Pat Speer

Thanks so much, Jack, for posting the image and the info. James, I think Woodward confused a lot fo people by saying she stood near the Stemmons Freeway sign when she was really standing by the Thornton Freeway sign. I think the Chisms also said they were by the Stemmons sign but were not. I mean, where are they in the photo? Is that them considerably to Umbrella Man's left?

In looking at the Bronson photo, I'm struck by the fact that there are two women only a few feet to the left of the Newmans on the north side of the street. As these women were on Kennedy's right side, and as they weren't operating a motorcycle, and as they didn't dive to the ground immediately after the headshot to protect their children, they are perhaps the BEST witnesses to the shooting. (I say perhaps because it's possible their view of the head shot (s) was obscured by DPD Officer Douglas Jackson. Anyhow, does anyone know who they are? Is the one in the dark dress Cheryl McKinnon? Marrs quoted an article by McKinnon in Crossfire. Can anybody post the entire article? P.S. Note that Louie Witt's umbrella is far above his head. How could he have not seen Kennedy's response to the first shot? http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/bronson5.jpg

Terry, as you know, I have an entirely different take on the mythical Mr. Gray. To me, his whole theory of Watergate seems to be based upon the incorrect premise that the Executive Branch in 1972 lacked the power to defeat an evil faceless bureacracy, and that if only Nixon had had MORE POWER and MORE LOYAL AIDES he would have resolved the Vietnam conflict with a much smaller loss of life. I can't help but suspect that Mr. Gray believes the same is true today...that is, I suspect Mr. Gray believes President Bush is some sort of puppet of an evil faceless bureacracy, and that Mr. Bush is powerless to stop the war in Iraq, etc., and that, if only IF, Mr. Bush had more MORE power, then everything would be okay. I may be wrong about his feelings on Bush, but his feelings on Nixon, that Nixon was some sort of victim, is so incredibly WRONG-HEADED, IMO, that it makes me suspicious of Mr. Gray's underlying agenda. That he would write this letter to President Bush is, I believe, a statement in itself. Who else among us thinks George Bush cares one bit about CIA abuses from 34 years ago, particularly when his own father was promoted by one of the supposed CIA conspirators (Ford) to run the CIA, and when his success in doing so was so central to his becoming VP, and when his role as VP made him President, and when his role as President put his son in the position ot become President? Why would George Bush want to re-investigate a scandal that in a distant way brought himself to power? Because he cares about the truth? If he cared about the truth, why didn't he or his administration tell us the truth about their meetings with Enron, the connections between Al-Qaeda and Iraq, or the Plame scandal?

So does Dave Perry, yet he's slimed by the buffs. This is actually a good point, Mr. Slattery. Not that Mr. Perry hasn't brought a bit of it on himself. At one point he created a page "debunking" a post I made on the Lancer Forum. He used me as an example of people who didn't know what they were talking about. As a result, I looked more deply into the topic, and found that not only was I right, but that the mischief surrounding the backyard photographs was far more extensive than I'd originally posted. As far as I know, no retraction was made. Even so, from having spent time on alt.assassination.JFK, I've been able to make a few observations. 1) The LNers stick together. If one LNer thinks Oswald did it, and that there was no conspiracy to cover anything up, he doesn' feel the need to attack someone like John Canal, who believes that Oswald acted alone, but that the government covered it up anyhow. Similarly, John McAdams, who can't admit that Dr. Baden and the FPP could be wrong about the cowlick entrance, feels little need to attack Chad Zimmerman and John Canal, who believe the FPP was mistaken about the entrance and that the original autopsists were correct. They think of themselves as being on the "same team." 2. Meanwhile, on the conspiracy side of the fence, there is mass in-fighting. As demonstrated on this Forum, the "alterationists" hate the non-alterationists. The non-alterationists hate the alterationists. People like Gary Mack are villified for not pushing the CT agenda. People like Jack White are villified for "embarrassing the community." I tend to think that if the "conspiracy community" could unify on one theme, such as the absurd dishonesty inherent in the Single-Bullet Theory, and present these findings in a consistent fashion, it might be able to regain some credibility with the media, and the public. In my experience, most Americans feel that there was something fishy about the assassination, and believe there was a conspiracy, BUT tend to believe the conspiracy community is full of wackos. As a result, they don't trust anyone, and try to think about the assassination as little as possible.

