Pat Speer

I bought and read McKnight's book when it came out, and learned a lot from it. I'd already known about Burkley and T3, etc.

Charlie, you have every right to be bored by ballistics and the minutiae of the case, but, whether you realize it or not, there is a an intellectual war going on. Bugliosi has laid claim to the evidence, and claims it is all on the LN side. He has the major media standing behind him. Historians are generally gutless, and will no doubt come to agree, UNLESS we can acquaint ourselves with the evidence and demonstrate that a significant number of Bugliosi's conclusions are incorrect. I think we can do that. I think we should do that. Oswald's ability to fire the shots is but one avenue that deserves a thorough discussion.

Thanks, Gil, I hadn't seen that one before. Do you have the name of the original program and the year of the program? I'd like to add Baker's comments to my witness database.

The video of the Italian tests shows they did use a clip. The reason it took so long is cause the shooter pauses FOREVER between shots. Presumably he does this to account for target re-acquisition, but it does seem awfully and deliberately slow. At the end of the video they shoot a side of beef with no bones. The bullet dug out of the beef is considerably more damaged than CE 399. As far as the CBS tests, they were probably the most accurate to date. They used the same make of gun as Oswald's with the same make of scope as Oswald's and fired the same kind of ammunition. They did this from a 60 ft. tower. The target moved away from the shooter on a downward slope and at a similar angle. They used a variety of shooters, with varying levels of skill. Where their marksman had a disadvantage: most of them had never fired such a rifle before. Where their marksman had an advantage: the scope on this rifle was properly aligned; the target moved away from them at a constant rate of speed; the marksman were given a few practice shots before their attempts; there was very little wind on the range. Even with these advantages, these shooters, all of whom would be expected to perform better than Oswald, as Oswald, according to the WC, hadn't practiced for months, did not exactly burn down the house. Only one hit two of three on the first try and only 4 of 43 attempts was successful. Keep in mind that the FBI and SS had determined that Oswald had hit 3 of 3 in this same amount of time. Only one shooter was able to accomplish this--strangely enough this shooter was Howard Donahue, the same Howard Donahue who would eventually conclude Kennedy was killed by SS Agent George Hickey.

