Pat Speer

I found Busby's memoir in a used book store and picked it up for a few bucks. I found it quite engrossing. It has a few little bombshells on which the CT community can feast. I don't remember anyone writing about these when the book came out. When writing about 11-22, he says that he believed the motorcade and Texas trip were gonna be the end of the road for LBJ. He writes that LBJ's staff had been hearing rumors that on the night of the 22nd JFK was gonna lower the boom and tell Lyndon he was off the ticket. He says that they originally thought these rumors were coming from the White House, but found that they were coming from Yarbrough's people. Busby felt that driving through Dallas in a motorcade was unwise, and that something was gonna happen--someone would throw something or some protesters would get in the way of the car--and that this, along with LBJ's inability to bring peace and cohesion to the Texas Democratic Party, would be used as a pretext to force Lyndon from the ticket. LNTs, of course, have long insisted that LBJ was definitely gonna be on the ticket, and that speculation he would be forced from the ticket was conspiracy nonsense, and here we have one of LBJ's closest advisers stating that he thought LBJ was done for! Amazing. Did this get any press when it came out? The book was found in a cardboard box after Busby died. I suspect he saw that his concerns re the motorcade were gonna feed suspicions of conspiracy, and that this hindered his completion of the book. Busby's book is also informative re LBJ's state of mind in the days following the assassination. He explains how LBJ was concerned that any talk of conspiracy would come right back at him. He also explains how the Russians played "Me no Alamo." Evidently, the Mexican soldiers captured by Sam Houston after the Battle of the Alamo wanted their captors to know that they weren't personally involved in the massacre, and would cry out in protest "Me no Alamo." Within days of the assassination, the Russians presented LBJ with a file on Oswald, designed to convince him they weren't involved, thus "Me No Alamo!" Anyhow, if you come across the book for cheap or in a Library, you may find it worth a gander.

Tim, there are a number of documents connecting Harvey to Zr/Rifle etc. There were also assassination lists found in the CIA files for both the Guatemala and Cuba Ops, so some assassination documents do exist.

You mention that as if you're proud of the fact that the spineless leaders of the Repubs turned on one of their own just when he needed them most. These men all depended on Craig, but now that it seems he's infected with the homo-virus they're all running for the hills. Pathetic. He claimed he did nothing wrong and that he had pled guilty to try and avoid a scandal. Why didn't ANY of his "friends' believe him? BECAUSE THEY"D ALL KNOWN HE WAS GAY FOR A LONG LONG TIME! The real scandal isn't that one closeted gay man reached out (literally) in a public bathroom, it's that his fellow Repubs all knew he was gay, and pretended he wasn't, so their party could position itself as the party of family values blah blah blah. The Republican party at this point in time has become a party without a soul. It lies to the middle-class to get their vote. It cuts deals with the wealthy to get their cash. It represents little beyond power, corruption, and the idolatry of incompetence. I hope either Ron Paul or Mike Huckabee get the nomination. While I don't agree with their views, I get the feeling they actually believe what they say, and are willing to stand by it.

The EOP is a small bump in the middle of the back of the head. It is just below the far back of the head, when the head is held erect; it usually resides around the level of the middle of the ear in this position. It is slightly above the hairline on most men. The small entrance wound described at autopsy was an inch to the right of this bump, and slightly above. Later, some doctors decided, after looking at the photos, that the wound was really 4 inches above this location, and in a different bone. The autopsy doctors swore by the location they described at autopsy. Chaos ensued. Dweebs like myself got wind of this chaos and started writing about it, hoping to exploit this controversy in order to re-open the case. Never mind, says Bugliosi, the "experts" aren't mistaken, the "experts" aren't lying; of course the autopsy doctors made a mistake; they were, after all in a hurry. And of course they lied about it later to protect their reputations. But that doesn't mean they were incompetent, or liars, no, we can't have that or we'd have a legitimate case for exhumation, so, no, they weren't incompetent, or liars. Major media sources swallow this foot-wide sleeping pill in one gulp, in the name of giving a man whose murder has been witnessed millions of times, and whose murder remains unsolved, some measure of sleep. It is they who are the happy recipients of this sleep, IMO.

