Pat Speer

*********************************************************** Now, this is the Charles Black I had come to admire back in November - December, before those damned "Marilyn" threads. This is where you shine, Charlie. This is where you should be directing your time and energy. Because, this is the podium from which I first witnessed what I believed was your dogged determination in pointing your finger in the direction of the real perps. You and Myra, seemed to be the new blood so necessary in raising the conciousness, as well as the evolutionary process, in order to drag this investigation out of the mire in which it's been languishing. And, I sincerely mean that, Charles. Please don't mistake this as some kind of an attack, because that is definitely not my intention, here. Wow, thank you Terry. In fact I'm going to pounce on this to flog a project I've been wanting to work on, and it's finally to the point where I'm soliciting input: http://www.jfktimeline.com/ Everyone please keep in mind that this is a super early version. I'm just now getting the format nailed down. It will take months to really put some flesh on the bones. And a big part of the reason I'm going quasi-public with it now is because input from other researchers/historians is essential given the scope of the effort. My objective is to give context to President Kennedy's murder and thereby explain what's going on today because it's all so closely related. I'm also doing this because the murder is a huge puzzle, so I'm assembling it like a huge puzzle. Ultimately the perps & victims will be very obvious from my presentation. The format will allow for a lot of information at a glance, while incorporating drill-down capability. If someone wants to know more about a topic I'll link to my own summaries. Then if they want to know still more I'll provide links to (what I consider) the best JFK resources. Again, input info and ideas would be greatly appreciated. Myra, the first chapter of my work in progress, entitled The Aftermath, is included on my homepage at PatSpeer.com. It is a timeline of Johnson, FBI, Warren Commission and media activities in the weeks after the assassination. It became absolutely clear, from writing this, that no one in power was particularly interested in finding out what happened. Does it mean there'd been a coup? No. But it shows beyond any doubt, IMO, that had there been one, no one would have had the guts to uncover it. Feel free to use any of the info in your timeline. Johnson felt it was best to bury the investigation with the bodies. His purported reasons--fear of WW3, are a lie. His real reasons--to protect himself from speculation and to prop up the presidency--are not justified, IMO. After all, is it a Democracy when the President is beyond suspicion, and beyond investigation? And how crazy is it that Johnson created a Panel, answerable only to himself, to investigate himself? The proper place for this investigation was in congress. By swooping down and cutting off the congressional investigations, Johnson was purportedly protecting the U.S. from the 'wrong sort of investigation"--one played out in public and one that might be used to spread anti-right-wing or anti-Communist hysteria. If he was sincere in this, however, it was probably a miscalculation. His appointing prominent Americans, all beholden to him personally, to clear his name, played out like a Machiavellian farce overseas, and ran but two years domestically. Instead of strengthening the U.S. he weakened it. In the process, he sent a message to his successors--from Nixon to Reagan to Bush to Bush--that the preservation of Presidential authority is a legitimate National Security Objective. In other words, it was determined that the President's good name was more important than the lives of others. The Cold War gave him a license to lie. Today, of course, the War on Terror gives the current President a license to lie, and conceal. At least in his mind.

"A problem with many conspiracy theories is that they exist only as a challenge to the official version of events. Yet if the conspiracy theory is true, a series of events must have occurred to make the conspiracy happen. However, many conspiracy theorists are unwilling to spell out exactly how they think the conspiracy was achieved. This appears to be a tacit acceptance that their arguments don’t add up to a coherent theory. What they often have, instead, is an ad hoc collection of arguments which, if put together, make no sense." This is a deceptive argument. In order to demonstrate that something didn't happen, it is not necessary to demonstrate exactly what happened. In the Kennedy assassination, for example, all that one needs to demonstrate that a conspiracy is likely is to demonstrate that it would be unlikely for Oswald to have fired all the shots as heard by the witnesses and as recorded in the films and photos. That's it. One can speculate all day long about who fired the shots, who killed Tippit, whether or not Oswald was involved, etc.. and be dead wrong...one can even offer up a possibility far less likely than the WC scenario, but that does not change the fact that it is unlikely Oswald fired all the shots. The single bullet theory holds that the bullet entered Kennedy's back and exited his throat but fails to describe the bullet's internal voyage. Belief in this theory is therefore based on one's ability to convince oneself that somehow someway the bullet squeaked through without hitting bone or vessel. There is no burden of proof on those wishing to disprove this theory, beyond that they demonstrate this faith to be unjustified.

