Pat Speer

Howard Hunt, as I remember, mentioned his own involvement in Johnson's efforts against Goldwater. Later, of course, when William Sullivan grew concerned that Hoover was gonna use Nixon's bugging efforts to blackmail Nixon, he stole the transcripts and gave them to...Robert Mardian. Considering he served no time, Mardian was sure in the thick of it. One wonders if he didn't cut a deal or two with his old friends in the Justice Department.

Larger images is not always better images. B&W photos tend to have very limited color tones, thus it does make the image harder to read. Maybe the illustrations below will help ... Bill Miller Bill, if you sincerely believe that's Jackie's hat, then she is crouching down on the floor directly behind the jump seat. If this is true then we have every reason to believe JFK fell on the floor. Which supports the possibility it was his foot over the side of the limo.

Jack et al, I get into the trajectories in my online presentation. The HSCA forensic pathology panel tried to keep their hands clean. They created drawings demonstrating their interpretation of the wounds, both back wound and head wound, and the possible bullet trajectories through these wounds. Neither wound pointed back to the sniper's nest, or matched Kennedy's position in the Z-film. Your comment that they felt Kennedy leaned forward behind the sign is incorrect...it's even worse... they concluded Kennedy was hit at Z-190, when Kennedy's position can be observed and, of course, is not leaning forward. This put the HSCA in a HUGE hole. How were they gonna BS the American people into believing Kennedy is leaning forward at 190, when he is not leaning forward, and not leaning forward at Z-312, when he is leaning forward? Enter NASA!!!! The HSCA hired NASA engineer Thomas Canning to blow the biggest and foulest cloud of smoke up America's keester since Specter. His trajectories are complete lies. Canning actually testified that Kennedy is leaning further forward in the Croft photo than at Z-312!!!! This is demonstrated in the "Single-Bullet Theory" and "Tangled Web" sections of my presentation. Tellingly, NOT ONE of the LNers I've tussled with over the last 6 months or so has bothered to defend Canning's trajectories. They are truly indefensible. Even Dale Myers agrees the head wound trajectory is BS! So why don't people like McAdams stop spouting their standard "the bullet trajectories all came from the sniper's nest, as proven by a rocket scientist" line? I suspect it's because they simply don't care. It's a convenient lie, which looks good on paper, that impresses the easily impressed.

I have recently reviewed all the eyewitness evidence I could find. I don't recall reading the statements of any black witnesses along Elm. In front of the TSBD, yes. Along Elm, no. I don't believe any of the witnesses in the Croft photo were identified or interviewed.

John, while we agree on films our paths separate on the "bona-fides" of Mr. Gray. His "Ellsberg is CIA, Liddy is CIA, Dean is CIA, Pat Gray is CIA" theory won't fly even on the windiest of days, and is LUDICROUS, in my opinion. Call me closed-minded, if you like. It's just that I've read probably 20,000 pages on Watergate over the years, from its many participants, and have found they tell a cohesive story. Now someone almost certainly using a fake name calling himself "Gray" comes along, insulting everyone in his path, and tries to sell us that what makes sense is really a cover for a completely incomprehensible plot involving the Church of Scientology and Gerry Ford, and whose only evidence for said plot seems to ibe that Douglas Caddy lied to Bob Woodward. Sorry, I'm not buying. To clarify, while the CIA may very well have made sure that the White House got blamed for the break-in, AFTER THE FACT, it is downright silly to believe, as Ashton does, that the release of the Pentagon Papers, the manufacture of the Diem Cables, the break-in at Fielding's office, the Watergate break-ins, and the appointment of Gerry Ford to the Presidency were all part of a CIA-orchestrated plot. Nixon's men, including Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean, Colson, Magruder, Mitchell, Liddy, and even Nixon himself, admitted White House involvement in many crimes. While one might say these crimes were justified in the name of National Security, only someone out of touch with reality, IMO, would hold that these men were mere pawns in some master plan hatched by Richard Helms, a BUREAUCRAT who engendered so little loyalty among his subordinates that his replacement William Colby exposed him as a perjurer.

There is a nice color full print in Trask book "National Nightmare". Bill Miller Thanks, Bill. I apologize if this is old news, but the car on the dead end Elm directly above Greer's head looks like a police car with its door open.