FWIW, Thomas, I have written my congressman, Brad Sherman, on two different occasions. I have also contacted two former members of the HSCA, and the local FBI office. I have never received a response. This is entirely old news to them. They don't care. To them, we're like those people still thinking there's vets held captive in Nam. Nice to meet you, now move aside.

I haven't read every post in this thread, but, by the looks of it, it seems to be another, 'how dare someone not be a true believer" thread. Wow. Aren't there enough of those about Tim Gratz? Why is it that some feel there should be groupthink on the facts surrounding mysterious events? What is gained by that? In the 70s the liberal elite (basically those capable of thinking) gained a near consensus regarding women's rights, gay rights, the wrongness of American imperialism, and the relative harmlessness of Marijuana. This consensus led to "groupthink", where people were told these views were right, but were not given the opportunity to decide for themselves. This led to a backlash, that continues to this day. This backlash spread from the born-again movement, which was left behind, pun intended, by the 60's/70's cultural revolution. It was then exploited for political reasons by the Republican party through talk radio shills such as Rush Limbaugh. These pundits were able to sell those susceptible to nonsense the most ridiculous lies imaginable--under the guise that these lies were the truth denied them by this invisible liberal elite. Perhaps the most ridiculous and cynical, was the lie that cutting taxes on the wealthy would help the middle class. Another whopper was that private corporations are more efficient than the government, and that the public will benefit by privatizing the government. I have friends with genius IQs who will tell you with a straight face that Bill Clinton was the worst president ever, because he lied to the American people. To him, this makes sense, because to him a hypocrite is worse than a thug or an incompetent. Worse than Nixon. Worse than Bush. This anger towards the hypocritical "Hippies" "FemiNazis" etc. who preached love, but acted with intolerance, is what FUELS the entire Neo-Con movement. It's why we're in Iraq. (The hippies said Vietnam was wrong and doomed for failure--well, let's show them.) It was never a movement of intellectuals or ideas, try as it might, but a movement of REJECTS--people who wanted to be cool and liberal--who wanted to be Alan Alda and Phil Donahue and Warren Beatty, but just couldn't pull it off, and just couldn't understand how an effete liberal GAY snob like Gore Vidal could be right more often than an effete conservative gay-acting snob like William F. Buckley. Many of them were physically ugly and/or awkward. It's not hard to figure out why men like Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rove were attracted to the Republican Party. The Kennedys, rich and handsome, had become the symbols of the Democrats. There was a "No Ugly Dorks Need Apply" sign on the door to the DNC, so they went over to the other side of the street and hatched the Revenge of the Nerds. Anyhow, IMO, groupthink is always the enemy, as it almost always leads to a backlash.

Thanks, Stu. It's good to know that Kurtz's notes exist and will one day be available. I tend to think some of his interviews were more like informal chats, and that many of the questions come from communication difficulties, and memory difficulties. The notes might help to clear up some of these questions.

Yeah, Helms would never perjure himself. I hope everyone realizes we're joking. But Leake???? When people tell people what they WANT to hear, they tend to lose all reason. There's simply no reason to believe Kurtz and/or Leake. As a history professor Kurtz knows damn well that saying someone told him something 25 years ago means nothing. Mellen should also know better. 1. Do we even know for sure Leake was CIA? Outside of Kurtz's words, that is? I suspect not. 2. Supposing Leake was CIA, is there any evidence Kurtz ever met him or talked to him? That is, outside Kurtz's say-so, 25 years on? I suspect not. 3. If Leake had in fact told Kurtz this important info, why did he wait so long to write about it? The whole thing smells, in my opinion. Kurtz's book is a profound disappointment, in many ways. He referees the battle between LN's and CTs with some insight, but then periodically throws in his own 2 cents, most always based on some personal contact with someone somewhere. But he offers no proof these contacts actually happened. If Bugliosi wrote "Oh yeah, I spoke to Smokey Stover before he died, and he admitted that the entrance wound was in the cowlick, as purported by the HSCA. Stover said that Humes, Boswell, and Finck had conspired to lie about the entrance wound location, because they thought it would make the Kennedy family feel better to think the head shot was on target, as opposed to almost missing. Later, when asked to create drawings for the Warren Commission, they BEGGED me not to make them look at those horrific autopsy photos, because it would only remind them of the horror, and their lies. I reluctantly agreed, and BEGGED Earl Warren not to make them look at those horrible photos. Arlen Specter then created some fake memos to protect the doctors' reputations, and make it look like they'd actually wanted to look at the photos and testify accurately." or something equally out there we'd all call him a xxxx. I'd like to believe Leake's/Kurtz's story. But am unable to do so.

