Pat Speer

Jackie Kennedy's cousin John Davis not only believed JFK had been killed by a conspiracy, he wrote Mafia Kingfish, fingering Marcello as the mastermind. There is also RFK and LBJ, and Alexander Haig, and Ted Sorensen, and Senators Richard Schweicker and Gary Hart. There is, also, of course, the bulk of the HSCA committee. It's only second-hand, but it was reported by screenwriter Eric Hamburg that JFK's sister, Jean Kennedy Smith, suspected the anti-Castro Cuban crowd. And then there's folks like Al Gore. I think Hillary Clinton also voiced some suspicion somewhere along the line. On the other side of the pond you have Khruschev, and, apparently, deGaulle.

Craig, your response once again demonstrates that you don't even understand the issues involved. The bullet hole on the clothes places it around the T-3 level of Kennedy's spine. Now the line among many CTs is that this alone proves the single-bullet theory impossible. There are two ways around this, however. Dr. Humes and Arlen Specter proposed that Kennedy's jacket was bunched up on his neck, and that this brought the bullet hole on the clothes up to the level of the back wound depicted on their autopsy drawings--at the base of the neck, around C5-C6. This, of course, seemed unlikely, and aroused much suspicion in the conspiracy research community circa 1966. No one then, or now, has been able to demonstrate that this could happen, without clothing being bunched up ABOVE Kennedy's collar. (If you think you can demonstrate this, fire away.) But this issue was brushed aside in 1978, when the HSCA FPP acknowledged that the autopsy photos proved that the wound was NOT at C5-C6, as depicted on the drawings, but at T-1, on Kennedy's back. They then found another way around the bullet hole location and claimed the single-bullet theory trajectory still worked because Kennedy leaned forward as he passed behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. Well, this was laughable, as Kennedy was behind this sign for only a second. Even more shocking, the committee, based upon the photographic and acoustic evidence, concluded the SBT shot occurred BEFORE Kennedy went behind this sign...AT A POINT THAT THEIR MEDICAL PANEL CLAIMED THE SBT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. So...in the years since 1978 the LN community has returned to claiming the bullet hit Kennedy around C5-C6. They do this without acknowledging that this is in defiance of the last medical panel to look at the photos, and even the autopsy doctors. You see, when the original autopsy doctors were shown the photos in 96...UNDER OATH...they acknowledged that yes, indeed, the back wound was on the back and not in the location depicted in the drawings they submitted to Specter and the WC. NOW, although you seem to be operating under the delusion I have many "friends" in the research community who have been led astray by my interpretation of the Croft photo, the FACT is that many CTs, perhaps most, think the back wound in the autopsy photo is still incompatible with the bullet hole location on the clothes. I, however, have long pushed that the clothes WERE SLIGHTLY BUNCHED, and that this bunching of the clothes lifted the bullet hole on the clothing to the level of T-1, and that the back wound photo, therefore, would appear to be legitimate. I also have long held that this bunching was not significant enough to lift the level of the bullet hole to C-5/C-6, where most LNs place the entrance wound (in bold defiance of the medical experts). So...when I came across the John Hunt article claiming the Croft photo showed there to be enough bunching to lift the bullet hole to the traditional LN entrance location, and noticed that he drew a line straight out from the back of Kennedy's neck in order to demonstrate the amount of clothing in his proposed "bunch", I decided to get a better look at this photo. Sometime after, Bill Miller posted the color Croft online, and I saw what I suspected. The furthest part of the "bunch" from Kennedy's neck, as designated by a green curve on your photo, WAS NOT sticking straight out from Kennedy's neck, but was on the right side of Kennedy's back, in his shoulder area, only seen at an angle. This is perhaps best demonstrated by following Kennedy's back line in the photo. Based upon the appearance of his left shoulder, it is absolutely clear to me that his back is not in profile and that the far part of his back in the photo is on the right side of his back. Now follow this back line upwards. When you get to the neck area there is indeed a bunching of the clothing. This appears to me to be on the right side of Kennedy's jacket. Now, I guess you think this is to the left of the midline. So be it. The ISSUE, Craig is not where this bunching is, but whether or not it lifts the bullet hole to the level of C5/C6 as claimed by the LN community. To me it is 100% clear that this bunching, no matter what side of the back on which it relies, only lifts the clothing an inch or two above its normal location on Kennedy's back. If you think otherwise, then you should try to prove it. You can do this by 1) re-creating the photo using a stand-in and some clothing, or 2) perform a detailed analysis of the photo in which you present measurements and what you believe in the photo to be the eventual location of the bullet hole on the clothing. Feel free to do either. But your continued harping about my sending out "disinformation" (when in fact you don't even understand the discussion) will go unacknowledged.

