Pat Speer

I would highly recommend the work of Donald Freed on this subject. See also "Big Brother and the Holding Company The World Behind Watergate" (1974) edited by Steve Weissman. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKfreed.htm Freed is mentioned in the book. It seems one of the LAPD's provocateur's tried to frame him as a militant in 1969. Had Freed written on the Kennedy assassination before that point? It would be interesting to see if that could be the reason for the attempted set-up.

In my ongoing quest to find truth in a thrift store, I picked up a book yesterday entitled Protectors of Privilege: Red Squads and Police Repression in Urban America. The book, immaculately researched by Frank Donner and published by the University of California, has a chapter on the LAPD that is a bit unnerving. Here are a few quotes from that chapter that may be relevant to this thread. (page 251) "Although vigilant in protecting rightist groups, the police refused to intervene when liberals and dissenters sought protection. For example, the police refused in October 1963 to clear the entrance of a meeting hall besieged by hostile picketers identified with right-wing Cuban exile groups seeking to bar entrance to a meeting sponsored by the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. In contrast, a parade the following week by members of these anti-Castro groups was afforded full police protection." (page 247) "In testifying in 1965 before the McCone Commission investigating the Watts riot, (LAPD CHIEF WILLIAM PARKER) complained that "black leaders seemed to think that if Parker can be destroyed officially, they will have no trouble in imposing their will upon the police of America...because nobody else would dare stand up." (page 252) "The John Birch Society, which in the fifties began wooing a national police constituency, gained a substantial following in the Los Angeles law-enforcement community--an estimated 2,000 members." (The source for this is Forum member William Turner's book Power on the Right.) The book also mentions that, from the mid 60's to the mid 70's, there was a series of bombings against left-wing organizations, which largely went uninvestigated. It also mentions that the police routinely hired men to infiltrate and discredit left-wing organizations, and that quite often these infiltrators were among the most vociferous advocators of violence within these organizations. All this leads me to wonder if it wasn't the police themselves who were behind the bombings. And if they were willing to bomb their own city, what's to say they wouldn't also approve of RFK's murder? Any thoughts from Gerry Hemming? Harry Dean? William Turner?

Hmmm.. check this out... Mitchell came down hard on Johnson on May 22, 1967. LBJ received the Inspector General's report on the CIA attempts on Castro, detailing Mitchell's best friend Maheu's involvement with the mafia, on May 23, 1967. Now consider that LBJ stayed at the Century Plaza in late June 1967, and that this drew anti-war protesters, and that a riot ensued. Now throw into this mix that Johnny Mitchell's offices were in Century City a block away and that LBJ had the SS follow Mitchell. This suggests to me that LBJ suspected Maheu and Mitchell's involvement in Kennedy's murder.

Richard, your "no forensic evidence" line is nonsense, recited as an article of faith. Read my presentation at the link below. I created this for those like yourself, who've been led to believe the "no scintilla" nonsense. So far, after over 5,000 visits, only two single-assassin theorists have attempted to refute any of my research. David Von Pein looked at the single-bullet theory section and said basically "So what! Even if the trajectory makes no sense, since we can't be sure how bullets react inside a body how can we be sure that the trajectory oughta make sense? All I know is that the bullet entered Kennedy and exited Kennedy, and that's all I need to know, because the single-bullet theory MUST have happened, or else everything we've been told is gobbledygook, and THAT makes no sense ..." In other words, because he can't find another theory (not that he's looking) that makes MORE sense to him than the single-bullet theory, he finds the single-bullet theory to be credible... Not exactly a ringing endorsement, IMO. Similarly, Dr. Chad Zimmerman has glimpsed through the my presentation and strongly argued that he knows I'm wrong because he's seen the photos at the archives. (Why the archives let an Iowa chiropractor look at the photos is beyond me--I have my doubts they'd allow a conspiracy theorist chiropractor look at the photos). Zimmerman insists the photo I claim to be the back of Kennedy's head is indeed Kennedy's forehead, despite the fact the autopsy pathologists he believes got most everything right originally cataloged this photo as representing the back of the head. Zimmerman exposes his utter lack of credibility, IMO, by arguing that their description of an "entrance on the posterior skull with scalp reflected" is not inconsistent with the photo being of the forehead, as it could be interpreted to show "an entrance on the (interior aspect of the) posterior skull, with scalp reflected (over the forehead)." I think this is utter malarkey, and is symbolic of the great lengths single-assassin theorists will go so that their "Oswald did-it and you CTs are all nuts" worldview can be preserved. Do you agree with his assessment, Richard? Do you believe the photo is of the forehead or the back of the head? If you don't feel qualified to answer, maybe you should study up a little more before you go on about there being no forensic evidence?