Pat, I don't think this is an issue you can put to a vote, or let CTs and LNs debate about. They are either legit or forgeries. And that should be agreed on regardless of view. If forgeries, someone forged them, a crime. If not, what do they say? Certainly not evidence of conspiracy. Interesting nontheless. Why forge such records that prove nothing but serve historical interest? It doen't make any senes to forge such things, unless you really are a nut. BK I agree, Bill, the issue of whether or not info floating around is real or not is annoying as heck. To my recollection, the Ruby/Nixon letter was purportedly uncovered by a researcher, in some files in Chicago, but was no longer there when others tried to verify its existence. If anyone remembers the whole story, and would care remind us what went down, it would be appreciated. Perhaps one of us could stop by and look for the document next time we're in Chicago. (Or wherever this file is located).

The Hoover letter regarding someone imitating Oswald is, to my understanding, legit. The Ruby/Nixon letter, however, is considered to be of questionable origin. CTs swear by it, but LNs don't buy it. I'm pretty sure no one's verified its legitimacy...

It was because of your request that I reinstated Tim. ... Thannnnnnks Pat. It wasn't as simple as my asking for his reinstatement. John had written something about Tim, to which Tim had been trying to respond. Tim complained about this to me and I brought it to John's attention. If Tim's ability to comment had been limited to threads about Tim himself, I'd have had no problem.

I, too, am frustrated about the lack of availability of this televised trial. Virtually every available quote from this trial comes courtesy VB and David Von Pein. As a result, only half the case has been provided to the public.

Larry, were you aware of this information? Pretty wild. That may complete the circle in the most logical scenario yet. Johnson goes to Davidson and says "make it happen." Davidson gets the financial backing of his client Marcello, and hires Hemming and his boys to murk up the waters, muddy up the CIA, and get the National Security apparatus to go along with Johnson's decision not to investigate the assassination in the name of National Security. Hemming and his boys need not even have pulled the trigger. If it wasn't the plan, perhaps it should have been, as it almost certainly would have worked.

