Pat Speer

Oh my. I present all the witnesses on my website, including many latter-day Parkland witnesses. You refuse to present ANY plaza witnesses, or even Parkland witnesses like Burkley, Jacks, Giesecke, and Salyer, in your posts. Heck, you didn't even know that McClelland was a left temple witness, and a right side of the head witness, well before he became a back of the head blow-out witness. And yet you continue trying to sell to others what was misleadingly sold to you. Now, I'm sorry you were misled. But that's no excuse for spreading a myth... As far as placing the witnesses in chronological order...of course that's the best way to sort through the nonsense. None of the Parkland witnesses said anything, or wrote down anything, regarding the wounds, prior to the press conference held by Perry and Clark. And only a few wrote down anything prior to the publication of an article in a medical journal, that would have been widely circulated within the hospital. And beyond those few, only a few more testified to the Warren Commission. The bulk of the Parkland witnesses cited by CTs today, e.g. Crenshaw, Bell, and so on, made no mention of a blow out wound prior to the publication of Best Evidence--a best seller positing that the low back of the head was blown out--in 1980. And yet, even then, very few signed off on the wound's being as low on the back of the head was presented therein. And, besides, your notion of what constitutes a "best witness" is badly mistaken. Numerous studies have shown that supposed experts are MORE likely to make certain kinds of mistakes than non-experts, due to their mistaken impression feeling more familiar to them, seeing as they've seen so many things of a similar nature. For example...a sports analyst on TV says he remembers watching a game in which the Cowboys lost when their quarterback threw five interceptions. To which, a guest on his show responds...no no no, that was the only game I ever went to--it was my son's sixth birthday, and I remember distinctly that it was six interceptions. Who is more likely to be right? The "expert" who has seen hundreds of games? Or the fan who saw but one? Studies suggest the fan.

Cherry-picking? You refuse to include the earliest witnesses to the head wound because they didn't say what you want them to say. If that's not cherry-picking, then what is? I ask again. Please make a list of the statements of the head-wound witnesses in chronological order, prior to any testimony was given to the Warren Commission. Here's one you've missed. Hurchel Jacks, the driver of Vice-President Johnson's car in the motorcade, arrived at the hospital just moments after the limousine, and witnessed the removal of the President's body from the limo. On 11-28-63, less than a week after the assassination, he filed a report (18H801) and noted: "Before the President's body was covered it appeared that the bullet had struck him above the right ear or near the temple."

Oh my. Let me try an analogy. 1. There is a hit and run accident. A pedestrian is dead. A car speeds away. 2. Those at the scene tell the police the vehicle performing the hit and run was a four-door. 3. An abandoned car is found around the corner. It has blood on it and is towed to the police station by a tow-truck crew. 4. The car is then photographed by the police department. A suspect linked to that car is then arrested. 5. The defense attorney notes that the receipt of the tow-truck driver says the car picked up around the corner was a two-door. He then combs the neighborhood, and asks questions of anyone in the area when the car was towed away, and finds more witnesses who will claim the car towed away was a two-door. 6. He presents this as a defense for his client. The car involved in the accident was not my client's car, you see, he drove a four door. This was a two-door. 7. Only...the investigators tasked with inspecting the car say it was a four-door, and the photos of the car in the evidence yard show a four-door, and, egads, the tow truck crew eventually comes to say oh yeah I guess it was a four-door, after being shown the photos. 8. But the defense attorney refuses to budge. Some of the bystanders still insist it was a two-door. So he proposes there was a mass conspiracy--a car switcheroo, or, if not, a cavalcade of fake photos, and lying witnesses testifying to the accuracy of those photos. 9. And his chief witness for all this is...the one member of the tow truck crew who refused to budge once shown the photos, and continues to claim he helped tow away a two-door. 10. Only...this witness wrote a report on the day of the accident, which claimed the vehicle he'd pulled to the police yard was a pick-up truck. It's a mountain made out of molehill by people anxious to prove their client innocent... And it's been a tremendous distraction for decades... As proven once again by this thread...

You can repeat this kind of stuff all day long, Sandy, and it will not make it true. If you put ALL the witness statements regarding the head wound in chronological order you will see that there is by no means a consensus among ALL the witnesses, and that the widespread belief all the early witnesses said the back of the head was blown out is a myth, put together by people selling something.

Okay, let's be specific. As the wound at the top of the head in this photo correlates with the wound as seen in other photos, do you think this photo was forged to match the other photos, or that they are all forgeries?