Myra, the evil Nelson theory makes sense on paper, but not when you look at Nelson as a man. The grandsons of billionaire entrepreneurs tend to be less ambitious than their predecessors. It's important to remember that, believe it or not, Rockefeller was looked at as a dangerous liberal by much of the Republican party. No liberal would vote for Nixon anyhow. Therefore, Rockefeller would not have helped Nixon get elected in 68 or 72. No, the real threat to Nixon came from Wallace, which helps explain why Agnew was selected. The other explanation is $$$. Much of the US money spent fostering the military coup in Greece was filtered back into the Nixon campaign, presumably on the condition Nixon pick Agnew, the most prominent right-wing Greek in the US, for VP.

Somewhere in my stacks of books I have one on the religious speeches of John Foster Dulles, put out by a religious organization after his death. It turns out that all throughout his tenure as Secretary of State, Foster was speaking before Church groups, exhorting that it was their duty as Christians to confront and defeat communism wherever its ugly head popped up. Separation of church and state my fanny. If anyone is interested, I'll try and find the book and recount some of the juicier quotes.

James, I believe Connally's daughter's death was ruled a suicide, although questions lingered. The other weird thing about Bobby Hale was that, according to The Dark Side of Camelot, he and his brother were observed trying to dig up dirt on JFK during his fling with Marilyn. One can only assume they were working for dad, helping General Dynamics gain some leverage.

Couch was in the car with Dillard and Jackson. Jackson saw the shooter in the window but was out of film. He yelled to the others. Dillard looked up and got the classic photo of Williams and Norman. Couch, who was operating a movie camera, said he saw the rifle but that he didn't take pictures. Since the rifle was pulled back before Dillard, operating a normal camera, could get ready to shoot, it seems likely that the rifle was long gone before Couch could get his movie camera ready to begin filming. Or am I wrong to assume it would take more than a few seconds to get a 1963 movie camera up and running and in position to shoot? Intriguingly, Dillard and Couch are two of but a handful of witnesses to say the shots sounded evenly spaced (suggestive of a single shooter). Jackson, on the other hand, was adamant from the beginning that the last two shots rang out closely together.

In case anyone reading this thread still believes the bombing of Hiroshima was necessary to save American lives, and that the Japanese were committed to fighting to the last man, they should heed the words of no less an authority than Allen Dulles. Dulles concludes his book, The Secret Surrender, about his efforts to negotiate a peace with German forces (who also were reported to be willing to fight to the last man), with the following passage... "On July 20, 1945, I went to the Potsdam conference and reported there to Secretary Stimson on what I had learned from Tokyo--they desired to surrender if they could retain the emperor and the constitution as a basis for maintaining discipline and order in Japan after the devastating news of surrender became known to the Japanese people...If there had been a little more time to develop this channel of negotiation, the story of the Japanese surrender might have had a different ending." The Japanese were boxed in. They weren't going anywhere. We could have bombed their factories faster than they could have built new ones. By writing "If there had been a little more time" Dulles is admitting that the decision to bomb was based upon activities unrelated to the will of the Japanese to surrender. He is as much as admitting that our fear of splitting the Japanese empire with Uncle Joe superseded any concerns we had with killing civilians. IMO.

Mel, you are obviously correct that John's calling you "melvyn" is a bit childish. He does raise some valid questions, however. From the graphic, it seems possible that the Evans bullet could have entered her scalp from below while she was standing fairly upright. This would account for the tile holes and her injuries. But is this likely? I mean, this was a .22 bullet, with little mass and little energy. Is it really credible that a .22 bullet would enter a ceiling tile, deflect off a ceiling, go back through another ceiling tile, hit a tile floor, and deflect back up to the forehead of a standing woman, with the requisite amount of energy to break the skin? I don't know. If you've spoken to any ballistics experts about this, or conducted any tests, please let us know. It could be that the Evans bullet is more easily explained by some heretofore unexamined possibility. To find that possibility, however, we first need to separate what was likely to have happened from what we need to have happened to support the single-shooter theory. So, is the Evans double-deflection theory something you feel is likely or something you think is necessary? If the latter, perhaps we can discuss a few alternatives and see if there is some other way to explain the shooting...

