Pat Speer

For the record, Ashton, or Pat, I interpreted Mr. Caddy's evasiveness differently. I thought he'd sent me to that thread because he wanted to answer the Barker question without answering YOUR question. Keeping my own opinions out of it for a second, he feels you've insulted him. It seemed perfectly reasonable to me that he would not want to reward what he interprets as your bad behavior by directly providing the answers you've demanded. I urge you to try and step outside your own skin and see things through his eyes. Why on Earth would he respond to any questions from you? No one is forced to participate on this Forum. When one engages in respectful discussion, it encourages others to engage in respectful discussion. You may want to go back through the Forum archives and read the many discussions between Robert Charles-Dunne and Tim Gratz to see how this can be done. They disagreed on almost everything. but never called each other evil or soul-less. As far as the Barker situation, I believe Mr. Caddy answered that sufficiently. He said he had Mrs. Barker's permission to use her as an excuse. As to whether he received this permission retro-actively--the bone of your contention--you're correct, it's still unclear. And will probably remain that way. I just don't see Mr. Caddy, or anyone with any pride, caving in at this point and saying "you're right, I told a fib...Sue me!" knowing that as soon as he admitted as much you'd use his honesty against him and denounce him as a xxxx and do a little victory dance.

Yes, I said I thought his behavior was suspicious until I read his book. He makes no bones that he is a super-patriot. He resented that Nixon was mis-usng the intelligence agencies for partisan political purposes, and trying to make the CIA take the fall for Watergate. The book does a good job, IMO, of showing how McCord came to his decision to talk to Sirica. Once he realized the Federal Prosecutors were under Nixon's influence. and were helping the White House push the whole thing aside, his disgust reached record levels. He decided to let the whole thing play out, so he could THEN go to Sirica, and expose the corruption of the system. I think a lot of people get caught up in thinking the CIA is the root of all evil. The CIA is a tool, all too often misused by the Presidency for political purposes. I think McCord is an honest man. While the tape was his mistake, there were a number of other mistakes made contributing to the capture of the burglars. If you read McCord's book, you'll see that he was encouraging a complete clean-up of Washington. I don't see the CIA as ever recommending such a thing or tolerating one of its agents recommending such a thing...too many skeletons, too many closets... I think McCord is an honest man and I'm sure Mr. Baldwin agreed. Sometimes we have to let go of our "pet" theories before we can make sense of things. I let go of my "pet" theory that McCord deliberately got caught. The Watergate break-in and its aftermath now makes almost perfect sense to me. Nixon was out of control. He had a bunch of cowboys working for him. It was only a matter of time before they'd get caught. They got caught. Hunt blackmailed him. McCord flip-flopped back and forth but eventually decided to do the right thing. He went to an honest, if perhaps overly aggressive, judge. Most of the truth came out. Are their secrets? Sure. I think there was a secret deal between Nixon and the men behind the Watergate hearings (inc. Ted Kennedy?) to force Agnew out of the chain-of-command. NO ONE wanted him as President. It also wouldn't surprise me one bit if Hunt and Liddy had something to do with Hoover's death and/or the assassination attempt on Wallace. I had a "pet" theory for a long time that they'd been behind the break-ins at FBI offices, and the exposure of COINTELPRO, in an attempt to force Hoover from office, as well. That theory went out the window last year with an acknowledgement from a respected Forum member that he had a very good idea--wink wink--who was involved. And it wasn't the White House or the CIA, but honest-to-God leftists, who remain at large... So much for "pet" theories. I suppose one of the reasons they're called "pet" theories is because we usually outlive them,

