Pat Speer

Terry, Paul May was on the Lancer Forum, if I recall, filling the role formerly held by David Von Pein: ardent LN supporter. He's but one guy offering his half-baked opinion. You needn't be worried that he represents anything larger. As far as his contention that Stone's movie was more than fair, that's the LN "moderate" slant. Max Holland wrote a critique of the movie of his website in which he attacked Stone's movie for letting Mark Lane and Josiah Thompson even talk. Stone responded with a defense of his film, and his assertion that not all CTs are liars, etc, and that they should be allowed to speak on camera, if only to show America how misguided they are. Thus, he's now presented as a moderate. Anyone familiar with Chomsky's (and/or Karl Rove's) theories regarding the building of a consensus should take notice.

Tosh, did you already make a post explaining the whole "Tosh is dead" story? I must have missed it. While I'm not sure if I believe everything you say, you've always behaved yourself on this forum, and I have no reason to believe you were behind some bogus story so you could watch your own funeral like Tom Sawyer.

Kucinich no longer (as if he ever had) has any chance of becoming the Dem nominee, why waste the debate time? Ya, Craig, why even bother to hold an election at all? Dawn Excuse me? The reason he's toast is because the voters don't want him. You think another debate will put him in contention? Look how well he did in Michigan .... I think the voters know exactly who he is and what he stands for and they are NOT voting for him in droves. Like it or not there comes a time to cut the wheat from the chaff. I see both sides of this issue. While letting low-visibility candidates participate in debates might waste time better used getting to know the other candidates, they should not be excluded until at least, say 20% of the voters have been heard from. To exclude candidates based on poor performances in New Hampshire and Iowa is RIDICULOUS. Ron Paul has, to date, received far more votes than Giuliani and Thompson. FAUX News had no business excluding him from the debate. It was shameful.

When I confronted Stone after the screening last summer, he insisted that the direction of the film was entirely his own, and that it wasn't tailored to fit anyone's agenda. He claimed he'd made the film and screened it as an independent, and that PBS didn't get involved until after it had been screened. I'm somewhat skeptical, but suspect he was telling the truth. This, of course, does not get PBS off the hook. Would it invest in a film that presented the evidence for a conspiracy? I think not.

I'm sorry if this is rehash, but when did you meet Barnes, and when did you last talk to him?

Occasionally one finds valid information by reading posts by LNs. A few years back , intrigued by Nixon's comment, I dug a little deeper, and found that the BBC took the famous "greatest hoax" quote out of context. (The full transcript was published by CNN.) Nixon was discussing the fact that liberals were able to ignore that Oswald was a leftist, and convince people that Kennedy was killed by right-wingers. This was the greatest hoax to which Nixon referred, not the Warren Report. While some might think this clears Nixon, not really... In Nixon's twisted mind, this media "hoax" allowed him to believe that the media was gonna try and blame him for Bremer's attempt on Wallace. This, in turn, allowed him to pretend his Colson-inspired plan to plant McGovern material in Bremer's apartment was a "defensive" act. CREEPy.