Whatever alteration was done to the Miller photo, IMO, was to make it look more like a foot. The Dallas Morning News said it was Kennedy's left foot. Most other papers and magazines just said it was Kennedy's foot. Later some sources started saying it was Kennedy's right foot, and then, ultimately, it was Hill's right foot. I think some of the distortions you noticed were created by people changing images without keeping the ratios constant. The other day I scanned in four or five different versions of the photo, and they were pretty much identical in shape. There were two major additions...the drawn in foot over what might actually be a foot, and a semi-circle line over the Connallys to make their shape more apparent. By the way, I finally got a look at the 11-29 issue of Time. They used the photo with the drawn-in foot. They also reported that the impact of the FIRST shot on Kennedy's head made his leg fly up in the air and his foot land on the edge of the car. They were not trying to spare anyone's feelings. That seems clear.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Burkley did a thorough inspection of Kennedy's wounds. It seems likely his "third thoracic vertebrae" was the position he saw marked on the face sheet. But, as stated, it makes little difference. Whether at the level of T3 or T1, the wound was too low to support the single-bullet theory.

You guys crack me up! JFK is dear instantly when his brains get blown out...all the while sitting upright with his feet on the floor. Jackie places hie lifeless head in her lap. SO how did his foot..his LEFT foot go from the floor, spinning his body so his left left leg and foot can leap up and out of the limo? Rigor mortise in 5 blocks? Sheesh and you question Hills ability to get his foot in the postiion seen in Miller? ROFLMAO! That's the point, oh he who likes to mock... I was once sure it was not Kennedy's foot. But it also makes little sense for it to be Hill's foot (assuming it's a foot). Therefore, considering that Miller was right there watching the car pass by, and said it was Kennedy's LEFT foot, the possibility now exists in my mind that Miller knew what he was talking about. PERHAPS, Mr. Mocker, the kid SAW Hill climb into this position, and KNEW that the foot was in this position before Hill made his move. Perhaps he got a better angle as the car passed, and could tell the shoe was a left shoe... It is a fact that neither Hill nor Jackie told us everything that went on in that back seat. It's possible Kennedy's body jerked about a bit in its death throws, and that they felt the nation should be spared these gory details.

Good eye, JL. I'm now thinking the unthinkable--that the kid (Miller) had it right all along. That it was Kennedy's left shoe! Does anyone have pictures of Kennedy's shoes on 11-22? Perhaps when he was coming down stairs?

Cliff, the HSCA FPP made many mistakes. They confirmed the high entrance on the back of Kennedy's head, for example. But in their analysis of the wound locations, they were pretty much dead on. The 14cm measurement by Humes and my own analysis of the photo, using anatomy books, (horrors) , confirms that the wound is on the level of T1. A bullet entering at T1 on a 17 degree descent would not exit from a man's throat unless it was deflected by bone. If it was deflected by bone the bullet would almost certainly have suffered more damage than CE399. The only way for this trajectory to work, therefore, is for the SBTheorist to assert that Kennedy was leaning forward when hit. The Zapruder film pretty much rules that out...people don't lean forward for 1/3 of a second or so and then straighten up for no reason. People like DVP who go on and on about "what are the odds" and "where is the evidence" know that they'd look pretty foolish to insist that the ONE split second Kennedy was obscured in the Zapruder film was the ONE split second Kennedy decided to lean forward as rapidly as possible. You let them off the hook when you start arguing that the wound was at T3. You allow them to argue whether the wound was at T1 or T3, when it really doesn't matter much, as both are too low on Kennedy's back to support their WEAK theory. (Any theory whose proponents refuse to identify what comprises their theory, such as how the bullet passed throught the president without striking bone, is a weak theory, in my opinion.) On an earlier post, you mentioned our old friend Dr. Zimmerman. Any idea why his website has been taken down? Did he get tired of our using his work defending the SBT, to debunk it?