All registered members of the forum got this email. The character of the first post is Tom Lowry, who has never been a member of this forum, as far as I can remember. He posts incredibly nasty anti-CT invectives all day long on alt.conspiracy.jfk and alt.assassination.jfk. After viewing my first video, with Baden testifying with his video upside down, he sent me an amazingly insulting email in which he claimed I was somehow lying for financial gain. The other character, Salvador Astucia, is a fake name used by Dave Sharp. He writes on alt.assassination.jfk as dsharpness, I believe. He was booted off this forum for anti-semitism and lying about his name. Someone once created a webpage about him, in which they detailed his long career as an internet xxxxx and anti-semite haunting and taunting Beatle and JFK forums. The fact that Lowry got John's email makes me suspicious that he too has been using a fake name.

Are you saying that the last shot was over 5 seconds after the head shot? Wasn't the limo almost to the underpass by then? Which witness(es) heard a shot that late? Ron, I was referring to the Posner scenario swallowed down like pep pills by the media. It holds there were no shots fired between 224 and 313. Those who heard three shots overwhelmingly place the second shot closer to the head shot. Those witnessing the head shot believed it was the second of the three, not the third. The timing of the third shot is just before Jackie starts to climb out of the car The SS agents, no doubt pressured to say the head shot was the third shot, nevertheless refused to do so, and instead said incredibly vague things such as "I couldn't tell if the second or third shot hit Kennedy in the head." Well, even something this vague is proof that Posner's theory is full of it. Is it remotely possible that Kinney and Roberts, sitting just behind Kennedy, would forget a five second gap building up to the head shot? I say NO.

I have the DVD and have watched Smith's presentation. He came across as sincere and enthusiastic, but, as I remember, he didn't discuss anything beyond what you'll find on this forum.

Don, last year I went through the eyewitnesses, one by one, and compared their positions in the photos and films to what they said, and it is as clear as DAY that there was at least one shot fired after the head shot. In the Muchmore headshot there are seven eyewitnesses. The two with Hudson have never been identified. Beverly Oliver didn't come forward for several years. The other 4--Moorman, Hill, Brehm, and Hudson--ALL said there was a shot after the head shot. To me that is convincing proof there was a shot after the headshot and UNDENIABLE proof that the shooting did not occur as proposed by the Posnerites, with the closest shot to the head shot coming 5 seconds BEFORE the head shot.

For one thing, having the film in their possession enhanced the status of the owners and editors in Washington. From a social caste point of view, snagging the Zfilm was the ultimate "get" for a news outlet. It turned the Saturday Evening Post, Newsweek and Look into also-rans for years. Also consider how media outlets behave when they are in possession of something that turns out to be bogus. For example, Germany's Stern magazine couldn't wait to serialize the fake Hitler Diaries. imo, when people have something truly valuable they keep it close to the vest and release tidbits. Once they release it fully to the public, it's not theirs any more, their cachet evaporates. In the media and in politics, status is everything. "Status." Ok, asked and answered. News organizations squirrel away crime evidence for status rather than newsworthiness. This is a most informative thread. Myra, this may seem hard to believe, but it's clear to me that Life Magazine bought the Z-Film for two reasons, 1) to keep the gruesome film from becoming a public spectacle 2) to make a boatload of cash. Life was big news in the 60s, and having the Z film meant millions of sales. Just as importantly, having the film prevented their competitors from getting millions of sales. I'd bet you the purchase paid for itself within the first year. As far as alteration, I don't think there was any. There is reason to suspect that the FBI and Warren Commission deliberately printed the head shot frames in the wrong order, in order to hide that the head went back after the shot. As Life executive C.D. Jackson was close to Warren Commissioner John McCloy, there's also a possibility Life colluded with the WC to keep certain frames from the public. Since Jackson died in 64, however, it's possible his promises died with him...which might explain the magazine's switcheroo in 66.