From patspeer.com, chapter 3, on the investigation performed by the Warren Commission On 6-2-64 General Counsel Rankin writes a letter to Lt. Col. Allison G. Folsom, a Marine Corps officer in charge of personnel, requesting an appraisal of Oswald’s shooting ability, based upon Oswald’s test scores while in the Marines. On 6-8-64, he receives an unexpected response. Folsom writes “In view of the lapse of time since Mr. Oswald was separated from the Marine Corps, it would be impossible to ascertain precisely the number of hours in which he participated in weapons marksmanship practice or how many rounds of ammunition he fired.” He then gives a breakdown of the training received by Oswald and his subsequent tests scores. These show that Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle on December 21, 1956 and received a score of 212, or sharpshooter ranking. This was the test discussed in Folsom’s 5-1-64 testimony. The record shows that Oswald was tested on the M-1 rifle a second time on May 6, 1959, however, and received a score of 191, only 1 point above the bottom of the Marksman ranking. These were the scores reported by the New York Times on 11-23-63. The big surprise for Rankin comes in Folsom’s summary. He tells Rankin “The Marine Corps considers that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot.” Folsom was thus telling Rankin that Oswald was a poor shot when he left the Marines and would have been an even worse shot after 4 years without practice. The Tests That Should Have Been After the letter from Folsom, Rankin should have had great doubt that Oswald was capable of hitting the shots described by the FBI. The FBI, after all, claimed Oswald fired three times at a moving target and created two hits and one near miss (the bullet striking Connally) in a time span of roughly 5.6 seconds. In an ideal world, this would have led Rankin to push for more rifle tests, with civilians firing rifles similar to Oswald’s at moving targets in a mock Dealey Plaza. If he had, his results would probably have been similar to the results obtained by CBS news in 1967. While the CBS shooters were all well-practiced rifleman, their over-all skill level was roughly that of Oswald, at his best. Of course, Oswald hadn’t been at his best since his first years in the Marines, a half a dozen years before the assassination. The CBS shooters were also given a few test shots. This would normally have worked to their advantage. But let the test results speak for themselves… 1. Col. Jim Crossman, ret. (expert rifleman). First attempt--3 near misses in 6.54 seconds. Best attempt (of 6) ---2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.20 seconds. 2 hits or more in 3 of 6 attempts. (6.34, 6.44, and 6.2 seconds) 2. Douglas Bazemore (ex-paratrooper). First attempt—unable to operate bolt effectively to fire the shots. Best attempt (of 4)—unable to operate stiff bolt action; gives up. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts. 3. John Bollendorf (ballistics technician). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 6.8 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1 of 4 attempts. (6.8 seconds) 4. John Concini (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—no record of where hits went.in 6.3 seconds. Best attempt (of 2)—1 hit and 2 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 2 attempts. 5. Howard Donahue (weapons engineer). First attempt—too fast with bolt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—3 hits in 5.2 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (5.2 seconds) 6. Somersett Fitchett (sportsman). First attempt—gun jammed at 3rd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 2 of 3 attempts. (5.9 and 5.5 seconds) 7. William Fitchett (sporting goods dealer). First attempt—3 borderline hits in 6.5 seconds. Best attempt (of 3)—the same. 2 hits or more in 1of 3 attempts. (6.5 seconds) 8. Ron George (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—gun jammed at 2nd shot. Best attempt (of 3)—2 hits and 1 near miss in 4.9 seconds. 2 hits or more in 1 of 3 attempts. (4.9 seconds) 9. Charles Hamby (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed. Best attempt (of 3)—2 near misses and 1 complete miss in 6.5 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts. 10. Carl Holden (shooting range employee). First attempt—gun jammed with first shot. Best attempt (of 3)—3 near misses in 5.4 seconds. 2 hits or more in 0 of 3 attempts. 11. Sid Price (shooting range employee). First attempt—1 hit, 1 near miss, and 1 complete miss in 5.9 seconds. Best attempt (of 4)—the same. 2 hits or more in 0 of 4 attempts. 12. Al Sherman (Maryland State Trooper). First attempt—2 hits and 1 near miss in 5.0 seconds. Best attempt (of 5)—the same. 2 hits or more in 2 of 5 attempts. (5.0 and 6.0 seconds) Of the 12 first attempts, only 1 shooter was able to make two hits in less than 5.6 seconds. Of the 43 total attempts, moreover, these well-seasoned shooters were able to replicate Oswald’s purported feat—2 hits in less than 5.6 seconds—just 4 times. If the Warren Commission had conducted similar tests, they would almost certainly have concluded that Oswald needed more than 5.6 seconds to fire the shots, and that either the first shot or last shot missed. But this was not to be.

QUOTE ON The second bullet is thought to have missed its target. According to the commission, the third disintegrated when it hit Kennedy's head. The new research suggests, however, that this is incompatible with the fact that Oswald was only 80 yards away, in a book depository, when he fired. The Italian tests suggest that a bullet fired from that distance would have emerged intact from Kennedy's head, implying that the third shot must instead have come from a more distant location.QUOTE Actually, the Olivier study on M/C wound ballistics found that bullets broke into pieces on 9 of the 10 skulls. I don't think any of them broke into as many pieces as the bullet striking Kennedy however. The article's statement about the role of distance was bizarre. The closer the target is to the rifle, the MORE likely the bullet is to shatter, and not the reverse. I suspect these tests were done by some attention-seeker, and will not stand up under scrutiny. 3 shots in 19 seconds? Give me a break! That means almost 10 seconds between shots. Ridiculous. It sounds like they weren't even using a clip.