I used to spar with Canal over on the McAdams' forum. He and I agreed that the Clark Panel was bs, but he insisted it was all unnecessary as Oswald did it anyhow. He also claimed the back of the head was blown out, but that it didn't show in the photos because scalp was stretched upwards to cover the hole, and cited as evidence for this that the red splotch by the cowlick was clearly the entrance wound measured down by the EOP, only stretched up four inches. It was clear the man was desperate to make things fit, even when they didn't fit. Heck, he even wrote a book Silencing the Lone Assassin, in which he looked at Ruby's mob connections and concluded Oswald was killed as part of a conspiracy, while simultaneously holding that Oswald acted alone. So I'm not gonna expose myself to any more of Canal's silliness. As far as the scalp being sown back together... It's clear to me that the words "The scalp was sutured together" is a reference to the numerous lacerations of the scalp mentioned in the autopsy report, along with any tears to the scalp made by the morticians in their effort to conceal the hole in the photos. The key is "and also onto the rubber sheet", which I take to mean they attached the scalp to the exposed rubber sheet at the back of the head, which they then buried in a pillow. If the scalp had been sutured over the sheet, whereby there was no longer a hole on the back, well, there would have been no need to hide the back of the head in a pillow. And besides, the back of the head photo matches up with the right lateral photo and other photos, in that it reveals a large defect above and slightly forward of the right ear. IF the photo was taken during skull reconstruction...well, why would they have left a giant wound exposed where everyone could see it? And covered up a wound no one would ever see? That is the exact opposite of what one is supposed to do in a cosmetic skull reconstruction. As far as photos being taken at different times. Yes, absolutely. That is what is shown in the photos, and that is what is described in the various accounts of the autopsy. Upon arrival, establishing shots were taken of the body laying flat on the table, blood and all. X-rays were taken as well. An inspection then occurred, during which additional photos were taken of the back wound and back of the head. If I recall, more x-rays came next--x-rays taken in search of a bullet in the neck and chest. In any event, additional photos were then taken of the empty skull, to demonstrate the appearance of the entrance wound. Now, are these photos easily understood? No, they were taken away by the Secret Service and kept away from the doctors for years before they were able to look at them and label them. But it's clear none of the photos known to us were taken during the reconstruction. That just isn't done, first of all. Stringer was a professional autopsy photographer...his job was to help the doctors document the President's wounds. It would serve no forensic purpose to take pictures of the remains being re-assembled, except maybe if the photographer were creating a training film. But there's no evidence this was done.

My theories on the medical evidence evolved over a number of years, and the possibility the head wound was restored prior to the taking of the photo undoubtedly went through my mind. But it's not remotely supported by the evidence. The morticians all claimed they made the head acceptable for viewing by reconstructing the skull and scalp. As skull and scalp were missing, of course, they had to hide this from the public. They did so by hiding a patch of missing skull and scalp in a pillow. So...whether you believe the wound was there to begin with, or believe the wound was made to be there by Ed Stroble, the mortician who actually did the reconstruction, doesn't really matter much. In both situations there was a gap of missing scalp at the back of the head. As no such gap is in the photo, well, it's clear: the photo was not taken after reconstruction. This is supported by the other photos, moreover. The skull wounds in the back wound photo match the skull wounds in the back of the head photo. And it's clear this photo was taken early in the autopsy and not during reconstruction. And then of course there's Stringer and Humes et al. No one involved in the autopsy made any mention of photos being taken during the reconstruction, and as I recall they all denied it. It did not occur. P.S. A similar theory had been floated about the x-rays--that the x-rays showing the back of the head intact were taken after the bones brought in by the SS were added back into the skull. But that's equally bogus. The lateral x-rays have been acknowledged as JFK's by everyone to study them, including Mantik. And yessiree these x-rays show the presence of brain in the skull cavity. Now some think the amount of brain shown is smaller than would have been shown if the brain subsequently photographed had been present. But that's a separate issue. If there is brain in the skull in the x-rays, well, it follows that the x-rays were taken before the removal of the brain. P.P.S. After a time, Mantik realized the problem he'd created when he declared that the Harper fragment was occipital bone. He'd said the x-rays were Kennedy's, and that there was brain in the skull. And he knew this meant the x-rays were taken at the beginning of the autopsy. And he knew his original claims of a white patch and 6.5 mm disc being added onto the x-rays didn't explain why the back of the head--the area to the rear of the so-called white patch--where the Harper fragment, should it have been occipital bone--would no longer have been, appeared to be intact. So, he convinced himself that it was all an illusion--that what appeared to be bone at the back of the head in the x-rays was actually a hole. And he then cited his OD readings as support it was a hole. I kid you not.

Has anyone ever tracked the financing of Phelan and Aynesworth? We know the CIA used Maheu as a cutout to get the CIA to kill Castro. If I recall, Maheu assisted Phelan with some of his reporting on Garrison--gave him access to a photocopier or some such thing. is there any evidence to support the speculation he was paying Phelan and Aynesworth, and having the CIA foot the bill?

Yes, the footage shows Fritz crouched down by where the third shell was photographed...later. So...it could be that Fritz picked up all the shells and then threw them down, and that one remained in that area, and the other two rolled away towards the window. Either that or that Alyea was simply wrong about Fritz's picking up all the shells, as he only picked up one.

Well, this isn't a pay site, where everyone pays the same amount and everyone is entitled to an equal voice. But you may be onto something. I was one of the main moderators for years, maybe even the main moderator, aside from John Simkin. But I never felt comfortable policing the posts that were personally insulting to me. And there were many. It just didn't feel right to use my position as a moderator to silence those wanting to yell at me. I don't know this for a fact, but I think this quandary led to John Simkin's departure. There were too many posts of an insulting nature both to his friends, and to himself. He eventually fought back, and deleted some accounts, and that led to defections, etc. And he then left himself. He knew he could no longer be neutral. And he no longer wanted to be. it just wasn't worth it to him. In any event, the thought occurs that moderators should be background people, like former moderator Kathy Beckett, or low-drama personalities, like the late Barb Junk, or Mark Knight. Sandy, like myself, is often in the fray. Perhaps there should be a panel, then, of five to seven long-time members, trusted members, who can offer guidance to the moderators on an unofficial basis, on how to handle members who have an issue with the moderators or with whom the moderators have an issue. Perhaps these members--the panel--can serve year-long terms and be selected by a democratic vote here on the forum. Or maybe that's a bad idea, and an over-reaction to a passing problem. I mean, would we need to create a bigger panel, if some members took offense to the behavior of the smaller panel?