Myra, I think you're way off base when you state John is vehemently defending Lamar's book. He is not. I understand him to say he disagreed with Lamar's premise but found his book worthwhile. Most researchers would agree. My take: people fall in love with their own discoveries. Lamar discovered evidence that AMWORLD was real and not a contingency, and built his theory around it. I saw a previously undiscussed entrance wound in an autopsy photo, and built a theory around it. Similarly, Gary Mack and Jack White discovered what might be a man in the Moorman photo and built their theories around it. It's just human nature. As a consequence I see no reason to suspect Lamar is a disinformationist. Not by a long shot. He is a member of this forum and a close associate of Larry Hancock's. The two have worked closely together for years and have shared more information than most researchers have seen. The blind men with the elephant analogy is apropos however in that Larry sees a rogue element of the CIA as more than just mob employees and Lamar is inclined to believe the hit was basically a mob operation. Unfortunately, there are many on this forum that believe everything bad must derive from the CIA. The CIA is thus equated with the boogie-man. But who is the CIA? The CIA is made up of a combination of typists, file clerks, postal workers, interpreters, historians, press agents, etc. My best friend's mom--Suzy Homemaker for the last 40 years--worked as a CIA secretary circa the Bay of Pigs operation. (She claims she saw some memos indicating an operation was afoot but remembers no details.) The percentage of CIA employees knowledgeable of CIA ops involving political assassinations is incredibly small. As pointed out by Robert, some of these men were "cowboys," working without clear authorization. Senator Frank Church called the CIA of this period a "rogue elephant." If you research these "cowboys" as I call them, you'll see that there was a clique within the CIA including Barnes, Hunt, Phillips, Morales, Robertson, and (possibly) Joannides, that felt personally loyal to Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell (who were fired by JFK after the Bay of Pigs), felt the anti-Castro Cubans were betrayed at the Bay of Pigs, and quite possibly had connections to organized crime as well. These men had a history of taking decisive and reckless actions, and of concocting bizarre propaganda campaigns. In short, they were perfectly capable of pulling off the assassination without alerting anyone above them. If they were involved it could lead higher, but on the other hand it could lead nowhere. If someone were to connect Barnes and Phillips to LBJ it would be prove quite interesting. As it is LBJ seems to have been closer to Helms, a much more cautious practitioner of black ops than Barnes, and someone much less likely to put himself at risk. My point, I suppose, is that it's far from clear that the CIA as an organization called the shots, literally.

Dale Myer's book promotes the Warren Commission agenda, so we must conclude that anyone promoting Dale Myer's book is promoting the Warren Commission's agenda. It's a free country, of course, and Warren Commission apologists like yourself are entitled to their say. But you will have to do better than referencing Dale Myers to prove that the Warren Commission was right. Ray, there are a number of prominent conspiracy theorists who accept the possibility Oswald murdered Tippit. I agree with them; it's possible. You can smell a pro-Warren Commission agenda only when the person saying it's possible or probable takes from this that it's likely Oswald killed Kennedy. No such connection can be made. If Oswald was involved in some operation, but didn't realize this operation entailed killing the president, he would have had plenty of reason to believe he'd been set up. In such case, he would have distrusted the DPD, a notoriously corrupt outfit, and would have been rightly in fear for his life should Tippit bring him in. That the killer of Tippit was reputed to mutter "poor dumb cop" afterwards has always led me to believe it was indeed Oswald, and that Oswald had harbored no intention of killing Tippit until backed into a corner. If Oswald was crazy and attention-starved he would have expressed no remorse. If the killer was someone trying to frame Oswald he would have said nothing at all for fear the witnesses would realize the voice was not Oswald's. If he did say something, it wouldn't have been "poor dumb cop" or something equally compassionate, but "serves you right" or "down with fascists" or something equally incriminating.