One of Bugliosi's biggest mistakes is his using the reports of "experts" to support his claims, even when these "experts" are certifiably out of touch with reality. Tonight, on HBO, Bugliosi's top expert on the medical evidence, Dr. Michael Baden, proved once again why his words are not to be trusted, and why Bugliosi was truly negligent in trusting his words. In a segment on the Kennedy assassination produced for the HBO program Autopsy, Dr. Michael Baden made a number of claims that were certifiably false and/or extremely doubtful. Here are but a sampling of them: 1. At roughly 3 minutes into the program, Baden discusses the initial press conference given by Kennedy's emergency room doctors. Baden says "In fact, the doctors down in Texas, where the shooting occurred, indicated he'd been shot in the back and in the front." The doctors, in fact, indicated no such thing. They described an entrance in Kennedy's throat and a large wound on the back of his head. They presumed this to be an exit for the bullet entering his throat. They said nothing to indicate the bullet causing this wound came from behind Kennedy. 2. A few minutes later, the program's narrator discusses the initial autopsy and states "Because the pathologist's notes were stained with blood, he burned them. After he found out that tracheotomy had been performed in Dallas, he tried to reconstitute his notes, based on what he could remember." This is nonsense. Dr. Humes, the pathologist in question, testified that he burned his notes only after copying them, and that he burned these notes after he found out about the tracheotomy. The implication that the initial autopsy report was in error because Dr. Humes couldn't remember what he saw is unjustified and undoubtedly deceptive, feeding into Dr. Baden's eventual conclusion that the mistakes in the autopsy report were all "innocent." 3. Shortly thereafter, when discussing the autopsy photos, Dr. Baden repeats the story of Floyd Riebe, a navy photographer whose camera was confiscated by the Secret Service. He then explains what he considers to be the poor quality of the photos by stating "The only one who was taking photographs was a Secret Service person who'd never taken autopsy photos before." This is frighteningly inaccurate. The lone autopsy photographer was John Stringer, the navy's top autopsy photographer, and Riebe's superior. In his memoirs, published nearly 20 years ago, Baden claimed the lone photographer was an FBI photographer. This incensed the original autopsists, Dr. James Humes and Dr. J. Thornton Boswell, to such an extent that they made a point of debunking Baden's claim and discussed Stringer's qualifications and abilities in a 1992 interview in the Journal of the American Medical Association. One would think Dr. Baden would remember his getting schooled in such a public fashion. 4. When complaining about the autopsy report, Dr. Baden goes on to claim that the autopsy doctors "did not make proper measurements of the bullet holes, did not properly describe the bullet holes as to entrance and exit." This last statement is a puzzle. The 1978 pathology panel led by Dr. Baden came to the exact same conclusions as the autopsy report, as to which holes were entrance and exit. Perhaps he was thinking of the original conclusions of the doctors on the night of the autopsy, as opposed to the report signed two days later. 5. When discussing the subsequent disappearance of Kennedy's brain, he injects "All the tissues from the autopsy...were all put into a steamer trunk and were given to Evelyn Lincoln, who was the President and Bobby Kennedy's secretary." This is a simple factual error. Evelyn Lincoln was never Robert Kennedy's secretary. Angie Novello was Robert Kennedy's secretary. 6. He compounds his error moments later, however, by discussing the subsequent moving of Kennedy's crypt and asserting "I later learned there was a ceremony at Arlington Cemetery around midnight, after the gravediggers were gone...at which time the brain and other tissues were placed next to the casket." This is pure moonshine. He "learned" of no such thing. While pictures have been published of a small box placed near the casket, researchers have demonstrated that this box most probably bore the remains of Kennedy's daughter, miscarried in the fifties, who was re-buried next to her father. 7. The program then moves on to Dr. Baden's 1978 testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations. When asked "Did the panel unanimously conclude that a bullet entered the upper right back of the President and exit from his neck?" in the testimony footage, Baden replies "Every member of the panel so concluded." This question and answer are deliberately deceptive, as they are meant to imply that everyone on the panel subscribed to the single-bullet theory. In fact, one of the panel's members, Dr. Cyril Wecht, staked his reputation that the single-bullet theory was false, and defied his colleagues to find one bullet purported to create as much damage as was purportedly created by the "magic" bullet, and has had no takers. 8. Finally, the segment of the show on the Kennedy assassination nears its conclusion. Baden pronounces: "There was only one shooter, Oswald. The Zapruder film on close analysis shows the first bullet miss and hit the curb of the road that the car was traveling." This is only the most IDIOTIC statement ever uttered by a supposed expert on the case. Not one analysis of the film, including those performed by the most zealot single-assassin theorists proposing Oswald acted alone, has claimed that a bullet strike on the curb is visible. Those holding that a first shot miss is detectable base their claims upon blurs on the film thought to coincide with rifle shots, and the behavior of a few of the witnesses. None have insinuated they could see the bullet hit a curb. Baden's contention therefore is indicative that he was making this stuff up as he went along, based on what he could remember, and that NO ONE at HBO thought to run this show by anyone with even a smidgen of knowledge about the case. 9. But he wasn't done. To combat the argument that Kennedy's back-and-to-the-left motion after the head shot indicated a shot was fired from the front, Baden argues "Subsequent experiments show, and subsequent experience with people being shot do show that when someone is shot from the front they can go front or back--sometimes front, sometimes back. It isn't predictable what way the body is gonna go." Now I've read up on this issue extensively, and have not heard of any such experiments. As a result, I suspect Baden is just making it up. (If the reader is aware of such a study please bring it to my attention.) Perhaps Dr. Baden was thinking of the experiments conducted by Dr. John Lattimer, which showed that skulls shot off of ladders flew back towards the shooter. Many single-assassin theorists cite this to refute the frequent argument that the back-and-to-the-left movement indicates a shot came from the front. The problem is that this experiment was subsequently performed with the skulls nailed to the ladders, to eliminate the possibility they were recoiling off the ladders, and the skulls and ladders thereafter always fell forward. In short, Dr. Baden's latest attempt at closing the case was pathetic and embarrassing. Only adding to the circus-like atmosphere of the program was that he followed his examination of the Kennedy case with his examination of his role in the O.J. Simpson trial. In this segment, he spoke eloquently about the need for the government to prove its case beyond all shadow of a doubt, and how everyone deserves a fair trial. Perhaps if he'd received the hundred thousand dollars paid to him by Simpson from the Oswald family he'd have come to see how the government has failed to prove its case against Oswald, far more than it ever failed to prove its case against Simpson.