If I'm not mistaken, the Two Oswalds theory and the Armstrong theory are not the same theory. I believe the Two Oswalds theory, as originally offered, was that someone was impersonating Oswald for the final months, perhaps even years, of his life. Armstrong's theory is that there were two Oswalds and two Marguerites etc, for a decade or more. Furthermore, while many have praised Harvey and Lee for the breadth of its research, few, and I'm fairly certain Groden is not among them, have signed off on its assertion there were two Oswalds even prior to Oswald's entry into the military. It is, in fact, a fringe theory. it doesn't mean it's wrong. But if there were to be a public debate between, let's say, an LN team of Gerald Posner, Dale Myers, Fred Litwin, and five other LNs, against let's say, Cyril Wecht, Robert Groden, Jim DiEugenio, John Newman, Jeff Morley, Gary Aguilar, Larry Hancock, and Malcolm Blunt, and someone brought up Armstrong's conclusions, I think all 16 people on the stage would agree it's not worth discussing and move on to a new topic. Just a hunch. But I've met the 8 CTs I've listed, and I don't think any would want to defend Armstrong's claim there were two Marguerite Oswalds on the loose in the poor defenseless 1950's.

Alyea began filming well before the arrival of Day and Studebaker. His film shows the sniper's nest boxes in their original location, not after being dusted and re-arranged as in the evidence photos, and not as re-stacked in the re-enactment photos days later. He also claimed he saw Fritz pick up the shells. Now, Fritz denied this, and I didn't know who to believe. But 10-12 years ago I was watching a show which included a snippet of the Alyea film, which was cropped differently, or not at all. where you could see more at the bottom of the image. And it showed Fritz conferring with someone while crouched down by where the western-most shell was later photographed, and picking something up and inspecting it. Now, I can't swear it is a shell. But he's crouched right by where the shell was later photographed. And it confirms Alyea's recollection he saw Fritz pick up a shell, if not precisely confirming his claim Fritz showed it to him personally. P.S. I had a link to the video showing this on my website, but the video has since been taken down. As one of the stills I have shows the History Channel logo, this would have been a History Channel program from 10-12 years ago. P.P.S. After the arrival of the crime scene unit, and around the time of the discovery of the rifle, Day picked up the shells and gave them to Sims, Fritz's assistant. Alyea did not film this, perhaps because he was on the other side of the building filming the search for the rifle.

Yes, he said some surprising things. As I recall he said a lot of things that suggested a conspiracy, but insisted there was no conspiracy other than to save the DPD some embarrassment. Or something like that.

I meant the shells photographed by Studebaker...later. Alyea filmed the boxes before Day and Studebaker's arrival, and filmed Fritz crouched down while picking up a shell and looking at it, almost certainly before their arrival as well.

You make some good points, but overstate the case a bit. I think you should remove one point in particular--the bit about the Kennedys saying nothing. There is reason to believe both RFK and JBK suspected a conspiracy. RFK. Jr. has said so publicly, and has voiced his own suspicions. Ted Kennedy, as well, supported the HSCA, and I am unaware of his denouncing their conclusion of a probable conspiracy, or of his claiming no further investigation should be conducted. As far as the extended family, two of JFK's cousins attended the 2013 Lancer conference--they may have even passed you in the hall. Both voiced their support for the research community.

I have thought about this as well. But there's a problem. Alyea filmed the boxes in the sniper's nest described by Mooney, as well as Fritz bending over to pick up shells photographed by Studebaker. So the simplest explanation is that Alyea recalled the lunch bag and drink etc that he filmed two windows over, as being by the sniper's nest. And he wasn't alone. several witnesses said they saw chicken bones on a box by the nest. This confused me until I realized I was hooked on the idea everyone came upon the nest from the north, when they didn't. Some walked along the front windows, saw chicken bones, and then, a few feet later, the wall of boxes surrounding the so-called sniper's nest.

