Pat Speer

The movie Shooter just opened here. It features Mark Wahlberg as a Marine Corps sniper set up as a patsy in a political assassination. A local cop is part of the plot and is assigned to shoot Wahlberg's character before he can talk. If that sounds familiar it's no accident. The movie makes several references to the JFK assassination. At one point, someone mentions that if the patsy gets caught he has to be silenced, "like Jack Ruby silenced Oswald." (approximate quote) At another point a veteran shooter tells Wahlberg that being the triggerman in an assassination attempt is a sucker's move, and that the men on the grassy knoll were killed and dumped in the desert shortly after they hit Kennedy. When Wahlberg questions this old coot, played by Levon Helm, if this is really true, he tells Wahlberg "I still got the shovel." Some here will be interested to find that the attempt on the President in the film is a fake one, in order to disguise that the real target is someone nearby, who is killed. This is a reference to the assassination of Chicago's Mayor Cermak, who was killed (possibly by the Chicago mob) while standing near President-elect Roosevelt. Others will be interested to know that the film goes way off track in the last 20 minutes and actually ends up advocating the murder of political figures who use the American military for financial gain, and then use their position in Washington to avoid prosecution. It was thus, by implication, calling for the murder of VP Dick Cheney, and possibly President Bush himself. Laughably, in the movie this action is done with wink-wink approval from the Attorney General while the current Attorney General is, of course, one of the "boys". Even so, it seems Hollywood grew some balls. It'll be interesting to see the conservative media and red state response to this film. Perhaps they will just pretend it's entertainment and not a call to action. But I bet at least one pundit will talk of how incredibly irresponsible the film-makers are in sending such a message. And I'm not so sure I'd disagree. P.S. I just noticed the typo in the title of this thread. Is there a way to edit the title?

Perhaps I shouldn't be so modest. In this video, we go through the statements of Arlen Specter and the Commission, and make the argument that there was a deliberate misrepresentation of the back wound. I know people have been saying this for years, but no one's gone through and demonstrated this to this degree. Somewhere along the line, the conspiracy community adopted the attitude that the doctors at the autopsy used the wrong landmarks in their measurements, and that their measurements were therefore unreliable. This was wrong, but people kept repeating it until they accepted it as gospel. The fact is that the measurements were reliable, and prove that the back wound was on the back and NOT at the base of the neck, as depicted in the Rydberg drawings used by the Warren Commission. In the video I make the argument that Specter KNEW the drawings were in error, but used them anyhow, and that he told people the photographs confirmed the wound location in the autopsy report, knowing FULL WELL the wound on the drawings was inches away from the wound described in the autopsy report. I also make the case that Specter either coaxed or tolerated testimony he knew to be false, including Dr. Humes' assertion that location measurements were used in the creation of the Rydberg drawings and Secret Service Inspector Thomas Kelley's assertion that the Rydberg drawings were used to establish the wound location used in the re-enactment.

The second part of the video series I've been working on is up on the director's website. It's the one on the bottom right at this link: Video part 2 It's a bit more professional than the last one, and took longer to do. We don't have anything as revelatory as Michael Baden testifying with his exhibit upside down, but we really get into some of the deceptions involving the back wound.