On another thread, Mr. Caddy mentioned that he'd already written about his contact with Mrs. Barker, back in February. I believe this is the post to which he was referring: "I did not represent Bernard Barker, one of the Watergate burglars, prior to the case breaking open on June 17, 1972. However, I did meet him on one occasion several months earlier and so testified before the grand jury in the first weeks of the case. My meeting came about by Howard Hunt inviting me to join him for lunch at the Navy Club in Washington, D.C. When I arrived there, Hunt and Barker were already seated and Hunt made the introductions. I do not recall exactly what we discussed but it most likely was Barker's role under Hunt in the ill-fated invasion of Cuba that took place under President Kennedy, who later came to believe that he had been misled and misadvised by the CIA on the matter. Hunt's recounting of the invasion is told in his book, "Give Us This Day." Even Hunt's most vociferous critics concede that he is an extremely gifted writer and this is reflected in all of his books, including the above-mentioned one. I did talk to Mrs. Barker several times in the days immediately following her husband's arrest, primarily about providing security for bail to get him out of jail. With her permission I publicly alluded to these calls in order to provide an excuse for my showing up at the jail on the day of the arrests without having received a telephone call from any of those arrested. Of course, it is well known now that Hunt and Liddy retained my legal services within hours after the arrests to represent them and those arrested. But I could not then publicly disclose Hunt's and Liddy's names as they had not been arrested. When Hunt came to my residence about an hour after the arrests, having a short time earlier telephoned me from his office in the Executive Office Building that adjoins the White House, I was amazed that he did not fully comprehend the significance of what had occurred at the Watergate complex and its potential grave impact. After hearing what he related, I was dismayed and said to myself, "Well, the Republicans have really done it to themselves this time." I knew that it was unlikely that the five arrested individuals could be quickly set free on bail but attempted nevertheless, with the advice of one of the partners of my law firm who was a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, to do so in the hope of averting a major scandal. My effort was in vain, just as I had feared it would be. The rest, as the saying goes, is history." I believe Ashton has already read this post, as I recall him quoting Mr. Caddy's comments about Hunt's writing skills. If so, then he apparently missed Mr. Caddy's acknowledgement that he talked to Mrs. Barker and used her as his excuse to show up in court without having received a call from any of the "burglars."

A fine post, Doug. It's always nice to get mixed up with Pat Gray. (You mistakenly attribute my 6-23 post to the late Mr. Gray.) (Ashton, once again, was Pat Gray a relation?) Perhaps to assuage those concerned that our shared annoyance with Mr. Gray has anything to do with your fear of answering his questions, you should answer a few of his questions. I think the one question he's raised about your Watergate experience that most deserves an answer is whether or not you received a call from Barker's wife on that long long night. Evidently, you told Woodward you did. Evidently, Hunt says he told her to call you. Did she, in fact, call, or was this just something you told Woodward to help protect your clients? Of course, after the way Mr. Gray has treated you, you don't owe him anything. I only suggest you answer a few of his questions to show some of the Forum members seduced by his research and sarcasm that it's not the issues raised by Mr. Gray that have driven you to start this thread, but his behavior. As far as I'm concerned, a former conservative friend of Buckley's and Hunt's who would publicly out himself and become a liberal-sympathizer, has already demonstrated his commitment to the truth. But others more suspicious than I might need your assistance before determining that there is no fire beneath the smoke discussed in Mr. Gray's posts. If you offer a few good-faith answers, and he attacks you as he did Baldwin, well, then we'll know for sure he is what he appears to be. In the meantime, I believe he, at the very least, owes Mr. Baldwin an apology. His "I’m done with you, with your soul-less, conscienceless, lying co-conspirators, and with the entire evil hoax” ranks as one of the most self-aggrandizing and self-deluded comments in the history of this Forum, and is an embarrassment to this Forum, IMO.