When I met him he said it was Brownlow, and said he was standing in front of the Dal-Tex on the curb by his grandmother, not in the middle of Elm by himself. He said he could be seen in the Altgens photo.

Charles, I share your sentiment that this country is probably headed down the tubes and that this devolution was accelerated by events in 63 and 68. On the other hand, my interest of late has been elsewhere. Here, within the next month, we may have a relatively young and liberal black man become the front-runner for the presidency. I keep thinking... if this comes to pass, who will kill him, and who will we be told is responsible? Is an LHO2 or Sirhan Sirhan II being manufactured as we speak? If so, is there any way we can stop him?

Peter, there are a few notable differences between the assassinations as well, that make me optimistic this one will reach a better resolve. 1. After the release of the Pakistani "Zapruder" film, showing that Bhutto had collapsed during the shots and BEFORE the explosion, and had not hit her head on the car, the Pakistani government reversed itself and acknowledged that their earlier pronouncement that she hit her head on the car was pure guesswork, and obviously wrong. 2. The Pakistani doctors spoke up and made clear that their inspection was not a forensic one, and that a thorough autopsy needed to be performed. 3. The failure to perform an autopsy is chiefly and openly the fault of Bhutto's husband, who is blatantly hoping that he can use the mysterious circumstances of her death to imply that Musharraf was the mastermind, and win the upcoming elections with a "sympathy" vote. If he really gave a damn who killed his wife, he'd be campaigning to have his own doctors perform an autopsy. Since he is impeding the investigation and trying to use her death for his own gain, astonishingly, one cannot rule out that he was somehow involved. 4. The Pakistani government has requested the help of Scotland Yard. While this could just be for show, it's certainly possible this was done in good faith. I suspect that a proper autopsy, once performed, will indicate that she was killed by the second of three shots fired, and that this shot deflected off the back right side of her head above her right ear. This would explain the wide area of damage, the lack of an entrance wound, the lifting of the scarf in the video, and the lack of a bullet. Ironically, the fatal shot at 313 killed Kennedy in a similar fashion.

Excellent, James. These photos are all clearly the same guy.

Hello John, I loved your book. In your book you mentioned Ramparts Magazine and its investigations. Did you ever come in contact with David Welsh? He wrote an article with William Turner entitled The Inquest in which it is asserted that one of the Parkland nurses said that the attempt to insert a trachea tube pushed out the back of JFK's head. If true, this is incredibly significant. I contacted Turner and he said that this part of the article came from Welsh and that he'd lost contact with Welsh. Did you speak to Welsh, and if so, could you contact him and find out where this bit came from?

The perception in the U.S. is that Musharraf takes our money but is his own man. It seems reasonable to believe he killed Bhutto without first okaying it with the lame-duck George Bush.