I didn't know that LBJ became majority leader as a result of a death. That's incredible, considering all the other lucky breaks which peppered LBJ's career. LBJ must have had direct access to Murder Inc. Could Pat please spell this out a little please? Which deaths helped elevate Johnson to Senate majority leader? It wasn't a direct lead-in. But in 1952, LBJ was just another Senator, and by 55 he was Majority Leader. Between 51 and 55 there were 9 deaths, as I remember, of active Senators. Most of them were old. There was one suicide, as I remember. Another one. Brion McMahon I think was his name, was fairly young. He was replaced by Prescott Bush, who'd lost an election just two years earlier due in part to his support of eugenics. At one point, I wrote all this stuff down. I may have created a thread on it even. As far as LBJ gaining power from this... when someone dies mid-term he can be replaced on a temporary basis by the Governor of his state. The Governor inevitably picks someone from his own party, which may or may not be the party of the deceased. The Senate was in a virtual deadlock in this period. As a result, the replacement of one senator with one from another party could change the balance of power. This change-over occurred three or four times in this period. There was no stability until LBJ emerged as the big dog in 55. Ironically, he had a heart attack very soon after. It all seems a bit suspicious to me. If I hadn't got sucked into studying the medical evidence, I was thinking of writing a screenplay about a secret history of the U.S., where Senators were murdered to change the balance of power, and where the see-saw only came to a stop when an iron man took control, only to have him get saddled with the vice-presidency. You know what happens next. I think you are drawing a long bow on this Pat. Here's an extract from today's Wikipedia entry on LBJ: Is this inaccurate?If not, why leave out the significant fact that Johnson was elected as minority leader in January 53 - and naturally became majority leader when the Senate became Democrat dominated in January 55? I didn't mean to imply Johnson killed his way to the top, if that's what you thought. It is just a statistical anomaly that so many died in such a short term, and that he came out on top. Johnson was slated for success early on, by FDR, Sam Rayburn, and Richard Russell, among others. But he was not a national figure until people started dropping. I find it intriguing to think that all these deaths, and Johnson's heart-attack, are related, but have no evidence for this and don't expect to find any.

I didn't know that LBJ became majority leader as a result of a death. That's incredible, considering all the other lucky breaks which peppered LBJ's career. LBJ must have had direct access to Murder Inc. Could Pat please spell this out a little please? Which deaths helped elevate Johnson to Senate majority leader? It wasn't a direct lead-in. But in 1952, LBJ was just another Senator, and by 55 he was Majority Leader. Between 51 and 55 there were 9 deaths, as I remember, of active Senators. Most of them were old. There was one suicide, as I remember. Another one. Brion McMahon I think was his name, was fairly young. He was replaced by Prescott Bush, who'd lost an election just two years earlier due in part to his support of eugenics. At one point, I wrote all this stuff down. I may have created a thread on it even. As far as LBJ gaining power from this... when someone dies mid-term he can be replaced on a temporary basis by the Governor of his state. The Governor inevitably picks someone from his own party, which may or may not be the party of the deceased. The Senate was in a virtual deadlock in this period. As a result, the replacement of one senator with one from another party could change the balance of power. This change-over occurred three or four times in this period. There was no stability until LBJ emerged as the big dog in 55. Ironically, he had a heart attack very soon after. It all seems a bit suspicious to me. If I hadn't got sucked into studying the medical evidence, I was thinking of writing a screenplay about a secret history of the U.S., where Senators were murdered to change the balance of power, and where the see-saw only came to a stop when an iron man took control, only to have him get saddled with the vice-presidency. You know what happens next.

John, as I remember the CIA had a program in the fifties and sixties that studied the toxicological effects of every form of poison. I think this was a spin-off of MKULTRA. Anyhow, they were looking for poisons that could simulate heart-attacks. I believe they were successful. The KGB had similar poisons. Somewhere I remember reading about a Soviet turncoat being murdered in London in the early seventies. It looked like a heart attack. The coroner, once tipped off that it was a possible murder, did a re-inspection, and found a small needle-mark on the man's arm (as I remember). Somebody had bumped into him on the street, and stung him with a tiny needle. Within a few minutes he was dead. Without a trace. After reading this, I remembered that Adlai Stevenson dropped dead on the streets of Paris after denouncing the Vietnam War on a radio show. Made me kinda wonder.... At another point I looked into a series of Senatorial deaths and heart attacks. As a result of this quick series of deaths, Prescott Bush became a U.S. Senator and LBJ became majority leader. Something like 9 sitting Senators (of 96) died in a 3 year stretch--more than in all the time since. Of course, shortly afterwards LBJ had a heart attack of his own. Made me kinda wonder...