Just for effect (and the fact that it's true as well). There's not a chance in hell of ever re-creating the SBT with the exactitude CTers require (even though the SBT is the correct shooting scenario, based on the totality of the evidence). It's like trying to place toothpaste back into its tube. Don't the two autopsy pics I provided side-by-side tell you anything about the positioning of the two JFK wounds in question -- wounds that RCTers say couldn't in a thousand years line up to make the SBT even remotely possible? (Plus, don't those pics tell any reasonable person gazing at them that the back wound was positively HIGHER than the neck wound....regardless of the HSCA Report you'll be citing next?) Let's look again, OK? ....... DVP, in the single-bullet theory section of my presentation, on the "Hunchback Analysis" and "Artwohl Analysis" slides, I show how those photos have been mis-matched for decades, starting with the Clark Panel. The "back wound was not above the throat wound. This is a LN MYTH. On an upright body, the back wound was at approximately the level of T1. On an upright body, the throat wound was at approximately the level of T1, possibly a bit higher. The forensic pathology panel confirmed that the back wound was below the throat wound. When Baden testified, he had Kennedy's clothing on a mannequin. The entrance on the back of Kennedy's clothes was lower than the supposed nick on his tie. If Kennedy was leaning dramatically forward, or to the left, so that his back was lifted a bit against the location of his throat, then maybe the SBT trajectory could still be made to work. But the Zapruder film fails to demonstrate Kennedy achieving such a position.

In my presentation I demonstrate several Humes "untruths." I believe all of these "untruths" were told under pressure from the Government. While many like to blame the military, the reality is that the so-called "Justice" Department seems far more guilty of mischief re the autopsy evidence than the military. Humes told two blatant "untruths" which come to mind. 1. He told the Warren Commission the Rydbery drawings were made using the measurements. Specter himself knew this was false but said nothing... 2. He told CBS News in 1967 that the autopsy photos confirmed the wound location in the Rydberg drawings. Humes was given talking points from the Justice Department before this interview, which told this exact "untruth." Consequently, it seems likely Humes told this lie under pressure. The irony, of course, is that he told the truth 'bout most everything else, only no one would believe him. If you look at my presentation in the "Solving the Great Head Wound Mystery" section you'll see that Humes was right all along about the entrance location on the back of Kennedy's head. If you go to the "Re-inspection of the X-rays" section you'll see that Humes was also correct about the supposedly 6.5 mm fragment. The X-rays show this fragment to be behind Kennedy's right eye, exactly where Humes discovered it.

And, failing that, there's always "comedy". A 25+-page thread on the "foot-hand" debate???? Five words best describe that activity -- What Difference Does It Make? As you know I started that thread, and while it dissolved into an argument over what the original photo really showed, the basic point was eventually accepted by every contributor. The basic point? That the foot in a photo reprinted hundreds of times, including in Pictures of the Pain, was drawn-in. Admittedly, it's a minor point. But it's nevertheless informative to know that something as obvious as a fake drawn-in foot could be shown to millions of people and be accepted by millions of people, and only now 42 + years later be revealed as a fake. By the way, I agree with you on something. The wound in the autopsy photo is 14cm from the mastoid. On the back. This proves that Humes lied when he said the Rydberg drawing depicting the wound at the base of Kennedy's neck was created with the help of the measurements. Mr. DVP, why do you think he lied?