Well, sure it an "accepted story," Michael. Untold millions have been spent shoving it down everybody's throat. It's "accepted" the way rape is "accepted." By the way: this thread is a floor show to effect more such "acceptance." Same old floor show as ever. Ashton Give me a break. There has never been a single official story about Watergate shoved down everybody's throat a la the Warren Report. Nixon loyalists, from the very beginning, hinted that poor old Tricky Dick was a Patsy. There was almost from the beginning this sense that the true story would never be known until Deep Throat's identity was revealed. Now his identity has been revealed and people still aren't happy. For some, having the number 2 man in the FBI be the rat that helped oust the crook is just not as sexy as having the number 50 man in the CIA be the rat. So they try to twist history to be more sexy. Have fun.

I beg to differ. It is only through reading a number of first hand accounts that you can get close to the truth. If all you read is conspiracy theories written by conspiracy theorists, you will be deliberately handicapping yourself. Authors of books like the Warren Report, Secret Agenda, and Silent Coup have a particular take on history, and deliberately ignore all the evidence that doesn't support their theory. First-hand accounts on the other hand are usually self-serving, and deliberately skewer history to make the protagonist look good. Which is why reading a number of them is helpful. If you can find something unflattering that is admitted to by someone in a first-hand account, you can pretty much take it to the bank, particularly if it is acknowledged by others in their first-hand accounts. Michael's comparison of Nightmare and Watergate to Portrait of the Assassin and You Are The Jury is way off base, in my opinion. The first two are books written by onlookers, weighing the evidence, one contemporaneously with the event and one from some distance. The second two are written by participants and are designed to shut off speculation and support their prior conclusions. Apples and oranges. If someone can read the Watergate Hearings and the Impeachment Report and not find the accepted facts surrounding Watergate seedy, I don't what seedy is. Here we have a president's staff paying men to break into psychiatrist's offices, beat up war-protesters, wire-tap journalists, disrupt political campaigns, etc... Here we have a president accepting large cash donations from ITT, Texas oilmen, the Dairy Industry and Howard Hughes, and doing God knows what in exchange. Here we have a president pressuring the IRS to investigate his political opponents. There was a lot more to the Watergate investigation than finding out who planted some bugs in the DNC. That some try to turn it into a sex scandal, and others try to sex it up by making it be about MKULTRA. experiments, is a shame. The Watergate investigation, in my opinion, is the clearest view we've been given into the seedy underbelly of American politics. The Bay of Pigs thing could very well mean the Kennedy assassination, That people still feel there must have been something more is to me a bit bizarre. i

Pat, I would recommend reading books based on the accepted story before embarking down Secret Agenda and Silent Coup road. I've found Nightmare by J. Anthony Lukas and Watergate by Fred Emery to be informative, while sticking to the seedy facts. If you want to expand your horizons then go to Yankee and Cowboy War, Secret Agenda and Silent Coup. This will give you a tremendous overview. If you want to go on from there, you should go back and read the first hand accounts, from Dean, Liddy, Magruder, Hunt, McCord, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Nixon, Colson, Woodstein, etc... At that point, you'll know as much as anyone.

