Pat Speer

The advantage of the pistol theory is that it explains why no 11-22 witnesses saw anyone running or walking with a rifle. Long barreled pistols are more accurate. As a consequence, anyone believing there was a shot fired from the knoll would naturally lean to the possibility it was fired from a long barreled pistol. But you probably knew that already.

Jack, those are almost certainly the same woman. Look at the nose, the ears, the spot of gray in the left part of her hair. I've changed much more than that in my personal appearance over the years. My girlfriend can't even pick me out of my elementary school photos. (Out of 25 kids, I was her 5th choice.) There are pictures of me as an adult where I am unrecognizable to others as well.

Charles, when you say "watch your newspapers" I sincerely hope you mean that you're working on a positive development, and not contemplating a desperate act. While I agree with many of your views, I can not agree with your presumption that we can understand other men's souls, and judge their cognitive powers without error. There are many people who BELIEVE Oswald acted alone, with as much intensity and self-righteousness as we BELIEVE he did not. While history has shown that there is little chance we'll ever be able to convince them, it also has shown that if we take the argument to the public--much as Mark Lane once did--that we'll win over the next generation. I've found that one can reach newbies via Youtube and the IMDB forum for the film JFK. If we reach people before they get indoctrinated in the "Oswald did it" cult, there's a chance new members of the media will see things our way, and quit toeing the company line. If you want to make an impact you might want to take your efforts there. But--warning--no one anywhere is particularly swayed by "I'm right and if you disagree with me you're cognitively impaired" type arguments. It just doesn't play in Peoria.

From chapter 20 at patspeer.com This resistance to new perceptions has actually been tested. In 1949, in a landmark study performed by Jerome Bruner and Leo Postman, subjects were flashed playing cards, some of which had a wrong color, i.e. red spades, black diamonds. They found that people would always recognize a normal card within 350 milliseconds, but would fail to recognize what they called a "trick card" 10% of the time, even when given a full second. They found, furthermore, that as one was exposed to more "trick cards," the speed in which one could identify them drastically improved. This resistance has been studied by historians as well. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn published a landmark work of his own, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". As part of his study, Kuhn looked at the time lapse between the development of new scientific theories and their general acceptance by the scientist's peers. He found, amazingly, that very few scientists, once committed to a theory, have ever changed their minds and embraced the findings of another scientist, even if this scientist's new theory better answered the questions answered by their old theory. Kuhn relates: "Copernicanism made few converts for almost a century after Copernicus' death. Newton's work was not generally accepted, particularly on the Continent, for more than half a century after the Principia appeared. Priestley never accepted the oxygen theory, nor Lord Kelvin the electromagnetic theory, and so on. The difficulties of conversion have often been noted by the scientists themselves. Darwin, in a particularly perceptive passage at the end of the Origin of the Species, wrote: "Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume...,I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine...But I look with confidence to the future,--to young and rising naturalists, who will be able to view both sides of the question with impartiality." And Max Planck, surveying his own career in his Scientific Autobiography, sadly remarked that "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

My two cents. Cliff is overly quick to call others "intellectually dishonest." But he's also right as rain on this issue. The jacket does not bunch up remotely enough to support the single-bullet theory, Craig. If you think it does, you're welcome to try and show us how a coat's sticking out an inch at the back of the collar lifts a hole more than five inches below the top of this collar three inches higher on the back. The coat goes out and goes down. It does not fold over. The coat bunching drawing posted by Miles came from some fool's webpage (my own) and is a drawing created by Dr. John Lattimer, THE guru of the single-bullet theory. In order to make the jacket holes align with his proposed entrance--and the entrance used by Posner Bugliosi, etc--he has the jacket folding upwards at the back of Kennedy's head. Tell us, Craig, do you see Kennedy's clothing-remember the hole was in the same place on Kennedy's shirt--folding up at the back of his head, a la Lattimer> If not, are you willing to acknowledge that his drawing is a pathetic joke?