You hold a very narrow view of what right-wing propaganda is. It is a lot more than attacking liberals. For over 200 years history textbooks in the UK have portrayed change as taking place as a result of the ruling class feeling sorry for the masses. The truth is the masses, black and white, forced the ruling class into introducing reforms. It would be a damned shame if people refused to see this fine film because people who've never seen it have incorrectly and foolishly labeled it right-wing propaganda. It would also be a damned shame if people stopped watching fine films and television programs merely because someone distantly associated with the film or program has political views they dislike. If this were standard behavior, we would have few fine films, as most every film-maker would be horrified by the thought of alienating the market. The hope for the world is for people to find common ground. This movie finds common ground, and shows that what now seems so obvious--that slavery is evil and should be eradicated--was not always so obvious, and only became obvious through the efforts of people of good will. While Wilberforce is the "hero" of the film, he is not depicted as an unwavering moral force. It is through his contact with others that he receives the strength to carry on his fight. The film's ethical center is held by two men. One is Oloudaqh Equiano--a former slave turned writer and abolitionist, played by African musician Youssou N'Dour. The other is John Newton, a repentant slave ship captain and composer of the hymn Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney. The film does not depict Wilberforce the leader of the anti-slavery movement as much as the sole voice of the movement in Parliament. Even there, however, he has the behind-the-scenes help of William Pitt, who is under pressure to hide his anti-slavery convictions, seeing as the royals are making a killing, literally, from the slave trade. Anyone interested in seeing the film should do so, without fear they will be brain-washed into voting Republican.

Exactly. He wasn't. He was an enemy of the working man. Okay, so we're in agreement then that the film is not right-wing propaganda, as right-wing propaganda would not present a bleeding heart liberal, as Wilberforce is presented in the movie, as both courageous and heroic, and successful businessmen as petty and selfish. If there's anything "right-wing" about the movie it's that insists morality and Christianity can be used to better society. Well, duh. Any film about Martin Luther King would make the same points. As far as Anschutz's role... it's distant. His company also produced Sahara and Ray, not exactly right wing propaganda. Anschuitz is a businessman, pure and simple. He's currently trying to re-build downtown L.A. He wants to glitz it up. Nothing about a church on every corner, last I heard.

John and Greg, I humbly request you watch the movie before you persist in presenting it as a piece of right-wing propaganda. It is anything but. Wilberforce is presented as a friend to the common man. In the movie, he is heavily influenced by the guilt of a former slave ship captain, the writer of the song Amazing Grace, played by Albert Finney, and by his friendship with a former slave turned best-selling author. The film focuses on the moral arguments against the slave trade, although it does acknowledge that Wilberforce and his collaborators had to play politics and make the slave trade uneconomical, before they could kill it. Not everything Tim Gratz touches is tainted by his right-wing beliefs.

I was, and continue to be, friendly with Tim, but I supported his ouster from the Forum. His skin was a bit thin and he was too lawsuit-happy, first threatening Shannon with litigation, and then John. When John quoted something Tim said out of context, Tim responded not by pointing it out to John, but by threatening to sue him. Which is a bit ridiculous, in my book. If I remember correctly, he later admitted he was a bit tired of being the token GOP spokesman on the forum. Of course, trying to defend Bush's policies would be enough to wear anyone out. Look at Colin Powell and Scott McClellan, for two. Tim, as so many, was full of contradictions. As John pointed out, he was an outspoken supporter of the civil rights movement, and would frequently defend LBJ on those grounds. And yet he was a Goldwater Republican and a member of the YAF. Both Goldwater and the YAF were outspoken supporters of "state's rights," which back then meant the right to enact policies designed to prevent blacks from voting.