Hugh Aynesworth's behavior as a witness is also problematic. His early statements didn't precisely fit the Oswald-did-it scenario, so he tweaked it over the years. This is not surprising. I studied the statements of all the witnesses over the years and the statements of those suspecting conspiracy most always slid in that direction, and the statements of those believing Oswald did it most always slid in that direction. But it cuts into his credibility as a reporter. Hugh Aynesworth (March-May 1964 account written for the Dallas Morning News, published in the 2013 book JFK Assassination: The Reporters' Notes.) "I stopped at the corner of Houston and Main. As I looked toward the Texas School Book Depository Building--never dreaming that this would become a legend, only interested in the Hertz clock it held high atop its roof--I spotted a man, I thought, named Maurice Harrell, an assistant district Attorney. I thought I'd walk over and say hello. He was standing out from the crowd at Elm and Houston. By the time I got there, he was gone, moved to another vantage point. Harrell told me later he was standing a block away at the time and that it probably wasn't him I saw. So, by at least a dozen strange quirks of fate, I found myself only a stone's throw away from where a crazed gunman fired three shots really heard 'round the world...A huge Negro woman in a pink dress was all eyes as the first car of the caravan came around the corner. Her screech of 'Here they is' prompted a scramble for position--though the crowds here were sparse compared to those farther uptown or even a block away at Main and Houston Streets...I recall a woman to my left who cried "Isn't she beautiful?" as she got a glimpse of Jackie Kennedy. A murmur of voices spread and said other complimentary things about the first lady, about her "beautiful" dress, her "radiance," and her smile...A motorcycle officer rode by and he strained to look through the crowd as the crowd strained to see past him...Then came the first shot. I looked instinctively at one of the motorcycles to see if it was an exhaust. A woman near screamed. I saw a face look into mine briefly with a lost look, much as mine must have been. Then another shot. This was a shot I knew. I recall darting my eyes to the President's open limousine, now slipping down Elm St. to the viaduct. The president jerked his head. I could not tell if he were looking to see what the noise was, but I recall thinking he was only jerking his head to wave at the people on the other side of the glassy (sic--he almost certainly meant "grassy") slope. His hair seemed to jump up. Later I understood why. Some of the vehicles in the caravan seemed to come to almost a complete stop. Others crept along. I could not tell who was in charge. Then a third shot, clearer now, for I somehow almost expected it. "He's up there," shouted a sickly white-faced woman as she pointed to the overpass. "Over there," sang out another, pointing to the grassy knoll that lines the sides of the parade route."...I found tears in my own eyes, perhaps from excitement--certainly not from understanding, for I still didn't know which way to run, or even, if I should run. The caravan suddenly roared into action, and sped off down and out of sight, en route to Parkland Hospital...Within seconds--it must have been hours in my thoughts--it was pretty well determined that the man who did the shooting was inside the Depository Building." (Article on Aynsworth by Nora Ephron, published in the February 1976 issue of Esquire Magazine) "He was standing catty-corner to the School Book Depository Building when he heard three shots. 'I thought the first one was a motorcycle backfiring,' he says, but by the time I heard the second, I knew what it was." (Profile of Aynesworth in the March 1976 Texas Monthly) "Aynesworth was standing in front of the County Records Building, across the street from the School Book Depository, when the motorcade came down Elm. The President waved. Nellie Connally leaned forward, said something. Then a shot, the President clutched at his throat, the agonizingly slow motion of the car, another shot, then another, and the President's head exploded. In an instant, the President's car was gone, speeding under the triple underpass." (11-20-83 article in the Washington Post) "Near the intersection of Houston and Elm, I chatted with an assistant district attorney I had known for several years...As the presidential car drove by, Gov. Connally and his wife, Nellie, radiated pride. They too had been anxious about Kennedy’s visit, but it appeared that, so far, everything was going beautifully. Both Connally and Kennedy seemed to notice the huge woman waving frantically with one arm, the small child dangling from the other. (Nellie Connally later testified that she had just said, “Well, Mr. President, you can’t say there aren’t some people in Dallas who love you!”) The rest of the motorcade passed by. I could see Sen. Ralph Yarborough sitting to the left of Vice President Johnson and Lady Bird. He had a frozen smile on his face, but he didn’t really look like he was having much fun. Then it hit. A pop, like the backfire of a police motor-cycle. A nearby cop was tensed. A few seconds later, there was a second pop, then a third. Gunfire! “Hey! Hey!” a big man in a cowboy hat shouted, as though he could stop whatever was happening by being assertive. Two or three cops stopped short, then ran in different directions. A motorcycle policeman veered to his right. People started yelling and running. The woman in the pink dress turned, clutched her stomach and threw up on the street...It’s hard to recall the next few minutes. I remember running over to the front of the Depository building and listening to people there tell how they had seen the president shot. I looked at the triple overpass and saw three or four people running along the tracks. That’s where the shots must have come from, I thought." (9-5-93 article in the Dallas Morning News) "Veteran author and newsman Hugh Aynesworth stood in the middle of Elm Street and 'could have hit Oswald with a rock' on that day. He also heard only three shots ring out." (11-21-93 article in the San Antonio News-Express) "'I thought the first shot was a motorcycle backfiring. Actually, if I'd looked up, I could have seen who fired. It was only a few seconds until the second shot, and then I knew. "I looked at the underpass first, because I could see some people starting to run in that direction.' Aynesworth said he then realized the shots had been fired from a window high up in the Texas School Book Depository building. 'My attention was first toward the people who were running and by the time I looked around, he had pulled the gun in after the third shot and gone.'" (11-21-93 Reporters Remember Conference, as quoted in Reporting the Kennedy Assassination) “I went over to the area around Elm and Houston Streets and was there when the three shots rang out. Three definite shots. Total chaos. I still have trouble putting it all together, how it happened.” (11-22-93 article in the Washington Times) "What I witnessed in the horrible few seconds as he was shot changed my life... I heard what I at first thought was the backfire of one of the police motorcycles veering left as it moved past the Texas School Book Depository... What I had heard were three rifle shots. "Chaos" is not too strong to describe what happened in the next moments. My lawyer friends took off in different directions. I saw two policemen running with guns drawn. Off to my right I saw a public relations man I knew, standing with hands on hips, a perplexed look on his face. Pure agony lined the face of a large black woman holding a child... It must have been a minute or so before I saw two women pointing at a window high in the book depository building." (No More Silence, published 1998, p.21-40) “There was no particular reason why I went to Elm Street other than the crowds were larger along Main Street, two or three deep, and I wanted to get a clearer view. Locating myself in the middle of the street a little toward the curb, had I looked up to my right I could have seen Oswald up there... The first shot I wasn’t sure was a shot. I thought it might have been a backfire from one of the motorcycles since there were several in the vicinity. When you hear one, you listen more closely, and when I heard a second and third very clearly, there was no doubt in my mind that they were shots and that they were from a rifle… Immediately, people started jumping and running and some were throwing their kids down.” (JFK: Breaking the News, 2003) “when I saw a couple of familiar assistant district attorneys standing in front of the jail building near the corner of Houston and Elm, I walked over to join them…I was standing with my lawyer friends maybe 10 feet from the curb. As we watched the big blue Continental glide by—I vividly remember Governor Connally’s grin—a huge black woman nearby burst into shouts… At 12:30 we heard the first loud pop. At first I assumed a nearby police motorcycle backfired.