Marrs' book: http://www.amazon.com/PSI-Spies-Jim-Marrs/...TF8&s=books Thanks, Michael. I've invested a very limited amount of time researching to find what he's said on the subject of RV, and so far, in the paltry bits I found, I see not only the Official Agency Line and a complete avoidance of any mention of the Scientology roots of the program, but also an almost consistent oblique tie-in with the whole UFO cess pool. <Sniff. Sniff.> What's that smell? Ashton You're showing your true colors, Ashton. And they are wacky. People who don't acknowledge the Church of Scientology's groundbreaking work in RV and who don't believe the study of RV is the Rosetta Stone to unlocking Watergate are touting the "Official Agency Line" but researching UFOs is a "cesspool." My, we are closed-minded... except when it comes to our personal little take on things... By the way, everything we know about Nixon tells us he was planning to gain better control of the bureaucracy in his second term, and make all the governmental agencies accountable to one man, himself. Haldeman believes this indirectly influenced Watergate, as there was a huge backlash against Nixon going on at the same time the scandal was seeping out. We also know, via Ehrlichman, that Nixon was obsessed with finding out what was in all the CIA reports regarding the Diem assassination and the Bay of Pigs. We know from the tapes, Ehrlichman, Dean, Colson, Hunt, etc that Nixon wanted to use these reports to damage the Kennedy legacy. While this was purportedly to damage Teddy, those who've studied Nixon know he felt a lasting rivalry/jealousy with JFK, even after JFK's death. It makes sense then that Nixon would want to have access to all of Kennedy's dirt, to pollute the public record, and let the public know who the real "great man" of his era was. By all accounts, this notion that he would go down in history as a great man if only the people could see the truth (as he presented it to them), is what drove Nixon to both create the tapes and fight their release. He was reportedly deeply upset that people would think he had a potty mouth. Accordingly, it makes no sense whatsoever that Nixon would bring in Schlesinger to clean up the CIA and make it personally accountable to himself, only to turn it over to someone with other loyalties. To most observers, it seems clear he brought Schlesinger in to clean house, and that Colby, who'd been in Nam for most of the last decade and was never one of Helms' close allies, was put on the fast track to Director because he'd pledged loyalty to Nixon. It is Nixon's known hunger for CIA secrets, and Schlesinger's clear loyalty to Nixon, that leads me to believe Colby showed him the "jewels." As Colby's efforts resulted in Helms' exposure as a xxxx, and subsequent perjury charge, there are many CIA loyalists who suspected he was really KGB. If I'm reading Ashton correctly, he is claiming that Colby was working for Helms all along, in Helms' completely convoluted master plan to make Gerry Ford president and hide remote viewing from the public. (Of course, remote viewers could find it anyway.) If Ash does think that Colby was working for Helms, this goes down with his theory that Dean and Liddy were working together all along, as perhaps the most bizarre aspect of his theory. To those who've studied this bit of history beyond reading about it on websites promoting remote viewing as the Rosetta Stone to recent American history, this damages the credibility of the Ash theory beyond repair. Beyond promoting remote viewing as something of immense value, I fail to understand Ashton's overall objective. So, I'm forced to ask...Ashton are you a remote viewer?

Bill, with the popular success of Borat I recently went back and watched Da Ali G show. In one episode Ali G is asking remarkably stupid questions of a small group of historians and authors. To my surprise John Judge was included in this group. 1) Any idea how John Judge ended up on the show, and 2) was his presence there a reflection that the actor playing Ali G and Borat, Sacha Baron Cohen, is a conspiracy theorist?

Myra, I think I mentioned in passing that it was my understanding that the interview with Roy Hargraves had been removed. I haven't seen the book yet and am not sure if this is true. There is a thread on Larry's book over in the authors section. It might be better, organizational-wise, to ask Larry questions there. He is a frequent contributor to this forum. The original thread on Larry's book is the longest, and possibly most informative, thread in the history of this forum.

Myra, I have been unable to track down any reference to a book (or video) entitled "Body of Evidence." Can you tell us more about it? Thank you. Is that the one with David Lifton and Madonna and the knky sex scene in the parking garage?