I don't see this at all. If LBJ was involved in the assassination, he would have said, "make sure you DON'T get Connally." The men were thick as thieves. Let's not forget the LBJ feud with Yarborough which many suspect was orchestrated in order to get Connally and Yarborough to switch places. JFK shot that down, however, because he felt the need to be seen, in Dallas especially, beside the right wing Governor Connally, and not the left-wing Senator, Yarborough. The incredible frown on Connally's face throughout the last half of the motorcade and his looking back and forth on Elm BEFORE the shots rang out indicates a possibility he knew the shots were coming but not from where, IMO. As do his famous words... "My God, THEY're going to kill us all!" As far as the people in the building orchestrating Oswald's employment etc... yes, there was an inside man, Oswald himself. Oswald sought jobs along the motorcade route. Why? Who told him to do so? Believe me, I've tried, but it makes little sense to insinuate Buell Frazier and Roy Truly into the plot. Frazier testified that the bag he saw Oswald carry was too small to hold a rifle. This greatly damaged the WC's case against Oswald. I believe Frazier still has doubts of Oswald's guilt. Similarly, Truly testified that he thought the shots came from west of the TSBD. He also led Baker right PAST Oswald in the breakroom. If Baker hadn't caught a glimpse of Oswald on his own, then Oswald could have made his way outside without being seen in the building. P.S. O'Donnell, O'Brien, and Ellsberg, had nothing to do with it, either. Talk of their involvement will prevent this projected timeline from being taken seriously, IMO.

Don't all photos trouble you? Hill's leg is inside the car. What I have done is hardly a perfect drawing, but I feel that it wasted more effort than what this nonsense warrants. Hill is leaning to his left and has his left foot down inside the car ... most likely it is pushing against the inside passenger door panel. At first, I was disgusted that you would start a new thread over the Newman photo when it has already been discussed in another thread, but maybe it is better this way because it draws attention to your problems in understanding perspective and how it applies to photographs. In other words, you just showed why so many of your interpretations are in error so much of the time. Bill Miller Actually, Bill, Jack's question raises a valid point considering that other monstrous thread. Since you acknowledge that Hill's left leg is on the the right side of the car in the Newman photo, where is it in the Miller photo? I believe you said previoously that Hill had simply pulled his right leg forward between the photos. Iit seems clear his left leg would have to have moved substantially as well. Who's to say he didn't accidentally push Kennedy off the seat while moving his left leg?

It's simply not true that the details of important events are "burned in our memories." It's been tested over and over again, and while the impression of having something "burned in our memory," is common, the accuracy of these "burned memories" is lacking. Finck largely told the truth up until he was pressured into appearing at the Shaw trial. He was then put in the position of defending the Clark Panel's high entrance on Kennedy's head, when he was convinced the entrance was in the hair line, where it had been recorded in the autopsy protocol. He failed miserably, insisting that the entrance on the x-rays and the entrance on the scalp were not necessarily the same. His HSCA testimony was hidden away due to his refusal to admit he was wrong about the entrance. The last pages of his transcript disappeared. In 92 he was contacted by the Journal of the American Medical Association. He gave them an interview confirming that the entrance was in the hairline. It's clear by this interview that he is simply sick of all the controversies over the bullet entrance, and ANNOYED as heck that the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP questioned his competence and moved the wound. By the time of his interview with the ARRB he was an old man. In his mind, he had been routinely abused and insulted by the U.S. Government. I believe his many "I don't knows" were basically "I don't know but I have an idea, but I'm not gonna tell you my ideas because you IDIOT Americans are just gonna come up with your own STUPID theories anyhow. So screw you." If so, the historical record shows he was justified. My intensive study of the medical evidence revealed that, while the original autopsists made mistakes and twisted their findings to help support the single assassin theory, the REAL cover-up of the medical evidence began in 1967, and was orchestrated by the Justice Department, and continued in 1968 with the creation of the Clark Panel. I believe Finck was basically honest. His "Trip Report" from 1967 provides the evidence that the Justice Department wrote the "military review." His Trip Report from the Shaw Trial provides the evidence that he was briefed by the Justice Department beforehand, which explains his referring to the wound he knew to be a thoracic wound as a neck wound.