For the record, I like Jack and sometimes agree with him. Even when I think he's wrong, however, I almost always find myself sympathetic to him. He points out something he thinks is wacky, and gets shot down with regularity. Sometimes he readily agrees that he was wrong. This is refreshing. So many others both here and at other forums are out to sell their theory and their theory only, and seem to consider it a sign of weakness to ever admit they were wrong about anything. Of course, there are other times where Jack is wrong but won't admit it no matter what. At those times he's as guilty as the rest of us. It does little credit to those out to discredit Jack, however, that almost every thread involving him becomes all about him, and not just about the merit of his observations. This thread is a perfect example. The man created a thread about a near-death experience. One person jumps on and mocks the possibility that anyone would want to kill Jack. Another attempts to show that Jack has some lingering suspicions that the attack had a political motivation. Jack has admitted to such suspicions. What's the point? Whenever I get a computer virus I wonder if somehow someone didn't single out my computer for an attack. So? The HSCA's Gary Cornwell made the astute observation that you can't investigate conspiracies unless you're a little paranoid. In my own words, you can't find the roots unless you at first suspect there's something beneath the surface.

Mr. Purvis, it seems you're trying to hawk your theory again. While I remain intrigued by your theory that CE399 entered Kennedy's back upside down...there are other elements of your theory which are in opposition to the evidence. 1. If all three shots came from the sniper's nest, as you claim, why did one of the closest witnesses, Bonnie Ray Williams, hear only two clear shots from above him. Why did Jarman note that the last two shots came together? Why did Norman have no clear memory of a third shot, beyond that there was a third shot? 2. I agree with you that the head shot at 313 is the second of the three shots heard by most everyone in the plaza. Where you're off, IMO, is in your contention that the last shot is the shot stiking Connally. This is way way out there, far beyond the body snatcher theory you so love to mock. How, if the bullet came from the right when Connally was laying back to the left with his feet at the right hand side of the car, did the bullet striking Connally head DOWNWARDS in his body? Did it deflect off bone? And where does this happen in the Zapruder film, exactly?

Oliver saw some of the possible links between Z and JFK as well. I had a question all prepared for him about Tom Pappas and the possible ties between the Kennedy Assassination, the Greek military coup, and the 1968 election of Richard Nixon, and he kind of cut me off at the pass by bringing up Pappas on his own. So I asked him about the JFK records act instead.

