Pat Speer

If I'm not mistaken, St. George is the writer who said Sturgis told him he'd known Hunt for years, suggesting that they'd lied when they said they'd only met in connection with the the plumbers. If Mrs. George knows anything about her husband's relationship with Sturgis, and if Sturgis had in fact told St. George he'd known Hunt for awhile, that could prove interesting. Did her husband keep any tapes or notes? If I'm mixed-up, I apologize.

Harold Weisberg's Whitewash had been recently published. Among other things, Weisberg noted the missing frames and the amateurish splice of Z212. Perhaps Hoover was referring to some of Weisberg's observations. Thanks, Michael, I believe you're correct. Weisberg did make note of the Z-film splices in Whitewash.

I recently contacted NARA about LBJ's phone calls and they kindly informed me that they're on the link below. Just thought I'd pass the good word in case anyone else was interested... http://millercenter.virginia.edu/index.php...n_tapes_lbj_tel

Thanks, James, that's exactly what I've been looking for. In retrospect, it's clear Hoover/Connally and Boswell were trotted out to appease the masses in an effort to cut off a new investigation. The next step was the 1-20-67 re-inspection in tandem with the CBS and AP investigations. The step after that was the Clark Panel. Question: why was LBJ, in approach to the 68 election, so DESPERATE to prevent a new investigation? Was it purely for political reasons, to try to hide Kennedy's corpse and cut down on the sympathy vote for Bobby? Or did he have other concerns? Like prison? P.S. the reference to Zap alteration is probably a reference to the missing frames, but might also be a response to Lifton 's noting of the reversed frames in the WC volumes. P.P.S. I just love that Hoover describes a wound below the shoulder on the same day Boswell creates a new face sheet, and moves the wound to the neck. Left hand meet the right hand.

In the CIA's 1-4-67 memorandum on disseminating info on the Kennedy assassination, it says that on 11-25-66 Hoover admitted the FBI's early reports were mistaken about the back wound bullet falling out. I've been looking all over for an online article about this 11-25-66 press release or statement. Does anyone have it? I'm anxious to read Hoover's exact words. P.S. It's certainly no coincidence that Hoover's mea culpa came on the same day that newspapers carried Connally's statement that the Warren Commission critics were "journalistic scavengers" and also on the same day that Boswell's new and improved face sheet moving the back wound to the back of the neck was published. It's obvious that the Johnson Ad was fighting back against Life Magazine's call for a new investigation. Billings and Thompson, who some have since called disinformationists, had shaken the government to its core.

I, like so many, am a student of human nature. When I see people with much in common nitpick and feud over slight disagreements and perceived slights, and end up questioning each other's basic decency, I learn from it. The squabbles on this and other forums show me that: 1) the antagonism of the mainstream media to the research community is more likely a knee-jerk response to the research community's questioning the quality of their (the media's) initial investigation, than a part of a plot. When you read the articles attacking Oliver Stone and the memoirs of men such as Jim Lehrer they are absolutely incredulous that the research community could question their integrity. They were so close to the big lie they just couldn't see it, and resented the heck out of those who kept yelling at them. 2) the constant bickering between members of the research community is most probably fueled by human nature, and not CIA "disinformationists". Passionate people bitch and scratch. That's just what they do. People who have the hubris to question the official line also have the hubris to question everyone around them, and trust their own instincts over the dedicated research of others. Bugliosi may have spent ten times more working on this than any of us, but how many of us are really gonna give him a fair shake? Conversely, how many LNers will trust anything we uncover or write about wound ballistics, when they have Lattimer and Sturdivan telling them what they want to hear? 3) the nature of many conspiracy theorists is such that they get off on questioning the official line. Never mind that the official line, in order to be sold, has to be right on most of the time. This is what allows liars to slip in a "big lie" every now and then. If you question everything, you effectively question nothing, since those in the presumably rational middle will never take you seriously. This should be the "Education" forum, not the "I really don't trust anything anyone tells me and I don't have time to figure anything out" forum.

It was obvious that Robert was shot in the back of his head. If you look at the footage, someone lifts his head a bit and there's a puddle of blood underneath his head. Kathy I'm not sure if you're contradicting me here or not, but the point I was making is that, if Sirhan was in front of Kennedy, as reported by ALL the witnesses, who fired the fatal shot? For years there has been speculation that the bodyguard behind Kennedy, Thane Cesar, was responsible.