Myra, you should read Kellerman's and Greer's testimony before you judge them. IF they'd been part of a conspiracy why would they testify to hearing a "flurry of shots" or to hearing the last two shots "almost simultaneously?" They both knew that the last two shots came in too fast for them both to have been fired by Oswald, and put this on the RECORD. And they weren't alone. A number of other SS agents reported the shots in a manner inconsistent with Oswald acting alone. When you consider how almost every aspect of the country--from the Presidency to the FBI to TV Guide--was quick to blame it on Oswald, it's easy to see how men like Kellerman and Greer kept their doubts to themselves. Sibert and O'Neill felt quite sure the single bullet theory was bs, yet failed to mention this publicly for years afterwards. The failure of the Warren Commission to get at the truth represents a failure of almost every aspect of the country, and not just the failure of a few bad guys in the Secret Service and/or military. This country was made up largely of bureaucratic ass-kissers and cowards. And still is. FWIW, not all of us "know" the "coup" had SS complicity. If so, why did Johnsen and Rowley refuse to sign off on the bona fides of CE 399? I suspect things aren't as clear-cut as you've come to believe.

He had no choice, he was outed by George Will in 1975. It was also disclosed that the National Review had been funded by the CIA for many years and was a home to former agents. It was in fact an important part of Operation Mockingbird. In fact, Buckley, like Hunt, never left the CIA. As Hunt explains in his book, it is sometimes useful to give the impression that you no longer work for the agency. Kathleen, see the following for a debate on Buckley's activities with the CIA. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5078 http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbuckleyW.htm A bit OT, but I suspect Hunt and Buckley conspired in a different fashion. After he was released from prison, Hunt was on the skids. His spy career was over and nobody gave a rat's ass about his spy novels. Not long after, the normally erudite and highbrow Buckley began "writing" a series of pulpy spy novels, featuring a CIA hero, Blackford Oakes. Hunt, we should remember, had convinced the CIA starting from way back that the CIA needed an "American James Bond" to help its image. Suddenly, Buckley was writing about the adventures of a CIA agent, with most of the action taking place in the sixties. In one, the "hero" becomes friends with Che Guevara but nevertheless presses for his execution after Che admits murdering a female friend. I suspect these books were all written by Hunt, and that Buckley merely put his name on them to help out his old friend and mentor. I wonder if Gore Vidal studied Buckley's books?

I'm all for the photo and bio qualification for this forum. It's what makes this forum unique (aside from John's presence and participation). The number of trolls is greatly reduced when people are asked to use their real names and images. Sure, some can get around it. But most won't take the time to concoct a fictitious persona. I seriously doubt there is anyone out there with anything worth sharing about the assassination, that wouldn't gladly follow these rules. If someone, say a former CIA op, wishes to contribute some info, but anonymously, they can always contact John directly. I believe several have.

Some screenwriter and TV show producer are having a little fun. They obviously suspect a conspiracy, and wanted to get a little dig in by having the supposed voice of reason say that the size of the conspiracy means it couldn't be kept secret, and have the other guy respond by saying "Well, duh, that's why it's not secret." A lot of Lone-Nutters get off on talking about how Conspiracy Theorists are irrational and illogical, without realizing their own faith in Oswald's Lone-Nuttedness is irrational and illogical. How else can you explain their insistence that the back wound was above the throat wound, in opposition to ALL the available evidence?