Sure. Just as soon as he apologizes to me for being a "paid provacateur" or maintaining two forum identities. Just as soon as he apologizes to the US govt for supposedly tampering with the Zap film, faking the moon landings, or killing 3,000 fellow Americans on 9-11. Just as soon as he apologizes to the family of Nicole Brown Simpson for working on the Butcher of Brentwood's defense team. And the beat goes on ... If you can't see any difference between what Jack has said and what you have said, I feel sorry for you. Jack has no way of finding out if the things he accuses you of are true. You, on the other hand, could have checked with any number of people, including Gary Mack, to find out if Jack's story about being attacked was true. Your decision to mock an 80-year old man for being savagely attacked, and your justifying it by claiming he's said things you don't approve of about your country, is cowardly. What's next, Brendan? Gonna go over to Jane Fonda's house and ask if she killed her mother? Gonna go over to Ron Kovic's house and challenge him to a footrace? OUR country can get along just fine without YOUR kind of protection, thank you very much.

Finck bowed, but would not break. He tried to get through his career with his pride intact. To his credit, he refused to accept the Clark Panel/HSCA FPP bullet entrance, and insisted that his earliest descriptions of the entrance wound on the skull were accurate. To his discredit, he testified for the defense in the trial of Clay Shaw and repeatedly referred to the back wound as a neck wound, something he never did previously or subsequently. He also told us much of what we know about the early examinations. It is only through his 1967 Trip Report, for example, that we know that the 1967 so-called "Military Review" was in fact written by the Justice Department.

And I concede your point. I was relying on a still frame a second earlier, but after watching the film in real time, she does indeed turn her head to the left at the last second. And unlike Jack, I will not suggest film tampering to cover my mistake. As for her multiple versions of events since 1963, that remains intact. Wow, Brendan, you sound reasonable for a second. Now please apologize to Jack, whose run in with an attacker is well-known in the research community... Your insinuation that he made this up, simply because you disagree with his photo interprettations, is offensive... Just as Gary's going to work at the museum changed his life, Jack's being attacked changed his... You should show a little respect.

Gilliespie, precisely because it is something as meaningless as a foot, and no one here has attached much meaning to its alteration or non-alteration, the real issue here is human cognition. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR PEOPLE TO AGREE ON ANYTHING? The answer, so far, seems to be "no." Although we are close to a consensus that the Yarborough Exhibit is an unaltered version of the photo with the drawn-in foot, we can't come to any agreement what the original shape represents. Consider this a Rorschach test party if you like... without a keg.

Thanks, Jack, for that background. As you know, I had an unusual run-in with Perry. I stated on Lancer a few years back that I thought there was more to the Geneva White story than meets the eye...I mean, she DID have a photo of Oswald that was not released to the Warren Commission. A few months later, however, I discovered an online article created by Perry about how dumb the research community is...that cited my simple post as the perfect example. He dissected each word of my post in an effort to show how stupid we all are. Well, this pissed me off, as you can probably imagine and quite possibly recall. If he wanted to say I was wrong, he should have just posted as much on Lancer. Ultimately, this led me to look into the issue of the backyard photos even more, which led to my conclusion that things are even stickier than I first thought. Whether or not the photos were faked, it is a historical fact that two of the three negatives of the backyard photos disappeared while in the custody of the DPD, and that little is known as to who is responsible. I suppose it was this incident that led me to assume that Mack and Perry were close to the DPD.

Mr. Slattery, please do a little research. All witnesses are storytellers. It's up to the people in the jury box or classroom to judge that person's credibility.

Bill, you've done a great job making your point. I agree that the photos being used are not optimal. I agree that there is nothing to indicate Kennedy's foot or hand could be in such a position. I would LIKE to believe it really is Hill's foot, but it just makes no visual sense to me. I tried to simulate the position, but was unable. Now Stephen has joined the Forum and has argued this same point. He went out into his garage for 15 minutes and tried to re-create Hill's alleged position and was incapable of doing so. At one point, I believe, you said you would recreate Hill's position in the photo for us when you got home. Please do so. I would sincerely appreciate it. I am more than willing to be convinced. It just appears to me that the lower leg/arm attached to the foot/hand is to the right of Hill in the car and not angled back towards his torso. It also appears to me that Hill is crouched or kneeling on the back seat...So where is Kennedy? It seems possible he fell to the floor of the car and that in re-arranging him or pulling him back onto the seat, Hill caught one of Kennedy's legs on the side of the car. Obviously, this is speculation. Neither Jackie nor Hill ever talked about what was said or done in that back seat.