Pardon my interjection on your argument, but I beg to disagree..........the FACT is/was, the worldwide "intelligence community" had agreed that there were WMDs, even France and Germany, despite the fact that they didn't want U.N. involvement because their under the table "food for oil" (read: illegal furnishing of weapons, ammo, etc.) might be discovered. How do you explain 17 resolutions (which of course were never intended to be enforced) passed the U.N.? You may even remember that Colin Powell agreed they were there and made his very forceful (albeit unfortunately erroneous) presentation to the U.N. Further, many Senate Dems agreed, and voted for invasion, who had access to the same intelligence that Bush et. al. had. Of course it was easy for them to change their minds after the fact, not so easy for the CIC. Its also easy for armchair pontificators to make unsubstantiated comments as you have made, with the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. Phil, most of the West's intelligence agencies BELIEVED that Saddam had WMD's, but the evidence for this, as per Tenet and just about everyone else to comment on it's statements, was never considered conclusive. They always knew there was a real chance they were wrong. Bush and particularly Cheney's decision to make it sound like the CIA had guaranteed them there were WMDs was a particularly weaselly-one, and led to Tenet's decision to leave. Powell is expected to confirm Tenet's version of events in his book. Of course, it's 20-20 hindsight for some to say they either lied or made a clear mistake. But I was one of those protesting the war before it began. I'd been following the argument that Saddam had WMDs, and had been ardently following the actions of Hans Blix in Iraq. I'd noticed that the more progress he made, the less impressed was the Bush Administration. I'd been closely watching Bush's gestures towards Iraq since December 2001, when a captain in Special Forces warned me they were preparing for an invasion of Iraq. That they were planning to blame Iraq for 9/11 from 9/12 was later confirmed by men such as Gen. Wesley Clark and Richard Clarke, the Bush Administrations expert on terror. If you honestly believe that history will be kind to Bush on this issue, I suggest you think again. A new film entitled No End in Sight details the incredible incompetence leading up to the current quagmire. Most of those interviewed in the film are soldiers and/or Republicans, including former Bush admirer Richard Armitage. You might want to check it out. You might also wish to check out a 1992 interview with Dick Cheney shown of late on The Daily Show. At that time Cheney said it would be foolish to invade Iraq because there was no one to replace Saddam, and the country would sink into a quagmire. So what changed? Well, it appears that Cheney and his team of true-believers fell for a con-man named Chalabi, and destroyed both the American economy and the future of American-Arab relations to prove their dedication to "Iraqi Freedom." Pathetic. P.S. whatever happened to that investigation of Chalabi as a possible Iranian asset? Did it run off with the investigation of Cheney's meetings with Enron?

Tim, I totally agree with you that the CIA are not by any means the "evil-geniuses" some wish they were. I feel the need to point out, however, that you totally misrepresent Tenet's statement. As clarified in Tenet's book, Tenet, Bush and Cheney had been discussing a CIA report on WMDs. Bush felt it was not convincing enough and wanted it re-written. (Note: he wanted the argument to be better, not the intelligence to be better.) Anyhow, Tenet said "That's a slam dunk!" meaning that that would not be a problem. Tenet says that when, a year or so later, Cheney started telling the press that Tenet had said the evidence for WMDs was a 'slam dunk" he knew he'd been hung out to dry by Bush and Cheney to hide the FACT that they knew the intelligence for WMDs was far from conclusive, and had used it as a precept to do what they'd already decided to do. This was a major factor in Tenet's decision to leave the agency.

More on Sullivan. From patspeer.com According to both Acting Attorney General Katzenbach (in his testimony before the HSCA) and Assistant FBI Director William Sullivan, J. Edgar Hoover wanted to close the investigation into President Kennedy's assassination with the issue of the FBI's report and was behind the leaking of this report to the media. Sullivan actually went further than that. A memo on a 4-21-75 interview of Sullivan by the staff of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations reports "Sullivan offered that Hoover didn't like the Warren Commission because Hoover didn't want any organization going over the grounds that the FBI had already investigated in fear that the Warren Commission would discover something else that the FBI might have forgotten or ignored. In this connection, Sullivan said that Hoover had leaked the results of the FBI investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy to the press in December 1963, in order to preempt the Warren Commission's findings. Sullivan said that the leak to the press was done via Deloach, who gave the story to a cooperative news source at the Chicago Tribune and also the Washington Evening Star. Sullivan said that the allegation was then leaked that it was Acting Attorney General Katzenbach who had leaked the FBI's findings. Sullivan said that the Bureau personnel who would have been aware of the leak were Mohr, Tolson, Edward Clayton, and Belmont. Sullivan added that this was not an unusual practice of Hoover's."

Tim, I'm not sure the bullet should have had blood on it. It was not found in situ. It was handled by a number of men, and carried around in their pockets for hours. I think John Hunt found that the FBI did briefly test it for blood, but that their tests was not as extensive as it could have been. In any event, if the bullet was found in the clean-up, it would probably have been wiped clean of blood and fingerprints.