The SBT proves ITSELF in so many ways (mostly of the "common-sense" variety)....and it's remarkable how so many CTers have been duped into thinking it's an LNer's wet dream. It's nothing of the kind. Myers' work proves the SBT is doable, and the Discovery Channel re-creation came so close to replicating the event, at the VERY LEAST CTers should open up an eye and admit to the SBT's "possibility" if nothing else. Ask yourself (please) -- Could that Australian Discovery Channel re-creation ("JFK: Beyond The Magic Bullet") have possibly come that close to a near-perfect (not perfect to the square-inch, true, but very close) duplication of something that CTers say is UTTERLY IMPOSSIBLE? Think about that, please, for a moment. Could ANY true-to-life re-creation (sans the "living bodies" of the victims) -- utilizing an actual WCC/MC bullet fired from an actual MC rifle from a 60-foot-high perch -- have come THAT CLOSE to re-creating a "Wet Dream" invented by Mr. Specter? The fact that the JBC mock torso (during that re-creation) was struck in just exactly the same general locations on the "body" where the real JBC suffered injuries in 1963 -- all AFTER a bullet had gone cleanly through a mock Kennedy torso -- should tell any reasonable person assessing the SBT's viability that the theory is most-certainly far from "impossible". Coupled with Mr. Myers' detailed animated work, which hone in in even more detail re. the angles, etc., these two things (Myers & Disc. Channel) prove beyond doubt that the SBT lives & breathes (regardless of Mr. Speer's "above or below the first rib?" inquiries). An EXACT TO-THE-INCH re-creation of the SBT is not possible and everybody should know why. It's not gonna happen, unless we can somehow get JFK & JBC to come back to life and do the whole nine yards all over again. But the "No Bullets Left In JFK" thing is just not gonna fly from a CTer POV. No way. No how. I want Pat to tell the world -- WHERE ARE THE MULTIPLE BULLETS THAT MUST REPLACE THE SBT?? Re. the more-technical questions, there's no question the SBT works re. the angle through JFK and the one through JBC too. JFK was struck 5.5 in. below the right mastoid, which IS above the anterior portion of the neck where the bullet exited (and where the autopsy report unambiguously says the bullet "exited"). http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/Autopsy_photos/zeroang.jpg And if the SBT is wrong -- then SOMETHING ELSE is right. What the heck is it? Not a single CTer has answered that question in a believable way (following any of the known evidence) in 40+ years. Key word there = "believable". Lots of my other detailed thoughts re. the SBT are in those links above. If the SBT is false -- I'm a monkey's second cousin (or uncle even). (Mark Fuhrman's crazy anti-SBT, pro-LN theory notwithstanding.) Here is what I've written on Beyond the Magic Bullet, the complete nonsense Mr. VP holds in such high esteem. Images are included in the Single Bullet Theory section of the link at the bottom... "In 2004, the Discovery Channel began running a program entitled JFK: Beyond the Magic Bullet. While appearing authoritative, using scientists and experts to simulate the shooting in Dealey Plaza, the program was rife with errors and/or distortions. Ultimately, it showed how incredible the magic bullet theory really is, but then turned around and claimed the opposite! They attempted the shot from a hanging platform, at a distance of 180 feet, the distance they claim the HSCA claimed for the second shot. Well, there are two problems with this: one is that the HSCA claimed the shot came at around Z-190, which according to the Warren Commission’s recreation, would make it roughly 160 feet, and two is that the Dale Myers animation they used as evidence depicted the shot at z-224, which would make it roughly 190 feet. It’s unclear where they derived their 180 foot measurement. They placed a target on the simulated torso representing the President at a point several inches to the right of the actual wound on the autopsy photos. They claimed this placement came after “triple-measurement.” What they failed to mention was that the autopsy measurements measured the distance from the shoulder and from the back of the head and their torso had no head. The HSCA and Clark Panel made estimates as to the distance from the spine, which they clearly ignored. Even so, the shooter missed this target and actually hit the torso very close to where the wound is depicted on the autopsy photos. I’d like to think this “miss” was on purpose. When their “magic bullet,” after traversing both the Kennedy and Connally torsos, failed to explode the simulated wrist to the extent Connally’s was damaged and bounced off the simulated thigh, they looked for it in the surrounding area, only to find a clearly deformed bullet several yards to the right of the torsos. They then conducted a post-mortem to see what went wrong. During a slow-motion replay of the shooting, the narrator stated matter-of-factly that the bullet “struck Kennedy in the neck.” Someone should have told the writer that that lie died with the HSCA. During these replays they never showed the front of either torso. After taking the Connally torso to a doctor, who ran a cat-scan, they concluded that the bullet struck two of Connally’s ribs instead of the one struck by the “magic bullet” and that this was why their bullet was more damaged. But the cat-scan revealed more than the producers of the show could possibly have desired, as the cat-scan revealed that the simulated ribs on the Connally torso were not even connected to the sternum in front! This meant that there was no bone in the front of Connally’s chest for the “magic bullet” to strike, and thus create more damage and/or slow it down before it struck his wrist. At this point, I ran a replay of my own. I went back to the part of the program where they created the torsos and I discovered that the Kennedy torso