Craig, you just don't get it. What you call "unbending laws of light" means nothing to me. You can call me uneducated on this issue. Fine. But your suggestion that I know you're right and am deliberately spreading "disinformation" is incredibly insulting, and reflective of an ego that is way out of control. For the record, I agree with you on 90% of your posts. If I saw your point on this one, I'd readily agree. So get over yourself. To be clear, to me the Croft photo closely mirrors the photo in the upper right hand corner on this slide. There is a crease running laterally across the jacket, with a slight bunching above, and with the jacket peaking along the right shoulder. Now I've asked a few people about this, and they've all agreed with me that the peak of the jacket in Croft is on Kennedy's right shoulder. NONE of them are able to look at the photo and conclude it is to the LEFT of Kennedy's mid-line, as you apparently are claiming. So PLEASE, if you really want to argue about this, draw a line down the middle of Kennedy's back in Croft and SHOW us how the peak of the material sticking out behind JFK's neck is someway somehow on the left side of his jacket. This I gotta see. But back to the real issue. Are you now claiming the single-bullet theory trajectory "works"? Are you now claiming the back wound was above the throat wound? Or are you claiming Kennedy was leaning forward at the time he was shot? Just what exactly are you pushing? Because if you're ready to argue that the autopsy photos show the back wound above the throat wound or that the Croft photo shows Kennedy leaning forward far enough to lift his back wound 20 degrees or so above his throat wound, you're gonna need a bit more than some argument based upon YOUR unique interpretation of the middle of Kennedy's jacket. And if you're not ready to argue that the single-bullet theory trajectory "works" then you should stop all your bellyachin' and character assassinatin'...

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo! You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really? As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better... Craig, the disinformation you peddle is that my intellectual honesty is questionable, and that peopls those reading my webpage should DOUBT everything Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft. I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible. You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca. And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth. As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand. Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do? Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game... P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue. Exactly what "disinformation" have I offered? Oh yea, NONE! I've not studied the FBI, SS situation you mention. Since I don't have an opinion (and I don't do "opinions") and don't care, now I'm somehow peddling disinformation? Once again you prove your logic truly sucks. You don't get to have an "interpertation" when it comes to Croft. It's black and white. The unbendable laws of light, shadow and the angle of incidence of the sunlight in relation to JFK are not up for "interpretation". The proof is unimpeachable. Now eihter you have the intellectual honesty to deal with this unimpeachable fact or you don't. That Pat is what decides your character. You make your own bed... Question the government all you wish. I have no problem with that at all. But when you make a serious error and fail to correct it, you get what you get. Craig, use a dictionary. Learn the meaning of words. You haven't been arguing that I am mistaken on one of a thousand arguments on my webpage. You have been calling my interpretation of Kennedy's shoulder "disinformation". Here is the common understanding of the meaning of this word. "Disinformation is false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is synonymous with and sometimes called Black propaganda." You are saying that I am deliberately lying on a minor point on a webpage involving years of research, the vast majority of which is irrefutable, in order to deceive people. Well, to deceive people about what, exactly? Well, since my point is on a chapter about the single-bullet theory, it would seem you are suggesting that the single-bullet theory would be supportable without my making this point, which is positively LUDICROUS. (You, in fact, refuse to argue in its favor.) You are also suggesting that EVERYTHING I say or write is questionable because I am as yet unswayed by your arcane argument that some barely discernible shadow line proves Kennedy's clothing was bunched to a significant degree. I have asked you if this bunching is to the extent it could lift the bullet hole on JFK's jacket and shirt in line with a trajectory from the sniper's nest. You have indicated you are unconcerned with that. If I recall, I have also asked you if you could re-produce this photo to demonstrate your point. You say that would be pointless. Essentially, you are stomping your feet on a minor point and saying that anyone who doesn't believe you is a disinformationist. This is exactly the kind of behavior people have come to expect from those you frequently criticize. Which is why I suggested that you, if anyone, is the disinformationist. I mean, to take one point on which I may be mistaken and extrapolate from this that I am a deliberate xxxx out to deceive people into questioning the single-bullet theory, when there are dozens of far more relevant points that positively put it in the trash can, is deceptive, to say the least. As far as Croft, you don't even understand the context of my argument the bunch of clothing is on the shoulder. It had previously been argued by John Hunt that the bunch of clothing was significant. He had used the photo in the upper left corner of this slide to sell this. http://www.patspeer.com/coatdoublecheck.jpg The black line suggested that the clothing stuck straight out from Kennedy's back, and that one could measure this amount of clothing, and that this amount was enough to bring the bullet hole on the jacket in line with the trajectory from the sniper's nest. A look at the color Croft, however, convinced me otherwise. It is 100% clear to me the photo is taken at an angle to JFK's back and that it is not in profile. It is 100% clear to me that the "bunch" appearing to stick straight out in Hunt's photo, is a much smaller "bunch" on Kennedy's back and his right shoulder seen at an angle. If you want to re-create this photo and demonstrate your belief the clothing sticks straight out from the back, and that this lifts the bullet hole location on the clothing in line with a shot from the sniper's nest exiting Kennedy's throat, fire away. But, until that point, we'll have to agree to disagree. FWIW, even though your attack on me is totally misguided, I wouldn't stoop so low as to suggest that you "fill the internet with pure disinformation." I mean, where do you get this stuff? The David Von Pein playbook?

