Pat Speer

Dawn: a question... do you honestly believe Watergate was a CIA plot designed to put Gerry Ford in power, to keep stolen Scientology secrets from being revealed, and that Richard Nixon was innocent of an unimpeachable crime, and that the ONLY way to remove him from office was for such disparate men as Richard Helms, E. Howard Hunt, G. Gordon Liddy, John Dean, Charles Colson, John Ehrlichman, L. Patrick Gray and William Lambert to conspire on stories such as the one they shared about a faked cable?

Pat, let me make a suggestion: You get yourself some nice big 8 x 10 glossies of E. Howard Hunt and John "Pinnochio" Dean and Chucky "Come to Jesus" Colson and L. Patrick "I Burned 'Em Three Times!" Gray—plus any other proven and entirely impeached liars you feel warm and fuzzy about—and forge yourself some Diem cables, and get some candles and some goat skulls, and make yourself a little shrine to The Diem Cables Religion. Then every time you feel the urge to annoy me about it, just kneel down in front of your little shrine, bow your head, and thank your enshrined gods for having given you this faith that you so fervently cling to. And then leave me the F#%$! ALONE about it! There. Then we'll all be happy. Deal? Ashton Gray I'll take that as your acknowledgment that the Diem cables actually existed, as the fabrication of their existence by dishonorable men whose reputations suffered as a result makes no sense. Welcome to the light. Pat: Read my lips: there were no cables. Nada. Carefull, your "light" is blinding . Dawn Dawn, if you, as a lawyer, can't see that the creation of a fake cable in order to implicate the Democrats in the murder of Diem was 1) acknowledged by a number of men as a goal of the Nixon Administration, 2) admitted to by the man in the position to fake the cable, and 3) verified by a number of other men who admitted seeing the cable, and that these men gained little if anything from their admitting they knew of or saw this cable, makes the cable a legal and historical fact, then you, as a lawyer, have no business in a court of law. I don't know what Kool-aid Ashton's been sending you via e-mail, but it's mighty potent. Most puzzling of all is why Ashton should make-up such nonsense--that there was no cable--and include it as part of his scientology-based scenario. It seems obvious that he finds it necessary, in order to build up Watergate as an incredibly EVIL act set up by incredibly EVIL men, that Nixon was innocent of impeachable offenses. Thus, his refusal to admit that Nixon was guilty of anything. You should be wary of false prophets, particularly those using fake names and wearing tinfoil hats.

Pat, let me make a suggestion: You get yourself some nice big 8 x 10 glossies of E. Howard Hunt and John "Pinnochio" Dean and Chucky "Come to Jesus" Colson and L. Patrick "I Burned 'Em Three Times!" Gray—plus any other proven and entirely impeached liars you feel warm and fuzzy about—and forge yourself some Diem cables, and get some candles and some goat skulls, and make yourself a little shrine to The Diem Cables Religion. Then every time you feel the urge to annoy me about it, just kneel down in front of your little shrine, bow your head, and thank your enshrined gods for having given you this faith that you so fervently cling to. And then leave me the F#%$! ALONE about it! There. Then we'll all be happy. Deal? Ashton Gray I'll take that as your acknowledgment that the Diem cables actually existed, as the fabrication of their existence by dishonorable men whose reputations suffered as a result makes no sense. Welcome to the light.

And what is the point of it doing that? What is the point of the movie, if it has one? Aside, of course, from the point of making money. It won't get any of mine. Ron, I actually recommend the film. It's well-written and well-acted and captures the late sixties and the hope that Bobby represented. Estevez told me he shied away from depicting the evidence for a conspiracy because he didn't want to make an Oliver Stone film. The problem is, by NOT reporting the problems with the autopsy or the woman in the polka dot dress, etc, Estevez inadvertently deceives people. In the upcoming Globe article, Bill Turner does the bulk of the complaining. The one quote attributed to me has to do with my annoyance over the misrepresentation of the other victims. The five other victims in the shooting are all fictional characters, yet nowhere is this mentioned in the film. As a result, many will leave the film convinced a young soldier was struck in the head beside Bobby, instead of Paul Schrade, a union official and campaign worker.

Maybe it was the sound of the motorcycles masking the percussive shock, maybe the crowd was loud. But if you're outside and you hear thunder, you generally will look up, right? It's human nature to at least cast a glance in the direction of a loud noise, if for no other reason than unconscious self-preservation. Mark, when they did the acoustic tests in 1978, they also hired blindfolded earwitnesses to listen to the shots. The report on the earwitnesses stated that rifle fire from the sniper's nest was immediately identifiable to those on the street below. The author of this report, apparently aware that less than half of those in front of the TSBD thought shots came from the building, went on to suggest that perhaps the rifle was fired from within the building. As Brennan, Euins, etc all said the rifle was sticking out the window, this makes no sense. As most witnesses said the first shot sounded different than the others, like a firecracker, I believe it makes much more sense to conclude this first shot was undercharged, or a misfire. As the last two shots rang out almost simultaneously, I believe it also makes sense that the second shot (heard by most; there may have been additional silenced shots) was fired from the TSBD, followed immediately by a third shot (or, at least, a loud noise) from the railroad yards. This would explain why so many on the knoll thought shots came from behind them, and why so many in front of the TSBD thought shots came from west of the building.

