Pat Speer

I just stumbled upon this thread. Yikes. While I don't believe Ayers' story about Pearl, I find no reason to think he made it up. It seems just as likely that there was a person named Pearl who made it up. As a result, I don't think it goes to his credibility. The more striking point, IMO, is that while WE have no reason to believe this aspect of Ayers' story, we cannot assume from this that Ayers is a xxxx. By saying as much, Tim is, ONCE AGAIN, showing blindness regarding his Republican heroes. He'll give credit to complete utter GARBAGE stories about Fabian Escalante being in Dealey Plaza, but mention that Dillon or Goldwater may have been involved and he loses all sense of proportion. What Mrs. Eisenhower said by no means destroys Ayers' credibility, only the likelihood of the truth of "Pearl's" statements. Tim is also wrong to state that Ayers' had some obligation to leave the "Pearl" story out of his book if he couldn't prove its truth. Utter malarkey. Ayers is telling HIS story, and to tell HIS story, he needs to express his fears, his suspicions, and to share his unresolved leads. If Ayers had left his suspicion that Goldwater was somehow involved out of his book he would have been short-changing those, including myself, who bought his book to hear HIS story. That said, I'd bet a night in Havana Tim actually communicated with Mrs. Eisenhower, as purported. BTW, BG was a complicated fella, much like Harry Truman. They were friends with crooks and had the backing of crooks but somehow got out clean (at least officially). Even so, the state of Arizona during the Goldwater era was notoriously corrupt, much as Nevada during the McCarran era. There was just too much money to be made from shady land deals, much of them made with the help of the US Government, and the BLM. You don't become a Senator from Nevada or Arizona without the backing of "developers," almost all looking for a Government hand-out of one kind or another. (Look at Hughes in Vegas.) It's the story of the west. The states bordering on California have been dipping their fingers in the money well for decades...particularly Nevada and Arizona. The mob built up Vegas to legally get Cali money from gaming and prostitution, and the mob in league with "respectable businessman" built up Arizona to legally get Cali money from cheap land and manufactured retirement resorts, etc... It's no mistake that Joe Bananas retired in Arizona.

This is of course true. However, I find it difficult to believe that KGB agents would have assassinated JFK or Mary Meyer. I do find it interesting that a member of the State Department should push this story of KGB involvement in the death of Meyer. Exactly, John. State Department 80's=Reaganite. CIA 80's=Casey devotee. Both would seem to have a vested interest in keeping the name of Ronald Reagan alive as the killer of that great evil--communism. Both are prone to blame the KGB for everything. They probably believe Helms' line that Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone were unwitting agents of the KGB as well. The KGB would have NO motive to kill Mary Meyer. She was the mother of Cord Meyer's children. The KGB and CIA observed certain codes of conduct. You can kill double-agents. You take agents alive and swap them back. You don't kill each other's wives. Would they want Meyer to start killing their wives on the streets of Moscow? Heck, no. The whole idea that the KGB would kill Meyer on the streets of Washington is IDIOTIC, and this guy is a fool for believing whatever spook said as much.

John B, Weyl was a member of this forum the last few years of his life. His old posts may be of interest.

Thanks, Bernice. When one considers that, within seconds of his being shot, Kennedy was laying on his left side, the bloodstains appear to be consistent with the official story. Amazingly, it seems possible Burkley never told Humes about the throat wound because he didn't know about it himself. He was, after all focusing his attention on Jackie and LBJ. He was then rushed onto a plane to Washington. So it's possible he never discussed the wounds with Perry or Clark, or heard about the press conference. If I'm forgetting some detail I trust Ashton will let us all know. The main thing I find questionable about Burkley has to do with the Harper fragment. The FBI showed it to him a few days after the assassination. He KNEW Humes hadn't yet performed the supplementary autopsy on the brain. The Harper fragment shows internal and external beveling, and suggests the wound near the temple was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. This would make the small entrance by the EOP a separate hit. I believe this is why Burkley said the brain might show proof of more than one bullet track. Which makes it hard to understand why he failed to tell Humes about the Harper fragment, and why he failed to personally supervise the sectioning of Kennedy's brain. I suspect LBJ or someone told Burkley that they didn't want to know, and that Burkley played along thinking someday the truth would come out. When he found out who was on the HSCA panel, and that the HSCA was gonna stand by the single-bullet theory, he figured it for another whitewash, and decided to withdraw his offer of telling all he knew. We might still find out what it was he wanted to tell them. His daughter refused to cooperate with the ARRB, but perhaps she'll find the files herself and someday write a book.