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo! You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really? As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better... Geeze Pat, if your mom and her girl scouts are as inept as you are when to comes to matters photographic, no doubt they would stuff it up as badly as you did with Croft. I'm not having an argument with you Pat, just keeping you honest, if that's possible. You see you screwed the pooch big time with your oh so ignorant notion tha that the bunch is Croft was his RIGHT SHOULDER! Never mind that the unbending laws of light, shadow and geometry show you are simply full of caca. And what is the response by patspeer.com to the news that that they got it all wrong as shown by unimpeachalbe proof? Does patspeer.com correct it's gross error? No... instead pastspeer.com continues to fill the internet with pure disinformation. And low and behold the owner of said site takes others to task for not telling the "truth" while he does the same himself. patspeer.com and it's author...intellectually honest? Not even close. Just another ct who can't deal with truth. As fo the FBI and the Secret Service? Don't have a clue nor do I care. I don't deal in speculation. "Recreations" are a fools errand. Now who's proven himself to be the disinformation peddler? You "don't care" whether or not the Secret Service or FBI deliberately faked a reenactment in order to deceive the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone, but fill this forum with attacks on my character because I have a different interpretation of the word "shoulder" than you do? Now, I would have thought the many times I've differed with my fellow CTs on issues like photo alteration and body alteration would have convinced you that, right or wrong, I'm trying to get at the truth of this thing, and don't deserve to be harassed in such a manner. But no, I dare think the Federal Government lied about something over 40 years ago...and that makes makes me fair game... P.S. thanks again for setting me straight on the frame rate/film speed issue.

My, Craig, what a typical response! I raise a valid point and you immediately try to derail the discussion. Bravo! You can have that argument somewhere else. As you don't even pretend to believe the bunching in Croft lifts the hole in the jacket to the point pushed by Lattimer/Artwohl etc... what's the point, really? As far as this thread...Mr. Photo Expert...please explain how the Secret Service and FBI--AFTER having accurately established the location of Kennedy at frame 313 within a few feet on 11-27--could POSSIBLY have concluded JFK was 30 feet or more further down the street, unless they were doing so for political purposes. They had the Z-film. They had the Moorman photo. The FBI even had the Nix film. My 72 year-old mom and a troop of girl scouts could do better...

Pat, I'm afraid your initial premise may be incorrect. Life Magazine reported on December 6 that Zapruder's camera ran at 18 fps. Additionally, the CIA NPIC analysis for the Secret Service seems to indicate that they thought the camera should run at 16 fps. Most importantly, the FBI was definitely not sharing its field reports with the Secret Service on a day to day basis, therefore it seems extremely unlikely that the Secret Service would even know of Zapruder's statement to Barrett. It's most likely that the Secret Service just RTFM and assumed 16 fps since it obviously wasn't 48 fps or they called B&H. I don't know why they'd believe Zapruder's camera was running at a frame rate that was impossible for that camera. Jerry Jerry, maybe the Secret Service thought the camera recorded 16 or 18 fps. Maybe. (The question arises how Life could possibly know the film speed without testing the camera).. But then you're stuck trying to explain how the Secret Service re-enactment of 12-5 could possibly have concluded that Kennedy at frame 313 was 34 feet further from the sniper's nest than the re-enactment of 11-27, when BOTH used the Zapruder film...and WHY the FBI also concluded the head shot location was further than previously presumed. Agent Howlett's 11-27 re-enactment performed BEFORE the Barrett memo claiming the camera recorded 24 fps had the first shot at 170 feet and the third at 260 feet. Roughly 90 feet. 24 frames per second means 22 fps. This suggests three shots were fired in barely four seconds. Although the NPIC numbers indicate someone believed the shooter could have fired shots as rapidly as two seconds apart, they most certainly would not have wanted to say the sniper did this twice in a row. It comes as no surprise then that the 12-5 re-enactment performed by Elmer Moore (who would go on to become Chief Justice Warren's "bodyguard" and keep a close eye on the conduct of the WC) had the first shot at 184 feet and the second at 294. This conveniently translates to a 5 second scenario. Now ain't that a coinky-dink. Still, it's possible this was just a coincidence. One wonders, however, why the only record in the Warren Commission's files of Agent Howlett's earlier re-enactment is an FBI report. This suggests the Secret Service destroyed all records of this earlier, more accurate re-enactment....hmmm... (If you know where we can find Agent Howlett's 11-27 report on the re-enactment please let me know...) FBI Agent Gauthier, however, almost certainly knew of both Barrett's memo on Howlett's re-enactment on 11-27, and Barrett's memo on Zapruder's camera speed. His early reports on his reconstruction mention that the limo was moving 15 mph. Where else would he have got this? Even worse, the FBI's re-enactment had the first shot at 167 feet and the third at 307 feet. 140 feet. How on Earth does the distance traveled during the shooting grow "accidentally" from 90 feet to 140 feet, only to shrink back to 90 feet or less during the WC's re-enactment? Either the Secret Service and FBI were INCREDIBLY INCOMPETENT and far worse a threat to national security than the likes of 100 Oswalds, or were LIARS reporting dutifully to a corrupt President. I'm not sure which one is worse. (P.S. I'm well aware that Tom Purvis thinks the SS and FBI's re-enactments were accurate, and that the WC's latter one disguised that there was shot after frame 313, but he deliberately avoids all the FBI and SS memos indicating they thought the third shot was the head shot at frame 313 even while placing it 30 feet or more further down the road.)