…(Secret Service Agent Roy) Kellerman turned in his seat just as two more shots were fired…” (Interview in film Oswald's Ghost, 2007) "As he goes by, two or three seconds later I hear a pop. I think it's a motorcycle backfire because a motorcycle had just gone by. But then, suddenly, a second or two later another and then another. Three shots." (4-28-11 article by Jim Schutze in the Dallas Observer) "You hear shots ring out, and you don't count how many seconds there are between them." (5-2-12 article on News-Register online.com, reporting on a 4-2-12 appearance by Aynesworth at North Lake College) "'It was amazing, the happiness and the feeling of good will that was in the crowd,' recalled Aynesworth. 'Then all of a sudden BOOM! One shot, but I thought it was backfire from a motorcycle. Then a second and then a third. I then realized it was shots from a rifle. We didn’t know where the fire was coming from or if we’d be next. People were throwing their children to the ground and taking cover. Everyone was scared,' he said." (3-27-13 appearance at the Irving Central Library, video found online) "They made that left turn to go out to the Trade Mart. And then suddenly three shots. Boom Boom Boom." (He says these booms in quick order over about 2 seconds.) "Nobody knew where they came from...You couldn't tell where the shots were coming from." (Interview on BBC Radio program on the 50th anniversary of the assassination, first broadcast 9-1-13) "I, like Mrs. Newman, thought the first shot was a motorcycle backfire, because one had just gone by. And the second shot, I could hear the whine of a rifle. Immediately, everybody was throwing their children down, regurgitating, screaming, crying, running. I didn't know what to do." (November 22, 1963: Witness to History, published 9-3-13) "At 12:30, we heard the first loud pop! At first I assumed a nearby police motorcycle had backfired...Roy Kellerman in the front seat of the presidential limousine heard the pop! And turned just as two more shots were fired." (11-1-13 article by Nigel Richardson in The Telegraph) "When the first shot rang out, he thought it was a motorcycle backfiring – there were plenty of police motorcycles around that day. 'But the second and third shots were very clearly the whine of rifle shots,' he remembers." (Appearance on the Reelz Channel program Killing JFK: 50 Questions Answered, first broadcast 11-5-13) "As the Kennedys went by us, they were happy. They were waving. They were grinning. Then all of a sudden I hear what I think is a motorcycle backfire. And then a couple of seconds later, a shot, and then another shot. Now I'm not a shooter, but I can tell the whine of a rifle. And then it was total chaos." (11-20-13 article by Susan Donaldson James on ABCNEW.Go.com) "I heard what I thought was a motorcycle backfiring, but it wasn't. It was a shot and then two other shots. It was chaos." (11-22-13 Reuters article found in the Chicago Tribune) "Then I heard what I thought was a motorcycle backfiring, only it wasn't - it was the first shot and then in a few seconds, another shot and a third." (11-22-13 appearance on NPR radio program Morning Edition) (On the aftermath of the shooting) "Well, I looked directly in front of me, across Houston Street; and I saw a man jumping up and down, and pointing up to the sixth-floor window up there. I didn't know what he'd known or what he'd seen or anything else, but I knew I had to get to him and find out. And as it turned out, he was the only real eyewitness that saw Oswald in that window." (Description of the last two shots by Aynesworth in a 2015 Dallas Morning News interactive feature entitled John F. Kennedy Portraits: History Lived) "...Two or three seconds later a second and a third. And I was sure that those two were rifle shots. I didn’t know what to do. I didn’t have a pencil or paper and nothing with me to write on. I knew I had to start interviewing people. People were just in pandemonium, it was just, they were throwing their kids down and covering them, they were screaming, they were crying, but no one knew where to run, ‘cause we didn’t know where the shots were coming from. We didn’t know how many people were shooting. We didn’t know what was going on." (2-17-16 Living History interview with The Sixth Floor Museum) "They moved on down, and five or six seconds later, I heard what I thought was a motorcycle backfire. That wasn't too bothersome. But then later two other distinguishable shots, and I could tell they were rifle shots. And it was chaos...Nobody knew where the shots were coming from." (Interview on the Historyextra website, published 11-21-18) "I went to the corner of Elm and Houston Street, right in front of the Book Depository. It was so exciting. It had been raining that morning but at about 11am the sun came out, and it was a beautiful November day. The crowd was excited. It was something you read about but you never quite get to witness. I stopped and was only there for a few minutes when the motorcade went by me. Seconds later I heard what I thought was a motorcycle backfiring, but it was the first shot. There were three shots. The place went wild. People were throwing their children down, screaming, crying, throwing up. Nobody knew what to do. We did not know who was shooting, or how many shooters there were. I probably would have run, but I did not know where to run to. My reporter instinct kicked in. I saw a man across from me pointing to the sixth floor window, saying “he’s up there.” The man had a hard hat under his arm. I ran to him to talk to him, but he was scared when he found out I was a reporter. In the end two policemen had to force me away." (Interview on the Vic Feazell podcast, broadcast 9-21-20) "I saw a couple lawyers that I knew and I sorta followed them over to Elm Street. That's where I stood--the center of Elm Street...The Kennedys had just passed me--it was about four cars later--and I heard the shots. I wasn't sure if the first one wasn't a car backfiring. And then two others. And I knew they were shots...And I saw this man pointing up to the window--he was right across the street. So I ran to him. And he was the one that described Oswald...He described him perfectly." Analysis: Aynesworth, a career reporter, is not a very credible source of information. He originally claimed he was at Houston and Elm at the time of the shooting, then suggested he was out in front of the jail, a half a block away, then returned to saying he was at Houston and Elm, and then, finally, that he was in the middle of Elm. In 1964, he said he walked towards Elm in search of an assistant district attorney, but did not find him. By 1983, however, he claimed he was chatting with him as the motorcade passed. In 1964, he said that right after the shots two women yelled out that the shots came from places in front of the limo. By 1993, however, he'd taken to claiming two women pointed to the depository building just after the shots. And this slide apparently continued, for, by 2013, these women had morphed into Howard Brennan. Still, Aynesworth said just enough to indicate that the single-assassin theory he’s been standing behind all these years is not exactly solid. His grouping together of the last two shots suggests the last two shots were bunched together. Even more intriguing, his earliest statement indicates that the second shot was the head shot. First shot hit 190-224. Last two shots bunched together, with the last shot after the head shot.