Tim, while LNers insist their case is built squarely on the evidence, and without speculation, they are, in fact, as guilty of speculation as the worst conspiracy theorist. They speculate that the bag was in fact long enough to hold the rifle, even though the only eyewitnesses to see the bag swore that, to their recollection, it was far too short. They also speculate that the bullet was found on Connally's stretcher, when everyone to handle the stretcher prior to Tomlinson saw no such bullet, and Tomlinson was virtually certain he found the bullet on another stretcher. While some might conclude by one or more of them planting the bullet that Hickey and Kinney were part of a plot to cover up the evidence for conspiracy, I have come to disagree. In their statements, both Kinney and Hickey described the shots in a manner inconsistent with their being fired by a bolt action rifle. They each recalled the last two shots coming right on top of each other. Ditto Kellerman and Greer. I just don't see them saying as much if they were trying to make people think Oswald acted alone. Kinney and Kellerman's widow, if I recall, would later admit they always suspected a conspiracy. Their original statements bear this out.

Tim, the angle through Connally was a little steeper than an angle from the SN, leading some to suspect he was shot from the West window. As the bullet was undoubtedly deflected upon entry, however, this is a stretch. A better argument for the West window might be made by noting the shape of Connally's back wound. Shaw said that the shape indicated the bullet came in at an angle. His words were twisted by others, including Baden, etc. to suggest Connally was hit by a tumbling bullet. Shaw believed no such thing. BTW, when one looks at the WC re-enactment photos, it's easy to see that a bullet passing just over Kennedy's right shoulder could very well hit Connally in his armpit. The oft-repeated argument that the bullet hitting Connally MUST have come through JFK is garbage. FWIW, I believe the bullet was planted, but that it probably has little to do with a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. When one looks at the photos and reads the recollections of eyewitnesses, it's clear the SS cleaned up the limo outside Parkland. This is not mentioned in any report. The only bullet fragments found in the limo were found in the front seat, and beneath Nellie's seat. This makes me suspect evidence was collected outside Parkland, but was, for some reason, never entered into the record. Perhaps the two agents involved, Kinney and Hickey, realized they'd screwed up and compromised a crime scene and opted to just pretend it never happened. If so, they may have planted what they thought was important--CE 399--where someone else would find it, and hoped for the best. Kinney flew back with the limo to Washington, and supposedly discovered the large skull fragment on the floor of the car en route. This sounds like bs, as Kinney and Hickey admittedly put the top back on the car outside Parkland, and almost certainly noticed the skull fragment at that time. (Several newsman claimed to have seen the skull fragment in the back seat outside Parkland--so why wouldn't have Kinney?) Anyhow, it seems likely Kinney found the skull fragment during the clean-up and only pretended he'd found it later, in order to deflect any discussion of the clean-up.