The similarities between the JFK and Bhutto case keep growing. Note that Bhutto was supposed to meet with two Americans that evening, and give them a report on the Pakistani Intelligence agency's assault on democracy. Note that the two Americans were Patrick Kennedy and ARLEN SPECTER!!!! Can it get any creepier? Bhutto report: Musharraf planned to fix elections By Saeed Shah | McClatchy Newspapers * Posted on Monday, December 31, 2007 * email * | * print tool name close tool goes here NAUDERO, Pakistan — The day she was assassinated last Thursday, Benazir Bhutto had planned to reveal new evidence alleging the involvement of Pakistan's intelligence agencies in rigging the country's upcoming elections, an aide said Monday. Bhutto had been due to meet U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to hand over a report charging that the military Inter-Services Intelligence agency was planning to fix the polls in the favor of President Pervez Musharraf. Safraz Khan Lashari, a member of the Pakistan People's Party election monitoring unit, said the report was "very sensitive" and that the party wanted to initially share it with trusted American politicians rather than the Bush administration, which is seen here as strongly backing Musharraf. "It was compiled from sources within the (intelligence) services who were working directly with Benazir Bhutto," Lashari said, speaking Monday at Bhutto's house in her ancestral village of Naudero, where her husband and children continued to mourn her death. The ISI had no official comment. However, an agency official, speaking only on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak on the subject, dismissed the allegations as "a lot of talk but not much substance." Musharraf has been highly critical of those who allege that his regime is involved in electoral manipulation. "Now when they lose, they'll have a good rationale: that it is all rigged, it is all fraud," he said in November. "In Pakistan, the loser always cries." According to Lashari, the document includes information on a "safe house" allegedly being run by the ISI in a central neighborhood of Islamabad, the alleged headquarters of the rigging operation. It names as the head of the unit a brigadier general recently retired from the ISI, who was secretly assigned to run the rigging operation, Lashari said. It charges that he was working in tandem with the head of a civilian intelligence agency. Before her return to Pakistan, Bhutto, in a letter to Musharraf, had named the intelligence official as one of the men she accused of plotting to kill her. Lashari said the report claimed that U.S. aid money was being used to fix the elections. Ballots stamped in favor of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, which supports Musharraf, were to be produced by the intelligence agencies in about 100 parliamentary constituencies. "They diverted money from aid activities. We had evidence of where they were spending the money," Lashari said. Lashari, who formerly taught environmental economics at Britain's Cranfield University, said the effort was directed at constituencies where the result was likely to be decided by a small margin, so it wouldn't be obvious. Bhutto was due to meet Specter and Kennedy after dinner last Thursday. She was shot as she left an election rally in Rawalpindi early that evening. Pakistan's government claims instead that she was thrown against the lever of her car's sunroof, fracturing her skull. (Shah is a McClatchy special correspondent.) McClatchy Newspapers 2007

I read Kelin's book when it first came out, and am gratified to see it is finally getting some attention. It is well-written, and includes a lot of background on the early researchers. For those, like myself, intrigued by not only what happened in Dallas, but how the official story has changed, and the public's perception has changed, this book is a real treasure. I'd like to see it turned into an HBO movie...oh, that's right, HBO has poured all its money and credibility into Bugliosi's book telling us these early researchers were all sorely misguided and/or cranks. The war drags on.

