from first generation prints using a copy camera, and not the original negatives. He says you can tell by the size of the images. He's right. The photos he says were taken from the original negatives are 4 by 5 but the photos he says were copy photos are cropped and 5 by 7. He fails to realize that this creates an even bigger problem. If the DPD copy camera was so good it fooled the WC and HSCA photo experts, how do we know the photos aren't composites made with this camera? (Or something like that...you get the idea.) Anyhow, the point I'm trying to make is that, even if one assumes the photos are legit, they are still problematic, as they prove that either the DPD stole important evidence or that the HSCA photography panel didn't know what they were talking about.

How can you blithely state that a PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR has erred without presenting evidence? Just scanning the figures, they seem progressive and correct. Professional surveyors pride themselves on accuracy to within a tiny fraction of an inch, yet you dismiss their numbers as a mistake! Could it be YOU who is wrong? Demonstrate to us WHY it is wrong, and HOW professionals erred. Jack Jack, as I recall, the obviously bogus numbers in the WC box were not put in there by Robert West, but were changed by the WC for some unknown reason. It may have been a simple typo. Purvis--who has West's original numbers--has his own theory about the change, although I don't remember exactly what it is. I think Chuck Marler discussed this in Assassination Science as well. In any event, until now, people have always assumed the obviously incorrect numbers for frame 166 and at least one other frame were signs the WC was up to something, and not evidence that the film itself is a fake. I mean, just what are you saying here? That the strange measurements were made from the original film, and that another film was put in its place? Does that make sense? If I recall, the measurements were supposedly taken from the May 24 survey. As posted by Gary Murr on another thread, the FBI had made notes on the film as we know it today as early as January. Are we to believe the FBI's Shaneyfelt knew what was to be changed as early as January? Perhaps even we are to assume his "notes on the film" were actually "notes on changes to be made to the film"? So now it's the FBI who changed the film? In 1964? I thought the operating thesis was that the film was changed/created in 63, by the NPIC?

Chris, the problems with that exhibit have long been noted. The exhibit is incorrect, and no one knows why. (Although Tom Purvis has a theory). If you believe that the exhibit--which is clearly incorrect, as it has the limousine slamming on the brakes and starting back up again for no reason at a point before anyone even heard a shot--is evidence the FILM was altered, then I think you're chasing ghosts. As far as a website devoted to debunking claims of Z-film alteration...I've changed my mind. If it allows the likes of Tink and Barb to respond to alteration claims simply by posting a link, and frees them up to research other aspects of the case, it could be a very good thing.