Here is an article for those afraid to click. What I find interesting is that he had severe coronary artery disease, yet died very suddenly in his sleep. The timing of this is also interesting, what with Stockton writing his book on Harvey, and dying before it could get released, and Hunt writing his book, and dying before it could get released. And here, Harrelson dies, and the article on his death fails to relate that Harrelson at one point claimed to have killed Kennedy. Woody Harrelson's dad dies doing 2 life terms From the Associated Press 9:15 AM PDT, March 21, 2007 Charles V. Harrelson Charles V. Harrelson click to enlarge DENVER -- Actor Woody Harrelson's father, Charles Harrelson, died of a heart attack in the Supermax federal prison where he was serving two life sentences for the murder of a federal judge, officials said today. Charles Harrelson, 69, was found unresponsive in his cell on the morning of March 15, said Felicia Ponce, a Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman in Washington. Fremont County Coroner Dorothy Twellman said an autopsy showed Harrelson had severe coronary artery disease. She said he probably died in his sleep. "It appears it was very sudden." Charles Harrelson was convicted of murder in the May 29, 1979, slaying of U.S. District Judge John Wood Jr. outside his San Antonio, Texas, home. Prosecutors said a drug dealer hired him to kill Wood because he did not want the judge to preside at his upcoming trial. Charles Harrelson denied the killing, saying he was in Dallas, 270 miles away, at the time. Wood, known as "Maximum John" for the sentences he gave in drug cases, was the first federal judge to be killed in the 20th century. Charles Harrelson was transferred to Supermax, the highest-security federal prison, after attempting to break out of an Atlanta federal prison in 1995. Other inmates at Supermax, about 90 miles south of Denver, include Unabomber Theodore Kaczynski, Oklahoma City bombing coconspirator Terry Nichols and Olympic Park bomber Eric Rudolph. His son got his start in acting as Woody the bartender on "Cheers" beginning in 1985 and went on to star in films including "Natural Born Killers," "White Men Can't Jump" and "The People vs. Larry Flynt." Woody Harrelson's publicist did not immediately return a call seeking comment today. The actor was just 7 when his father was first sent to prison, for murdering a Texas businessman. He was in college when his father was convicted of the judge's assassination.

It's my recollection that Nixon stated on one of the Watergate tapes that the Warren Report was "the biggest hoax" (or "one of the biggest hoaxes") "ever perpetrated on the American people." It turned out this quote was taken out of context by the BBC. Nixon was talking to Haldeman about the attempt on Wallace. He mentioned that even though Oswald was a leftist, some elements of the media convinced people it was a right-wing conspiracy. This was the "greatest hoax ever perpetuated" to which Nixon referred, not the Warren Commission. The BBC put out a statement about the tape that misrepresented the quote. CNN, however, showed the whole transcript on a broadcast, and this showed the quote in its proper context.

My nephew who has just graduated from university was very impressed (he was one of those who phoned me up while I was watching football). He seemed to think that if they ask a question like this on "University Challenge" it means that they expect all university students to know who I am. The coded message is that John Simkin's hard work is beginning to pay off and he is becoming somewhat of a celebrity. Congrats... (I think). In looking through Hunt's new book, I noticed that much of the discussion of the assassination seems to have been taken straight from the threads of this forum. I think someone already mentioned this, but after looking at the book, I know it's true. I mean, where else will one find extensive discussion of Cord Meyer's possible role? Of Phillips, Harvey and Morales? The other assassination forums only touch on these topics.

If Hunt turned down the offer to participate in the assassination, one wonders why he had to have his son lie about where he was on 11/22/63. Just the usual old spook stuff, I guess. Lie about anything and everything. I will be the first to mention that it is just my opinion, but after hotly skimming over the pages of American Spy in my local bookstore last week (and NOT buying it) this post I would venture to say, is more interesting than anything that is written in what was Hunt last word on the subject. Although the book is ostensibly valuable in getting some type of perspective of Hunt's life overall, I felt his account of his wife Dorothy's death had a "sanitized" quality to it, but again, everyone has their opinions......I wish Sherman Skolnick had lived to see the book, he would undoubtedly have had some interesting observations to make..... I finally got my copy of American Spy yesterday, along with Stockton's book on William Harvey. I just bought them for background. It turns out that both books have entire chapters on the Kennedy assassination. This is a huge step forward for the conspiracy community, in my opinion. Both Stockton (a former CIA man himself) and Hunt take the possibility of CIA involvement seriously, and discuss it rationally. And, while neither embraces this possibility as a probability, neither of them dismisses it as ludicrous either. Hunt, for his part, is dismissive that Oswald acted alone. Surprisingly, he is also dismissive of Castro's involvement. I think it says a lot that ex-CIA men like Stockton and Hunt, towards the ends of their lives, were willing to concede the possibility that Oswald did not act alone in killing Kennedy (if at all) and that their fellow CIA agents could have been in on the hit. But will anyone in the media notice? Or are they saving their limited attention span for Bugliosi's upcoming case-closer?