had no spine, and that neither torso had shoulder blades. While these bones may have been left out because the producers believed the real “magic” bullet missed these bones, the exclusion of Connally’s front ribs, where the bullet made its exit, is inexcusable. To make matters worse, the cat-scan also revealed that the two damaged ribs on the Connally torso were the 8th and 9th ribs, in the middle of the back, some distance from the actual entrance on Connally’s 5th rib in his armpit. At this point in the program it all became clear. Rather than testing if a bullet hitting the President in the assumed location would go on to hit Connally in his armpit, wrist and thigh, and come out largely unblemished, the program’s creators were testing if such a bullet, after missing Kennedy’s spine, which is doubtful, after exiting Kennedy’s throat, which is doubtful, and after hitting Connally’s ribs in only one place, which is doubtful, would go on to create the other wounds and appear unblemished. As if that wasn’t bad enough, the program’s creators neglected to tell their audience the significance of that which they did discover. That the tumbling bullet in the re-enactment hit two ribs while the real bullet struck but one is indicative that the real bullet was not tumbling. This supports the statements of Dr. Robert Shaw, Connally’s doctor, who said the entrance wound was only 1.5 cm long, but is in direct contradiction with the many lone-nut theorists, including the HSCA’s Dr. Baden, who cite the fact (which is not a fact) that the bullet was tumbling as evidence that the bullet first struck Kennedy. These lone-nut theorists, and the Discovery program itself, repeat like a mantra that the entrance in Connally’s armpit was 3 cm, the size of a bullet traveling sideways, and ignore Shaw’s statements and the inconvenient fact that the tear in Connally’s jacket was only 1.7 cm. While acknowledging this, HSCA ballistics expert Larry Sturdivan has argued that a 1.5- 1.7 cm wound is still ovoid and is therefore still an indication that the bullet struck something (such as a President) before striking Connally. He fails to mention, if he’s even aware, that an elongated wound can also be taken as an indication that the weapon responsible was equipped with a silencer, as reported in papers by Ronchi and Ugolini (Zacchia, 1980) and Menzies et al (Journal of Forensic Sciences, 1981). In any event, instead of telling the audience the significance of the bullet hitting two ribs, the program cut to some supposed expert stating that their simulation had taken the “magic” out of the “magic bullet”. But the program wasn’t over. For their final act they took an autopsy report reflecting the wounds incurred by their simulated torsos to an L.A. County Coroner. Surprisingly, the face sheet created for the Kennedy torso revealed that the bullet exited not from the torso’s throat but from its left chest, and that it probably would have hit its spine (if it had one) and must have hit its sternum (if it had one). Even worse, a probe poked through a skeleton by the doctor to depict the path of the bullet exploded the program’s assertion of replicating the magic bullet, as the probe passed below the clavicle and first rib. A bullet traveling on such a trajectory would not have bruised the President’s lung, but pierced it, and would have exited far below his throat. In conclusion, one might state that the Discovery Channel did recreate the magic bullet, if one is to acknowledge that magic is deliberate deception designed to create the illusion that fantastic events have taken place. Unfortunately, such misrepresentations are so commonplace these days they‘re barely even noticed. In 2003 a Discovery Channel program entitled “The JFK Conspiracy Myths” attempted to show that Oswald had enough time to perform the shooting by having a sharpshooter on a scaffold shoot at watermelons riding in a remote- controlled limousine. That the sharp shooter hired by the program, Michael Yardley, was able to hit a moving target 3 times in 7.87 seconds (longer than the Warren Commission’s scenario) was supposed to prove that Oswald, who hadn’t fired his rifle in months, if ever, and who had never been trained in shooting at a moving target from an elevated perch, would have been able to accomplish a similar feat. While the program mentioned that Yardley fired six other sets of three shots, and that four of these proved successful (with the other two marred by equipment failure), they failed to mention the timing of these other sets. This leads one to suspect the other sets took longer than the already too long 7.87 seconds quoted in the program. Even worse, when it came time to test the accuracy of Yardley’s shooting, they provided him with a rifle hooked up to a laser switch. As a laser beam travels at the speed of light, making it dramatically easier to hit a moving target, and as a laser beam suffers no bullet drop or wind resistance, this demonstration was akin to playing with a stacked deck. Additionally, the lack of recoil from the laser rifle made it considerably easier to shoot and re-aim. Court TV, in 2003, was equally guilty. During the program JFK: Investigation Reopened they jumped on the deceptive animation bandwagon and defended the feasibility of the single-bullet theory. Of course, to do this they had to lift the back wound above the shoulder line. Even worse, in order to have the bullet go through Connally at the required angle from the sniper’s nest, they had the limousine swerve drastically to the left, even crossing the lane divider, just as the bullet was fired, and then swerve right back again just after. As no one testified to such a swerve and as no such swerve is visible on any of the films, the creators of the program were clearly of the mind-set that it was more important to have the shot line up than to depict the path of the limousine accurately. When will all this deception come to an end?"