Although, as Craig and Jerry have pointed out, the FBI memo on Zapruder stating the film was recorded 24 frames per second was clearly in error, it nevertheless proves there was a cover-up, IMO. It hit me when reading this memo that the date on this memo was 12-4, and the FBI Crime Lab report claiming the camera ran 18.3 frames per second was dated 12-20. This means that the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of 12-5 were performed under the belief the camera was running 24 frames per second. This is demonstrated in the reports of the FBI's Gauthier, as he repeatedly made reference to the limousine's traveling 15 mph. Now, I could never figure out why he thought this...and then it hit me. If the Zapruder film was filmed at 24 frames per second, the limo would have been moving 15 mph. So why is this significant, you might ask? As demonstrated in chapters 2 and 2b at patspeer.com, the Secret Service and FBI re-enactments of early December, and the final versions of the shooting they presented to the Warren Commission, had the head shot (which they proposed was the third shot) 34 and 47 feet further down the road than the location determined by the Secret Service on 11-27, and 29 and 42 feet further down the road than eventually proposed by the Warren Commission. Now, previously I had thought that maybe they were simply incompetent. But now I realize that 15 mph meant the film was recording at 22 frames per second, and that this made the elapsed time between the first shot (which both the SS and FBI believed hit Kennedy) and third shot at frame 313 TOO SHORT for the shooter to have been lone little Oswald. So...voila...In early December, as a response to agent Barrett's memo on Zapruder, and the assertion the camera recorded 24 frames per second, BOTH the Secret Service and FBI suddenly concluded the limo was much further down the street at the time of the third shot than previously believed, and later proven beyond any doubt. Now why else would they have done this, other than to conceal the likelihood there was a second shooter? The incompetence argument falters when you consider that both agencies, working independently, came to the same completely unsupportable conclusion. The why-would-they-do-such-a-thing argument falters when you consider that at the time of these re-enactments, in early December, the assumption was that the Zapruder and Nix films would never be shown to the public and the Warren Commission was just gonna rubber stamp the conclusions of the Secret Service and FBI. So, yes, Virginia, they lied. It then follows that they would not have done such a thing if they didn't believe the President would approve.

Film "speed" refers to the sensitivity of the film to light. The greater the sensitivity, the "faster" the film "speed". This data is used by the light metering system so that the camera or the photographer can set the proper exposure. Film spped was sated using hte ASA nomenclature in years past and is now (if you can still find film) as ISO. Zapruder used Kodachorme film. A common speed for that film was ASA 25. Thanks, Craig, for clearing that up. So 16 on the Film Speed Dial does not correlate to 16 frames per second, and the repeat of the 16 is just a coincidence. To what, then, do the numbers 10, 16, 25, and 40 refer? I don't want to make this same mistake again.