Let's be clear about this. I don't care if Ashton thinks Burkley did it or not. Burkley's behavior was mighty strange. But Burkley was not at the hospital when Kennedy arrived. Here is the transcript of Carrico's statement about Burkley's arrival. The "he" is clearly Burkley not Kennedy. Ashton has inserted "(the President)" in order to support his argument that Burkley was involved, which he claims is based on facts. Well, the fact is that Carrico is stating that Burkley got there as soon as he could, which implies he was not there at the beginning of Kennedy's treatment. If he was trying to say Burkley had been there all along he would have said "was there when Kennedy got to the hospital" or "within moments of Kennedy getting to the hospital." I know we've been over this but we'll never win debates with the likes of Bugliosi by misquoting testimony. Mr. SPECTER - You have described a number of doctors in the course of your testimony up to this point. Would you state what other doctors were present during the time the President was treated, to the best of your recollection? Dr. CARRICO - Well, I have already mentioned Dr. Don Curtis, the surgery resident; Martin White, an intern; Dr. Perry was there, Dr. Baxter, Dr. McClelland, a member of the surgery staff; Dr. Ronald Jones, chief surgery resident; Dr. Jenkins, chief of anesthesia; several other physicians whose names I can't remember at the present. Admiral Burkley, I believe was his name, the President's physician, was there as soon as he got to the hospital.

Good idea, John. This is an education forum and unfortunately all one could learn from that thread was how petty people can be. There's more than enough proof of that elsewhere.

I think the FDR hit story was made up after the Cermak hit, not before. There is strong evidence to suggest the Outfit did assasinate Cermak. Remember that Cermak had previously sent his own hit men (cops) who tried to kill Frank Nitti. Norman, I share your suspicion about Cermak. I was trying to point out the irony to Tim, since he's a fan of Russo's. Russo believes that Oswald killed JFK for Fidel, but that Jack Ruby's childhood friend Dave Yaras organized a mock assassination on FDR, in order to kill Cermak for the mob. Sounds a little inconsistent to me.

Good catch. Ironically, Gus Russo believes the mob faked an assassination attempt on Roosevelt in order to kill Cermak!

Tim, although I too have read Wecht's book and remember its representing that Peter was taken for a lot of money, I too assume this was an innocent mistake on Wecht's part. Clearly, this is a sore subject, which need not be discussed any further. While I do not doubt your motives, I suspect your reputation as provocateur would recede if you abstained from commenting about side-issues in threads about Republican wrong-doing, particularly when they reflect poorly on your old pal Karl. Certainly you can see why this disturbs more than a couple.

Tim, I have the video of Baden's testimony, and it's clear the hole on the back of the jacket is below the slits on the shirt collar. I have a photo of this in the Single Bullet Theory chapter at patspeer.com. There are also close-up photos of the collar in Weisberg's books and in Professor Mcknight's essay at Mary Ferrell. Some CTs, including Dr. Mantik have taken a look at the clothes and have conceded that the slits overlap and that they quite possibly represent an entrance or exit of some kind. The question is what kind. From what I can gather, the FBI's Robert Frazier conceded in one of Weisberg's FOIA suits that the slits may have indicated that the bullet was not traveling at a very high speed. This supports my theory that the throat wound was the exit of a subsonic bullet traveling down the neck. That said, I still want to hear Ashton out, as this is a rarely explored topic and there just might be a better answer out there somewhere. His theory conquers a few of the questions--why the hole was above the back wound, why this hole looked like an entrance, and why it was so small. I'm expecting him to try and say when the hole was created and how nobody noticed. As yourself, I'm skeptical of any widespread body alteration plot, particularly one occurring at Parkland. But if Ashton can figure out a way to make someone stabbing Kennedy in the throat plausible, I say give him the room to shake his stuff. (I do hope he keeps Clint Hill out of it, however.)