Folsom: 1. If you think that the identification of Oswald as the gunman ONLY rests on Brennan you clearly haven't read much on this case. What is wrong with Brennan's identification by the way? He identified Oswald after the line up and stated why he refused to finger him that night. And the man he said did it is the man who owned the weapon matched to the bullets that came fro the body of one of the victims and the rifle that had Oswald and ONLY Oswald's palm print on it, and Oswald was the ONLY one carrying a suspicious package into work that day and Oswald was the ONLY employee that fled the scene never to return to the TSBD ever again. Your "only Brennan" comment was pretty lame. Read more. You really don't know half as much as you think you do. Brennan REFUSED to ID Oswald when it mattered. His latter statements would never have been accepted in a court of law. He said the shooter was wearing a light shirt. Baker saw Oswald less than a minute and a half later wearing what he thought was a brown jacket. Day said the palm print was an old print. Stombaugh said the rifle was dirty. So where are the prints? Did Oswald wear gloves? Did he wipe down the rifle? If he wiped down the rifle, why were fresh fibers found wrapped around the butt plate? The "bag" is incredibly problematic. There was nothing in the bag that could tie it to the dirty rifle. The folds on the bag were crisp and the bag was not crinkled as one would expect if it had held a rifle. Both Frazier and his sister testified that the bag was longer than the package they'd seen Oswald carry. Read and UNDERSTAND more. 2. Already been done and the bullet wounds ONLY line up with the SE corner window of the TSBD. To claim otherwise is to simply deny the research that has already been done. Both the WC and the HSCA experts determined that ALL shots struck Kennedy from above and behind to the right rear and the ONLY place evidence was found from behind and to the right rear was where Robert Jackson and Howard Brennan saw a gunman firing from and where Oswald and ONLY Oswald's prints were found. This is totally incorrect. The trajectories lined up with the Dal-Tex Building as well as the TSBD, as per the HSCA's trajectory analyst. Not that we should trust him, as he also testified that Kennedy was leaning forward before he was shot only to straighten up in his seat before the head shot, the opposite of what is shown in the Zapruder film. If you have any reports on a room to room search of the Dal-Tex please put them online. You also forget that there were other prints found in the sniper's nest, besides Oswald's, one of which is unidentified to this day. This print was identified in a blind test by a fingerprint analyst as a match to a print of one of LBJ's cronies. Read and UNDERSTAND more. 3. Where did LHO get his ammo is moot. If that ammo is proven to have been fired from a particular rifle, (which it was) and if that ammo was matched to fragments in the victim (which it was) and if there is ONLY evidence linking to the rifle (which there is) and if we can explain how Oswald took the weapon to work with him and didn't leave with it (which we can) than the red herring of WHERE he bought his ammunition is as moot as demanding to know where a drunk driver who was arrested at the scene bought his car. This point you tried to make leads nowhere. Guinn's matching of the wrist fragment to CE 399 was based on questionable science and was an incorrect conclusion to boot. Scientists have finally opened their mouths and have agreed that his findings were bogus and carry no weight. The rifle-bag story is so full of holes it's ridiculous. Not only is there nothing to connect the rifle to the bag, the only eyewitnesses to Oswald with a bag said that the package was not long enough to carry a rifle. How can you possibly give Brennan's words so much weight but completely ignore Frazier and his sister? 4. Are you seriously questioning why it is significant that after 40 years the conspiracy camp has been unable to produce a single bullet fragment to support their alleged gunman? If that point confuses you, you clearly are in way over your head in this debate. The wrist fragment is not a match to CE 399 and never will be. 5. Same point as I made in number 4. 6. You are simply dodging your position's total lack of evidence to support any other gunman firing at Kennedy. Your comment perfectly supports my point. You have no witnesses. Wrong again. A large number of witnesses heard a shot from west of the TSBD, including the MAJORITY of those standing in front of the building. A number of witnesses, including James Worrell and Roger Craig, saw suspicious men running from the building after the shots. 7. What in the world are you talking about? Do you really think that Oswald (or anyone else) was seen carrying a bag out of the building? Please provide the name of this person--it is news to me. Again your ignorance in the facts of this case hamper your ability to debate my points. 8. You totally missed the point I am making. There are NO prints that your conspiracy lovers have ever produced. ALL prints gathered thus far point to one and only one person--LHO. There are no other prints taken from any other site that I am aware of that would lend credence to your invisible gunman. Once you find these prints we will see if the location they were found agrees with the trajectory of the bullet wounds. You better home they find them a few inches from LHO's because that is the only place the bullet trajectories will line up with. Good luck. Once, again, why weren't there any fresh prints on the rifle? Was Oswald smart enough to wipe down the rifle with an imaginary cloth while simultaneously being so dumb that he'd use a rifle sent to his P.O. box, and ordered with his handwriting? 9. The notion of a hired gunman who was a part of a conspiracy running from the scene of the crime with his rifle in hand (because remember there was no other rifles found in the TSBD and only Oswald's prints were found on the rifle found--therefore they must have taken the rifle with them--which by the way was NEVER mentioned by the witnesses who saw the alleged gunman fleeing to the awaiting Rambler) is such a silly notiong that it doesn't merit serious consideration. You expect the world to believe that these high level gunmen, secreted themselves into the TSBD without being seen by anyone, carried out the assassination from the SE corner window of the TSBD, got down the stairs without being seen by Officer Baker or Roy Truly or ANY other TSBD employee and then just made a mad dash to a waiting Rambler in full view of police, spectators, and the rest of the motorcade? You've got to be kidding. After the sniper's nest was discovered, the cops stopped searching the other buildings. They never searched the cars in the Parking lot. A rifle could easily have been hidden in the Dal-Tex or the trunk of a car in the Parking lot without being found. 10. We don't need a film of Oswald there is mountain of evidence linking him to the crime. Sadly YOUR gunman has neither any photgraphic evidence NOR any other evidence to link him/her/it to the crime. Even if Oswald fired shots, it still doesn't explain why the last two shots were heard within a second or two. Your boy Brennan says the sniper took deliberate aim for his last shot, and then pulled the rifle back in the window. Where did the second shot in this period come from? And don't give me the three shells were found argument... There were five shells related to the Tippit killing, yet only four hit Tippit. Who's to say that Oswald wasn't in the habit of keeping empty shells in the chamber? The shell for his solo shot on Walker, after all, was never found. As I said in my original post. I have ALL of the evidence on my side of the table--all the conspiracy nuts have is suspicions and dreams of massive conspiracies. You have little beyond an over-inflated sense of your understanding of the case.