Perhaps the role, if needed, of the Dark Complected Man, standing at the curb with something under his jacket in Dealey Plaza. Could be. I assume that a conspiracy to kill a President would involve numerous contingency plans. That could easily have been the role of the DCM or even termporary Parkland staff. A friend who just so happens to be an officer in Special Forces once explained to me that every top op has 4 plans---PACE. Primary Alternative Contingency Emergency

There's a bit on this in Coincidence or Conspiracy? as well. It is MORE than a coincidence that, come time to investigate the Watergate break-in, Nixon wanted Warren Commission/LBJ loyalists to take the lead. He wanted Warren and Clark (Ramsey Clark's father, reportedly on Marcello's list of pay-off recipients) on the commission. He also wanted Rankin to run it. When he had Cox fired, he pushed for Jaworksi as the replacement (Jaworski had worked on the Texas Court of Inquiry investigation of the assassination). Later, he met with Arlen Specter, and tried to get Specter to function as his personal attorney. This is a clear-cut indication (to anyone with half a brain) that Nixon believed the Warren Commission was a cover-up, and was hoping the "cover-uppers" would provide him this same service. No such luck.

So good Right-Wing Roman Catholic William F. Buckley, Jr. was a lifelong friend of E. Howard Hunt and did favors for him when Hunt was in jail. (And they both were spy novelists! I imagine they discussed a lot of plots and subplots with each other.) No wonder Gore Vidal called Buckley a "crypto-Nazi." I had heard their names connected before, but it didn't mean anything to me then. I'll have to find out what Buckley said about President Kennedy when he was assassinated -- where he was, etc. Vidal wrote that the Buckley children went to a private school, so they could learn how to speak with "Patrician accents." I read somewhere a long time ago that Buckley was with the CIA. Kathy Kathleen, Buckley has long admitted his CIA career. He wrote the intro to Hunt's new book, and discusses their connections in detail. As far as his own involvement in Kennedy's death... when I found out that Buckley published a number of David Belin's articles attacking the HSCA and Oliver Stone, I suspected Buckley knew the CIA was involved, and was helping cover it up. I have since changed my mind about this. First of all, Belin was a mixed-bag. While he was a tireless defender of the Warren Commission and its conclusions, he also pushed for the Rockefeller Commission to come clean and tell the public about the CIA's assassination attempts on foreign leaders. His book, Final Disclosure, was not exactly pro-CIA. Secondly, Buckley is a mixed-bag. While looking through old newspaper accounts recently I discovered that Buckley, in 1966, was one of the FIRST public figures to call for a new investigation of the Kennedy assassination (along with Richard Goodwin and Arthur Schlesinger). Perhaps he did this to try and embarrass Johnson, I don't know. But he did it. And I doubt he would have done it if he believed the CIA was involved.

Or the obvious answer is that Jackie closed the wound. (Part of her effort on the way to Parkland to "keep his head on," as I believe she put it.) Perhaps the Occam's Razor answer (one person's desperate action in a unique situation, as opposed to several experienced medical people simultaneously making the same mistake about the location of a gaping wound in their patient's head). The "Jackie closed the wound" theory doesn't hold, Ron. Dr. Clark in Dallas and Dr. Humes in Bethesda both stated that there was an actual absence of scalp and skull at the large defect. One can see skull blown from the top of the skull in the Z film, just where Newman and Zapruder described the wound on television. There's no way Clark and the others could have missed this wound. Dr. Fisher of the Clark Panel and Dr. Spitz of the HSCA FPP wrote a book together in which they stated outright that missing scalp and skull is indicative of entrance. The large defect was an entrance... for a bullet fired from above and behind.

This whole thing blew up about MONTH ago. Holland wrote this stupid essay for the History News Network claiming the reason why the witnesses heard two shots clumped together at the end when the second shot was at 224 and the third shot was at 313 was because the first shot actually came more than 2 seconds before Zapruder even began filming Kennedy on Elm Street. Gary Mack and Dale Myers quickly whipped out letters debunking Holland's theory. Neither of them wanted any part of it--evidently they'd actually READ some of the eyewitness testimony and didn't want to be associated with Holland's ridiculous fantasy. (And a fantasy it is--I mean, come on, almost all the witnesses said Kennedy was hit by the first shot, and now Holland expects us to believe the first shot heard by these witnesses not only missed but was fired roughly 6 seconds before Kennedy was hit! Not.) Anyhow, if this stupid idea is getting media coverage, just imagine how much press Bugliosi is gonna get. I'm getting sick already.