Maybe they'll publish it on President Kennedy's birthday. Obviously, I have not read the unpublished book. But it is more of the same. Oswald did it alone from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Kathy It's been scheduled for release on President Kennedy's birthday for quite a while: http://www.amazon.com/s/002-5533782-275606...=Mozilla-search Can't let a major anniversary like that pass without a propaganda eruption to offset the inherent good publicity. Here's what I've long wondered about those who deny that the Z-film is altered. Do they truly believe that a film with that kind of evidentiary significance would sit unmolested in the vault of Henry Luce, the Dean of CIA Mockingbird propagandists, for years? Just knowing the provenance of the Z-film should be enough to discredit it as evidence. I for one shan't be wasting good money on it, might give it a look once it hits the liberies. It will be Posner with his flies done up. I will probably end up buying Bugliosi's book and studying it in detail. As far as the Z-film being altered and Luce being part of some conspiracy etc., I seem to remember that it was Life Magazine, FROM its study of the Z-film, that first called for a new investigation. In November 1966. Now why would they do that if the film had been altered to hide a conspiracy? Well, maybe because the film shows Kennedy and Connally react seconds apart, and raises great doubt they were hit by the same shot...

No, he has not accepted the invitation to rejoin the forum. I heard from him back in February, when he said he was putting together a fundraising event for an anti-Slavery coalition that was held in late March, and he would be busy until then. (Did you know that 40% of the world's chocholate comes from Africa where the factories are full of enslaved children?). He said he kept monitoring the forum however. While we are on different sides of the political fence, I get along with JTG. BK Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc. I have a sneaking respect for the Timster, too... but it's always the same old game with certain groups... http://www.rightwingwatch.org/states/south_dakota/ ********************************************************* "Bill, whilst that anti-slavery message sounds all warm and cuddly, it is being used by certain groups as a "front". The real targets are the usual ones of the religious right: abortion, gay marriage etc." We must've been posting at the same exact time, Greg. I never saw this before posting my reply. If this is the case then that's too bad. I just wish T.G. would come back clue us in, but why should he even want to bother. I guess we're probably "small time" to him by now, anyway. I can assure those in doubt that Tim's commitment to the anti-slavery cause is genuine. He's been telling me about it for months. The links he's sent me have mostly been related to the film "Amazing Grace," an historical epic about William Wilberforce's campaign to end the slave trade in England. While some of the supporters of the anti-slavery cause are right-wing churches, with an anti gay and anti-abortion agenda, none of the links he's sent me have said anything about this. See for yourself: www.freedomdaykeywest.com www.onevoicetoendslavery.com www.ijm.org

This is one powerful video. How to sum up a legend! Thanks for pointing it out Carl It's hard for me to look through this thread. I was in the record business for 13 years and was able to meet and chat with June Carter Cash and Lou Rawls, among others. I witnessed firsthand the sudden burst of popularity one receives when one's "tragedy" is marketed properly--i.e. Nick Drake and Eva Cassidy. I have a wall of schmooze in my kitchen lined with photos of the many "meets and greets" in which I participated. It all seems so long ago now. The record industry as I knew it, and as captured in these videos, is largely a thing of the past. The youth market, which has always fueled the record market, is obsessed with video game fantasies and horror films. There's not much room left for personal communication or soulful expression. or so it seems.

John, there were a number of articles--the one in Rolling Stone comes to mind-- in which Hunt's son said he thought his dad might be one of the tramps. Still, if Hunt's son has been talking to Mr. Weberman, his father's long-time nemesis, you can count me among the curious as to what was said. I am also intrigued by Weberman's comment that it has all become a game. A.J., if you'd care to elaborate, you have my attention.

Steve, if you're wondering if this Charles Black is the same one on this forum, your answer would be almost certainly "no." If Charlie was some sort of disinfo agent, he would be awfully stupid to use his own name.

I suspect you're right. Oswald was buying time, waiting for the right lawyer (or some government guardian angel) to appear. He knew he was in deep doo-doo, and was trying to calm his family by focusing on the needs of others. While Robert took Lee's "There's nothing there" comment to mean that Lee was beyond help, it also can be read as Lee's warning his brother away. "Don't bother trying to figure out what's going on here, brother, cause it will only get you into trouble." It's possible Lee was trying to protect his family. It's possible he succeeded. After all, none of them ended up on the "mysterious deaths" list.