Ashton, what is the source of this anti-SF broadside? As stated on another thread, one of my oldest friends is a Major in SF. He speaks four languages, including Russian. He's been to Ranger school and has had additional training in parachuting, skiing, and underwater demolitions. SF is the force that goes behind enemy lines and helps build up resistance movements. They frequently work hand in hand with the CIA, on missions designed by the CIA. But they answer to the Pentagon, not the CIA. And, according to my friend, they are not trained in disinformation, brain-washing or mind control. He did volunteer, however, that MANY SF officers of the Vietnam era were sheep-dipped CIA officers. This obviously confuses the issue. So, it seems to me that Tom is either a sheep-dipped CIA officer, or is pulling your leg and refusing to answer your question because he thinks its ludicrous, and that you only discredit yourself by asking it over and over. P.S. I understand your basic point--that it's possible someone stabbed Kennedy in the throat, or injected something into his throat, and that this was a coup de grace of sorts. I think this is worth discussing. But letting yourself get sidetracked by Tom, who has his own point of view on this issue, and apparently thinks your perspective unworthy of discussion, ill-serves the discussion of this idea. IMHO.

Evidently, Ashton has been asking Tom over and over whether or not he received training in brainwashing techniques while serving as an officer in Special Forces (Green Berets). Well, one of my oldest and closest friends is a Major in Special Forces, so I asked him the same question. Here is his response: "I don't know of any training in brainwashing and coercive persuasion techniques, including but not limited to familiarity with works referenced in the CIA manual "KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation," as it relates to becoming an SF qualified NCO or officer. ---However, that being said, the CIA used to "sheep-dip" SF guys during Vietnam, ...on a regular basis... so some guys may have had such specific training. Sounds to me like the first guy (antagonist) is trying to bait the second guy (SF guy), and the SF guy is just trying to keep the jerk guessing, by just stringing him along." So, either Tom's SF experience was a shield for his actual status a CIA operative, or he's just stringing Ashton along. Everyone should feel free to make their own determination.

What about an entrance (or exit) for a smaller-caliber bullet, such as a .223? Precisely, Ray. My research has indicated the possibility it was the exit of a subsonic M-16 round, or .223, or the round of a .22 caliber equipped with a silencer

Now, I don't want to hurt your feelings, Ashton, but I actually agree with most of what you say. The immediate perception of Carrico and Perry was that it was an entrance wound, but studies have shown that emergency room doctors are frequently mistaken as to entrance and exit. Which is one of the reasons they have autopsies. You are also correct in that it may not have been a bullet wound of any kind. Harold Weisberg spent years studying the tie and shirt slits, and fully believed they were scalpel cuts made when the nurses cut off Kennedy's clothes. He fully believed that when the autopsy photos would be revealed, the wound would be high on Kennedy's throat, above the location of the tie. It wasn't. It seems quite possible the neck wound was a bone fragment or bullet fragment exit related to the back wound, as proposed by Tom Purvis, or the first of two head wounds, as proposed by myself. It was most certainly not an entrance or exit of a high-speed bullet as large as CE399.

Yes. It is my feeling that if BG was elected in 64, with his racist suck-up "states rights" agenda, the radical explosion in the late 60's would have been that much greater, and the silent majority would have turned around and voted for Wallace and LeMay in 68, which would only have exacerbated the situation. In short, I fear Barry would have led us into civil war.

Tim, I understand what you're saying, but think you would be better off putting your statements in a more solid context. It is true that BG's take it to 'em attitude might have prevailed, where LBJ's "wait for the generals" attitude failed, but it's also true that this might have provoked open hostility with China, and possibly a Soviet move in Berlin. There is NO reason to assume they would have just sat back and let Westmoreland, as a neo-Patton, just get in his tanks and drive to Hanoi. If you really believe winning the war in Vietnam was as easy as bomb 'em and invade, then I'm awfully glad you went to Wisconsin instead of West Point. I mean, what makes you think Ho's forces wouldn't have taken to the jungle and continued as guerrilla fighters for the next couple of decades? FWIW, I have read BG's autobios--both of them--and have also read Conscience of a Conservative. I respect BG above most every conservative to follow in his path. I dislike LBJ. But I am still glad BG wasn't elected in 64. In your heart of hearts I would guess you feel the same. After all, BG was pro-women's rights, pro-abortion rights and pro-gay rights. If he'd made that part of the Republican agenda in 64 and years after, the Repubs would have lost the religious right to the Dems, much as LBJ lost the Southern bigots to the Repubs with his pro-civil rights agenda. Imagine that--a world upside down--with Bible belters having to choose between which they hated more--baby-killers and fairies or ordinary common colored folk. As far as St. Reagan, you realize of course that, while his get-tough policies may have helped end our "I'll throw away the future of my country by spending money on wasteful weapon's systems" competition with the Soviets, he himself was mocked by the Bushies and the MIC when he wanted to actually reduce our military arsenal, and cut military spending. Since then, purportedly as a tribute to him, but really as a massive con on the American people, over a Trillion dollars-enough money to feed and educate every child in the world-has been spent on a weapons system that will almost certainly never need to be used. One can only hope that this "star wars" technology can one day be used to fight asteroids and meteors, so that we can justify its cost to mankind.