Living in La La land, and having been targeted for recruitment more than once in my early life, I know a bit more about the Church of Scientology than most. Having lived with a woman whose childhood was destroyed when her father became a convert, and having known an educably retarded woman who went bankrupt from paying for "audits," I also have a better understanding of the damage it can bring. That said, I am open-minded about remote viewing. Did anyone notice? In Ashton's last post he admitted that what he presents as my "official theory of Watergate" in his tag line, is, in fact, my paraphrasing of his theory. And yet he calls me a disinformation agent

My guess is that Communism was made such a hated enemy by the U.S. government because Communist countries are not as open to exploitation by American business as other countries. Communist governments always seem to be or become totalitarian, but that is a bogus issue. Talk about "democracy" and the "free world" is just propaganda. The U.S. has supported plenty of non-Communist totalitarian governments, as long as they have provided stable environments for American capitalists to do business and prosper there. But Communists who want to take over U.S. fruit or oil companies or don't want Burger Kings or MacDonald's on every block have had to be dealt with by any means necessary. There is an even bigger factor in the hatred/fear of communism: religion. Patriotic Americans, of all ethnic backgrounds, North and South, fear a government that considers religion the opiate of the masses. Many a hard-line anti-Communist has been Catholic.

If you're wrong as often as you claim, why do you find it necessary to put down anyone who disagrees with you?

By reposting this, it's clear Mr. Caddy is stating that this is all there is to the story. There were no late night phone calls from the CIA or Barker's wife, just EHH.

Ashton, as I recall, you did have some valid questions. You caught Caddy changing his story about who asked him to represent the burglars. At one point he told some reporters it was Barker's wife, and at another point he said it was Hunt. It seemed obvious to me it was Hunt, and that Caddy had lied to reporters to protect his client. Keep in mind he was initially willing to go to jail to protect the identities of his clients. I suspect Caddy would have admitted this deception to us if you hadn't attacked him so. As I recall you accused him of working for the CIA and of lying; you kept saying you were through with him. You basically called him an evil man. To a number of us, this seemed unduly rude. Neither he nor Baldwin were under any obligation to answer your questions. If you'd have asked them politely and sincerely you may have received better answers. Instead, your words and behavior then, as now, seemed designed more to show everyone how brilliant you are, at the expense of the dignity of others. Whether you realize it or not, you came across as a bully. Hopefully, our moderators will discourage such behavior in the future.

Thanks, Wim. By the looks of it, all the documents on this man's site are fraudulent. Bilderberger documents in which they lay out their plan to reduce the world's population? Oh my GOD!!!... Does anyone know Daniel Estulin? If so, please tell him to knock it off. When people see Government documents online they should feel relatively secure that these are the real deal. As a community, we can't afford to have people question the validity of the Mary Ferrell site, for example, or the National Security Archives site. If this kind of stuff continues, we'll have Brendan Slattery types telling newbies on the internet that the Katzenbach memo was a forgery etc... or that the Hoover phone call with the missing tape never happened. They'll be able to say that all the evidence demonstrating the Warren Commission was a cover-up are left-wing lies created by people who hate America. And we'll be hard-pressed to prove them wrong.

This document is utter b.s., much like the McCone letter from a few years back. We need to find out who is fabricating this crap, and expose them, for such obviously bogus documents do nothing but undermine our credibility. For me there are a number of dead give-aways. Nixon as a witness? Give me a break. Casey barely escaped being sucked down the Watergate hole with Nixon and never looked back. Marita Lorenz? Yeah right, she and Casey were pen pals. Bill Clinton? Yup. Notice that the writer of this fabrication implicates Clinton but leaves out Bush and Reagan. I wonder why. Hmm. Where's Felix Rodriguez? Where's Shackley? And Colby is the mastermind? Colby, who was fired for revealing too many secrets? And who was replaced by George Bush, who played footsie with Noriega, and then shut him up? (He let his son finish off Hussein.) This thing stinks.

Ashton, if by your last rant you mean to communicate that Humes would take orders from Burkley, I agree. It's just not clear to me that Burkley was giving orders during the autopsy, or had any input on the autopsy protocol, outside his ordering Humes to not inspect or mention the adrenals. This, of course, was done on behalf of the Kennedy family. I see no real evidence that Burkley knowingly hid evidence for more than one shooter during the autopsy. I believe that his subsequent inspection of the Harper fragment, coupled with the possibility he ordered Humes not to section the brain, can be taken as an indication he came to suspect more than one head shot and more than shooter at a later date, after Oswald had been killed and the Hoover/Katzenbach cover-up had begun. If so, he may have been doing this under Johnson's direction, for national security purposes, blah blah blah. I see him as someone willing to sweep stuff under the rug, more than an active participant. If he'd been an active participant, he wouldn't have spoken of two head wounds to the JFK library, IMO. Nor would he have told his lawyer of his suspicions in the seventies.