I think part of the "gray block" problem comes from the widespread use of the low resolution version of the film on the Sixth Floor website. I found the film as it was first released on MSNBC, here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17229693/ I'm still not so sure it's all legit, but the frames are a lot clearer and the "bunch" is not a rectangle.

Cliff, et al.: Is there alteration afoot here? Looks like someone added a strange Napoleon collar. OOPS - misspelled 'vertical' in the pic. You're right, Miles. That is most positively NOT the appearance of the frame from the Jefferies film when it caused all the hubbub upon first release. It appears someone has went back in and added that gray block to lift the collar. I was gonna say something about it earlier but these alteration threads get so annoying. Still, it needed to be said. Thanks. P.S. The object in question is the collar. It appears that the collar was visible but that someone added a block of gray to cover it up. I'm looking through all the versions on Youtube to see if the original film is there. P.P.S. I found a clearer version of the film on the MSNBC website, and it seems the gray blocks on the collar come from people blowing up the low res version on the sixth floor site.

Congratulations, Cliff, on successfully hijacking this thread. In chapters 11 and 12 at patspeer.com, as you know, I look into this, and show how the amount of bunching visible in the films is nowhere near as much as would be needed to support the single-bullet theory. Not even close. Bill is also right in that even the HSCA pathology panel concluded the back wound visible on the autopsy photos was too low to support the single-bullet theory, unless Kennedy was leaning sharply forward when struck. He never leans this far forward before he is hit. So how did the HSCA pathology panel explain this, one might ask? They didn't. Blakey hired someone else to do the dirty work, to figure out how a bullet trajectory that only made sense should Kennedy be folded forwards made sense when Kennedy wasn't folded forwards. he hired Thomas Canning from NASA to figure out the trajectory. Canning also failed. He knew it was impossible, and simply lifted the back wound an inch or so in his drawings to make things add up. This is demonstrated in chapter 11. The SBT didn't work then and it doesn't work now. As you know, Cliff, Dr. Chad tried to prove the "bunching" theory in that despicable TV program, Beyond the Magic Bullet. It's amazing how, when we started to nail him on his "errors", he sorta disappeared. I suspect he saw it, and knew it--the holes on the clothing alone should make one reject the single-bullet theory.

Thank you, Duncan, I rolled through this thread looking for one reasonable response, and found one.

Moore supported Ralph Nader in 2000, and felt his support for Nader only HELPED what he correctly perceives as the real enemy--the corporate puppet element of the Republican Party. He then swung the other way. To try to paint him as a DEM strategist and stooge is just nonsense. He would become a Republican in a heartbeat should they become pro-union, pro-choice, pro-environment, etc... As far as Olbermann and Mack, I'd bet the barn they are what they say they are--independent-minded guys entitled to their own opinions. In Gary's case, he took a job at a museum dedicated to telling the "official" story of the assassination. As soon as he did that, his own private views went on hold. This is why he monitors this forum but does not officially participate. How many of us, if offered a prime job, would not make a similar deal--access to the prime evidence, the ability to present this evidence to the public, the ability to shade public statements to better reflect your interpretation of the evidence, in exchange for your ability to mouth off on the internet? I suspect that's a deal most here would make. Like virtually EVERYONE interested in this case, Gary did some digging, and found a couple of things he felt had merit--badgeman, and the dictabelt evidence. He still stands by them, I believe. And like virtually EVERYONE with an interest in this case, he reached a point where the rest all became noise. He also became friends with cops and city leaders. You want to get an e-mail from Gary? Write something suggesting that any of the saintly people of Dallas did anything improper...and he'll send you an e-mail telling you you're wrong. But that doesn't mean he's an apologist or a paid defender of the "establishment", etc. A few years back, after one of their programs, the Discovery Channel (or was it the History Channel?) had an open chat with Mack. At least half of the people writing in were Posnerites, telling Gary that "we're glad the Discovery Channel (or History Channel) is finally showing all those idiot conspiracy theorists that there's nothing to this nonsense that Oswald did anything but act alone and the Warren Commission was a cover-up." Time after time, Gary asserted that there is a lot of evidence that points in the other direction. Time after time, he reminded them of the dicta-belt evidence, and the fact that the HSCA found for a probable conspiracy. In short, he refused to be their cheerleader, and urged them to learn more about the case before acting like such know-it-alls. That he even follows this forum, with all the paranoid blatherings about "disinformation agents," is to his credit, as sometimes something significant is brought forward.