The FBI tests purportedly established that the camera was running approximately 18.3 frames per second, based upon an average of a series of tests with (if I recall correctly) the camera on the 16 frames per second setting. But the December 4 1963 FBI report on Zapruder notes "The camera was set to take normal speed movie film or 24 frames per second." This statement apparently came from Zapruder. If the camera was running 24 frames per second, of course, the shooter would have had much less time to fire three shots. If the camera was running 24 frames per second, the lone gunmen scenario would be even more doubtful, if not impossible. Subsequent to this report, the FBI ran its tests and came back saying the film was running 18.3 frames per second. The lone gunmen scenario had been saved. But there's a problem with this. I have an instruction manual to Zapruder's camera, and a non-functioning camera to compare it to. The instruction manual has a page with a block claiming Exposure Data. Beneath it it says "Run--16 frames per second. Slow Motion--48 frames per second." And "Animation--single frame". This implies these are the only three settings. If so, the FBI's assumption the camera was set to record 16 frames per second would undoubtedly be correct. But elsewhere in the manual, under the heading "Set Film Speed" there is this: "Look in the window above the Film Speed Dial. If you loaded with Daylight (outdoor) film, turn the Film Speed Dial until number "10" appears. If you loaded with Type A (indoor) film, turn the dial until "16" appears. For faster film speeds, use the setting recommended in the manufacturers instructions. The Film Speed Dial on your camera will adjust for film speeds as high as "40"." Well, in fact, there are only 4 settings on the Film Speed Dial, with half settings in between. These 4 settings are 10, 16, 25, and 40. Based upon the 12-4 FBI memo, this leads me to suspect that Zapruder had checked on the proper setting for the film he was using, and determined it to be 24 frames per second. If so, he would most logically have shot the film on the "25" setting, correct? If so, then the shooting was much more rushed than previously believed. So...questions. What was the recommended speed for the film used in the camera? If other than 16, has anyone ran the film at this speed to see if the film looks more natural at this speed? Also, has it been established that the frames in the film are contiguous? I mean, is it possible there were frames between 312 and 313, and then again between 313 and 314, showing more than one hit on Kennedy? (Or anything similarly damaging.) To be clear, I am not a Zapruder film alterationist--in that I don't suspect the film was invented in a studio, or that objects were added in to the film. But I've always been open-minded about certain other kinds of alteration. It's always seemed a bit of a coincidence, for example, that the frames spliced out of the Life version of the film were frames not showing JFK, but showing Jackie clearly staring at JFK (as opposed to merely looking in his general direction) at a time BEFORE the Warren Commission concluded he'd been hit. I apologize in advance if this leads to yet another argument over the veracity of the film. Fake or not fake, I'm trying to determine the speed at which it was shot.

See: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/con...ts_rockcomm.htm I have read all the medical evidence related to the Rockefeller Commission, and it proved no such thing. The Commission spoke to a number of doctors, most with ties to doctors to previously examine the case. One, Dr. Olivier, actually had worked for the Warren Commission. Some of these doctors, in their interviews and reports, dismissed that the head snap proved the shot came from the front. But no tests were conducted to actually "prove" their opinions were valid, or that the head snap suggested the shot came from the rear. The interviews and reports of the Rockefeller Commission were largely secret until a few years ago, when Rex Bradford put them up on the Mary Ferrell site. One of the great and recurrent pieces of misinfo about the assassination is that every doctor since 1968 has confirmed the Clark Panel's conclusion that the bullet entrance on the back of the head was in the parietal bone, roughly 4 inches higher than as measured and described by the autopsists. I believe I was the first one to realize that this was yet another LN myth. Dr. Fred Hodges, the Rockefeller Commission's radiologist, specified that the bullet entrance on the back of the head was in the occipital bone, in the location described in the autopsy report.

Being of French and German stock does not preclude one from having roots in Cuba, and being a Cuban-American. Many Americans trace back to somewhere other than America, should one go back a generation or two. The same is true for other western countries, and many other countries as well. For example, I know a woman of Colombian heritage, whose parents came from Spain and Turkey; she is thus of Spanish and Turkish "stock", while nevertheless a Colombian-American. I also have known a number of European Jews who immigrated to South America before coming to the States. Such a circumstance can lead to Mrs. Goldberg's being a Brazilian-American of good Polish "stock".

Let's hope he gets his long-hoped for snapshot of Bigfoot. I'm serious. Can you imagine the self-analysis the MSM would undergo if someone were to prove Bigfoot's existence? They'd be, like, wow, how'd we get this one wrong? Why were we so condescending to people claiming they'd seen Bigfoot? Gee, maybe we're wrong about a few other things, including the JFK assassination and UFOs... Not likely, but possible.

I am only referencing the Dallas footage showing the replica limo. The first time the show aired the footage from the Dallas reenactment showing JBK and JFK in what was supposed to duplicate the Z312 position, was grotesquely incorrect. Many viewers spotted that at once and went screaming to the DC, me included. Subsequent to that, they edited out that frame and replaced it with a frame that better duplicated Jackie's arm position and their alignment within the limo. However, even that was not exact. And the reenactment frame didn't even really make a difference because they had already done their tests with the head aligned in a position that was other than Z312 (though they claimed they duplicated it). Let me get this straight. When the program was re-run, they'd fixed their incorrect assertion about the limousine photos, and replaced the Dealey photo of Jackie behind JFK, but KEPT in Mack's completely BOGUS claim that the GK shot would have killed Jackie? If so, I am even more outraged!!!

This is also discussed, here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14656 Last I checked, a number of posters at alt.ass.JFK, including myself, pointed out to McAdams that the quote he claimed was from you, was not. He then backed down and admitted he owed you an apology, but still claimed your claim he was a disinfo agent revealed your fascistic tendencies, or some such thing. I don't recall. Did you ever claim he was a disinformation agent?

McAdams has acknowledged that Simkin did not write the bit about having McAdams prosecuted. He acknowledged he owes Simkin an apology. He then turned around and added "Except, he did call me a "disinformation agent," which is a pretty fascist thing to do." So, McAdams--a history professor--is still calling John Simkin, who is if anything a socialist, a "fascist." Pretty childish, IMO.