no "grasping" problem at all Gary. Quite the opposite in fact, you in the above state: forgive me the following, a cite (a document stating same) please for the above 01/30/1964 date would be much appreciated. Or can I use you as the "official" source for the numbering date? Also I'll make this same response to the on-going Zapruder film thread started by BKelly. Thanks for you patience Gary, DHealy **= should be noted Gary Murr responded to this same Z-film frame number question/topic (of which I was involved in) here on this Ed Forum during 2007 Hi David: I apologize for not responding sooner, but it was unavoidable as I was no where near my home and access to my materials when this thread, and related others, began. I thank you for your patience. My personal collection of documents now exceeds 300,000 pages and it took me a little while to "lay my hands" on the material I was seeking in order that I could formulate a cohesive response to your request. I am not exactly a shining example of exactitude when it comes to cataloging these materials, something I am saving for retirement! I also must apologize if I have misinterpreted some of your responses concerning the film of Abraham Zapruder and the question of alteration, in particular pertaining to the roll played, or not played, by the CIA and NPIC - but that is a matter that perhaps is best discussed, if you so desire, another time and in another thread, or for that matter, in private if you wish. In response to your immediate request for a citation in support of my contention that Lyndal Shaneyfelt constructed the Z-film numbering system universally accepted and utilized when discussing the Zapruder film on a specific date, January 30, 1964, I hopefully have attached two images taken from Shaneyfelt's worknotes he generated in conjunction with this specific aspect of his contact with the film of Abraham Zapruder. Unfortunately, this documentation is currently only available if one travels to NARA II in College Park, Maryland, the reason being that it is from one of the massive bulky lab files generated by that division of the FBI in conjunction with their examination of all evidence given to them that related to the assassination event. Shaneyfelt and others in the FBI lab, in particular fellow agent Robert Frazier, constructed numerous files of worknotes when they were examining evidence and this surviving documentation is both historically important, relevant, and useful in trying to ascertain a wide variety of matters pertaining to the issues of evidence and provenance. The two pages from the Shaneyfelt worknotes that he constructed in conjunction with the Zapruder film can be found in: 62-109060-4199, Box097B, Folder 7, and 62-109060-4199, Box 098, Folder 3. I have also spent some time over the last couple of days searching FBI documents accessible via the internet, in particular the Mary Farrell Foundation website, in an effort to ascertain if any of this material is available to the interested researcher. I suspect that Rex Bradford and others have not had the time to reproduce the materials from these numerous bulky files generated by the FBI lab, documentation that literally goes on for thousands and thousands of pages. However, I did stumble across one page from this same series of notes and if you have access to the FBI documents generated at the Mary Ferrell website you will find it as part of 62-109060-2348, the second page. You will note, once again, Shaneyfelts distinctive "LS" scrawl and the date of "1-30-64: affixed to this page, taken from the same workbook I possess a copy of and have reproduced pages for you in this reply. I hope you find this of some interest. Gary Murr Thanks, Gary. Great info, as usual. While some on this website cling to the idea the FBI believed the head shot was the second shot, here, in Shaneyfelt's notes, he shows that as early as 1-30-64 he felt frame 313 showed the third shot.

There is widespread suspicion--you might even call it paranoia (I no longer do)--that any person choosing to focus on the errors of conspiracy theorists is someone with a pro-Warren Commission bias. At one point, I would have said I didn't get it. But after watching Inside the Target Car, where supposed conspiracy theorist Gary Mack helped push a whole lot of nonsense, all the while acting as though he was presenting a well-reasoned center, I've come to understand. (You can read my analysis of this con job here) I just think your skills would be better spent debunking post Six Seconds single-assassin theorist nonsense (such as the Lattimer back wound location or Dale Myers' animation) than the findings of Fetzer and friends. There are points that can be proven to a reasonable certainty. The single-bullet theory trajectory does not line up. The back wound was at the same level or higher than the throat wound. The first shot did not miss. And yet single-assassin theorists and the mainstream media keep pretending these things aren't true. Let's change that.