Bernice, I didn't mean to imply that Hargis saw Chaney on the ramp. Since Tink and Mack and a whole lot of others want to believe it's all just a mistake, and that Chaney did what he said, just not when he said he did it, I was pointing out that Hargis could not have seen Chaney drive up on the ramp, as theorized, because he immediately pulled over in the plaza and ran up the knoll. I believe the DPD went on the defensive and tried to hide Chaney and Jackson's actions from the public.

Thanks, Tom, that's the same as at the top of CE 882. (I spent about an hour last night trying to read it.) So it does point to position A, and lists the z frames afterwards. I had myself half-convinced they were claiming that a shot had been fired at that position. Still, it's interesting that they plotted only one trajectory-the head shot, and measured it at 265 feet. Any ideas as to why the FBI went back a month later and had a new one created with the trajectories of two shots, one at 267 feet and one at 184 feet? Did West ever comment on this?

We have a number of men telling a story that Chaney sped up ahead and spoke to Curry immediately after the shots. We have photos that contradict this claim. NOW, either the photos, created by a number of apparently unrelated individuals and made available at different places and dates, are all doctored, for apparently no reason. OR, the men are telling a tale. As Chaney and Jackson BOTH slammed on their brakes and shirked their duties as "bodyguards" to the President, and as BOTH of them mysteriously disappeared from the record, and were NEVER interviewed by DPD, FBI, or WC, about their cowardice under fire, or self-preservation, whatever, it only makes sense that there was a concerted effort to hide their actions from the public. As Chaney was purportedly the SOLE member of the Dallas PD to talk to Jack Ruby between the assassination and Oswald's murder, it would only have made sense that he would be called to testify to the Warren Commission. No dice. This makes it even more obvious they were hiding him. Therefore, I suspect the Chaney sped ahead story is a tale designed to protect the reputation of the DPD. In our efforts at amateur crime-solving it can be easy to forget that the initial investigation was orchestrated primarily for POLITICAL purposes. We had a President who wanted everyone to know he wasn't a killer. Having police officers from his home state fail to protect his predecessor would have cast even more doubt on the man and his ears. Chaney and Jackson simply had to disappear.

You're right, Tom. West's plats effectively demonstrate that the FBI learned to whistle Specter's tune. I'm still curious about the top of West's plat from the re-enactment, the one closest to CE 882. I can't figure out what's up at the top in the trajectories box. Can you read the writing up at the top on West's plat? Does it say that the first trajectory--the one way too early,apparently around position A--represents? Were they really trying to pass that off as a shot location?