As a man who works as Gary Mack’s messenger boy, could you explain why his employees allow you to post his words but do not allow him to post himself? What is the difference? We are allowed to read what he has to say on these matters via your postings. Maybe it is because if he is caught out lying, as he has been over the Jean Hill issue, he can claim that he never really said it. John, your characterization of me as a "messenger boy" is uncalled for and not supported by the evidence. Although I have occasionally mentioned email exchanges with Gary, I believe this is the first time I've ever posted a message from him. I did so because he sent me some sort of group email a short time after Jack made his post. He didn't even ask me to post it for him. I just thought people might want to know that he disputed Jack's recollection. Because I occasionally defend Gary Mack some may wish to conclude I am his "supporter." This is not true. I am merely trying to be fair. I frequently defend Jack White, Douglas Caddy, and Alfred Baldwin as well, not because I agree with everything they say, but because I believe they are sincere people trying to present the truth as they see it. In the past I have defended people as diverse as Tim Gratz and Judyth Baker. If one were to look at the monstrous "Photo Alteration in the Media" thread, one would see that I am currently annoyed with Mr. Mack and his refusal to acknowledge that the most frequently published version of the Miller photo features a drawn-in foot. If I am anyone's "supporter," I am a supporter of John Simkin's, Larry Hancock's. and the Education Forum as a whole. If I were in the crowd and someone attacked Jean as Gary is reputed to have done, I would have asked him to shut up and told him he could speak after she talked. Having spent the last few months re-reading all the eyewitness testimony, and having studied human cognition and memory, I am well aware that people get things wrong, particularly as they retell a story over and over. It is an established fact among those that study such things that people who retell a story shade the facts to make the story better and truer to their emotional perception of the incident, and that with time the "story" grows further and further from the actual event. One can see this in Bill Newman's statements as well. Even John Connally's statements show evidence of this shading... It is immature and unfair to call someone telling what they believe to be a truth a "xxxx." Even after seeing the autopsy photos numerous times, Dr. Boswell talked about the back wound as a neck wound, only to reverse himself when shown the autopsy photos again. Why? Was he lying when he described the wound as on the neck? Quite possibly no. Memory research has shown that when people are asked to imagine an event that this imaginary event (the bullet's passing through Kennedy's neck on a downward trajectory) colors their actual memories. Based upon what Jack has said, and what Jim Marrs has confirmed, it sounds like Gary Mack and Dave Perry formed a mutual appreciation society and took it upon themselves to protect the credibility of the research community and the City of Dallas, from those who would distort the facts. I know they are not fans of Beverly Oliver's. I believe they also helped debunk the Ricky and Geneva White stories. Which, apparently, deserved to be debunked. If one looks closer, however, one should ask why they didn't demand from the City of Dallas an explanation as to how Geneva White came upon the third backyard photo. The HSCA has a footnote explaining that Studebaker made copies and gave them to Stovall and White....but, as far as anyone seems to know, the DPD has never publicly aired its dirty laundry. WHO stole the negatives to the backyard photos? WHY wasn't the third photo turned over to the Warren Commission? WAS anyone fired over the theft of evidence? To my way of thinking, these are the kinds of questions that the Sixth Floor Museum is in a unique position to help clear up...