Great stuff as always, John. You demonstrate, beyond any real doubt, that the HSCA FPP was trying to sell something, and telling some mighty fibs to sell it. It seems clear they were petrified of admitting there may have been missing skull, and may have been more than one bullet exit. Why so worried? Because they were blowing smoke... I particularly like Purdy's 12-20-78 memo--"The autopsy doctors also indicated that this beveling lined up on reconstruction with the semi-circular defect...which our doctors say is is the exit of the bullet because of the beveling they say they see on the enlarged, somewhat unclear photograph of the margin of the excavated skull cavity." Purdy seems justifiably skeptical. By pointing out that it is the HSCA panel that sees this exit, Purdy is as much as acknowledging that this exit was not spotted by the autopsy doctors. This suggests that he knew Baden was lying when he told the HSCA this exit was first described by Humes. Thanks for all your work.

John Dolva, it's well known that Cubans long for a closer relationship with the U.S. It's also well known that American businesses are dying to get into Cuba. There has been one thing and one thing only preventing the inevitable. The U.S. government's reluctance to make nice with Castro. Once Castro is gone, they'll have the cover of saying "well, we refused to deal with Fidel, but now that he's gone, it's a brand new day, etc..." I'm not saying that as soon as Castro dies, McDonalds will open 20 locations in Havana. But the U.S. tourism industry is bound to move in, and be greeted with open arms. Thereafter, Cuba will return as a top honeymoon/weekend getaway for Americans of all stripes and sizes... You can bet on it. While few, if any, in Cuba long for Batista, most have wanted a change in their country for quite some time. Or so I've been led to believe by those I know who've traveled there.

Yes, that was its purpose, and some people make a full-time job out of capitalizing on it. Listen up good, Mr. Speer, because I'm only going to say this once: I'm not here to answer your muster. Is that clear? If it isn't, I guarantee you I can make it perfectly clear. Your phony "standards" that you go around trying to hang on me mean less to me than grunge around a public toilet.I'm presenting information for people who have the decency, respect, and rational intelligence to soberly consider the relative importances of facts, and the relative truthfulness and falseness of contrary facts—not for the benefit of people like you who have expressed their "absolute contempt" for my diligent work and views, or have exerted boundless energies to attempt to convince the world that I am "100% phony," that I have no principles, that I am an infiltrator, a sabateur, a "fifth-columnist," that I am banal, an "internet xxxxx," and the other despicable garbage that you and your cronies spend most of your time here spewing into an educational forum. I feel certain that you are blissfully unaware of the unspeakable hubris you flaunt in issuing your fatuous mandates, imperatives, and bloviating ordinances to me, and I dearly hope you remain so, if only for the continuing comic relief. Ashton Gray Ashton, I believe the record shows you to have been far more abusive of myself and others than we ever have been of you. And yet, none of us finds it necessary to quote every derogatory or insulting statement you've made in our tag line. I'm trying to move on here and understand your ideas abut the assassination. My questions are entirely on point. Why do you believe Burkley and Custer more credible than others? If Burkley said he was in a car, but he was really in a bus, and if Burkley knew about the throat wound, but never told Humes, how can we take him at his word that he was running the autopsy, particularly as Humes himself says he was in charge?

It is frighteningly clear that the medical statements and testimony can be used to support most any scenario. There is no reason, of which I am aware, to believe that Burkley's unsworn statements years after the fact, and Custer's testimony and statements many years after the fact, are the Rosetta Stones through which all other testimony must be interpreted. It would prove helpful, in judging the comparative credibility of each man, to go through all the statements of all the witnesses, and lay them out in some form, noting the dates of the statements and recollections regarding certain aspects of the autopsy. Otherwise we're just picking and choosing other people's words to suit our own little theories. When Tom has attempted to drag conflicting statements into this discussion, it has been suggested that he is some sort of disinfo agent. If Mr. Gray has any reason to believe Boswell et al were bigger liars or more mistaken than Burkley and Custer, then he should cite his reasons, other than that they conflict with his interpretation of events. Ashton, do you believe Burkley was in the VIP bus, or in a car? The question goes to credibility. If he was in a car, can you point out which car in a photo, and who else rode with him? You took such offense to my suggestion that you swore by his words. If you don't swear by his assertion he was in a car, what other evidence have you that he was in a car?