So, in other words, you believe, a la Lattimer, that the bullet struck Kennedy on the back of the neck, even though the photos show the entrance to be on the back. Lattimer got around this by insisting that he based his theory on the entrance he saw on the x-rays, which is basically an admission that he didn't trust the autopsy photos. Dale Myers supported the SBT by moving the back wound to the base of the neck, distorting Kennedy's body shape, and misrepresenting Connally's position in the car. Upon what basis do you accept the SBT? While Cliff insists the bullet entered at T3, and I believe the HSCA FPP got something right for a change and that the bullet entered around T!, both are too low to support the SBT. The HSCA got around this by hiring a "trajectory expert" to misrepresent the photographic evidence. He insisted that Kennedy was leaning forward BEFORE being shot, sat up in the car, and THEN was struck in the head--the exact opposite of what the Zapruder film shows... How do you support the SBT? 1. How did the bullet get passed the spine? 2. If the bullet created a temporary cavity large enough to bruise Kennedy's lung why wasn't it large enough to damage Connally's liver, when lung is the tissue least susceptible to cavitation and lung the tissue most susceptible? 3. Why didn't the supposedly high-speed bullet shred veins and arteries and explode the trachea? 4. Did the bullet pass above or below the first rib? If it passed above the first rib, at what point did it enter, and why do the photos show it below the level of entrance? Hold on a moment...You say the bullet wound in the back is lower than the throat wound and couldn't have exited his throat... ok. Where is this bullet? Did it fall out? Is it 399? Was it in kennedy's chest cavity and we weren't told about it? So... am I reading you wrong or are you really saying that the SBT must have occurred, and that the bullet must have traveled down the neck, even though the photos prove the entrance was below the exit, because that's the only way you can make sense of things? Are you really disputing that the entrance was below the exit? You said earlier that the bullet striking Kennedy in the back was traveling 1700-1800 fps. How do you know this? Pat,those FPS figures are from Failure Analysis computations.... This is what I have Pat, if I go by what you are saying: 1st shot misses...2nd shot shallow back wound to JFK...3rd shot hits Jfk in throat(bullet,poison dart,ice pellet..whatever he was hit with...4th shot hits JBC..5th shot JFK headshot...6th shot from grassy knoll...did I miss any? Richard, there was absolutely positively not a first shot miss. Even the WC felt the first shot hit. The first shot miss is a heinous lie invented by CBS to give the shooter believed to be Oswald more time, and perpetuated by others for the same reason. People who take Connally's recollections and twist them into supporting the first shot miss are guilty of intellectual dishonesty, IMO. First, Connally himself felt Kennedy was hit by the first shot around Z-190, not Z-160, when first shot missers place the first shot. Second, there were dozens of other nearby witnesses, none of whom believed the first shot missed, the second shot hit Kennedy in the back, there was a five second gap, and then Kennedy was hit in the head. Third, victims of vioilent crime make the worst witnesses... The violence increases the emotion of the event, thereby creating a false feeling of accuracy, but repeated studies show they are anything but the best witnesses. As far as Failure Analysis' opinion on the speed of the bullet, they got that from Larry Sturdivan and his HSCA testimony. Well, how did Larry know the first bullet wasn't undercharged, or wasn't a misfire? He didn't. He was basing his estimates on tests performed at Edgewood Arsenal using only fully charged bullets. The issue of subsonic bullets or undercharged bullets was never raised... that is, officially. In order to demonstrate wound ballistics to the HSCA, Sturdivan brought in a gelatin block depicting the permanent cavity of a subsonic M-16 round. Guess what? In the final report, the name of this exhibit was changed to make it look like it depicted a supersonic load. Even worse, Sturdivan's testimony reflected thatn he'd said 800 meters per second instead of feet per second. I contacted him about this and he admitted he may have said meters instead of feet but couldn't quite understand how the name of his exhibit got changed, when it was logged in correctly. I eventually found some footage of some of his testimony and compared it to the offical transcript and found a few other changes, none of which he acknowledged making. I was forced to conclude that someone at the HSCA was trying to hide all references to subsonic ammunition from the public. You have to admit, it does seem a bit odd that, with the thousands of pages of reports and testimony regarding the purported shots, the government failed to address the possibility silencers were used. As a result of my communication with Sturdivan, I believe this wasn't an oversight.

So, in other words, you believe, a la Lattimer, that the bullet struck Kennedy on the back of the neck, even though the photos show the entrance to be on the back. Lattimer got around this by insisting that he based his theory on the entrance he saw on the x-rays, which is basically an admission that he didn't trust the autopsy photos. Dale Myers supported the SBT by moving the back wound to the base of the neck, distorting Kennedy's body shape, and misrepresenting Connally's position in the car. Upon what basis do you accept the SBT? While Cliff insists the bullet entered at T3, and I believe the HSCA FPP got something right for a change and that the bullet entered around T!, both are too low to support the SBT. The HSCA got around this by hiring a "trajectory expert" to misrepresent the photographic evidence. He insisted that Kennedy was leaning forward BEFORE being shot, sat up in the car, and THEN was struck in the head--the exact opposite of what the Zapruder film shows... How do you support the SBT? 1. How did the bullet get passed the spine? 2. If the bullet created a temporary cavity large enough to bruise Kennedy's lung why wasn't it large enough to damage Connally's liver, when lung is the tissue least susceptible to cavitation and lung the tissue most susceptible? 3. Why didn't the supposedly high-speed bullet shred veins and arteries and explode the trachea? 4. Did the bullet pass above or below the first rib? If it passed above the first rib, at what point did it enter, and why do the photos show it below the level of entrance? Hold on a moment...You say the bullet wound in the back is lower than the throat wound and couldn't have exited his throat... ok. Where is this bullet? Did it fall out? Is it 399? Was it in kennedy's chest cavity and we weren't told about it? So... am I reading you wrong or are you really saying that the SBT must have occurred, and that the bullet must have traveled down the neck, even though the photos prove the entrance was below the exit, because that's the only way you can make sense of things? Are you really disputing that the entrance was below the exit? You said earlier that the bullet striking Kennedy in the back was traveling 1700-1800 fps. How do you know this?