Folsom, I've recently encountered questions like yours elsewhere. While discussing Bugliosi's book, I mentioned a few of his mistakes, and referred someone to patspeer.com, where I've written extensively on the evidence. Well, this individual came back and said my webpage was a joke...not because I was mistaken mind you, but because I FAILED TO SAY WHO DID IT. This was bizarre. Conspiracy theorists are most frequently criticized for making wild claims unrelated to the evidence, but here when I try to discuss the evidence I'm criticized for not offering up any wild claims. While it's accepted doctrine among the LN faithful that conspiracy theorists are weak because they need to make sense of Kennedy's death, blah blah blah, questions and attitudes like yours indicate that the reverse is true--that LNs are weak because they NEED TO KNOW and would rather "know" something that might be false than question something that might be true. You see this same kind of thinking in people when they say "America-right or wrong," etc. Some here read this mentality as "I'd rather be a drone than a free-thinking individual, cause free-thinking individuals have doubts." Well, what's so bad about doubt? Why are LNs so scared of doubt? I submit to you the following question--a question no LNT has been courageous enough or committed enough to answer. It's a three parter. The bullet hitting Kennedy in the back and supposedly exiting the middle of his throat...did this pass above or below his first rib? If it passed below the first rib, why didn't the nose of the bullet strike his spine and pierce his lung? If it passed above the first rib, since it entered around the T1 level and exited around the T1 level, why did the bullet magically swerve around the rib and the spine and continue on a horizontal course through the body, only to resume a downwards course upon exit?