Three experiences that sum up my attitudes towards the U.S. health care system, 1. I had a girlfriend in my 20's who hurt her back while lifting an object at work. The doctor recommended by the company at first prescribed rest. When her pain persisted, he told the company she was faking, and to stop paying her disability. She then went to another doctor who suggested a chiropractor. She visited the chiropractor for months, and did not improve. Finally, she went to a doctor who theorized that lifting the heavy object had displaced some ribs and that one of the ribs was now pinching a nerve. He proposed that they remove a few inches of the rib. The company refused to pay for the operation. Eventually, the operation was performed and it worked. If I recall, she successfully sued and got the company to pay for it. The lesson I took from this was that doctors are professional guessers, and that the "science" behind their opinions was greatly exaggerated. I also saw how tempting it was for companies disinclined to pay injured employees to "trust" the one doctor who would tell them the patient was faking. This led me to believe universal health care would be an improvement. If not for her parents' money, which paid for the one doctor to actually help her, Gina would probably still be crippled by back pain, and unable to function in society. 2. My grandmother had a weak heart her whole life. Finally, in her sixties, a doctor took a look at her and decided she was a good risk for a quintuple by-pass. The operation was successful. She had a renewed energy. After about ten years, however, her other organs started failing, and she was on her death bed. She put herself on a do not code list--which meant that, if her heart should stop--the doctors were not to revive her. Her heart stopped. The doctors revived her. My mother, who'd flown out to spend these last days with my grandmother, asked the doctors why. Well, a doctor said, after overseeing her heart by-pass only ten years earlier, he wasn't about to let her cause of death be listed as heart failure. My mom was totally disgusted. She was a retired nurse, but was still working as a volunteer. After that, she stopped volunteering at her local hospital. The arrogance of this doctor had forced my grandmother--who'd said her good-byes and was at peace--to spend her last few months in a drug-induced stupor, barely able to recognize family members or make coherent sentences. This also cost the government a small fortune, no doubt. 3. Finally, an HMO horror story. When my former employer went belly-up in 2001, the employees were allowed to continue their health insurance via the Cobra plan, through which we could retain our insurance for 18 months after termination. Many of us took comfort in this and continued making our payments. In February of 2002, however, I received notice that, as of December 1, 2001, I had lost my coverage. The HMO, Pacificare if I recall, said that Cobra was only good for six months after a company was officially bankrupt, and that this had come to pass in December. I wrote them and demanded a refund for my December and January payments. No response. I called them and finally got through to someone who said they would look into it and return my payments. No response. I called up one of my former co-workers, who explained that she had been to the doctor a number of times in December and January, as she had tried to get some long-time ailments taken care of while she still had coverage. She said the HMO was now refusing to pay her doctors, and her doctors were preparing to sue her. From this, it became clear to me that someone at the HMO was monitoring the activities of my co-workers and myself. As long as we were making our payments and not actually using our insurance, they were providing us coverage. Once Diana (and possibly others) began running up the bills, however, they cut us off, RETROACTIVELY. After another phone call, and a veiled threat, I was finally reimbursed for the two months of payments wrongly accepted by the HMO (without the nine months of interest they'd collected on my money, of course). I never talked to my co-worker again so I don't know how her saga played out. So, needless to say, I hate HMOs, and am 100% behind the U.S. getting some form of universal health care... I mean, we have socialized Fire Departments, socialized Police Departments, socialized garbage pick-up in most major cities...why not socialized health care? There is no reason whatsoever beyond one reason...GREED.

When it comes to the assassination, some people are just blind--and are unable to see what should seem obvious even though they have no obvious reason to do so. In Dallek's most recent book, he comes to the conclusion that Nixon interfered with the 1968 Peace Talks, and was basically a traitor. In Legacy of Ashes, Weiner gets into the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, and cites a 2001 NSA history (initially withheld by the Bush Administration--I wonder why) admitting that the United States fired first in the first Gulf of Tonkin incident and that the second one never happened. In other words, he holds that the NSA knew our purported reason for escalating the Vietnam conflict was untrue. As a result of these books, I don't think anyone should assume Dallek and Weiner are right-wing lackeys or water-carriers. They're just wrong about JFK.

Has anyone zoomed in on the sixth floor windows in McIntyre? The windows look a bit irregular. You don't suppose anyone was looking out on his handiwork, do you?

An argument that Oswald fired at Walker is an argument that he did not fire at Kennedy. The idea that Oswald believed Kennedy=Walker and both needed killing is embarrassingly stupid, and is indicative of the contempt the WC felt for the American people. If Oswald was a true anarchist, and hated all authority figures, then he would have followed his fellow anarchists and proudly admitted his guilt. In short, Tim, there is no historical basis for your belief that Oswald's shooting at Walker increases the possibility he shot at Kennedy. Would an NRA activist who took a shot at Michael Moore be a likely suspect in the murder of Rush Limbaugh? Not hardly. Just the opposite. One would have to suspect he'd been set up, particularly if he insisted just that when given the chance to brag about his crime.