Tim, your basic point is correct. While the media has hailed Bugliosi's book as well-written and authoritative, it is neither. Outside of the Odio incident, he mostly neglects things he can't counter. A few years back, I went to the McAdams Forum to argue my position that the so-called "mystery" photo represents the back of Kennedy's head, and pointed out that the 1966 inventory described the photo as a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull." Dr. Chad Zimmerman, however, amazed me with his absolute bs by asserting that this description was of a bullet exit on the forehead. I don't recall even one of his fellow LNs jumping on that rickety boat with him. While looking through Bugliosi's book, I found that not only was Dr. Chad an adviser, but that Bugliosi bought into his bs about the photo!!! Even worse, while Bugliosi elsewhere acknowledges that some think the photo is of the back of the head, he boldly pretends the 1966 description is of the forehead, and fails to mention the far-stronger possibility it was of the back of the head. He COWARDLY hides from his readers that, even for a second, the autopsy doctors could have interpreted the photo as being of the back of the head. He asserts, furthermore, that the drainage hole in the photo proves it was taken from the front. I've studied this drainage hole and used it to PROVE the photo was taken from behind, and not the front. At what point does his deception become a lie? From patspeer.com, As clear as it is to most that the doctors changed their interpretation of the mystery photo between November 1966 and January 1967, there are those who insist this is a conspiracy myth. Dr. Chad Zimmerman, for example, is so convinced that the photo shows forehead that he refuses to believe the doctors ever could have thought it was the back of the head. Accordingly, he has convinced himself that the doctors' 1966 description of a "missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp" is not a description of the back of Kennedy's head at all, but a description of the front of his head, showing the interior aspect of the missile wound in the posterior skull, and the scalp reflected over the forehead. Never mind that it says "over entrance in posterior skull," implying that the photo is of tissue just above the skull. Never mind that "following reflection of scalp" modifies "posterior skull" and not "anterior skull" or "forehead." Never mind that there is no mention that the entrance is inside the cranium anywhere in the photo's description. Vincent Bugliosi, in his 2007 opus Reclaiming History, drifts even further out to see than Zimmerman. On page 261 of his endnotes, he asserts that the allegedly missing autopsy photo of the entrance on President Kennedy’s head is in fact in the collection. He asserts that this photo of the president’s skull with his brain removed was properly described in the November 1, 1966 inventory of the autopsy photos. As stated, this inventory claims the photo depicts a: “missile wound over entrance in posterior skull, following reflection of the scalp.” In January 1967, of course, the doctors changed their interpretation of this photo, and said it depicted an exit on the president’s forehead. Bugliosi, in keeping with Zimmerman, refuses to acknowledge that they changed their interpretation, however, and instead asserts on page 238 and 262 of his endnotes that both descriptions were correct, and that the photo depicts the interior of the back of the head when viewed from the front, as well as the beveled exit on the frontal bone in the foreground of the photo.. To explain why there was no mention of the beveled exit on the skull prior to the January 67 review, Bugliosi suggests that the doctors, who’d only spent 6 hours or more staring at the president’s body, looking for bullet wounds, only discovered this exit during the 1967 inspection of the photos. Bugliosi goes on to make a statement that distances himself from Zimmerman, however. On page 261 of his endnotes, Bugliosi states “The HSCA forensic pathology panel subsequently concluded that the images depicted both the entrance wound bevel (in the background of the image) and the exit wound bevel (in the foreground of the image).” Bugliosi holds this statement as a confirmation of his earlier analysis of the autopsy doctors’ 1966 and 1967 reports. The problem is that the HSCA determined that the entrance on the back of Kennedy’s head was four inches higher than as determined by the autopsy doctors, and that this photo shows NO “semi-circled” entrance in the entrance location proposed by the panel. No semi-circled entrance in this location was ever mentioned in the testimony of the panel’s spokesman, and none was included on any of their drawings. As a result, it seems likely that the writer of the HSCA’s report incorrectly presented the semi-circle of bone apparent in the photo as both a bullet entrance (“a possible portion of the beveled inner table corresponding to the semicircular margin of the entrance wound at the back of the head” HSCA FPP Report p. 129) and as an exit (“the anterior bone fragment with the semicircular defect” HSCA FPP Report p.129). These interpretations are, of course, mutually exclusive. Bugliosi's assertion that a bullet entrance is visible at the HSCA's cowlick entrance location is uniquely incorrect, moreover, as everyone to study the photo under the belief it is taken from the front, most prominently Dr. Zimmerman, John Canal and Larry Sturdivan, has come to agree that the bullet entrance visible on the interior aspect of the posterior skull (which is, in my interpretation, the jugular foramen) is, if anything, the lower entrance as described at autopsy. There is no bone in the photo at the level of the cowlick entrance in which there could even be a bullet entrance! From this, it seems clear that Vincent Bugliosi, who only spent 20 years writing his book on the assassination, never found the time to gain even a basic understanding of the mystery photo. Perhaps its time he bought a computer...

Weberman created a great website, filled with info. He keeps his speculation and conclusions separate from the info, for the most part, so that you don't have to think Sturgis, Hunt, or Hemming were conspirators to learn anything.