Thanks, Bernice. As stated in an earlier post, I looked into this awhile back and concluded that the DPD made up some sort of cover story that Chaney heroically raced up to the limo and then to Curry. Hargis pulled over just after the shots. He could not have possibly witnessed Chaney pulling up next to Curry on the on-ramp. He was therefore either repeating a story someone else told him, deliberately lying to protect Chaney, or telling the truth--in such case the photographic evidence has been faked. With Hargis, I vote option 1. In some of the others, option 2. We're all grown-ups here. We know that cops lie to protect each other all the time, and take PRIDE in it. As far as Ellis, he's not exactly reliable. From patspeer.com, chapter 6: Stavis Ellis was one of the motorcycle officers out in front of the lead car. (HSCA Vol. XII, p.23 “On August 5, 1978, the committee received information from former Dallas policeman Stavis Ellis that Ellis had also seen a missile hit the ground in the area of the motorcade…Ellis said he rode on a motorcycle alongside the first car…approximately 100 to 125 feet in front of the car carrying President Kennedy. Ellis said that just as he started down the hill of Elm Street, he looked back toward President Kennedy’s car and saw debris come up from the ground at a nearby curb. Ellis thought it was a fragment grenade. Ellis also said that President Kennedy turned around and looked over his shoulder. The second shot then hit him, and the third shot “blew his head up.” (The Kennedy Assassination Tapes, 1979) Officer A “when the first shot was fired, I was looking directly at the President, and I saw the concrete burst into a cloud of dust when the bullet hit the curb. I noticed, too, that with the shot, some people started running in every direction, while several people hit the ground…Then while looking back at the President, I heard the second shot. The President became rigid and grabbed his neck. It also seemed like the limousine stopped or almost stopped, and agents from the following car started running toward the President’s limousine. The third shot hit the President in the head.” (No More Silence p.142-l53, published 1998) “Just as I turned around, then the first shot went off. It hit back there…I could see where the shot came into the south side of the curb. It looked like it hit concrete or grass there in just a flash, and a bunch of junk flew up like a white or gray color dust or smoke coming out of the concrete…I thought there had been some people hit back there as people started falling. I thought either some crank had thrown a big “Baby John” firecracker and scared them causing them to jump down or else a fragmentation grenade had hit all those people. In any case they went down! Actually I think they threw themselves down in anticipation of another shot. As soon as I saw that, I turned around and rode up beside the chief’s car and BANG!...BANG!, two more shots went off, three shots in all!” Analysis: Ellis is a poster child for Selective Attribution Syndrome. Both conspiracy theorists and lone nut theorists love to use his comments about seeing something hit the curb as evidence there was a first shot miss. But they should read on. He says that as this happened people began running everywhere. That they began falling... He can only be referring to the head shot. What he saw hit the curb was possibly one of the skull fragments observed flying through the air by Charles Brehm and found in the street by Harry Holmes and A.D. McCurley. If this is so, then Ellis’s description of Kennedy reaching for his neck and the third shot striking the President in the head would appear to be more his assertion of what he believes happened, then what he saw happen. Sure enough, in Ellis’s statements to Larry Sneed in No More Silence, he admits he turned around after the first shot and therefore could not have seen what he is purported to have seen in Bowles’ book. His throwing in the “Bang Bang” at the end was probably poetic license but possibly a reflection that he did indeed hear one or two shots after the head shot. Not surprisingly, the Bell and Daniel films prove that Ellis was nowhere near the lead car at the time of the shots. Heard no early shots. One or more shots possibly after the head shot.

To clarify, Tom, it appears that the WC immediately disregarded Gauthier's and the SS's depiction of a head shot after Z-313, and had it re-interpreted on 2-7, and yet placed nothing in the record showing that they'd re-interpreted the shot locations. Is that correct? If so, it appears that the 5-24 re-enactment was performed in part to "correct" the FBI's earlier "mistakes" without ever putting anything in the record showing that the WC had already decided to disregard the earlier work of the SS and FBI. Now this could have been done for a number of reasons. One possibility is that they were trying to hide that they were 're-doing" work already done by the FBI, and were trying to save the SS and FBI, and the government as a whole, embarrassment. Another is that they were trying to hide that they were pushing an agenda, and forcing the FBI and SS to go along with a new pre-determined interpretation of events, against their will. Am I correct to believe that you suspect the latter? Also, I take from your articles on the information block of CE 882, that you have a clear version of it. Can you show us the top part, with the trajectories? It's different from the others and seems to show a shot around location A of the re-enactment.