This website quotes John Simkin in an attack on John McAdams. http://surftofind.com/fraud McAdams has in turn created a thread on alt.assassination.JFK where former Forum members David Von Pein and Brendan Slattery have dogpiled on Simkin and called him a Nazi, Bolshevik, etc... someone out to enforce his view of the world on others. The problem is that the key quote McAdams uses "It would also be nice to prosecute crackpots like John McAdams for deliberately covering up the truth about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, unless of course, they manage to cop an insanity plea." is not in quotes on the website and is not attributed to Simkin by the creator of the website. McAdams is attacking Simkin for NO reason other than his ridiculous notion that John Simkin is some sort of fascist out to arrest anyone who disagrees with him. What malarkey! McAdams owes John Simkin a beer.

Pamela, I didn't see the "corrected" show. You write "After numerous complaints to Discovery Channel, by me and many others, reporting the numerous inaccuracies of the show, in December another version was aired. It corrected the error that the color Secret Service photos were taken 'the next day' (as opposed to well over 24-hours after the assassination and after numerous exams) and did revise the reenactment footage to show what they believed a closer reenactment of Z-313." What do you mean by "revise the reenactment" footage? According to Mack, they only shot four skulls. Only one shot was not shown in the original program. This shot, taken from the simulated SN, and grazed the side of the head, and did a better job of simulating the head shot at 313. For me, this proved what I've been saying now for years--that the shot at 313 hit JFK at the exit from behind, and did not hit him on the back of the head as claimed by the LN crowd. Are you saying they used this shot--the one hitting JFK on the side of the head--in the "corrected" show? And, if so, how did they get around the fact it hit the simulated head on the side, and not on the back?

Greg, this is a bit off-topic, but I recently tried to read Olmstead's writings on your website. When I googled "reopen JFK" however, and your website came up, it came up with a warning saying "This site may harm your computer." What's that about? Has the problem been fixed? I'm doing some research on the fingerprints, and was trying to build upon Olmstead's articles. But I can't risk my computer to do so. Thanks, Pat Pat, the site was hacked and is beyond saving. Am building another site and some of, but not all of Jim's work is back up. Scroll through here: http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/featured-essays.html If what you want is not there yet, I'm sure Jim would be amenable to helping if you drop him an email. Sorry to hear that. Any idea who hacked the site? Any idea how they did it?

For the sake of credibility, I think Merritt needs to tell us how HE found out about the break-in. What was his "highly unusual source"?

Greg, this is a bit off-topic, but I recently tried to read Olmstead's writings on your website. When I googled "reopen JFK" however, and your website came up, it came up with a warning saying "This site may harm your computer." What's that about? Has the problem been fixed? I'm doing some research on the fingerprints, and was trying to build upon Olmstead's articles. But I can't risk my computer to do so. Thanks, Pat

In the HSCA report, it is noted that one of Oswald's co-workers placed Oswald downstairs at 12:00. While Eddie Piper said as much to the WC, the footnote for this statement is as follows: Interview of James Jarmen. Sept. 25, 1977, House Select Committee on Assassinations (JFK Document 003347); testimony James Jarmen, III Warren hearings, 201. This is no doubt James Jarman, one of the two men Oswald claimed to have seen on the first floor. Did Jarman in fact go back on his WC testimony, and confirm he saw Oswald on the first floor to the HSCA? Has anyone read this transcript?

IMO, Rankin was winging it, and was referring to the FBI Supplemental Report and not the autopsy protocol. He may even have been reporting something Redlich or Specter had told him about the FBI report, and had assumed it was in the autopsy report as well. There's certainly no evidence he spent much time studying the medical evidence. I believe this, in large part, because he later petitioned the commission, at Specter's urging, to allow Humes to review the photos, and determine the proper location for the back wound. If he'd looked at the photos, and knew already that the photos showed the back wound below the throat wound, he would not have done this. It follows then that the "picture" to which he refers in the 1-27 executive session was the face sheet.