Charles, I know we've been over this, but Newman and Zapruder did see the large head wound on the Zapruder film and on the autopsy photos. What you should be asking yourself is why the Parkland witnesses remembered the wound differently than Newman and Zapruder. And the obvious answer is that they made a mistake. As far as why the Z-film doesn't show what the witnesses remembered, well, I recently re-read every available statement from every known witness, and it does. The individuals all remembered the incident slightly differently. When one looks at all the statements, however, one sees a substantial amount of overlap, that forms a consensus. These points are all consistent with the Z-film, but one. This point is that the last two shots were far closer together than the first two. This, when taken with the Z-film, is extremely strong evidence for a conspiracy, as the Z-film shows K and C react as though the first two shots were closer together. Now you can take your road and decide the Z-film must be fake, or you can follow the evidence and see that it suggests the use of a silencer, and a conspiracy. When you play the "we can't trust the Z-film" game you're playing into the hands of the lone-nutters, and folding with a winning hand.

The WC was a whitewash. Specter and a few of the other counsel tried to find out if the whitewash was also the truth. On April 30th he pushed the commission to verify the location of the President's wounds. They agreed to do this. On May 12th he wrote a memo explaining exactly what needed to be done. Warren, instead, changed his mind and refused to let the autopsy photos and x-rays be used to verify the location of the back wound. On May 24th Specter performed the re-enactment in Dallas, and measured the angle of a bullet from the sniper's nest against the relative angle of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. They didn't line up. Years later, Specter would admit that the Secret Service showed him the back wound photo that day. This photo should have caused Specter to really question the single-bullet theory, which he'd felt was necessary to prove Oswald acted alone. Instead, he said all was well and never reported to Warren and the Commission what the photo showed. In Passion for Truth he lies through his teeth and says the photo shows that the back wound was higher than the throat wound. My question: if Specter really believed the back wound in the photo was higher than the throat wound, why didn't he tell anybody about viewing the photo? 1) He was a gutless coward who thought he'd get in trouble. 2) He didn't think they really cared. " 'HIGHER' than the throat wound"??? Pat, this man is nuts!! I've read his inane explanation about the shirt "bunching up", in fact there's a wonderful conversation between Vince Salandria and Specter on this where Specter shows just how badly he fares in his his position. To title a book "Passion for Truth" is really a sad irony and he damn well knows it. Dawn In my next video, Dawn, I focus on Specter and the back wound, and am not very kind.

FWIW, the single-bullet theory was not created because of James Tague, it was created because in the eyes of the commission the Z-film showed Kennedy and Connally reacting to their shots within 30 frames of each other. Without the Z-film, there would be no single-bullet theory. Without the single-bullet theory, the findings of the WC would have won over the bulk of the population, and Epstein's and Lane's books would have made little impact. In all probability there would be no CT community if it wasn't for the single-bullet theory, and the Z-film, its raison d-etre..

The WC was a whitewash. Specter and a few of the other counsel tried to find out if the whitewash was also the truth. On April 30th he pushed the commission to verify the location of the President's wounds. They agreed to do this. On May 12th he wrote a memo explaining exactly what needed to be done. Warren, instead, changed his mind and refused to let the autopsy photos and x-rays be used to verify the location of the back wound. On May 24th Specter performed the re-enactment in Dallas, and measured the angle of a bullet from the sniper's nest against the relative angle of Kennedy's and Connally's wounds. They didn't line up. Years later, Specter would admit that the Secret Service showed him the back wound photo that day. This photo should have caused Specter to really question the single-bullet theory, which he'd felt was necessary to prove Oswald acted alone. Instead, he said all was well and never reported to Warren and the Commission what the photo showed. In Passion for Truth he lies through his teeth and says the photo shows that the back wound was higher than the throat wound. My question: if Specter really believed the back wound in the photo was higher than the throat wound, why didn't he tell anybody about viewing the photo? 1) He was a gutless coward who thought he'd get in trouble. 2) He didn't think they really cared.