My gosh, Charles, I just re-read some of Terry's posts, and they were no more out of line than your own. You certainly knew going in that certain people would take exception to your argument that Bobby somehow caused his brother's death. So where's the beef? You got what you bargained for.

This is quite an interesting topic. To understand its implication is to see America in its naked flesh, in my opinion. There are a number of reasons for the media's resistance. 1. Laziness. The assassination story is quite complex, and to get to the bottom of it one must commit a substantial amount of time and energy. Journalists feed off eyewitness testimony. Journalists feed off expert testimony. Journalists feed off celebrity testimony. Journalists feed off spoon-fed press releases. As the purported "experts" in this case have almost all been hand-picked by the government, and as the celebrities--the Connallys and Mrs. Kennedy--went along with the government line--these cards are stacked in the government's favor. These cards dictate the media play along with the government. With one exception. When Connally insisted he was not hit by the first shot in 1966, Life Magazine, The Saturday Evening Post, etc. called for a new investigation. CBS News performed this investigation, with the help of John McCloy and Ramsey Clark, and concluded the single bullet theory worked, but that the SBT occurred with the second shot. Since this satisfied the Connally problem, it satisfied the media as a whole. Of course, if they had DARED DUE THEIR HOMEWORK, they would have noticed that the mythical first-shot miss they'd accepted was at odds with the testimony of virtually every witness. A further example of this laziness came in 1969, with the announcement of the Clark Panel's findings. Every article I've found has blindly and stupidly said the finding supported the Warren Commission's conclusions, without noting that the conclusions stated that the autopsy doctors' mis-remembered the location of the head wound entrance, and were off by FOUR INCHES. Evidently, not one paper hired a doctor to review the Panel's findings and see if they made sense. As a consequence the public, by and large, was not aware of the movement of the head wound entrance. Most still are unaware of this mind-boggling development. 2. Professional Pride. Since day one, members of the media have jockeyed for position, knowing that proximity to the assassination can assure one of "credibility." Prominent newsman such as Cronkite, MacNeil, Lehrer, Schieffer, and Rather, and prominent publications such as the New York Times all gained some gravitas from their actions on 11-22. They have positioned themselves as the official "story-tellers" of the event. The problem is that it was for them ONE story, which they focused on for a short time. They did very little actual investigation. Thus, when a Mark Lane or Harold Weisberg pops up with a different story, and calls into question not only their ability to uncover the truth, but their integrity, they respond by questioning their integrity. Thus, from the beginning, the relationship between the press and the buffs has been an adversarial one. 3. National Pride. Although the media positions itself as an outsider spying on and regulating the U.S. Government, the reality is that the media is part of a system, whereby conflicting interests within the U.S. Government provide it with fuel to combat the other side. As a result, virtually every scandal within Washington comes from a leaker, a Mark Felt-type, anxious to mold the giant ball of clay. That LBJ was able to create and use the Warren Commission to DECEIVE THE PUBLIC, and that the media, in its laziness and blindness, played along willingly, is horrifying for most journalists and historians to think about. In the 1960's Warren Commissioner John McCloy made some comments about the WC feeling the need to prove to the world that the U.S. was not a Banana Republic. In his memoirs, Warren talks about how unthinkable it is that men like Hoover, Rowley, and himself all conspired to look the other way. In the post-Oliver Stone statements of men like Lehrer and Cronkite, they make similar statements about how unthinkable it is to believe the media failed to uncover a widespread conspiracy as described by Stone. These men were born and fed by a system, and it's unthinkable to them that the system failed, and that, whether or not he killed Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson ORCHESTRATED THIS FAILURE. Their institutional hubris, their failure to admit they were duped, strangles them, and prevents them from looking at the evidence for conspiracy in a rational manner. 4. Intellectual Pride. Since so many experts piled onto the Government bandwagon at the outset, and because the Warren Report was for the most part well-written and well-reasoned (with notable exceptions) journalists and historians looked at the lone-assassin myth as the "rational choice." When Harold Weisberg, Edward Epstein, Mark Lane, Sylvia Meagher, and Josiah Thompson came out with well-reasoned, scholarly, books on the assassination, however, things began to shift. Men like Arthur Schlesinger and William F. Buckley called for a new investigation. This seduction continued for a decade until finally the pressure became too great and Congress re-opened the investigation. It then fell on Blakey, etc, to bring in the best and brightest to clear up the matter. The problem, however, was that these experts were all at odds with one another. Some were, apparently coerced into selling the public nonsense. As proven in my presentation, Thomas Canning's trajectory analysis was complete GARBAGE. As demonstrated in part 1 of my video series, the medical panel couldn't even orient their exhibits correctly. As demonstrated repeatedly by others as well as myself, Dr. Vincent Guinn came to a grossly improper conclusion regarding the wrist fragments. The HSCA came to a mixed conclusion, as we know. Things were left in a quandary until JFK came along. This film was too provocative for the intellectual elite, as it called into question their intellectual integrity. Then BOOM, along came St. Posner to save their butt. Posner's well-written and seemingly well-reasoned analysis allowed them to continue pretending that Oswald did it all along so all was well. The problem was, he LIED. Still, after Posner got them off the hook, they had a built-in excuse to stop reading. He'd closed the case, after all. In short, I can virtually guarantee that Alexander Cockburn and others like him have never read Larry Hancock's book on the circumstantial evidence, and would NEVER EVER NOT EVEN IF YOU PAID THEM wind their way through my extensive writings on the medical evidence. They are simply not interested in any evidence that suggests conspiracy. All they know at this point is that you have Arlen Specter, Dale Myers, Dr. Michael Baden, and Gerald Posner on one side--seemingly all rational men--and loud-mouths like Cyril Wecht and Mark Lane on the other, surrounded by a bunch of "come on, get a life" weirdos. I mean Oswald did it, right? Didn't the Discovery Channel prove that AGES ago?