Don, If you are familiar with the WC executive session transcripts, then you know a frag coming out the throat was being discussed ... near the end of January 1964. Seems they still had some things that needed to be figured out on the autopsy ... which is baloney, of course, if the autopsy report had actually been signed and delivered the weekend of the assassination. That's the tip off, imo, that the autopsy report we know and love as "the" autopsy report, was *not* the one signed, sealed and delivered that weekend in November. It's the January 27th session. Here's a link to the pages where this is discussed by Rankin and pals: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=69 And, of course, as late as April 1964, memos from the Zfilm conferences stated they expected to report three shots/three hits ... a stray bullet (Tague) and the SBT had not yet been born. Barb :-) Barb, I feel quite sure that the "throat wound was created by a skull fragment" story was never in an autopsy report, but was made up by the FBI to explain the throat wound before the FBI got around to reading the autopsy report. From chapter 1b at patspeer.com: "The confusion caused by the divergent accounts offered by the Parkland and Bethesda doctors was only exacerbated by the actions of the FBI. In mid-late December, even after Dallas Special Agent in Charge Gordon Shanklin had alerted Hoover that the FBI's report on the wounds could be in conflict with the official autopsy report, the FBI began pushing its own version of the President's wounds, one based not on the statements of the emergency room doctors, nor on the official report of the autopsy doctors, but on what Hoover's loyal FBI agents recalled hearing discussed at the autopsy, mixed-in with some pure speculation as to the cause of the otherwise unexplained throat wound. Even though the Zapruder film in its possession showed Kennedy reaching for his throat five seconds before his skull exploded, the FBI Supplemental Report of January 13, 1964 makes it clear the FBI believed that a fragment of the bullet striking Kennedy in the head created the throat wound. In a section on Kennedy's clothing, the report contains the following passage: "Medical examination of the President's body had revealed that the bullet which entered his back had penetrated to a distance of less than a finger length. There is a slit...in the overlap of the shirt the President was wearing...The slit has the characteristics of an exit hole...There is also a nick on the left side of the tie knot, which possibly was caused by the same projectile...The coat and shirt were x-rayed for metal fragments...but none were found...The Chief Pathologist at Bethesda Naval Hospital had advised that the projectile which had entered the President's skull region had disintegrated into at least 40 particles..." This unique assertion, not found in the FBI report possessed by the Justice Department and Warren Commission, nor in the autopsy report in the possession of the Navy and Secret Service, was, upon repetition in the news media, as good as a confession that Hoover (almost undoubtedly through DeLoach), or someone quoting Hoover or DeLoach, had been the original source for the story. Hoover's leaking of the report to let certain conclusions out to the press was almost casually mentioned in the December 14 column of Washington insider Drew Pearson. It seems likely, however, that Hoover had failed to fully realize just how noticeable his footprints had become.. A 12-18 article by Nate Haseltine in the Washington Post was the first to bear the mark of Hoover. Here it was reported that the autopsy pathologists had found that Kennedy could readily have survived the first bullet to strike him, and that this bullet was "found deep in his shoulder". Even worse, it was reported that a fragment of the second bullet, which "tore off the right rear portion of his head...was deflected and passed out the front of the throat." Now watch as Hoover's poison spreads. On 12-18, an article for the Associated Press repeats some, but not all, of the FBI's findings. Citing "a source fully acquainted with results of a post-mortem examination," it reported "The first shot struck Kennedy in the back, made what was described as a small neat hole, and penetrated two or three inches without damaging vital organs. The bullet may even have entered Kennedy's back after first glancing off some part of the presidential limousine, since its penetration was not deep when compared to the damage done by the other shots fired by the assassin...The second bullet to strike Mr. Kennedy --the third bullet fired--left a large hole in the back of the President's head, destroyed considerable brain tissue and severely damaged the forehead." Note that there is no mention of the throat wound here. This suggests that the writer of this article had not yet been briefed by the FBI. Tellingly, on 12-19, the next day, a follow-up article by the AP reported that Dr. James Beyer, who previously had argued that Kennedy's large head wound was not consistent with a military jacketed-bullet, repeated his assertions and built upon the previous day's conjecture that the first bullet to hit Kennedy hit the limousine first by guessing that the second one did as well. Beyer stated that "the slight instability imparted to the missile by the ricochet could have resulted in the large wound described." (Beyer's second- guessing of "official" autopsy results would boomerang back at him many years later when he would conduct an equally contested autopsy--that of Clinton lawyer Vince Foster.) Note that there is still no mention of the throat wound. These articles confirm then that the AP was not yet under Hoover's spell. But you can't keep a good leaker down... A column in the Washington Daily News by Richard Starnes on this day repeated the wound description given the Post the day before. No mention of a ricochet. More than a mention of a fragment exiting the throat. Starnes reported as fact that the first shot "struck the president high in the shoulder from behind, causing considerable damage to the massive muscles of the neck and shoulder. The second shot fired by the assassin struck Gov. John Connally. The third shot inflicted the wound that killed Mr. Kennedy by smashing away the back of his head. The confusion over the wounds was caused by a fragment of the third bullet that coursed down thru the President's head and exited thru his throat approximately at the collar line." The red flag indicating the FBI as the source of these leaks gets even redder, however, as we look at articles from the rest of the month. In the December 23 edition of Newsweek, an article quoted the supposedly secret FBI report extensively and said the bullet entering the right shoulder fell out, which left no explanation for the wound in the throat. The next week's Newsweek, however, cited the 12-18 article in the Washington Post, and reported that the throat wound was created by a fragment of the bullet creating the head wound. Similarly, the December 27 edition of Time stated that the "unofficial" word of the autopsy report had been released for a week and that it says a bullet struck Kennedy 6 inches below the collar line and fell out, and that the throat wound had been created by an exiting bullet fragment. A 12-30 U.S. News article followed suit, and claimed the autopsy "showed that the wound in his neck was caused by the exit of a splinter from the shot that struck the back of his head." A January 4, 1964 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association, moreover, repeated these assertions. As late as January 26, 1964, incredibly, even the great New York Times was still reporting that the first bullet fired lodged in Kennedy's shoulder, that the second bullet hit Connally, and that "The third bullet, according to an autopsy in Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland, ripped away a portion of the back of the President's head on the right side. Fragments from the bullets cut a wound in the president's throat and damaged the windshield of the limousine." But the New York Times was not the only news organization routinely mis-reporting the basic facts of the story of the century months after they should have known better. U.S. News and World Report, in its June 1, 1964 issue speculating on the Warren Commission's conclusions, asserted: "The official autopsy of the President's body the night of November 22 shows Mr. Kennedy was first hit in the right shoulder. A second bullet struck Texas Governor John Connally. A third hit the President's head and killed him. There was no fourth bullet." It then added "A wound in Mr. Kennedy's throat was caused by a fragment of the bullet which entered his head from behind." It took so long for the actual autopsy results to reach the public, in fact, that an entire motion picture, The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, was written and completed before the autopsy report's description of the wounds was made available to the public. Clearly basing their description of the wounds on the leaked FBI report, the film-makers depicted a Navy doctor reading from an autopsy report. He states: "Our examination reveals that the President was struck by two bullets. The first bullet struck the President in the back, just below the collarbone, and lodged in his body. The second bullet struck the President in the back of the head and fragmented. A splintered piece of the second bullet went through the President's neck and exited from the lower part of the neck." When asked about the bullets, the doctor in the film testified "We recovered one, the one bullet that had lodged in the upper shoulder." Officially, of course, the only intact bullet recovered was found in Dallas and the "missile" recovered at the autopsy was just a fragment recovered from the President's brain. To repeat, as no explanation for the neck wound was contained in the December 9 FBI report given to the Justice Department and Warren Commission, and as the published explanation for this wound was only offered in the FBI's January report, it seems doubtful that the Justice Department and/or Warren Commission were the sources for all these leaks about the neck wound, which started in December. It seems obvious from the nature of these mistakes then that the source of all this misinformation was in fact the FBI. It follows then that The FBI's refusal to look at the autopsy report in a timely manner, its continuing to champion outdated information in its December 9th and January 13th reports, and its decision to invent its own explanation for the throat wound ultimately backfired and fueled many of the conspiracy-oriented books which exploded on the market in 1966 and 1967. Not to be facetious, but perhaps the ever-suspicious Hoover should have had himself investigated as a possible communist."