So, in other words, you believe, a la Lattimer, that the bullet struck Kennedy on the back of the neck, even though the photos show the entrance to be on the back. Lattimer got around this by insisting that he based his theory on the entrance he saw on the x-rays, which is basically an admission that he didn't trust the autopsy photos. Dale Myers supported the SBT by moving the back wound to the base of the neck, distorting Kennedy's body shape, and misrepresenting Connally's position in the car. Upon what basis do you accept the SBT? While Cliff insists the bullet entered at T3, and I believe the HSCA FPP got something right for a change and that the bullet entered around T!, both are too low to support the SBT. The HSCA got around this by hiring a "trajectory expert" to misrepresent the photographic evidence. He insisted that Kennedy was leaning forward BEFORE being shot, sat up in the car, and THEN was struck in the head--the exact opposite of what the Zapruder film shows... How do you support the SBT? 1. How did the bullet get passed the spine? 2. If the bullet created a temporary cavity large enough to bruise Kennedy's lung why wasn't it large enough to damage Connally's liver, when lung is the tissue least susceptible to cavitation and lung the tissue most susceptible? 3. Why didn't the supposedly high-speed bullet shred veins and arteries and explode the trachea? 4. Did the bullet pass above or below the first rib? If it passed above the first rib, at what point did it enter, and why do the photos show it below the level of entrance?

The Specter memo proposing the use of the photos makes clear that the Secret Service had discussed these matters with RFK and that he had never ruled out the use of the materials. He had just wanted to be sure they were necessary. Katzenbach's testimony before the HSCA confirms this--that RFK had given his blessing. Warren, in his memoirs, also clears RFK, iinsisting that the decision was his alone. The only ones I've found to push the "RFK withheld the photos" theory are Specter, when he talked to the doctors, and M cCloy, when he talked to CBS. They were both either misinformed or lying to protect Warren and the Commission. I suspect that Specter was misinformed when he sought the use of the photos for the doctors' testimony, and that McCloy was lying to protect Warren. After all, the exec sessions PROVE that Dulles and McCloy pushed Warren to allow Humes to inspect the materials, and to explain them to a member of the commission, presumably Warren himself, and Warren AGREED. That this was not done, and why it was not done, was almost certainly discussed. As McCloy lied to CBS about Warren even looking at the photos, there is no reason to believe his blaming it on Bobby was not also a lie. Remember, in 67 Bobby had only recently come out against the war, and the Repubs and Johnson loyalists, of which McCloy was one, were out to damage him in every way possible...

Richard, a question. Do you see a black line traveling down within the body? This line is thought by myself to be the bullet shadow, a line of air in the tissue indicating the trajectory of the bullet. This conclusion was first proposed by the Clark Panel, and has been seconded by Dr. Lattimer, and Larry Sturdivan. But guess what? This trajectory leads back to a location much higher than the entrance wound on the back seen in the other photos. In fact, it seems to lead all the way up the neck, to the top of the x-ray. It was this bullet track that led me to conclude that the bullet entering low on Kennedy's skull went down his neck and exited his throat. Amazingly, the neck was not dissected so we'll never know for sure. But the back wound is far too low to have served as the beginning of this bullet path. The HSCA realized this and concluded that the air leaking from the hole in the trachea somehow backed up in the neck. To account for the fact that this was illogical, as the air leaking from the trachea would most logically have followed the path of least resistance and exited the hole in the throat, they theorized that Kennedy's TIE SOMEHOW SEALED OFF THE HOLE IN HIS THROAT. If you're not defending the SBT, I apologize for the smart-assed tone.

Richard, in my online presentation at the link below, i get into the "bunching" theory and show that the amount of bunching visible in the photos is nowhere near the amount necessary to raise the jacket entrance to the back of Kennedy's neck. Instead, it raises it to the level of the back wound on the autopsy photos, considerably too low to support the magic bullet theory unless Kennedy was leaning forward. And the Zapruder film proves he wasn't.