According to CD87, the Secret Service's report on the assassination, there is a film of the 11-27 re-enactment performed by John Joe Howlett, in which he asserted that the distance of the head shot was 260 feet. On 12-5, the SS performed another re-enactment, and somehow came to the conclusion the head shot distance was now 294 feet. Photographs presumably of this second re-enactment are in CD88. My question, which maybe Mr. Purvis can help me with: is the film of the first re-enactment available on any videos? I'm particularly interested in the part where J.C. Day lays the cones down to mark the wound locations. The follow-up question is, of course, how did the Secret Service come to such contradictory conclusions while using the same surveyor and the same source to establish the shot locations--the Zapruder film?

FWIW, I am totally willing to accept that GHWB was in the CIA in 1963, and was somehow involved in the assassination, whether through the CIA, Johnson, or DeMohrenschildt. Wouldn't surprise me at all. What would surprise me is that he was in Dealey Plaza. I mean, why would he be? Even as CIA Director he was not an operations guy. He was what by all reports he's always been, a loyal, friendly rich guy introducing one rich guy to another, smoothing things over and patting harder-working guys on the back. Sure, he'd been a pilot in WW2, but that didn't end so well, and the man hasn't got his hands dirty since. BTW, the clean cut guy in the photo could have been one of 100,000 clean cut Texans in 1963.

Tim, I think you're quite wrong on a number of points. One is that I'm fairly certain Goldwater DID advocate the use of "tactical nuclear" weapons in Vietnam, and anywhere there was a communist threat. His thoughts, and those of many on the right, was that the U.S. should use its nuclear advantage to its...advantage. I think Nixon felt the same way. They believed that if your adversaries knew, going in, that you would only use nukes as a last resort, then they would be much more aggressive. I think you're also wrong about "bombing them into the stone age." LBJ and Nixon both tried that. They found that, for every soldier they killed, two more enlisted. Please read the Pentagon Papers to get the exact numbers. This left them with bombing civilians as their last alternative. Thankfully, they both realized that non-stop bombing of civilians would ultimately hurt America's prestige, which was far more important internationally than some rice paddies in Asia. You're also wrong about 1973. Read the Palace File, Decent Interval, or even Caro's new book on Kissinger and Nixon. Nixon and Kissinger KNEW that North Vietnam would resume activity after a decent interval, which was designed to make it look like it wasn't our fault, but the fault of North Vietnamese aggression. We'd promised the South Vietnamese that we'd come to their rescue if such an event transpired, but had NO intention of keeping this promise. In fact, if I remember correctly, Ford fired Schlesinger after he made moves to defend the South Vietnamese. The historical fact, which Republicans seem unable to accept, is that Eisenhower got us into Nam, Kennedy tried to get us out, LBJ stupidly turned it into a land war, but then tried to get us out, and then Nixon committed treason and convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the peace talks. Then, after four more years of carnage, in which Nixon tried to back out without having it ruin his chances of re-election, he offered the South Vietnamese the SAME treaty he'd convinced them to walk away from in 68! Four years of war, a million or so dead, and nothing gained EXCEPT Nixon's re-election! Truly despicable, IMO. When one adds in the destabilization of Cambodia caused by Nixon's and Kissinger's strategies, and the millions who died as a result, I think it's fair to say that Nixon and Kissinger were two of the worst people of the second half of the twentieth century. Fortunately, for the world as well as their legacy, they DID make nice with the Chinese and the Soviets. So... it's tough to say... But they're certainly not good role models for the current administration...