Thanks for posting this article. I must have missed it over at historymatters. By pure coincidence I saw Oliver a week ago, at a screening of the French Film Z. He took questions afterwards from film critic Leonard Maltin, and then from the audience. He kept mentioning that Z was the single biggest influence on his film JFK, and how making JFK was the most important thing he's done as a film-maker. So I asked him why he kinda disappeared after his film came out and after the JFK records he fought so hard to get released were finally released. He answered by saying that if he ever looked into it again it would probably kill him. His world-weariness was evident. It's clear his making JFK took a professional and personal toll. Those still angry at Oliver for basing his opus on Garrison's investigation, should rent Z if they can find it. It's the story of an assassination in Greece, and the subsequent investigation. The audience follows the story as level after level of the conspiracy is exposed. It's clear that Stone was impressed by this approach, and ENTERTAINED. He wanted to tell a detective story. So he picked Garrison's story. His belief in Garrison extended beyond his desire to tell a detective story of course. He mentioned that he read Joan Mellen's book and was impressed.

Von Pein, I ask you for the edification of others. Where did the bullet enter? Where did it exit? At what level did it pass the spine? Did it pass above or below the first rib? To some, the single-bullet theory is a religion. Surely, you've done actual research on this theory. What tests did you peform and what were your conclusions?

Ashton, I've been trying to take the high ground with you. Claiming that my asking questions about your inane theory, questions which you hypocritically refuse to answer, is "stalking," is just boring and predictable. Certainly you can find another typo in my posts that will "prove" that I'm the boogie man. Bottom line: you can create your own webpage or your own website anytime or anywhere you like and I won't give it two thoughts. But you came here to SELL your theory, and I'm not buying, and it burns you up. Fine. If you were really here to educate, and participate in the educational process, you would write on threads you didn't create and answer challenges to your theory. If you were really here to share your research, you'd write an extensive article on your theory, and post it on the online seminars section. But you haven't and you won't. I believe this is cause you came here to disrupt things and bully people. You admitted as much yourself. You said you came to the Forum to confront Caddy and Baldwin. You pretty much called them traitors without any substantiation, outside of evidence you created out of whole cloth. I ask you again... on what planet does having two conflicting accounts of a crime by two confessed participants in the crime "prove" that no crime occurred and "prove" that the two confessed participants of the crime are in a secret conspiracy to disgrace their employer, even though he was unlikely to ever get charged in relation to their crimes? On what planet does it make sense to believe that a man's closest advisers--his attorney for chrissakes--would conspire against him, and that the most damning thing they could come up with is to confess to crimes that have little to do with him? Please cite any evidence you have to show that Dean, Liddy, and Caddy conspired with Helms...

Sounds like reality interferes with your digestion. I apologize for having read and UNDERSTOOD more about Watergate than Mr. Gray. While some are only interested in Watergate as a possible look behind the curtain at the back of the stage, some of us are interested in what actually happened on stage. The facts remain that the Watergate break-in was a political act performed by men working for the White House. The house of cards collapsed in slow motion. Many lies were told. Many memories were in disagreement. While trying to straighten out these lies and misrepresentations is an admirable act, to JUMP TO THE UNSUPPORTED CONCLUSION that having stories not add up is a CIA technique designed to disguise CIA activity is pure BS. You should be able to see through this. The CIA uses non-CIA-related scapegoats in their plans. That Ashton believes the CIA used CIA-connected individuals to perform a crime so they could make it look like the work of someone else is indicative of the weakness of every aspect of his "theory." The man behind the curtain doesn't stand in front of the curtain. The CIA doesn't disguise CIA officers in foreign countries by giving them deep cover as CIA officers. Similarly, you don't set up the White House to take the fall for a crime by hiring a team of CIA-related Cubans, and have them report to two long-time CIA employees, Hunt and McCord. You don't then cooperate with the early attempts at covering up the investigation, insuring that your activities are investigated by the ensuing congressional committees. It's BS. The CIA was not the impetus behind the Watergate break-ins. Certain CIA employees and alumni, including Walters, McCord, and Hunt, may have helped insure Nixon's downfall once they realized Nixon was trying to use the CIA to save his own skin, but there is no evidence to indicate they "plotted" the course of events or followed any CIA-provided script in their actions. Paranoia runs deep...