I've got every single reference that exists on the alleged "cables" right here at my fingertips. So you go start a new topic about your precious Hunt "cables," and you make your case for the "cables" in that appropriate topic, and I'll see you there. If you continue to try to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, the only thing I'm going to do is report it to the admins, and wash my hands of you permanently. Your choice. So go start an appropriately named topic, and then bring it all on. Lay it all out there in as much detail as you can muster, with cites, in the dusty street of your new thread at high noon. I'll be there. I'm calling you out. Ashton Gray If you have it the material on the cables at your disposal, go ahead and start the thread and I'll see you there. I thought so. I accept your capitulation and your stipulation that the "cables" are yet another fiction, Mr. Speer. Utter codswollop. Learn history before you start trying to teach it, especially to me. The only things that Ford and his cronies at the CIA "exposed" in those "exhausive investigations" were the exact things they wanted to "expose," for which Ford's cronies Helms and Gottlieb and friends already had shredded every scrap of evidence at the very beginning of 1973—immediately after their Watergate hoax, and immediately after CIA had started its top secret remote viewing program, which they never revealed at any relevant time, and which they ran in secret for well over 20 years. And Ford was absolutely key to helping them keep that secret throughout the entire dog-and-pony-show "congressional investigations" you're braying about. Explain that one in your apologist rants at me. It was the absolute highest priority black operation the CIA had going throughout all of these so-called "exhaustive investigations" that your hero Ford set up (impaneled using all his cronies, including Rockefeller, of whose offices Caddy is an alumnus), and they all made sure that not a single syllable ever saw the light of day about this secret program that the CIA was running at that very moment in back rooms just a few miles away from these flashy "exhaustive investigations." So all it really amounted to was yet another CIA cover-up, showily put on as "confessions" for which the actual evidence had been destroyed. There's not a pattern here or anything, is there? This wouldn't be the exact same M.O. as the Watergate "first break-in" hoax, run by the exact same crew, would it, Mr. Speer? I mean, we wouldn't be looking at yet another big production congressional "investigation" where the paper trail has been erased, and where we have to rely entirely on the word of the perjuring perpetrators and a few measly scraps of planted "evidence" to know what they have or have not done, would we? If not, how did these Ford-puppeted congressional "investigators" (with intelligence oversight powers) miss the biggest black program that the CIA and DIA had going right then, right under their own lying, two-faced noses? How? How is it possible? Apologize that away. But tell your apologies to somebody who's gullible enough to listen. When you picked me, you picked the wrong boy. Ashton Gray I hope you chain yourself down at night, because you're about as out there as one can be. First you say that Watergate was a MASS ongoing conspiracy containing such diverse figures as Daniel Ellsberg and Neil Sheehan all the way down to relatively minor figures like Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin, and that the purpose of this conspiracy was to remove Nixon from power and give the presidency to--gulp--Gerry Ford. Now you seem to be saying that the Church Committees was part of the plan!!! LUDICROUS. It is only through the Rockefeller Commission--which did discuss MKULTRA, by the way, and acknowledged that the CIA had experimented with LSD, and the Church Committee, which exposed the CIA's role in a number of assassinations, that we know anything about what was going on. So was it all a big lie? Were the Church Committee transcripts written by Hunt and Liddy from their prison cells? And what was the point of this hoax? To cover up the government's involvement in mind-control and remote viewing? What? It's only through the government's acknowledgement that the CIA participated in assassination, MKULTRA and CHAOS etc, that the government's involvement in mind control and remote viewing became public. Your contention that the government would obscure the fact they experimented with psychics and mind-control by readily admitting they'd put mafia hit-men on retainer to murder foreign leaders is about the most bizarre thing I've ever heard. Dawn, John G., are you really falling for this nonsense? You said you had every bit of information on the cables. I'm waiting for you to post this information so I can educate myself. In the meantime, please humor me by answering a few of my questions... I repeat...JUST WHO IS IT who was so badly harmed by Mr. Baldwin? And WHY, pray tell, would the CIA, the most public of secret agencies, concoct a scenario ensuring that the public's trust in its institutions, INCLUDING THE CIA, would be irreversibly damaged? It simply makes no sense. If this conspiracy was as evil as you claim, and as insidious as you claim, wouldn't the conspirators have better served their purported higher power, the CIA, by simply killing Nixon and making it look like an accident?

Dawn, have you read "A Piece of Tape?" If you had, you'd realize that McCord's four main points are that 1) Richard Nixon abused the powers of his office, and used the intelligence agencies to abuse the powers of his office. 2) The Government prosecutors in the Watergate burglary case co-operated with the Nixon White House in covering up the involvement of the White House in the Watergate break-in. 3) That he was disgusted by this and decided to reveal the cover-up to Judge Sirica in order to help clean up the government and 4) That one of his over-riding concerns was that Nixon would try to blame the CIA for the break-in. These concerns were heightened by a conversation he'd had with Dorothy Hunt. Which of these points do you disagree with, and why? Why would Hunt, McCord and others agree to spend years in jail, just to remove Nixon from office? Were these men leftists? Were they secret pals of Gerry Ford's, as Mr. Gray would have you believe? If so, why didn't their pal grant them pardons upon leaving office? He gave Nixon a pardon, the man he was out to destroy, but he wouldn't give the men who gave him the presidency a pardon? Even George H. W. Bush had better manners than that!