Tim, be honest now. What are the chances JFK and RFK would plot a second Bay of Pigs with no clear chance of success, and not even run it by McNamara? C-Day was a myth told to cool the jets of the increasingly antsy and MURDEROUS anti-Castro community in Florida. It seems much more likely that someone, possibly Hunt, got word of Attwood's contacts with Lechuga, and told his pals in anti-Castro land. BANG. The bit about Escalante is almost certainly garbage, and you know it. Was Escalante even in the DGI in 1963? If not, then how would Mann know him by name? If so, since Mann was so quick to spread disinfo about Oswald's visit to the embassy, why wouldn't he tell anyone about this little tidbit? Where are the cables supporting this claim? Taking the blatherings of an old man about hearsay he'd heard many years before and repeating it as if it's an established fact only serves to distract, IMO. You believe that someone-anyone--other than the CIA was responsible for Kennedy's murder. Fine. We get it. That's no reason to spread the almost certain fantasy that Escalante was in Dealey Plaza.

"Replying to Sam Holland couldn't have been correct.... Could he ? " Yep! He was! "what additionally can be referenced to show that Sam Holland's description of the force of the fatal headshot having propelled JFK onto the floor of the limousine, was inaccurate ?" Nothing! Mr. ALTGENS: "He wasn't upright. He was at an angle but when it hit him, it seemed to have just lodged--it seemed as if he were hung up on a seat button or something like that. It knocked him just enough forward that he came right on down." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Us "simple-minded" (me & Jethro) backwoods boys have to stick with simple stuff! All that multple assassin and body snatcher stuff is by far too complicated for us to understand and/or comprehend. P.S. Pat: Although you will no doubt be received with great acumen over on the JFK Lancer sight for having attempted to discredit me personally (reference: "ala Purvis"), as most are aware, anyone who makes any attempt to discredit me will be received with great acclaim from multitudes. Too bad that they once thought that I was the next "conspiracy" messiah when I allowed them to publishe the altered survey data in their Lancer Magazine. And, since the US. Secret Service as well as the FBI had easily resolved the impact point of the third, last, final shot. Down in front of James Altgens position. Long before I came down the pike and figured it out, then rest assured that it is considerably more than just me that you attempt to discredit. And, since you, not unlike most, were totally unaware of the impact of this shot, down at this location, until I so informed you, and that you were attempting to continue to blame many of the injuries to JFK & JBC on some mystical & mythological shot which happened from some unknown and undetermined location, by some unknown and undetermined person, then rest assured that you would have not even come close to resolving the injuries sustained by JFK & JBC. Of which, even after having been fully informed, you continue to be lost and confused on the subject matter. So! "ala Purvis"/aka ala U.S. Secret Service/aka ala F.B.I. states that the third shot impact, which shot was also fired from the sixth floor of the TSDB, impacted JFK at a position when he was some 30-feet farther down Elm St. than the Z313 impact point, and this shot struck JFK (after having passed through the coat at the edge of the coat collar) in the edge of the hairline at the base of his neck, and traversed downwards through the soft flesh of the neck, to strike the skull in the EOP region of the skull as found by the autopsy surgeons. I keep attempting to inform you of the forensic means of determination of the angle of the target as opposed to the downward angle of fire, when the elongated nature of the penetration through the skull of JFK is compared. So! Many who were far more informed than you have attempted to discredit the forensic and ballistic information, and although you can easily find many who will give "Pat" a "Pat" for attempting to bad-mouth Tom. In the ultimate ending, we shall see exactly who does and who does not know of what he speaks. Tom P.S. Not unlike all other aspects of your research, you have never even bothered to speak with Humes; Finck, and/or Boswell. Yet, you assume that these persons did not recognize and report accurately what they found at the autopsy. And, you, above (and along with) all others, know more than did the autopsy surgeons; the US Secret Service, and the FBI. Not likely! Tom, your pet theory has a number of problems. You want everyone to believe that Connally was wounded after the head shot at frame 313. Although Facts on File 1963 reported as much, (You're welcome) this has little support, particularly from the Connallys. How do you know the third shot coming after the head shot proposed by the SS and FBI in December was the shot wounding Connally? Is there anything to support this? If there were two head shots, as you claim, and the first one (the second shot at 313) blew brain matter all over the place, why did Altgens only notice one head shot, the one you claim was the second head shot?