Pat, Was the Chicago conference you are talking about sponsored by Jerry Rose/Third/Fourth Decade? Also, I would think the best resolution for all of the medical Parkland/Bathesda autopsy evidence is to just dig up the body and do it right with a proper Forensic Autopsy - with all of the new MRI, etc. advances in technology. Why argue about stuff that has lost its ability to be entered into evidence, when a new, proper, independent autopsy would answer all the questions and end all the arguments? And don't tell me that it will never happen because of the Kennedy family, as the family of the victim has no say as to procedures in the investigation of a homicide. Thanks for all you do, as I recognize the medical evidence is significant, Bill Kelly Yes, I think it was put on by Rose. He is one of the listed participants. Midwest Symposium on Assassination Politics April 1-4, 1993, Chicago, Illinois The participants Gary Aguilar, M.D. George D. Lundberg, M.D. Peter Dale Scott, Ph.D. Daniel Alcorn, J.D. David Mantik, M.D. Ph.D. Wayne S. Smith, Ph.D. Robert R. Artwohl, M.D. Philip H. Melanson, Ph.D. Dee D. Smith-Simmons James A. DiEugenio Marc Micozzi, M.D. Ph.D. Eugene Sturges, J.D. Roger Feinman, J.D. Wallace Milam Anthony Summers Gaeton J. Fonzi Robert Morrow Robert Tannenbaum, J.D. Jack Gordon, Ed.D. John M. Newman, Ph.D. Josiah Thompson, Ph.D. Judge Burt W. Griffin Carl Oglesby William Turner Paul L. Hoch Ph.D. Michael Parenti, Ph.D. Cyril H. Wecht, M.D. J.D. John Judge Jerry Policoff Michael H. West, D.D.S. Robert Blair Kaiser Jerry Rose, Ph.D. Leslie Wizelman J.D. John Latimer, M.D. Sc.D. Jane Rusconi Mark Zaid, J.D. James H. Lesar, J.D. Dick Russell David S. Lifton Gus Russo Edwin J. Lopez J.D. David E. Scheim, Ph.D. West was pretty much the ringleader for the LN side in the debate on the medical evidence... and he has since been proven a fraud, who would not hesitate to lie under oath...