The Chisms were near the Stemmons sign. Jack Thanks, Jack. I figured that was the Chisms, seeing as that was the closest family. Still, there's something to be learned from this about the imprecision of human memory and language. Chism signed a statement later that afternoon indicating that he was "directly in front of the Stemmons sign," when he was a good 25-30 feet east of the sign. While some might think "directly in front of" means between the sign and the street, or between the sign and the motorcade, to Chism it meant 25-30 feet in front of the words of the sign, to the east of the sign. There are numerous other examples of this imprecision in the statements. The FBI reports are far worse. From reading the FBI reports one would never know the Franzens were to the west of Altgens, readily apparent in the Zapruder film. I think Chism was very precise to say he was IN FRONT OF THE STEMMONS SIGN. If he turned around to his right and faced west, he was DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF THE SIGN. He did not say "I was by the EDGE of the sign". Twenty feet is not a great distance. The room I am sitting in now is twenty feet long. If I turn around from my computer and look at the TV at the opposite wall, I would say I AM IN FRONT OF THE TV. It is nitpicking to say Chism was mistaken. Jack I agree. The point I was trying to make is that words are so open to interpretation. When I read his statement that he was "directly in front" of the sign, I assumed he meant in comparison to the street. I assumed he was near Witt, by the edge of the sign, not 20 feet away.

It's at moments like this that Gary wishes he could post. He sent me this a few seconds ago in response to Jack's post about Jean Hill. He says he never heckled her, but admits he did heckle Charles Crenshaw. From Gary Mack: "FALSE! Your memory is worthless, Jack. The event you "remember" had nothing to do with Jean Hill. The guest was Charles Crenshaw and he was lying about getting a phone call from LBJ. There was a phone call from Washington, but it wasn't from LBJ. I happen to have an audio tape of the Jean Hill appearance - which was several years earlier - and I'd be happy to play it for you to refresh your so-called memory. Gary Mack cc: various "

I wonder if they'd have been as rude to Nellie Connally if she started spouting how her husband yelled out "No, No, No" BEFORE he was shot. People's memories are flawed, and the more they retell a story the less clear their memories become.

Like a tube of toothpaste? C'mon... I know this is your passion, Cliff. And I know you've read my presentation. You even sent me a congratulations on my use of the clothing to show the silliness of the single bullet theory. Now, for some reason, you choose to think that everyone who refuses to believe that the autopsy photos are fake is your enemy. Whatever. I wrote about this on another thread. This kind of in-fighting is precisely why the CT community is looked at with disfavor by the public at large. As far as McAdams and Rahn, since when do they know SQUAT about the medical evidence? They CHOOSE to believe in the SBT for religious reasons, which is no reason at all. In my presentation, I completely discredit Robert Artwohl's work, featured on McAdams' site as strong evidence for the SBT. (You even gave me a tip on how to do this more convincingly, by using the collar as a ruler...Artwohl uses a completely bogus measurement of Kennedy's ear.) In the presentation, I also discredit the incorrect conclusions of Rahn's NAA guru Vincent Guinn, and show how Guinn came to the exact opposite conclusion he should have. An entrance at T1 is too low for the SBT to work without the bullet's having deflected upwards, and then down again. There is no evidence it did this. There is no evidence it transitted the neck. I've studied this in more detail than anyone else I know. High-speed gunshot wounds are very messy. The trachea is one of the tissues most susceptible to cavitation. The first rib was in the way. Have you noticed how Mr. DVP and Mr. Zimmerman etc, shy away when you ask them how the bullet transitted the neck..."Oh well we can't really say, blah blah blah.".. it's because they have NO idea...they just accept it as an article of faith in their LN religion. As far as Burkley, you conveniently forget that he signed off on the face sheet, which had the 14 cm measurements. As far as your complaint about the measurement from the mastoid, that's something that Weisberg or Lane picked up on and harped to death. It is a TOTAL red herring. People were so obsessed with "but they shouldn't have measured from the back of the head, waaaaaa" that they missed that for Humes' measurements to have been used on the Rydberg drawings, as testified, Kennedy would have to have had a skull 50% bigger than others. Humes' measurements could have been used to impeach his own testimony; instead people got stuck on "the head moves...how can you measure form the head? The Clark Panel and HSCA FPP, by the way, ALSO measured from the mastoid. Hmmm. Humes' real error, it seems, was in NOT measuring from the spine. Which brings us back to the face sheet... LOOK at the face sheet. Where is the wound in comparison to the shoulder? Just a little below, right? Where is the wound on the autopsy photo? Just a little below. There is every reason to believe that the imprecise body shape on the face sheet is the root of much of the confusion. Boswell marked it based on the shoulder. Later, in 1966, when it was pointed out to him that this put the wound way down the back, he lifted it up onto the neck. When testifying before the ARRB he even admitted that his logic was "well, we know the bullet headed down within the body, and it exited the throat, so it must have entered up higher." In other words, he had no clear memory of where the bullet entered. And neither did anyone else... which is why they take pictures of these things. The back wound photo, by the way, was taken by John Stringer. While he expressed doubt about the brain photos, he never expressed any doubt that he'd taken the back wound photos, as far as I recall. I trust you'll correct me if I'm mistaken.