Tim, while such a demonstration would be useful, it would almost certainly be ignored by the no conspiracy faithful (including the media). In part 3 of my video series, I placed a 14 cm object at the right tip of my mastoid process to show where the autopsy measurements placed the back wound. It is clearly on the back, on the same level as the throat wound. As I am 6'4 to Kennedy's 6'0 moreover, it suggests the wound was BELOW the throat wound. Just as the HSCA pathology panel said. Even so, Bugliosi and his faithful continue to claim the left lateral autopsy photo PROVES the back wound was above the throat wound, and the measurements be damned! This is looneytunes! They readily admit this photo does not even show the back wound, but insist that they, not unlike Carson's Karnak the Magnificent, can readily tell the locations of wounds, even in photos where the wounds are not visible!

But, Pat, that's precisely what you've done - cherry-picked them to support the proposition that the films are genuine. The pattern in eyewitness statements is quite clear. They're refashioned, chiefly by the FBI, to support the films. If the films were genuine, there would have been no such need. Quite the wrong way round: the eyewitness statements make nonsense of the films! And here's the rub - the films don't match Altgens #5. Paul Paul, this is not true. One can hardly call creating the largest database of witness statements "cherry-picking." I also do not argue that the statements prove the films genuine, and collect quotes to support that position. I merely note, here as elsewhere, that the x-rays and autopsy photos match, and that the medical evidence, when viewed in conjunction with the Z-film, suggests more than one shooter. The question then follows--why would the government fake evidence that suggests a conspiracy? As far as Altgens #5, I haven't been following that discussion but suspect someone's mis-interpreting something. I receive emails from people who think Hickey fired a gun, and others claiming Altgens shows a hole in the windshield. People have a way of talking themselves into believing all sorts of things. I'm not different. I just doubt myself more than most.

Jack, I think this is incorrect. Can you cite one case in history where a defense attorney successfully used eyewitness statements to demonstrate a photo offered by the prosecution had been faked? I'd be greatly interested in reading about such a case should one exist. Eyewitness testimony IS notoriously unreliable. BUT, the sheer number of eyewitnesses in this case makes it hard to refute some simple facts apparent from reading ALL the statements (and not cherry-picking them), e.g. the first shot heard by most witnesses did not miss Kennedy, and was not fired prior to Z-188.