I agree--the limousine was cleaned up at Parkland and at the White House garage. Kinney and George Hickey helped in the cleanup. I don't think Kinney viewed this as suspicious. Re: CE399---see my book: http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v4n1.html chapter 8, page 11 vince palamara Thanks, Vince, I read most of your book, but stupidly skipped Greer. I incorrectly assumed you spent the chapter discussing the theory that he'd pulled the trigger.

Baker did have a receding hairline. But wasn't he in Washington on the 22nd?

Vince, for numerous reasons, I'm convinced a clean-up of the limousine occurred outside Parkland. This may have been done for purely innocent reasons. Even so, the Secret Service's refusal to acknowledge this clean-up, innocent or not, is suspicious. Did Kinney ever discuss this with you? Did any of the other agents? My gut tells me one of the agents found CE399 in the limousine, and planted it on what they thought was Connally's stretcher, in order to hide that they'd screwed up and cleaned-up the crime scene. What are your thoughts on this issue?

Cliff said: "We have well-meaning people, like Charlie and Mark and Pat Speer, demoting or denigrating the most powerful, irrefutable evidence in the case." Cliff, you know this isn't true. I have a section on the clothes in the Single-Bullet Theory chapter at patspeer.com. I use the clothes to show that the SBT is highly unlikely. One would think this would make you happy. But no, you want me to be intellectually dishonest and say the back wound was at T3, when the measurements, face sheet, and autopsy photo tell me it was at T1. I've added lines onto the Boswell's Anatomy section of chapter 10 at patspeer.com. These show that the face sheet is a reasonably accurate depiction of the wound measured at autopsy.

Perhaps I've read too much Shakespeare. It would seem to me that, if Bobby in fact suspected LBJ, he would do cartwheels to become VP. That way, should he find proof positive Johnson's involvement, he could enact a little "divine retribution" of his own, and reap the rewards. Good Catholic or no, Bobby was no physical coward, and I suspect he would have reaped vengeance on Johnson should that crucial moment have arrived.

Presumably, this release is designed to show that 1) they aren't hiding anything, and 2) as bad as Bush is, he didn't exactly invent "abuse of power". Pretty smart move... There will probably be a few tidbits in there for us to chew on. I'm betting it hurts Dems more than Repubs. Now if we could only get all the still-withheld documents relating to the Reagan Administration. For some strange reason the release of these documents has been held up for years. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact their release will expose Bush I as a xxxx, could it?

Good one, Gaeton. Now, if we can get everyone to respond to Bugliosi's bs, maybe we can get a few media types to take notice.

Thanks, John. I first saw Jackson at an anti-Nuke rally in the early 80's. This was the rally where Patti Davis made a public break from her parents re nuclear energy. I last saw him at a County Fair two or three years ago. County Fairs draw a nostalgic crowd, and it's been a long time since Jackson had anything on the radio. So the crowd was expecting to hear his hits and his oldies. He mostly delivered, but in the middle of the set he threw in a mini-set with an anti-imperialist message, featuring Lives in the Balance. It was the highlight, as far as I was concerned. Not everyone agreed. I remember the row behind us emptying out and complaining that the REO Speedwagon and Styx shows they'd seen recently were sure a whole lot better. While oldie but moldies like Jackson, Springsteen, Mellencamp, Young and even The Stones have addressed some of today's issues, few of today's stars have said anything. I suspect this is in part in fear of receiving a backlash, a la what happened to the Dixie Chicks and Linda Ronstadt. I think the larger part, however, is that most of today's stars are so contrived and pre-packaged that individual expression never enters their minds. The power of popular music to bring about social change, however, remains. I suspect this is one of the reasons why the Bush Administration worked so closely with Clear Channel to take over American radio. If it breaks back out, and the power of bands like Rage Against the Machine, Nine Inch Nails, Linkin Park, Tool, etc is unleashed on the neocons and the Christian Right, we might see fighting in the streets.