Well, if nothing else, we can agree on the brilliance of John Cleese.

You can believe the medical evidence was altered, Sandy. Many fine people do. But you really shouldn't claim "every witness" saw the same thing, etc, when you know full well that the first witnesses--the Newmans, Burkley, and Zapruder--claimed to see something completely different, and that some of the Parkland witnesses (McClelland, in his first report, Baxter, Salyer and Giesecke in their testimony) also said something different. You're a math guy. If you go back and quantify the witnesses in chronological order, and assume those placing the wound on the right rear meant the right side of the head, towards the back, and NOT the right side of the far back of the head, you will see that the case for a blow-out wound on the far back of the head, as depicted in the McClelland drawing, is actually pretty weak. So, in short, you're 100% wrong when you claim I won't admit the back of the head was blown out because of my bias against photo alteration. I would admit it, if that's what was suggested by the evidence...as a whole. 1. We have a pool of witness statements which is erratic, and kind of a mess. Those seeing JFK get hit thought he was hit by the temple or the right side of the head. They saw but one wound, a large one. Those seeing JFK at Parkland thought it was towards the back of the head. They saw but one wound, a large one. Those seeing JFK at Bethesda saw two wounds, a small entrance wound low on the back of the head, and a large defect at the top of the head, which some, viewing the wound after the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table, thought stretched down onto the back of the head. As stated, it's all a big mess. One should be reluctant to come come to conclusions about the nature. and location of the wounds based purely on the recollections of the witnesses. 2. We should feel fortunate, then, that there was an autopsy report, which largely confirmed the impressions of the plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses. 3. We should feel fortunate, then, that x-rays and photographs were taken at this autopsy, and that they largely confirm the impressions of the plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses. 4. And we should feel fortunate, then, that there are photos of the shooting, which largely confirm the impressions of the plaza witnesses and Bethesda witnesses. 5. Now, it should also be noted that the impressions of the plaza witnesses, the x-rays and autopsy photos, and the photographs of the shooting, strongly suggest a conspiracy. So... WHY should anyone focus on the one outlier--the Parkland witnesses--and take from this that all the other evidence is fake? Eyewitness evidence is notoriously unreliable. And, as I've shown, those cherry-picking the statements of eyewitnesses are also unreliable. It's embarrassing. A serious researcher will look at all the evidence, and not just focus on one element of the evidence, and then misrepresent it to make it more sexy to those unwilling to perform a deep dive. But that doesn't sell books, now does it?

You might be surprised by the people who have considered Israel's involvement. While I am not one of them, I don't consider it out of bounds to wonder if a group of people whose very survival was under attack might think their survival was dependent on their having a nuclear weapon, and that they would stop at nothing to have such a weapon. Unfortunately, this can never be discussed in a rational manner because someone always brings up 9/11 and the "dancing Israelis" and so on. And the discussion always goes down from there. You weren't a member at the time, but I recall an instance where a certain prominent member brought up the "dancing Israelis" etc, only to be denounced by another member, who had once written a chapter for an anthology put together by the first member. This quickly devolved into the first member's attacking the second member, and making him out to be a greedy you know what. It then came out that the first member had never paid the second member for his contribution to his book, but had paid his expenses to a conference at which the book was promoted, and was now demanding he be repaid! Just awful. Anyhow, this topic has come up many times over the years, and it always turns ugly. In a similar vein, more than once someone has come to believe the fifth floor witnesses--Jarman, Norman, and Williams--were actually in on the killing, and took from this that black Americans as a whole were complicit. One such challenged person even admitted that upon coming to this (rather stupid, IMO) conclusion, he went through his record collection and threw out all the records by black musicians. I mean, what the flip? Anyhow, it was around this time that I finally understood that some of my fellow forum members were not only unwell, but potentially dangerous.