In 1980, researcher Gary Shaw discovered a document in the Archives that was identical to a previously known document but for one sentence. The line, about the paper sample taken from the depository on 11-22, reads "This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found not to be identical with the paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting." The line of the nearly identical document on page 129 of the FBI's 11-30 report, however, reads "This paper was examined by the FBI Laboratory and found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building." It seemed clear to Shaw that someone had changed the document, and that he had discovered the original document before it was changed. This has been widely discussed. Gary Mack has claimed to me that Drain, the writer of the report, told reporter Earl Golz he wrote two versions of the report, in anticipation of the test results, and that both versions ended up in the files. This makes no sense. The report was written 11-30-63, based upon an 11-29 discussion, and the tests were performed on 11-23. Writer Henry Hurt, for his book Reasonable Doubt, also talked to Drain about the document switch. Drain reportedly claimed "I am certainly as perplexed as you are," and that he believed the correct report to be the one stating the paper was the same. In 2007, in his book Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi dealt with this problem in another manner. He claimed the report was a reference to a test performed on a bag created by the Dallas FBI, from paper found in the school book depository days after the shooting. Bugliosi's solution, however, was ridiculous on its face. The second bag was not created till 12-1. How could Drain, on 11-29, be discussing tests performed on a bag that did not yet exist? Well, the wonder of the Mary Ferrell foundation has provided us the answer. FBI file 105-82555, sec 39, p7 is a 12-18-63 airtel from the Dallas Special-Agent-in-Charge, Gordon Shanklin back to FBI Headquarters, reporting that he is replacing page 129 of the FBI's 11-30 report to the Commission (CD5, page 129) with a different page. This airtel references two other documents, a 12-6 airtel from Washington to Dallas obviously requesting a change be made (I haven't yet found this document), and a 12-11 response from Dallas listing the progress of a number of investigations, while also noting, under point 11, that the "Necessary actions to correct inaccuracy" are "being taken." (This page can be found in FBI file 105-82555, sec 27, p44.) SO...the FBI did, at least on occasion, change reports, after they had been disseminated and placed in the record. This is problematic for researchers, such as myself, sifting through the record under the assumption the documents were actually written on the day they claim, and that the writer of the documents actually wrote the words in the document. If Drain had simply admitted he'd screwed up, and had reported the FBI Lab's report on the paper sample incorrectly, and that he was made to correct it later, this issue could have been resolved. His initials do, after all, appear on the revised document. But since he refused to come clean on this issue, or forgot all about what would have to be considered a major mistake on his part, we are still left to wonder... Did the paper sample match the bag, or were they found to be "not identical"? 12-18-63 Airtel 12-6-63 Airtel

A space devoted to argue against Z-film alteration would have a credibility problem, IMO, unless it gave equal time to evidence contradicting the single-assassin theory. A study of the film demonstrating that Kennedy was not bent forward enough for a bullet to enter has back and exit his throat (while traveling in a straight line) might prove enlightening to those still swallowing the SBT. A study of backspatter demonstrating that the bullet at frame 313 did not strike JFK on the back of his head might also prove useful.

Tom, the Z-film reveals blood in Connally's armpit around Z-340, well before you think he was hit. In your theory, was this added to the film by the government?

Bill, in Tink's defense, he DID write a negative review of Bugliosi's book, and actually got it published. This, of course, sent Bugliosi and his over-sized ego in a spiral. If you're interested in a thoroughly damning article about Bugliosi's book, might I suggest you check out chapter 9b at patspeer.com. I tried to write something that would stand up to any single-assassin theorist criticism, and demonstrate to all that Bugliosi's book is completely biased and deceptive. I think I succeeded. Certainly, no LNT has touched it with anything but criticisms of the "Bugliosi is a great writer and you suck" variety; which is to say, they haven't touched it at all.

For what it's worth, I, too, remember Jack receiving some pretty dreadful insults regarding his mental capabilities. If I recall think they came from that Brendan Slattery character, who was sent on his way long ago. Why can't we all just get along?

Tink, I've been trying to avoid fighting with other CTs over the alteration issue for the simple reason that it gets us nowhere. There is official evidence available--that is accepted by the mainstream media as legitimate evidence--that beyond any real doubt suggests there was more than one shooter. The medical evidence is such evidence. The location of Kennedy's back wound--even as interpreted as the HSCA FPP--suggests the shot creating this wound would not have hit Connally in his right armpit. Similarly, the location and descriptions of Kennedy's head wounds suggests there was more than one head shot. The KEY to getting this acknowledged by the medical establishment is, by my estimation, exposure. I have attempted to expose the flaws and inconsistencies in the medical evidence on my webpage and in my videos. It doesn't take an expert to tell the front of a head from the back of a head. It just takes two eyes and an analytical mind. I think you'll come to agree.

Good info, Tom. Even more interesting when you take into account that Hale's son--the very one caught spying on Campbell--was John Connally's son-in-law. Or rather, former son-in-law. Seems something pushed his daughter over the edge, and she ended her life.