Cliff, we agree on a lot and disagree on a lot, as you know. For the record, you make a number of mistakes in your post. 1) The first photo you show does not show the BACK of Kennedy's head, it shows a defect in the TOP of his head, exactly as depicted in the x-rays, Zapruder film, and autopsy photos. In this photo Kennedy is lying on his back, with the long hair at the top of his head draped down. 2) The second photo does show the largely undamaged scalp at the back of Kennedy's head. Although it's difficult to see, it also shows the bullet entrance in the scalp exactly as described by the autopsy doctors. In this photo Kennedy is lying on his left side with the hair at the top of his head pulled forward and to the left so that the back of the head can be photographed. At the top of his head, in front of his right ear, the defect visible through the hair in the first photo, can be seen. 3) Your assertion that the first photo shows the back of Kennedy's head, and that the two photos are incompatible, demonstrates one of my major points--that people have great difficulty rotating images in their head, and often transpose the top of someone's head while lying down with the back of their head when standing up. As discussed in the Wrestling Over History section of my webpage, similar difficulties with image rotation have been studied and documented by cognitive psychologists for decades. I discussed this with a prominent psychologist and she said the problem is not so much that people remember things incorrectly as that they perceive them incorrectly from the get-go. She also told me that incorrect perceptions are contagious. This could explain why Dr. Clark thought the wound was at the back of the head, a few inches back of its identical location, and why the other doctors so readily agreed, only to change their minds when shown the autopsy photos. When one looks at bodies in the Trendelenburg position, the position Kennedy's body was in when Clark made his inspection, his mistake is easy to understand. Studies have shown that emergency room doctors are often wrong about bullet wounds, and that their perceptions are not to be trusted as to the number of wounds and the direction of fire. It appears that in this instance their perception problems extended to their perception of the exact location of the head wound as well. 4) Anyone claiming that the doctors' initial statements are to be trusted beyond all the other evidence needs to explain why eyewitnesses Newman and Zapruder went on TV and pointed out a head wound location in the exact location shown in the autopsy photos, long before the Parkland doctors wrote their early reports. So far this has not been done. Are we really to believe that Newman and Zapruder both pointed to Kennedy's temple as the wound location, in error, and that this just so happened to correspond to the x-rays and photos faked later that day? Or should we slip on down Conspiracy Road and make the assumption that the wounds in the photos were faked specifically to match the incorrect wound locations noted by Newman and Zapruder? How far will we go before we will admit that the Parkland doctors could have been mistaken, something they themselves have readily admitted? I reached the end of that line after watching Newman and Zapruder. 5) Cliff, you are also quite incorrect to state that the 14 cm measurement places the wound at the base of the neck. Parts 2 and 3 of my video series show that the 14 cm measurement places the wound just where it is in the autopsy photos, and several inches below the "base of the neck" wound drawing depicted in the Warren Commission's drawings. That you continue to insist this measurement is a lie and reflects a wound at the base of the neck, when the accuracy of this measurement PROVES that the back wound drawing was a lie, is bizarre, IMO and indicates that you have trouble adjusting your pet theories when new information comes along. Perhaps I misunderstand you. Do you really mean to imply that the 14 cm measurement reflects the "base of the neck" wound in the Rydberg drawings? Or are you calling the back wound seen in the autopsy photos, which is consistent with the 14 cm measurement, a "base of the neck" wound? Respectfully, Pat

Don't believe anything you read on the McAdams DISINFORMATION website! It is part of the continuing coverup. Jack Denis, I got into this about 4 years ago, and found myself in the same quandary as yourself. Ultimately, I tried to educate myself as much as possible, before concluding one way or the other. My research is available at the link below.