Thanks, Steven, for sharing your thoughts. I, too, have spent much of the last year trying to understand why it is so important to me that this case be resolved. After sending out more than a hundred emails to members of the media, trying to interest them in some of the recent developments, to no avail, I have finally decided to take the story to the public myself, via Youtube. I hope to have the first vid up in a few weeks. Ironically, after having the door slammed in my face so many times re the JFK assassination, I ran into a woman at a screening of "Bobby" the other day, and she is gonna quote my thoughts on the movie in an upcoming article in the Globe (a tabloid). (She talked to Bill Turner as well.) As "Bobby" deliberately avoids controversy by depicting an admittedly fictional account of the shooting, it represents a lost opportunity to inform the public of some of the problems with the police account of the shooting, problems that, not coincidentally, indicate there may have been a second shooter. Hopefully. some media watchdogs will point this out in their articles on the film, but I wouldn't count on it.

Welcome to the twit file, Daniel! This file contains the names of real and sincere people, e.g. Caddy, Baldwin, myself, and John Simkin, who've earned the wrath of a certain someone, someone so insincere he hides behind a fake image and name. Ash.... those Diem cables... who made them up again? And why did they do this exactly?

Many here, including myself, suspect that the confluence of the U.S. military, the CIA, and organized crime was a factor in Kennedy's death. This confluence first came to the surface in WW2 when the U.S. Navy asked organized crime for help in fighting potential saboteurs on the New York docks. Later, in reward for this cooperation, and at the Navy's request, New York Governor Tom Dewey, who'd put Lucky Luciano in prison to begin with, commuted Lucky Luciano's sentence. In 1953, rumors began circulating that Dewey had been paid for this act. To cover himself, Dewey arranged for William Herlands, the New York director of investigations, to create a report detailing exactly what Luciano had done to endear himself with the Navy, and how the Navy had requested Dewey to allow his release. Unfortunately for Dewey, he was unable release this 2600 page report to the public and clear himself, as the Chief of Naval Operations, Carl Espe, told Herlands that the release of the report might "jeopardize operations of a similar nature" in the future and cause "a rash of thriller stories." Has anyone read the Herlands Report? Does anyone know what the Navy was hiding?

If you'd heard some loudmouth talking about killing a political figure, would you immediately call the police? I wouldn't. If the political figure was killed shortly afterwards, however, and it looked like it may have been a conspiracy, I probably would call the police and tell them what I'd heard.

Now that's funny!!! Pat you are the one who continually defends the CIA and their assets. Ashton CIA??? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Pat you really must get some rest. If Ashton is CIA then I am DIA. Good grief m'boy! Dawn Dawn, I suspect aspects of the CIA were involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. If that constitutes "defending" the CIA I have to admit I don't understand the meaning of the word. If you look closely you'll see that it is Ashton who has been defending Nixon, whom I consider to be a monstrous creep. Mr. Gray has repeatedly refused to state whether he feels Nixon was guilty of impeachable offenses. He has also repeatedly insisted that every piece of evidence against Nixon was somehow set-up by the CIA, in order to put Gerry Ford in power, in order to keep the lid on the secrets of remote viewing uncovered by the "Church" of Scientology... That you take him seriously and support his attacks on myself and John is truly disappointing...

Thanks, John, for providing those quotes. That Truman dropped the bomb to save American and Japanese lives is one of the myths fed Americans with their morning breakfast. I believed it myself until a few years back. Another myth fed us, even in the new anti-war propaganda film Flags of our Fathers, is that bloody battles such as Iwo Jima were a necessary evil. According to MacArthur's memoirs, the battle of Iwo Jima was totally unnecessary, as the recapture of the Phillipines put the U.S. in striking distance of Japan. As Iwo Jima was Japanese soil, it seems likely in retrospect that the U.S. wanted the battle for Iwo to be bloody, so that it could justify dropping the bomb to prevent "loss of life." War is hell.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were reportedly military targets. Notice that they didn't nuke Tokyo. (Of course, they'd already fire-bombed Tokyo.) The killing of civilians was almost certainly part of the plan, in order to scare the Japanese Emperor, and send a message to the Russians. (It worked.) Truman is much more innocent when it comes to the CIA. He interpreted the CIA as an intelligence collection service. In his later years, he wrote letters to the media stating that if he'd known the CIA would become involved in operations, he'd never have allowed its creation.