People can and probably do refuse to buy American products for ethical reasons. Governments, on the other hand, risk economic warfare by officially enforcing boycotts against the United States. Think of the hypocrisy involved. How can a country boycott the U.S. because we treat Cuba unfairly, and not be accused of treating us unfairly? In the world of realpolitik, Castro was an American creation, who betrayed us. We then began a boycott and attempted to kill him. He then asked for and received offensive nuclear weapons and pointed them at us. To most heads of state, our relationship with him is none of their business. Besides, at this point it's academic. Castro will be dead within the year, and U.S. businesses will swarm into Cuba like flies on sherbet. I hope to see you at the Havana Hilton this Christmas. And John, I didn't mean that Bush would cut military spending. He's gonna suck us dry. I predict he'll then embark on a speaking tour of all the military contractors benefiting from his little war, and get paid a million bucks or more per speech. This is how his father got back in the swing of things after pardoning his cohorts in the Iran-Contra affair. Like father, like son.

Such a boycott stands no real chance of happening. If people stop buying from the U.S., then maybe just maybe the U.S. would stop buying from them. The U.S. is far and away the biggest consumer in the world. If such a boycott were to take place, it would almost certainly lead to a world-wide recession. But don't worry...our reign as the big dog is coming to a close. The massive amounts of debt piled up by the Bush Administration will force a down-sizing of our government, which will inevitably lead to reduced spending. A big part of the reduction will come from Defense. I would like to think there will be a tax increase on the obscenely wealthy, but wouldn't bet on it. After Bush's daddy raised taxes, and paid the price, few presidential candidates have had the sac to tell the American people that raising taxes on the wealthy can be a GOOD thing for the economy. Clinton raised them a little and the economy soared. Hopefully someone besides his wife will remember that in 08.

Ashton, since you swear by Burkley's interview, maybe you can tell us which car Burkley was riding in... Was it before or after the press bus? Since you seem so certain Burkley knew about the throat wound, why do you believe he failed to tell Humes? Or do you feel he told Humes, and Humes concocted a big fat lie in order to confuse the FBI? I have to admit I'm curious where you're heading with this. Tom, you seem to have your own theory about the brain... Officially, it was never sectioned. Do you think Humes lied about the brain? If the supplementary examination showed two wound tracks, it seems reasonable that Humes would be told to forget about it--thus, his insistence that he didn't section the brain. Perhaps Burkley was well aware of this and this is what led him to later state he thought there may have been two head shots. When told about this by the ARRB Humes grew quite upset. Was he just pissed at Burkley for being such a pain, or do you think Burkley came close to spilling the beans about what was discovered by Humes' sectioning the brain. Your thoughts appreciated.

HL Hunt was guilty of expressing eccentric political views and his son Bunker admitted contributing towards the cost of the "Welcome Mister Kennedy" newspaper ad, but no member of the Hunt family contributed to the Wanted for Treason pamphlet and there is no credible evidence that any member of HL Hunt's family ever had any hand, act or part in murder. Lamar Hunt is famous for having coined the phrase "the Super Bowl." In 1963 the only plot he was involved in was the plot to move the Dallas Texans football team to Kansas City. Lamar died on December 13 last, and all flags in Kansas City flew at half mast in his honor. I have no doubt that his widow and children have every reason to remember him with the greatest pride and affection. Meanwhile, the JFK inquiry must go on. Hunt's involvement seemed a little too obvious to many at the time. So much so that he fled the country. As the years have passed it seems less obvious. His proximity to LBJ and influence on American society only decreased after the assassination. As far as his eccentric views, my favorite is his belief that one's vote should be weighted proportionate to the amount of taxes one pays. The current President might very well agree, except so many of his biggest supporters live off the stock market, and pay no taxes at all.

Thank you so much, Bernice. We actually approached CBS about using 30 seconds from their '67 interview with Humes. They wanted a minimum of $1000. A little rich for a quick vid on Youtube. Thanks, again.

I've been looking for a good photo of the three autopsy doctors. I found one online but it's a very small file. If someone has a larger file of this photo, or other photos of the doctors, it would prove most helpful. I'm trying to put a face to the doctors for the next video. Thanks, Pat