Lee, one of the conclusions of my three-year full-time study of the medical evidence was that the shot at 313 impacted at the supposed exit, and created a "graze wound" also known as "gutter wound" or "tangential wound." If your professional sources would care to go on record, I would love to cite their opinions in the head wound chapters at patspeer.com. Thanks, Pat

Thanks, I've got that somewhere.

Brian, there are plenty who see it the other way. They believe that, through the internet, kids are exposed to too much info, and too much BS, and that, as a result, they are increasingly prone to distrust the government. This fact is supported by the large amount of 9/11 skeptics among the young. I see kids wearing anti-Bush T-shirts almost every day. What we need is not more access to the young, but the opportunity to help then think critically. This forum was designed to help accomplish that purpose. Bugliosi's book may create a small bounce of WC apologists, but the JFK assassination does not pass the smell test of most Americans, and probably never will.

Cliff, the location of the back wound in the autopsy photo is on a curved part of the back. The angle of the curve is greater than the angle of declination from the TSBD, so that a bullet fired from above would appear to be heading upwards. I write about this in the SBT section of my webpage made under YOUR suggestion. In this same section, I criticize John Hunt's "bunching" article, and show how his use of the black and white Croft led to a misunderstanding of the degree of "bunch." It's bizarre to me that you see me as your enemy, when we agree on most everything of importance, except for T1 vs. T3. If the bullet entrance at T1, which is the OFFICIAL entry location of the U.S. Govt., actually supports the SBT, then why does every depiction of the SBT--Lattimer's, Canning's, Myers'. Zimmerman's, Court TV's, etc--misrepresent the location of this wound? Please show us HOW an entrance at T1 fits the single-assassin scenario. Was Kennedy leaning forward from Z-190--Z-224, a la the HSCA FPP? Definitely not. So how does it work? Before you call me anymore names, DEMONSTRATE how my conclusions help the SBT. As far as the lower smudge, please post a close up view of that supposed entrance, so that readers can see for themselves that there is no hole in your entrance...

The Washington Post review is maddening and incredibly insulting. Talbot can't write a book about RFK's suspicions of a conspiracy without some nimrod assuring us that RFK was wrong and that Bugliosi has solved the case? What a bunch of bs!!! While I still have my doubts about Mockingbird, stuff like this really makes me wonder. If someone wrote a book about Nixon's suspicions that the CIA set him up in Watergate, should the reviewer go out of his way to assure the readers that Bob Woodward says it isn't true? Review a book on its merits, not on whether the characters in the book agree with your world view. I mean, c'mon, should a review of a book about the Civil War go out of its way to tell the reader that Lincoln's belief that God was on his side was misguided, because there really is no God? Dallek's insistence that this book is part of the conspiracy literature demands a response from David. (P.S. Dallek wouldn't be related to conspiracy-nay-sayer Robert Dallek, would he? If so, then he had a far-greater conflict of interest than Jeff Morley ever had.)

Quote from John Dolva: Great. If you look at the left area you can see that Clint jumps and fumbles. This highest point his head reaches is seen in other films. (see "missing Nix frames") The Z film IMO is wrongly numbered because of splices that has removed frames partially or wholly(IMO). The work on synching (mostly by Frank and I with many contributions) the films is unfinished for various reasons, so rather than mentioning numbers one can look at events. The point here is to see the moment when the Limo passes Altgens. (one can use infranview for example to rip frames from the clip and check/compare for the WC numbers). John, Nice job on the Altg en's clip. Listen to Altgen's description of the head-shot either by mp3 audio or mov video. (Supplied) Change .mov video extension to .mp4 if necessary. Watch your clip again and the headshot sequence (stabilized if possible). Altgen's describes JFK moving ONLY forward from the headshot and dropping into Jackie's lap. In your clip, as the limo is approaching Altgen's, JFK's movement seems to be more indicative of Altgen's description on the video/audio I have furnished. In other words, only Frame313 would actually belong near the beginning of your clip. This way you have the headshot, JFK moving forward, falling into Jackie's lap and NO backward movement as the limo passes by Ike. Just as Altgen's describes and THOMAS PURVIS has shown us. chris P.S. How does the backwards movement footage fit in? Chris, do you remember where you got the Altgens audio clip? And when it was recorded? I hadn't heard that before.