But, Dawn, he does so very well when arguing with his own delusions. And, really, he just falls pretty flat on his red face when forced to stick to real facts. Don't take his only toy away from him. My disdain for Nixon is in the record. Speer just has to make up things to talk about, that's all, because he can't address the actual facts. It's sort of like his having an imaginary friend. Ashton Ashton, you ARE an imaginary person, although clearly not a friend. I must admit I'm curious as heck what your real name is, and if I've run into you on any of the other forums under a different name. Your writing is made up of so much wild speculation and nonsense, I'm skeptical you could identify a "fact" if it hit you in the face. You interpret coincidences as "proof," insult everyone who disagrees with you, and will never acknowledge a mistake. You try to pass off an innate nastiness as high style. If there was a CIA asset sent to this forum whose purpose was to discredit this forum, I suspect he would behave in much the same manner.

Absolutely so, Michael. And as the resident CIA apologist has now so astutely (and accommodatingly—a tip o' the Ashton hat) pointed out, the James Parrott "lead" was a blatant red herring, one of the first planted. And who better to plant it than George H. W. Bush. Ashton, you've got your conspiracies mixed up. I'm only a CIA apologist when it comes to Watergate. They don't pay me enough to cover their butts on Watergate AND the Kennedy assassination. As far as your whole "twosies" angle....Only you can take the not-so-surprising coincidence that a young man in Texas happens to have the last name as A CIA secretary in Washington and conclude this was by design. It's not unreasonable to note the similarities in names and see if the two are related. It is unreasonable to take from the fact that they are probably not related that Bush deliberately planted this information in order to throw us off. I, too, suspect Bush had CIA ties in 1963. I also suspect he probably knew more than he's revealed. I even think it's possible he reported Parrott to throw the Feebies off the scent of the anti-Castro Cubans with whom he'd been so friendly. But, as far as we can tell, Parrott was a real person, with real right-wing tendencies. Consequently, it would appear his name has NOTHING to do with Tom Parrott, and "Parrott" is not some secret code that only you in your wisdom can divine.

You're right, Michael. There's no known connection between the two Parrotts. James Parrott was a loud-mouthed kid, enamored with the John Birch society, if I remember correctly. There's nothing connecting Tom Parrott with the JBS.

Myra, A Citizen's Dissent is little-known and rarely-read. As Lane's follow-up to his best-selling Rush to Judgment, you'd think it would have received a lot of attention and at least moderate sales. Nope. A few years back, I came across a book from the early 70s on the American media. This book, which took no stance on the assassination whatsoever, nevertheless decided to use A Citizen's Dissent as a case study. It turned out that, while RTJ had received something like 180 reviews nationwide (which amounts to free publicity) A Citizen's Dissent had received less than 5. The author concluded that the book, and its DISSENT, had been deliberately ignored. This, of course, reinforces the theme of Lane's book.

I read something the other day that really helped explain the Domino theory and Vietnam. After WW2, the Russians carved out a big chunk of Europe formerly occupied by Germany, and claimed it for themselves. The rest of Europe was returned to Western control. But what did the U.S. get? While Americans aren't accustomed to thinking in such terms, the reality is that the U.S. took, or tried to take, the parts of Asia formerly under Japanese control. There can be little doubt that one of the reasons the U.S. dropped the bomb when it did was to end the war before Russia could lay claim to the chunks of Asia formerly occupied by Japan. When one reaches this understanding, it's easy to see how the U.S. incorrectly assumed that all communist movements were an extension of Soviet imperialism. When China and Russia had a falling-out in the late 50s and early 60s, the CIA, in particular, failed to comprehend. If this all sounds a bit speculative, here's the quote that led me to this understanding: "Communist intransigence in Korea perhaps will teach the French and the British the futility of negotiation...It should be emphasized that if Indochina went Communist, Red pressures will increase on Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia, and other Asian nations. The main target of the Communists in Indochina, as it was in Korea, is Japan. Conquest of areas so vital to Japan's economy would reduce Japan to an economic satellite of the Soviet Union..." The source? Someone who presumably knew a bit about the cold war--Richard Nixon, quoted in the April 17, 1954 New York Times.

I have just purchased the book from Amazon. Members might like to consider buying other books by her: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/203-5540439-5919...;link%5Fcode=qs If I can find her email address will ask her to join the Forum. I read the book a few years back at the San Diego Public Library. Without taking a pro or anti-conspiracy stance, it demonstrates how the main stream media has banked its credibility on the lone-nut theory. About a month ago, I sent out emails to approximately 100 newspapers and TV programs, asking them to take a look at my online presentation before they deliver their inevitable "43 years and nothing new" story. Despite my listing of 5 or 6 of the extremely relevant findings included within my presentation, and my presentation's receiving over 100 visits in 2 days, I didn't receive one non-automated response, even to tell me they took a look but weren't interested. From this I suspect that some low-level employees took a look, and that their bosses then said "forget about it."