Tink, at patspeer.com I have four videos. (These are also on youtube). These videos discuss the medical evidence, and attempt to demonstrate that the so-called mystery photo was taken of the back of Kennedy's head, and that Dr. Baden and his pals on the HSCA were mistaken in their orientation of this photo, and their placement of the entrance on the back of Kennedy's head. I am asking you to watch the videos, and tell me if you do not agree that Baden et al (including Wecht) were incorrect on this point. Your response appreciated, Pat

Thanks, Bill. It's on the Discovery Channel. I reviewed this program, and discussed its many problems, here Chapter 16c: Inside the Target Car

No, Apparently Von Pein is not his real name and he's so afraid of the truth he won't post a picture of himself, so he's disqualified on two points. He's concerned about his "privacy"? He calls Simkin a crackpot and me a flying monkey but doesn't have the balls to join the debate? Says he's from Indiana? And, Where exactly did he go to school with Gus Russo? Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk From: slats <o...@yahoo.com> Date: 31 Jan 2009 00:51:36 -0500 Local: Sat, Jan 31 2009 12:51 am Subject: Re: Pam & friends gossip about me & DVP Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author David Von Pein <davevonp<A href="http://groups.google.com/groups/unlock?_done=/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/ecfe599fc1affbb1/53da767d334d2070&msg=912fbc1f4e9aa1f7" target=_parent>...@aol.com> wrote in news:b2dc0111-1b85-4de3-bad2- df9a3b1d5...@q30g2000vbn.googlegroups.com: > That other Education Forum thread was started by Tom "I Can't Say It > Here At aaj Because The Post Will Certainly Be Rejected If I Call Him > This Name" Purvis back in September '08. Crackpot Simkin and his flying monkies really do give Nixon a run for his money in the paranoia department. During my brief stay there, the locals were *obsessed* with my listed occupation, demanding to know more about my work. More than a few suggested that I might be a government "plant." Thank God I didn't submit my real photo (they had no right to that anyway; that goes double for my real name). The vast majority of them are unhinged, Bush-hating leftists who bewailed things like FISA and the Patriot Act to no end, yet didn't think twice about compromising MY privacy. A pox on all of them. xxxx http://www.davidvonpein.blogspot.com/ Oh the irony! Von Pein complaining about Bush-haters! His hero Bugliosi has revealed himself to be a bigger Bush-hating leftist than anyone here, telling a recent audience that he doesn't want Bush prosecuted for fraud because there's no death penalty for fraud, that he won't be satisfied till Bush is on death row, and that he's willing to devote the next several years to the cause of prosecuting Bush, should any District Attorney bring charges and ask for his help. I was in this audience and spoke to Bugliosi afterward. He is dead serious. FWIW, I discussed Bugliosi on Black Op radio last Thursday. The program is available, here: Black Op radio 2009

Tom, a related question is why the back wound location used in the re-enactment failed to match the location seen in the medical drawings. (I originally thought this was the question you were asking.) This question is answered in part 2 of my video series, here: Specter saw an autopsy photo proving the back wound was on the back, tested this location, and found it didn't work. He then conspired with Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service to hide that he'd tested this location, and got Kelley to tell the commission that the back wound location used in the reconstruction came from the drawings created by the doctors. This was perjury. Specter, a long-time member of the Senate Judiciary committee, should have been disbarred a long time ago, to say the least.

then hit the USENET boards: alt.conspiracy.jfk or alt.assassination.jfk and ASK him. He trolls both 24/7.... Or simply GOOGLE him! That juvenile enough for ya, Mark? I am also curious about Von Pein's identity, and suspect he's somebody else. Most LN's are more than happy to tell you their qualifications. Not so Von Pein, who won't even post a picture of himself. That said, I don't consider him a total xxxxx. He's posted a lot of early news footage on his Youtube channel; these are definitely worth looking at. He's also posted links to interviews with his hero, Bugliosi, which prove that Bugliosi was working pretty much from a script, repeating the same lines from city to city, much as a stand-up comedian. Call VB the anti-Bill Hicks.