This forum was long-known as the Simkin forum, after its founder, John Simkin. I was an active moderator for a decade or so. I became a member because John Simkin, in LBJ fashion, asked me if I would become one, and then announced it before I could say yes. So...the forum at large has never had a vote on the moderators. Nor should it have, IMO. The moderator's job is to keep this from becoming an insult farm, and to occasionally control content. Now, this last bit is the tricky one. Some have left this forum because they didn't like being confronted by the same old Oswald did it arguments, or the evidence wasn't faked arguments, and wanted to be on a forum of like minds. These forums have usually withered and died. It's hard to discuss things--and educate the readers--when everyone agrees. No, the content that should be moderated, and frequently is moderated, is content involving ethnicity and sexuality. Over the years, there have been numerous threads started on the sexual deviancy of (fill in the blank), that come across as offensive and distracting, and lower the level of discourse. Most of these threads were made to disappear by the moderators. If you wanna spend your days gossiping about incest and rape go somewhere else. Similarly, numerous threads have been started claiming some ethnic group was behind the assassination. These mostly target Jews. This topic is hard to navigate because most would agree that Israel's possible involvement is within bounds. But discussions of this subject almost always lead to someone claiming all Jews are loyal to Israel and Jewish researchers can't be trusted, etc. So many of those threads get shut down. In any event, being a moderator isn't, and shouldn't be, a popularity contest.

No it isn't...

So you're saying those watching JFK when he was shot, and only noticing one wound, an explosive wound by the temple...were hallucinating? It ain't my Waterloo...

If you read books on cognition, you will find that people are often confused about the appearance of something in a uniform manner, and that one of the chief causes of confusion comes from viewing something, such as a face, while it is rotated from how it would normally be viewed.