The Chisms were near the Stemmons sign. Jack Thanks, Jack. I figured that was the Chisms, seeing as that was the closest family. Still, there's something to be learned from this about the imprecision of human memory and language. Chism signed a statement later that afternoon indicating that he was "directly in front of the Stemmons sign," when he was a good 25-30 feet east of the sign. While some might think "directly in front of" means between the sign and the street, or between the sign and the motorcade, to Chism it meant 25-30 feet in front of the words of the sign, to the east of the sign. There are numerous other examples of this imprecision in the statements. The FBI reports are far worse. From reading the FBI reports one would never know the Franzens were to the west of Altgens, readily apparent in the Zapruder film.

Francesca, fellow Forum member Rex Bradford has put hundreds of thousands of pages online, including CD1, at the Mary Ferrell website, here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...o?docSetId=1008 Mary Ferrell Foundation. It's quite an asset. As Professor McKnight said, the FBI Report of December 9 was a rush job. The FBI refused to even read the autopsy report. The report functioned largely as a prosecutorial brief against Oswald. I have recently reviewed the report's conclusions and compared them against the evidence available at the time. Shockingly, the FBI concluded there were three shots and that Oswald fired all the shots from his bolt-action rifle BEFORE they had even interviewed anyone in the Presidential limousine, any of the motorcycle officers closest to the President, and anyone in the Secret Service follow-up car. They decided that there were three shots and that the first hit Kennedy, the second hit Connally, and the third Kennedy because that was the only way they could explain the shots...they had almost NO eyewitness support for this scenario. Connally had described this scenario on TV, but he was not interviewed by the FBI un til the report had been completed, and after they'd already told Johnson and the Warren Commission that Oswald acted alone.. You may find a section of my presentation of interest. The first slides of the Examining the Examinations section are on the Warren Commission, and give a brief timeline of the many screw-ups by the FBI and the press in the days and weeks after the assassination. http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

Pat, I believe you are correct. Did any official investigative body ever interview Donaldson and Brown do you know? James James, I have recently summarized all the eyewitness testimony I could find. Here's what I found on Woodward's friends. Aurelia Alonzo, Margaret Brown, and Ann Donaldson. (12-7-63 FBI report, CD7 p.19) “Ann Donaldson…Margaret Brown…and Miss Aurelio Alonzo…were interviewed December 6, 1963…All furnished the same information as that previously furnished by Mary Elizabeth Woodward.” Mark Lane testified that Woodward told him her friends shared her impressions. Later, she tried to impress her journalist friends by claiming that she'd never spoken to Lane except to tell him she wouldn't speak to him. (OOOOHHH IMPRESSIVE) She never disputed what he said she'd told him, however.

Cliff, you know we're on the same side here. Tell me, is there any way, in your opinion, a wound at T3 could appear to be as high on the back as the back wound seen in the autopsy photo? Please recreate it if so. If the autopsy photo was faked, on the other hand, why wouldn't it have been faked to match the Rydberg drawings, which the HSCA FPP admitted showed a wound two inches higher than the wound on the photo? Why tell two GIANT lies that don't even support each other? You know that my whole approach to the wounds is to accept the photos and see what they show. The back wound photo shows a wound too low on Kennedy's body to support the SBT. To argue that the evidence, the measurements and the photo, should be abandoned in favor of a few selected quotes by people who never measured the wounds is to play into the hands of the LNers, in my opinion. If you argue that so-and-so who saw the back wound for a split second said such and such, and they say so and so who MEASURED the back wound and TOOK this picture said such and such, GUESS WHO most people are gonna believe? Guess who is gonna be painted as a wacko? Since the autopsy photos can be used to show there was a conspiracy, I suggest we use them.