All the clips I looked at were culled from other people's videos. True but putting them in this form helps researchers. For example, I intend to put links to them from my individual pages on people connected to the assassination. I absolutely agree that having access to these videos is invaluable, and that kids need to be educated. After all, I've been creating my own video series. My concern is that these videos have been uploaded for public viewing apparently without the permission of the copyright owners, and that the copyright owners appear to be individuals. Has Mark Lane given permission to have his film put up on Youtube? I spent a few weeks dealing with CBS recently. I wanted to use an interview excerpt from their 1967 Special on the assassination. In this excerpt, Dr. Humes tells a BIG WHOPPING LIE to the American public, only weeks after getting a letter from the Justice Department pressuring him to lie. This can be demonstrated. CBS said we could use the 30 second excerpt, for 1500 bucks, and then only for four years. We opted to just re-enact the interview, using a transcript. What I'm getting at, I suppose, is that most of the videos I see on Youtube are either pro-SBT bs culled from the Discovery Channel or stuff culled from the videos of small independents. Some jerk--perhaps a former forum member-- went through the 80's mock trial footage and uploaded only the segments making Bugliosi look good. Perhaps we should make a list of footage that should be on Youtube, and then set about finding the material and the individuals brave enough to put it up. As a beginning nomination, I vote for all the early WFAA interviews, apparently released a few years back on a no-longer available DVD. As a second nomination, I suggest the HSCA testimony. Apparently just about ALL of it was taped. If we could find all that and put it up we'd be providing a valuable service, IMO. I compared Baden's testimony to the transcripts of his testimony and found NUMEROUS changes.

All the clips I looked at were culled from other people's videos.