Lifton and I were at the same screening, and we sorta tag-teamed Stone in the lobby afterwards. The film is annoying as... Stone sets you up by showing CTs in their element, discussing how and why they doubted the Warren Report. A lot of good footage in the first half. Towards the end, however, Stone turns the film over to Priscilla McMillan and Norman Mailer, and they SPEW a bunch of self-serving nonsense about how poor desperate Oswald knew his one shot at becoming famous was killing Kennedy, and he took it. GIGO. Give me a break!!!! I think it's Mailer that muses that Oswald was looking forward to his trial so he could tell the world WHY he did it. I groaned when I heard this nonsense. It made me sick. Yeah, of course, Oswald was looking forward to his trial--that's why he nearly fainted from disbelief when he found out he'd been charged! If Sartre is right about hell, hell for me will be my being locked in a room with blithering old fools like Mailer, McMillan, and Bugliosi telling me their take on the assassination. Their hell of course is being locked in a room with me, or posting on the ED Forum, and having us go at them like sharks.

I saw a preview for this the other night, and it looks pretty good. Films like this one and the recently released Shooter, which are informed by the Kennedy assassination, but not based on it, will do much to offset the Oswald-did-it-and-we-can-all-go-back-to-sleep attitude of Bugliosi's book, and HBO's upcoming series. Now, if we can only get a network to be as open-minded.

Come on, Dave, you know the code. To men like McAdams, Rahn, and Holland "Academic" = pre-disposed to trust the WC and HSCA, "non-Academic" means open-minded. If some of the good ole boys from alt.assassination.jfk joined this forum, I suspect Rahn would suddenly find it "Academic". Outside of DVP, there are few single-assassin theorists who will go into a lion's den such as this forum. It's too risky. While I suspect they'd score a few points here and there, they can't discuss the single-bullet theory, for example, without coming across like religious fanatics, and they know it. P.S. I'm assuming that Rahn's posts at alt.conspiracy.JFK are posts to alt.assassination.JFK that have been moved over. If he actually posts to alt.conspiracy.JFK he certainly has no reason to avoid this forum.

I think McCloy was actually Fortas' idea. It was later put out by LBJ that McCloy and Dulles were Bobby's ideas, if I recall, but LBJ is a known xxxx on these types of issues. His MO, as recorded by Acheson and others, was to ask someone what they thought about something he'd already decided upon, and then argue with them about it, and then tell everyone else it was that person's idea, once they agreed. You can see this kind of manipulation in his tape transcripts. For example, he lies and tells Warren that the other members of the commission all want him, and THEN calls Russell to tell him has has to be on the commission because he'd already told Warren he was on it, whereby Russell insists he'll never work with Warren and has no respect for him, only to be ordered to play along. LBJ was a master xxxx and manipulator. Another famous example of this was his handling of his swearing in. He wanted to be sworn in before the plane took off. It didn't need to be done, as the presidency automatically changes hands. While he may have felt it was better for the nation, it actually may have been better for the nation to have him sworn in on national TV after the funeral. In any event, he told everybody it was Bobby's idea he be sworn in, which really upset Bobby. The actual story appears to be that he called Bobby and told him that he was gonna be sworn in, and asked Bobby how to do it and make it official. Bobby called Katzenbach and got the info and called him back. While Bobby never voiced his opposition to the swearing in, it was not his idea and he was opposed to it. He wanted JFK to have, if only symbolically, one last flight as president. Instead, JFK's last ride was as a corpse in the back of LBJ's plane.

Tim, if you read up on this you'll see that the U.S. backed the coup in hopes that the new regime would be more stable, and that this would allow the U.S. to leave. You'll also see that JFK, after seeing what happened to the French, and after having had talks with MacArthur, was 100% committed to keeping ground troops out of Nam. (The RFK oral history is clear on this point.) Trying to blame JFK for Viet Nam is like blaming Clinton for Iraq. That dog don't hunt. In both cases we had a cautious president, aware of a sinkhole, followed by a gullible (and or vicious) believer in U.S. supremacy, naively thinking he could bomb a country into submission, and then have it be our friend. When one thinks about it, perhaps the success of that tactic in WW2 Germany and Japan, was more a curse than a blessing.

DiEugenio's piece is interesting, but at times off-balance. I, for one, don't see JFK's possible use of LSD as part of the post-assassination assassination. If anything, it makes him more sympathetic to today's youth. Does anyone remember if Bradley has ever commented on this particular aspect of the "diary"? And Peter, I think he reported Wecht's book accurately. I remember thinking, when you first joined the Forum, "Wow, that's the guy who got ripped off by that con man!" Maybe now that it's out in the open you can set the story straight.