Those interested in this thread may wish to read chapters 5 through 9 at patspeer.com. I go through the witnesses one by one, and correlate their statements to the Zapruder film, and show how the evidence is inconsistent with the currently popular single-assassin scenario, particularly the first shot miss. Yes, of course, there are inconsistencies in the statements, but one can cull some truth from them, as long as one fights the desire to cherry-pick the evidence to prove a point. The films prove that Chaney didn't pull his scooter forward of the limo. The Nix film proves that Chaney and Jackson slammed on their brakes at the moment of the head shot (their actions caused others to stop as well--which is why people believed the motorcade stopped). Methinks a story was invented to cover up their failure to respond--after all, neither Chaney or Jackson were called to make statements by the DPD, the FBI, or the WC, and when they were finally called by the FBI, in the 70's, they completely changed their stories! My, what a coincidence! Chaney and Jackson's statements from patspeer.com 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.” Analysis: it seems apparent that Chaney initially believed the first shot missed the President, the second shot hit the President in the face, and the third hit Connally. Chaney’s statement that Kennedy looked back over his left shoulder, however, indicates the first shot was a hit, as Kennedy only leaned to the left after being hit. Baker’s testimony, in fact, indicates Chaney re-appraised this initial impression. That Chaney, the closest witness behind Kennedy at the time of the head shot, believed there was a shot after the head shot, is undoubtedly intriguing. As he saw no impact from this final shot on the President, perhaps his eyes strayed to Connally as Connally was being pulled down in the seat by his wife. If this is so, then Chaney’s statements are consistent with those of Greer, Kellerman, and Martin. In any event, it seems clear that by 1975 Chaney had changed his views again and was now attempting to support the official story. Chaney may have come to believe his initial impressions were wrong and have “corrected” them once again. In light of Chaney’s earliest statements, and Baker’s testimony, and his looking to his left in the Altgens photo corresponding to Z-255 when he says he looked to his left after the first shot, Chaney’s 1975 statements about the shots being evenly spaced and the head shot coming last can not be trusted. First shot hit 190-224. Last shot after the head shot. 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.” Analysis: while on the surface, Jackson’s statements might seem to support the LPM theory, they do not. While his statements make it sound like there was a first shot miss as they turned the corner, that Connally was hit by the second shot and looked to his right, and that there was a final headshot, there are holes in this. First, at what point does Connally turn far enough to his right to look at Jackson? Not until Z-280 or so. Is that when Jackson heard the second shot? And, at what point does Jackson stop his motorcycle? While Jackson says it was after the second shot, the Nix film shows that Jackson only slowed his motorcycle after Kennedy was struck in the head! This could indicate that Jackson heard a shot (a first shot hit) looked around, looked back to Connally, heard the head shot, slammed on his brakes, and heard the third shot as he looked up and saw the President’s wounds. Still, since he distinctly remembered seeing a piece of the President’s skull fly away, it would seem he saw the actual impact. This raises the possibility that he heard a shot, looked around, saw Connally jerk to his right and then fall back into the car after being hit by a silent bullet, saw the President’s head explode, heard a shot, slammed on his brakes, and looked back to the President as a third shot rang out, but then got himself mixed-up when he tried to make sense of the movements and the shots. Another possibility is that he was simply mistaken about when he stopped his motorcycle in relation to the shots. In any regard, one can not honestly say his statements support the LPM theory. Even so, his notes are significant in that his initial impression of the fatal shot was that Kennedy had been hit above the right ear. That neither of the two men closest behind the President, James Chaney and Douglas Jackson, saw an impact on the back of Kennedy’s head at frame 313 is undoubtedly suggestive that the bullet at Z-313 did not enter the back of Kennedy’s head. Strangely, despite having been one of the closest witnesses, Jackson was not interviewed by Hoover’s FBI after the assassination, nor was he called before the Warren Commission. Possible LPM scenario. Possible first shot hit 190-224. Last two shots possibly bunched together (with the last shot after the head shot).

There is, actually, an error in his argument. He lays out 4 possibilities and treats them as if they are rolls of the dice, equally likely. If one grants this is true, then his "better safe than sorry" argument makes sense. In the eyes of the scientists arguing about this, however, they are not equally likely, and one seems more likely than the other. I believe we should keep our eyes wide open. If our behavior is causing global warming, the trend will continue, and accelerate as large blocks of ice break off from the poles. All reports indicate this is happening. Antarctica is melting way ahead of anyone's expectations. We should act therefore under the assumption global warming is a fact, but be prepared to change policy should it appear the warming trend is unrelated to our activities. I guess I have a problem with "better safe than sorry" arguments in general. I heard this argument a lot growing up by people trying to explain why they "believed" in God. Since that time I've heard it as a rationalization for the "war on terror" etc. If one possibility is slightly likely, and one possibility is highly likely, the "better safe than sorry" argument is a tragic mistake. One should not build a giant net above the earth in order to catch a falling star, although the "better safe than sorry" argument suggests one should. One should not invade a sovereign nation that "may" have a nuclear program, although the "better safe than sorry" argument suggests one should.

I'd bet money Rowland saw Williams and Norman on the fifth floor, and incorrectly remembered it being the sixth. Note that he makes no mention of seeing Williams and Norman on the fifth, in the windows just below the window he'd supposedly been focusing upon. His wife recalled seeing some black men but thought they were on the fourth, if I recall. That still leaves open the question of who Rowland saw in the west window. Did Oswald (or his impostor) think about using the west window before settling on the sniper's nest? IMO, Eddie Piper is not only not a suspect, but one of the most reliable witnesses suggesting Oswald's innocence. From day one he swore he spoke to Oswald on the first floor around 12:00--which was AFTER Givens supposedly saw Oswald upstairs. One of the biggest and most blatant holes in both the WC's and Bugliosi's argument is that they both prop up the drug-using, story-changing, and basically unreliable Givens, and dismiss Piper's (and Shelley's) statements. If Oswald had been allowed a defense he would have grown fat on this.