We're on the same page, John. While I don't pretend to know who killed Kennedy, the argument by some intellectuals (notably Chomsky) that Kennedy (in the eyes of the military and intelligence elite) was not worth killing, is incredibly wrong-headed. With his stands on the Missile Crisis and Test Ban treaty, and his resistance to escalation in Vietnam, he had sent a clear message that it was his show, and that the career military and intelligence "experts" were but junior advisers. This undoubtedly ruffled some feathers. Some of these men might have believed it was a matter of national interest that this young upstart playboy be displaced, and democracy be damned. As much as I admire Kennedy, I'm not so sure their intentions were wrong. At the height of Watergate, Kissinger, Haig, and Schlesinger formed a coalition of sorts to keep an eye on Nixon. They feared he'd do something wreckless or insane. If he'd have refused to listen to them, and had attempted to do something insane--say, ordered a preliminary nuke strike on Russia--would it have been wrong for them to have him killed? I'm on the fence. I believe too much power rests in the presidency, as proven by our latest tyrant.

A very interesting topic, John, but I'm not sure the examples are accurate. The Bay of Pigs failed not so much because the Kennedy people engaged in "groupthink" as that the CIA engaged in "wishful thinking." After the Kennedy people changed the original plan, the CIA let the action go forward, even though their top planners--Hawkins, Esterline--believed it would fail. Apparently, they did this because they felt sure that Kennedy would order direct U.S. involvement before he would let the invasion fail. They were wrong. Prior to this, of course, they'd strung Kennedy along with the idea that an underground would rise up in Cuba, blah blah blah. In fact, they didn't trust the underground, and failed to clue them in on the invasion. Security among the CIA Cubans was so bad, in fact, that Castro knew what was coming, and had had the bulk of the underground rounded up before the invasion began. During the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy did indeed try to avoid "groupthink," and welcomed the input of all types. Ultimately, the successful conclusion of the crisis fell on Kennedy's shoulders alone, as he basically ignored all the advice of the "experts" and listened to his own gut. He trusted that Khruschev was not evil, and would not be willing to let so many die over an issue that was not of importance to the Russian people. But he also felt that Castro would not hesitate to launch any operational nukes if we bombed his country, or tried a full-scale invasion. So he blockaded Cuba instead, and opened back door channels to Khruschev. Thus, he avoided the "groupthink" of the military, that an immediate strike was necessary, and handled the problem successfully in his own way.

Those reluctant to go to the website of the video director will be pleased to know that Part 2 is now up and running on Youtube, albeit in two parts. It is available in one piece on Metacafe and googlevideo. FWIW, towards the end we have the phone conversation between Warren Commissioner Richard Russell and LBJ, where LBJ admits he doesn't believe the single bullet theory. Intriguingly, I announced the video on five JFK forums. Within a few hours of my post on the IMDB forum, David Von Pein had posted an extensive reply, complete with mountains of misinfo. This was at 3 AM on a Sunday morning. Over the next few days, Nick Kendrick announced that the director and I were full of it. One or two posters defended us. We defended ourselves. Meanwhile, the video received largely supportive comments on the JFK Lancer and Alt.conspiracy.JFK forums. The response of these three forums was as expected. What I didn't expect was that my video would receive ZERO comments on both this and the McAdams forum (alt.assassination.JFK). While one might be tempted to think it's because the content of my video is pedestrian and only repeats what is already known and accepted, this is not true. Those interested in the video can go to the link above or just type my name "Pat Speer" in a search on Youtube.

Thanks John. Sounds like a good resource. Myra, there are some who suspect that the Walker incident was designed for two purposes. 1) to get positive publicity for Walker; 2) to give Oswald the bona fides to get into Cuba. As far as Oswald telling Marina he fired the shot... I often wonder about Oswald's relationship with his wife and suspect he never trusted her. If he was CIA, as some suspect, he may have been playing his own wife. He may have thought by telling her she would get word to the Paines or to others he suspected of leftist sympathies. He may have hoped this would open some doors for him when he tried to get into Cuba. There is a lot about Oswald, Marina, the Paines and the De Mohrenschildts that remains a mystery. I mean, how odd is it that the Walker incident occurred only days before De Mohrenschildt met with the U.S. military and encouraged the overthrow of his employer, Haitian dictator Papa Doc Duvallier?