By comparison, it would appear to be a bigger whitewash than was the WC. Personally, I have also spoke with Anita Hill years ago, and rest assured that she is considerably more believeable than is Arlen Specter. 99 cents is about what it is worth to find out that one is a xxxx, when in fact they already know that they are a xxxx. Tom: I totally agree. I watched the hearings and completely believed Anita Hill. David Brock who wrote a smear book about Hill has also confessed in "Blinded By the Right" that he lied about both Hill and his Clinton articles. Interesting that Specter is now preceived as a liberal. Dawn Specter was spewing just yesterday about the FBI's misuse of the Patriot Act to spy on the public. Methinks his Warren Commission experience taught him ALL about the executive branch's misuse of the Justice Department for political purposes. Some contrived nonsense about a single-bullet theory, which Specter was forced to concoct to save the Oswald did it foregone conclusion, tells me so... The irony is that the creators of the conclusion--Johnson and Hoover--NEVER believed Specter's lie manufactured to save the conclusion, and told others as much. Talk about biting the hand that feeds.. How ungratefu!

I disagree. McClelland told the ARRB that when he came into the room, Jenkins told him there was an entrance wound in the left temple. McClelland said there was a lot of blood on the left temple and he took Jenkins's word for it, but McClelland himself did not look for or see any wound there. He included what Jenkins told him in his written statement. That does not mean it was one of McClelland's "original impressions" in terms of what he himself saw. McClelland also said BTW that Jenkins later denied telling him there was a left temple wound. McClelland reminded him that he did but let it go. BTW a fascinating passage of the ARRB interview with the Parkland doctors is when Jones says that Lito Puerto, a Parkland neurosurgeon, said that JFK had been shot in the leg. Puerto said "I put my finger in the hole." Jones then asked the ARRB's Mr. Gunn, "Why don't you get Puerto down here to clarify that comment?" Yes, why in the hell didn't they? And if Puerto is still around, why hasn't anyone asked him? I can see where under the circumstances in Trauma Room 1 a wound in the leg might be overlooked, with maybe one doctor noting it. At least someone get the man's statement! McClelland was covering, Ron. He probably mixed up his right and his left, and then became too embarrassed to disagree with Clark and the others. He makes no mention of a large wound on the back of Kennedy's head in his statement at all, ONLY the wound in the left temple. He did not see a large exit or entrance on the back of the head. His saying so months and years later is of minor importance. He almost certainly changed his statements to fit what he was led to believe, much as Bonnie Ray Williams, Harold Norman, and Howard Brennan. PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL ADMISSION NOTE DATE AND HOUR Nov. 22, 1963 4:45 P.M. DOCTOR: Robert N. McClelland Statement Regarding Assassination of President Kennedy At approximately 12:45 PM on the above date I was called from the second floor of Parkland Hospital and went immediately to the Emergency Operating Room. When I arrived President Kennedy was being attended by Drs Malcolm Perry, Charles Baxter, James Carrico, and Ronald Jones. The President was at the time comatose from a massive gunshot wound of the head with a fragment wound of the trachea. An endotracheal tube and assisted respiration was started immediately by Dr. Carrico on Duty in the EOR when the President arrived. Drs. Perry, Baxter, and I then performed a tracheotomy for respiratory distress and tracheal injury and Dr. Jones and Paul Peters inserted bilateral anterior chest tubes for pneumothoracis secondary to the tracheomediastinal injury. Simultaneously Dr. Jones had started 3 cut-downs giving blood and fluids immediately, In spite of this, at 12:55 he was pronounced dead by Dr. Kemp Clark the neurosurgeon and professor of neurosurgery who arrived immediately after I did. The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple. He was pronounced dead after external cardiac message failed and ECG activity was gone. Robert N. McClelland M.D. Asst. Prof. of Surgery Southwestern Med. School of Univ of Tex. Dallas, Texas