Shanet, Barnes was Hunt's boss at the DOD, the Domestic Operations Division. Hunt was reportedly the Chief of covert operations of the DOD, not the DOD itself. There will be a lot on Barnes and Hunt in Larry Hancock's book.

James, I believe this document is a reference to Edward J. Epstein and Reader's Digest, who were investigating DeMohrenschildt's ties to Moore when DeMohrenschildt killed himself in late March 77.

Another interesting thing about Smith's award-winning account is that it makes clear the first shot sounded different than the others. (James Tague focuses on this as well.) In 1966, after conspiracy books began raising doubt that Oswald acted alone, he wrote a follow-up article stating that the shots sounded different because he was passing b eneath an overpass by the TSBD. No such underpass exists, of course.

Merriman Smith was a legendary journalist and won the Pulitzer prize for his on the scene reporting of the assassination. He was friendly with LBJ. He killed himself after his son got killed in LBJ's war in Southeast Asia.

I would agree with you if we were talking about shooting through something like jell - however - hitting a tree branch with the mass/inertia to change the bullet's direction by more than a few degrees would put major stresses on the jacket. The jacket takes the initial friction while the inner lead core (80%+ of the mass) continues on -- breaking through the jacket. The quote below is from a shooting site and states this realistically: "If a bullet has a jacket, the stresses of tumbling may cause it to break apart while it is travelling sideways through flesh - a process known as fragmentation - which further increases the wounding effect. Most 5.56x45 military bullets fragment..."\ Hitting a tree limb hard enough to ricochet to the degree that the "Oswald" bullet would have had to would have torn a jacketed bullet to pieces and rained small parts of the jacket (and some wood splinters) down upon those below the impact point. It depends how big the tree branch. If the bullet hit a thick tree branch, at a sharp angle to its surface, it's possible that the bullet would break up and parts of it would be sharply deflected. On the other hand we should remember that M/C ammunition, when fired straight on into wood, penetrates several feet with little damage to the bullet. . The quote above, by the way, is about M-16 ammunition, which, due to its high speed and pointed nose, was designed to break up. It was, in fact, in violation of the Geneva convention, in spirit, if not in word. To cover their asses, IMO, the U.S. government, through its lackeys at Edgewood Arsenal, including Olivier and Sturdivan, the WC and HSCA ballistics experts, put out the word that the M-16 was deadly because of its high-speed, and because of the large size of its temporary cavity. This misinformation persists down till today. On the McAdams newsgroup, Sturdivan is still insisting, through his colleague Dr. Zimmerman, that the large defect on the top of Kennedy's skull was caused by the temporary cavity, and not by the exiting bullet fragments. This is absolute hogwash, IMO, designed to conceal that the fractures on the x-rays indicate the large defect was most probably an entrance. Fortunately, in recent years, thanks in large part to an actual Military Surgeon named Martin Fackler, the truth about M-16 ammunition and the "cult of speed" has been exposed, and we are now in a position to properly understand the role of speed and bullet shape in wounding.

Pat, of course you are right about Arlen Specter. I thought his duplicity was a given. I refer back to Sibert's quote. Did Ford not have access to that evidence that Sibert mentioned? Do you think Hoover and DeLoach knew where the back wound was? This is a good point, Michael. Ford was given copies of the FBI reports indicating the wound was in the back. Did he study them? Or was he led to believe Humes' testimony and the Rydberg drawings "updated" this info? The strange circumstance is that none of the WC commissioners or counsel seemed to notice the discrepancy between the placement of the back wounds in the FBI reports and the Rydberg drawings. I agree that it's quite likely that they knew about the discrepancy, but chose to look away. Rankin, in fact, told the commissioners in closed session that he was looking for help from the doctors regarding the alignment of the wounds. But there's no evidence, unfortunately, that Rankin or the commissioners KNEW the wound was really on the back or that the doctors were deliberately misrepresenting the location of the wound.

I saw the movie tonight and talked briefly with Estevez. While he's aware of much of the evidence for conspiracy, he decided not to portray it in the film. One woman at the Q & A I attended confronted him on this afterwards. She was upset that there was no woman in a polka dot dress, etc... While using tons of archival footage, BOBBY focuses on the lives of fictional characters, some of whom end up in the pantry during the shooting. While this will undoubtedly confuse viewers unaware that these characters are fictional, it would be a shame if this lack of historical accuracy prevented other viewers from seeing the film, which is in essence a requiem for lost hope. The movie is also a commentary on the current regime, in that the educated viewer is forced to compare the hopeful and sincere words of RFK versus the often idiotic ramblings of dubya, inc.