Thanks, David, for the pics. I think the photo where I am laughing was taken at the exact moment Stone conceded "You win!" Pat, Just off-hand, do you know who the gentlemen on the right of frame is, the man wearing the blue shirt? James No, but he did look familiar. The only one in the picture besides Lifton, Stone, and myself I recognize is the man in the blue shirt with his back to the camera. That's Mel Stuart, the producer and director of Four Days in November (as well as Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory), who called Ollie Stone's JFK a lie from beginning to end. I slipped him a business card with the internet address to my videos. I knew he'd never look at it, but I wanted to impress upon him that some of us are still digging for the truth, and some of us are old coots who think they know everything. He told me that he knew Jack Ruby acted alone because he'd met Ruby's sister and driven his car! Big whup! Like you can ever get a clear picture of a human being from talking to their siblings. I suspect George W. Bush's family would have trouble telling all about his dark side, for example.

Cliff, Willis is at 202, correct? Kennedy's sudden jerk in the Z-film, the Z-film blurs, and eyewitness evidence all lead me to conclude he was first hit around 190. The Z-film shows him jerking around just after. As a result, I don't think you can use Willis to establish the bunch or no-bunch question of a half-second before. Additionally, jackets are not rigid, and can be bunched slightly in the middle without the collar rising up over the top of someone's head. As far as the other stuff... The tip of the mastoid is roughly the bottom of the ear. If you draw a line from the level of the bottom of the ear on the face sheet, and then project this line to the right on the face sheet, you'll be at the tip of the shoulder. I ask again, is this some incredible coincidence--that the measurements you assert were an irrational lie just so happened to match the drawing you assert is the gospel truth? I agree that it's possible someone got to Humes on Sat or Sun and said that he had to have as few bullets as possible. He may very well have been pressured into concluding the throat wound was the exit for the back wound. But they didn't know diddly on Friday night when they created the face sheet. (Humes never even knew Burkley had "confirmed the face sheet till the ARRB showed it to him, so any conjecture that he added the measurements after Burkley had "confirmed" the face sheet would seem unlikely." Besides, what kind of half-assed conspiracy would include Humes, but not Burkley? Burkley--who never told Humes about the throat wound observed in Dallas nor the Harper fragment and who is at the center of the disappearing brain controversy?) It makes no sense at all that they would make up random measurements to further a lie without establishing that this lie helps their cause. A wound at T1 is a strong argument against the SBT. If the autopsy report was designed to sell that the same bullet hitting Kennedy in the back exited his throat the doctors could have easily reported that the lung was punctured, or that there was substantial damage within the neck. They failed to do so. As far as the mastoid measurement controversy--I meant that you should find a source in a medical book, not in the conspiracy literature. (I think Wecht also complains about the use of the mastoid in one of his books.) If the HSCA FPP was part of a cover-up, it makes no sense for them to use the mastoid measurement, as it only confirmed that the Rydberg Drawing was a fraud. By stating that the wound was 13.5 cm below the mastoid, but on the back, they were opening the door to speculation that the wound measured at the autopsy was even lower, and even further out of alignment than is necessary for the SBT to occur. As far as your list of witnesses whose statement were consistent with a wound at T3, the term "shoulder" in popular usage is incredibly vague. How many of these men have said that the autopsy photo of the back wound is fake? How many have said that the lower smudge in the photo is the real wound? And WHY, if the back wound photo is fake, did the alterationists leave the original wound on the photo? It's a heck of a lot easier to remove something from a photo than add something in and make it look real. The "lower smudge is the real wound" theory--which I at one time thought possible, is with further reflection, nonsense.

Thanks, David, for the pics. I think the photo where I am laughing was taken at the exact moment Stone conceded "You win!"