Dawn, Liddy was the sole participant in Watergate to refuse to cooperate with the Watergate investigation. As a result, he served far more time in far worse places than anyone else involved. It makes no sense for him to have refused to talk if he was a collaborator in a plan to disgrace Nixon. Years later, through his radio show, he began making statements in support of the "Dean's wife was a whore" theory on Watergate. Dean sued him. In the updated edition of Liddy's book Will, he discussed his belief that Dean arranged for the break-in in order to get damaging info about his wife out of the wrong hands. Liddy expressed his disgust with Dean, and bragged about physically intimidating Dean when they briefly shared a room. It's clear he hates Dean. He also writes about how John Mitchell was largely innocent, and was made to take the fall for Dean and Magruder's actions. In all versions of his book Will, Liddy ranted on about how much he hated Magruder. He thought Magruder a spineless coward and says so. There is no reason to believe he collaborated with these men to bring down Mitchell and Nixon. It's entirely a fantasy invented by "AG" as part of his wacky scenario. You really need to read books such as Blind Ambition, A Piece of Tape, and Will, before embracing AG's theories. The men wrting these books had their own agendas and were not taking orders from anyone. They were not co-conspirators against Nixon. No way, Jose.

Ashton, when someone has trouble understanding something, and begins micro-analyzing other people's words in a desperate search for inconsistencies, and then concludes those inconsistencies are PROOF that everyone is lying, this person is normally dismissed as a paranoid. Even if one gives you the benefit of the doubt, however, questions remain. How do you know that deliberate confusion is a CIA Psy-Ops technique? Do any of the agency's former employees write about this in their memoirs? Did you uncover a manual in the files? I've read thousands of pages in books and articles on the CIA and their various plots, and the deliberate confusion technique is one I've yet to see discussed. Knowing that people are sheep, and can easily be led, the CIA, and all spy agencies, to my understanding, will attempt to make their actions look like the actions of their opposition. In Guatemala, for example, one of the Psy-Ops proposed by Haney was to deface Catholic shrines with communist slogans and make the people angry at the communists. Later, when Armas had a falling out with the mafia and was killed, his purported assassin, one of his guards, was killed immediately and found to be, literally, a card-carrying communist. This reeks of a Psy-Op. I am not aware of any proposed CIA psy-ops that implicated their own employees into a crime and then hoped the public would not get too suspicious. Are you? Can you cite any other cases where people known to have CIA ties confessed to fictitious crimes in order to draw attention away from the CIA? Doesn't that seem counter-productive?

"Ashton", the only evidence that Liddy is a "xxxx" is that you say-so. Get off your high-horse, will ya? Liddy spent years in prison because he refused to rat-out Nixon or Mitchell, and you know it. If you were to use your real name and publicly call Liddy a xxxx and a conspirator against Nixon, I suspect he'd show up at your house the next day and punch you in the nose. You seem to know nothing about the man outside of his being one of "them." Liddy HATED men like Magruder and Dean. You've offered nothing to indicate that Liddy conspired with Dean aganst Nixon. You just made it up.

See, Dawn, he still refuses to answer the question... Why is it logical for "Ashton" to jump to conclusions when Mr. Caddy refuses to answer his questions but illogical for me to jump to conclusions when "Ashton" refuses to answer my questions?