You really should be more discriminating about what witnesses you offer up in support of your arguments. It hurt your argument yesterday when you presented Canada as an important witness, when the only source for his supposed statements was Kurtz, who fabricated his interviews. And now, well, some of your nurses are also problematic. I mean, really... Bell??? Where are her descriptions of the head wounds in the WC's files, or personal diaries, or anywhere prior to the publication of the McClelland drawing showing her what she was supposed to have seen? Bell, for that matter, received a lot of attention after telling conspiracy theorists she'd received far more fragments from Connally's wrist than was placed in the record. And, apparently she liked the attention, because around this same time she started telling this story about marching into Trauma Room One and asking to be shown the head wound, or some such thing. I mean, it's not as if the doctors were busy or anything. In any event, this led Lifton (yes, Lifton and I were friends...for the most part...) to tell me she was a fake. And I believed him. But then Micah found an article from the 60's in which she told of going into Trauma Room One and seeing the head wound, so I thought well, maybe she was on the up and up, after all. But when I read the article it turned out she'd said she received the same number of fragments as reported by the Warren Commission. Well, this proved that her latter day recollections had been spiced up to be oooh creepy, and this destroyed her credibility regarding the head wound as well. And Hall, she is an obvious fake. I was as surprised as anyone when she popped out of nowhere in 2013 in articles and programs. No one had ever heard of her, and yet she made out that she was intimately involved in Kennedy's care at Parkland. It was total nonsense. She admitted she didn't work in the ER and she admitted she never told her husband about helping with the President's care. In 2013, I created a blog, in which I tracked the media's response to the 50th anniversary. And I reported on the content of numerous TV shows, books, and articles, and reported on the bias on display. (The coverage was biased towards the LN theory by a ratio of roughly two to one.) In any event, here are my entries regarding Hall. November 3: an article appears in The Telegraph, in which four witnesses of the events of 11-22-63 are interviewed. Two of these witnesses, James Tague and former Parkland nurse Phyllis Hall, admit they believe there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. What? Never heard of Hall? Here's her story: “Phyllis Hall, a nurse in the outpatient clinic who happened to be talking with a friend who worked on the triage desk in the emergency ward, was about to be swept up in the whirlwind of history. 'The supervisor said there had been a call to say there was an accident in the president’s motorcade,' she said. The words were hardly out of her mouth when the doors burst open. 'Among the first in was Lyndon Johnson, the vice president, who was very pale and sweating heavily. Then I heard the groans of someone calling out in grave pain. It was Governor John Connally, who was seriously injured in the attack. Then they carried in a second stretcher. I could just see a man from his waist down as there was a lady lying across his head and shoulders. A doctor told me: 'We need you here.’ We were whisked into the Trauma One room, where it was immediately clear that this was President Kennedy. I started to feel for his vital signs. I couldn’t find any, there was no pulse. His eyelids were half-closed, his pupils were fixed and dilated, and his skin was blueish-grey, indicating that no oxygen was circulating.' As the doctors worked frantically to resuscitate their patient, Mrs Kennedy stood next to her husband, her right hand on his left foot. 'We were desperately searching for any sign of life, but there was nothing,” said Hall. “The treatment the president received that day was outstanding but futile. I believe he was dead when he arrived at the hospital.' At 1 pm, Kemp Clark, a senior surgeon, pronounced the president dead. Mrs Kennedy did not flinch. 'There was no response,' said Hall. 'I have never seen anyone in such profound shock in my life. She had the same blank look on her face. She just looked down and stared blankly.'” Towards the end of the article, it notes that Tague thinks Oswald was a patsy. It then relates: "Hall, the former Parkland nurse, is much less strident but she is also convinced, from the wounds that she saw, that the president was hit from the front and back – meaning that Oswald could not be a lone gunman. 'Oh, I don’t think the Warren Commission got it right,' she said. 'I am a big believer in the conspiracy theories.'" The other two witnesses, Dallas Deputy Sheriff Gene Boone, and newsman Pierce Allman, make clear they believe there had been no conspiracy. The article is not a score for either side. November 10: the Daily Mail runs an article on Phyllis Hall, the woman claiming to have been one of Kennedy's nurses previously discussed in an article in The Telegraph. It begins: "A nurse who was part of desperate attempts to save the life of President John F Kennedy after he was assassinated has claimed he was shot by a 'mystery bullet'. Phyllis Hall, who was 28 at the time, says she was dragged into the operating room by a secret service agent as medics scrambled to help the president, who was fatally shot in Dallas, Texas on 22 November 1963. While cradling his head, which had been torn apart by gunshots fired from the famous 'grassy knoll', Mrs Hall says she spotted an unusual bullet, which was promptly removed and never seen again. She described the bullet in an interview with the Sunday Mirror which she said looked completely undamaged, and bore no resemblance whatsoever to bullets later shown as evidence in investigations into the President's murder. She said: 'I could see a bullet lodged between his ear and his shoulder. It was pointed at its tip and showed no signs of damage. There was no blunting of the bullet or scarring around the shell from where it had been fired. 'I’d had a great deal of experience working with gunshot wounds but I had never seen anything like this before. It was about one-and-a-half inches long – nothing like the bullets that were later produced. 'It was taken away but never have I seen it presented in evidence or heard what happened to it. It remains a mystery.' Mrs Hall, who had six years of nursing experience at the time, says she was caught up in the effort to save the President by accident, as she had been visiting a friend who worked on another ward. She described the chaos as Mr Kennedy's entourage burst through the doors, and recalled clearly the vacant expression of First Lady Jackie Kennedy. Mrs Kennedy reportedly gripped the President's right foot as surgeons wages a losing battle to save him. Mrs Hall, now 78, says she offered her condolences after a neurosurgeon pronounced Mr Kennedy dead after a 43-minute struggle by as many as 20 staff. However, she says the shocked First Lady simply stared into the distance. As her shift didn't finish until the evening, Mrs Hall continued working for hours after the President was declared dead, and didn't even tell her husband what she had witnessed. However, in recent interviews she revealed that she is 'a big believer in the conspiracy theories' surrounding the Mr Kennedy's death." Well, this is the kind of stuff the lone-nuts love to complain about. There is no support offered in the Warren Commission's files indicating that Phyllis Hall was ever in Trauma Room One. There is no support offered from anyone known to have been working at Parkland in 1963 that she was anywhere near the emergency room. And yet, she gets quoted in a prominent paper/news website, and tells a crazy story that has no support whatsoever from anyone known to have been at Parkland. That she's lying is supported, moreover, by her claiming she was visiting someone on another ward, and didn't tell her husband what she'd witnessed. In the words of the Church Lady on Saturday Night Live: "Now, ain't that convenient!" It's also intriguing that Ms. Hall is totally unknown in the States, but is suddenly a celebrity in England. November 17: The Los Angeles Times runs an article on three witnesses to the events of 11-22-63. Tina Towner says nothing of substance as to conspiracy or no conspiracy. Pierce Allman says he feels guilt because if he'd looked up and saw Oswald in the sniper's nest window he could have stopped Oswald at the doorway and stopped him from killing Tippit. And then there's Phyllis Hall, who I feel fairly certain is a fake. Her story this time around: "Suddenly, Hall saw a man carrying a long gun approach. FBI, police and Secret Service agents were everywhere, and many were armed. "He put his hand on my back and said, 'We need you back here,' and directed her to Trauma Room No. 1, she said. The small room was filled with so many doctors, nurses and others that at one point Hall was forced against a wall. Kennedy's face was deep blue around the eyes, and she could see a bullet hole near his Adam's apple. Hall checked for a pulse but didn't feel one. She watched as doctors performed a tracheotomy through the president's neck wound. Hall saw Jackie Kennedy standing nearby, her pink Chanel suit spattered with her husband's brain matter. A doctor lifted the president's hair to reveal the gaping wound. 'Jackie just stood at the foot of the carriage with her hand on his foot,' Hall said. 'She was in such deep shock, she was just staring at his face. At some point the supervisor came in and asked if she would like a chair out in the hallway and she said no, she was going to stay with him. We all wanted to do whatever we could, but there was nothing we could do.' Dr. William Kemp Clark, who to Hall looked like an old schoolmaster with beady eyes behind small glasses, pronounced Kennedy dead at 1 p.m. 'Call it,' the doctor said and then strode out past Jackie Kennedy, barely stopping as he said, 'Madam, your husband is dead.' Hall approached the first lady and said, "I am so sorry for your loss," but Kennedy just stared straight ahead and didn't seem to hear." Well, my God! This woman's story is so obviously false. There is no record of her being in the room. And here she is changing her story from being asked into the room by a doctor to being forced into the room at gunpoint. She says she took the vitals. She says she spoke to Mrs. Kennedy afterward. Horse feathers! More telling than that, though, is the L.A. Times' leaving out a key feature of Hall's story--the wound's being on the back of Kennedy's head!