Tink, I don't remember where or when, but sometime in the last few years, I looked through all the photos to try to make sense of Chaney's assertion, and came to the same conclusion as yourself--that he simply got it wrong. What was hard for me to grasp, however, was that several others supported his assertion--that he'd raced forward and talked to Curry. It then hit me that this could have been by design. As we now should all realize, the main objective of most everyone on 11-22-63 was to cover their rumps. As the shots rang out, Chaney and Jackson both slammed on their brakes. They were supposed to be protecting Kennedy, and yet they slammed on their brakes. This was an embarrassment to the DPD. I suspect that a decision was then made to hide this from the public. It seems way too big a coincidence that Chaney comes up with this whopper that he raced ahead of the limousine, and then is NEVER interviewed by the FBI or WC. Ditto for Jackson, who'd actually taken notes on the event in anticipation of his having to write a report or testify. Nope, nothing. Chaney and Jackson were never officially interviewed until more than a decade after the shooting, by which time they'd changed their stories to be more friendly to the "official" story. From patspeer.com, chapter 6: 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 quoted in That Day in Dallas) “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 bullet 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, as uh, it was apparent to me that we’re being fired upon. I went ahead of the President’s car to inform Chief Curry that the President had been hit…(The shot) it was back over my right shoulder.” Later in this interview Chaney mentioned “a third shot that was fired that (he) did not see hit the President” but that he did see “Governor Connally’s shirt erupt in blood..”. ((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.” (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.”

Exactly, Bringuier's involvement is smelly to say the least. Hmmm. the propaganda officer of an organization funded by the CIA just so happens to have an altercation with a Castro supporter, and TV cameras just so happen to be there, and then the propaganda officer just so happens to debate this "Castro supporter" on the radio, where it just so happens to come out that this "Castro supporter" was a former marine who defected to Russia. This just so happens to discredit the organization he was supposedly representing. And, oh yeah, it would also just so happen that this "Castro supporter" was the only member of the local chapter of this organization and that the FBI had targeted this organization to infiltrate and discredit. If anyone should be water-boarded at Guantanamo, it's Carlos. Not that I support water-boarding.

Tom, is it clear from the plat or West's recollections that the 267 foot trajectory is supposed to replace the 294 foot trajectory? Or is it possible that for one brief moment they thought there were four shots? Also, was there an FBI agent whose name was mentioned as arranging the 2/7/64 plat? Hoover had sent Gauthier's report, with its 307 foot final shot head shot, over to the Commission only two weeks earlier. I wonder who was second-guessing his work, and on whose behalf? I wonder if one or more of the Commissioners caught Gauthier's error after viewing the Z-film the week before, and asked the FBI and SS to fix their trajectories and at least be consistent. This would explain the sudden change and Howlett's involvement. The Warren Commission was a whitewash...That would explain why there's no record of this change in the Commission's records. (Of which I am aware. If anyone knows of an internal WC or FBI memo from this period asking that a change be made, please let us know...) Thanks once again for sharing this valuable information.

Thanks, Tom, for your input. I would like to make my chapter as clear as possible. So you're saying that the drawing with the two impacts, and included in the early FBI report, was based on the Time/Life study? Is this the same study that was reported in newspaper accounts and FBI memos as a Secret Service study? The newspaper accounts made it sound like the SS study was on the 27th? Did it really take place on the 26th? Also, did Howlett work with West on this study? or Breneman?

Tom, thanks for sharing. Very interesting. Since West heard four shots, and believed there was a conspiracy, you guys must have had some fun conversations.

In Jim Marrs' Crossfire, he quotes someone named L.R. Terry, who claims to have witnessed the shooting from near the fountain across the street from the TSBD. Does anyone know anything more about this person? Did anyone interview this person beyond Marrs? Or did this guy truly arrive from Marrs, and then just disappear?

Wade, I put a ton of information about these early surveys up in chapter 2 and 2b at patspeer.com. Tom, where can one see the 2/7/64 FBI survey plat? Is it in one of the FBI's reports? Thanks, Pat

Terry, Executive Action and Winter Kills are playing tonight at the Aero Theater in Santa Monica. FYI