While I'm not convinced anyone here is anything but interested the truth, some are undoubtedly convinced they already know the truth, and immediately suspect those who won't agree with them of being liars, etc. I watched Rashomon the other day. I suggest others watch it as well. That said, I have a problem with the tone of Mr. Gray's questions. It goes way beyond sarcasm, Dawn. When Mr. Baldwin did not answer a question the way Mr. Gray wanted him to he responded in an extremely hostile manner. He then declared that Mr. Baldwin, and by extension Mr. Caddy, were part of an evil ongoing conspiracy blah blah blah, and that he'd finally exposed them blah blah blah. All he needed to say was "Well, I have a problem believing that, Mr. Baldwin because..." This might have encouraged Mr. Baldwin to continue the discussion, whereby we could have LEARNED something. Instead, Mr. Gray's antics have completely discouraged Baldwin and Caddy from discussing anything in a meaningful way.

Tom, I must admit a fascination with your scenario. John Canal's as well. You both believe that Oswald acted alone, but that the government told a bunch of lies and blew a bunch of smoke anyhow. If you could please refresh my memory as to why the WC did this, I'd appreciate it. Was it to cover up that Oswald had a motive? Canal, if memory serves, believes Oswald acted alone but the Government didn't believe it, and created a bunch of fake evidence even though they didn't need to. Why, in your opinion, did they find it necessary to tell so many lies, and refuse to look at the autopsy photos, etc? Who benefitted from their lack of action?

In the Bell film we can see what appears to be the man getting out of or climbing in the passenger side of the cab. Perhaps he went back to lean on the truck bed. I believe James Tague was stuck in this same traffic. e

Cliff, Specter never tells us why or how he got Kelley to show him the photo, only that he saw it. Specter's WC memos show he was greatly concerned by the inaccuracy of the Rydberg drawings. Humes testified repeatedly that the wounds could best be understood by analyzing the photos. Specter walks him through these questions. These were clearly answers Specter wanted on the record. It is obvious from this that Specter wanted the WC to test the SBT with the actual entrance wound. I believe whole-heartedly he was hoping the trajectory would work, and that, after finding that it didn't, turned completely chicken. As far as Hoover's role in the re-enactment...is this just a hunch, or have you seen memos detailing his role? The testimony of all the FBI men was that they were working on the re-enactment at the WC's request, and that they only measured angles they were asked to measure, etc. This explains why the left-right angle was not measured. It's clear Specter was under orders not to dig too deeply, as proven by the Redlich memo, and he followed orders.

Ashton, should you try and fool some into thinking your behavior here has been admirable and respectable, I highlight these passages from a previous post. I'm still trying to figure out whose lives and careers were ruined by Watergate, beyond the men you claim were conspirators... JUST WHO IS IT who was so badly harmed by Mr. Baldwin? And WHY, pray tell, would the CIA, the most public of secret agencies, concoct a scenario ensuring that the public's trust in its institutions, INCLUDING THE CIA, would be irreversibly damaged? It simply makes no sense. If this conspiracy was as evil as you claim, and as insidious as you claim, wouldn't the conspirators have better served their purported higher power, the CIA, by simply killing Nixon and making it look like an accident?

I've got every single reference that exists on the alleged "cables" right here at my fingertips. So you go start a new topic about your precious Hunt "cables," and you make your case for the "cables" in that appropriate topic, and I'll see you there. If you continue to try to sabotage the Alfred Baldwin thread with it, the only thing I'm going to do is report it to the admins, and wash my hands of you permanently. Your choice. So go start an appropriately named topic, and then bring it all on. Lay it all out there in as much detail as you can muster, with cites, in the dusty street of your new thread at high noon. I'll be there. I'm calling you out. Ashton Gray If you have it the material on the cables at your disposal, go ahead and start the thread and I'll see you there. As far as you reporting me to the authorities, give me a break. You come to this Forum, start insulting its members--yes, that's right, Mr. Caddy and Mr. Baldwin are members and not just visitors propped up here for your abuse--and even do a victory dance after insulting Mr. Baldwin off a thread bearing his name. And then you CRY like a child when I won't let you control the thread. Earth to Mr. Gray, this Forum was not created for your sole benefit. You decided to confront Mr. Baldwin on some possible holes in the record, and have accused him and others of being part of an ongiing conspiracy to hide the fact that the Watergate break-in was a CIA coup designed to put Gerald Ford in power. Never mind that this was many months before Ford was even in a position to reap the benefits of this coup. Never mind that Ford was not a friend of the CIA, but a friend of their political rival, the FBI, and that Ford's regime oversaw the most exhaustive investigation of the intelligence agencies in our history, spurred on in part by his own big mouth. While there is almost certainly more to the Watergate story than in the public record, your theory, frankly, appears a bit looney. Those coming to this Forum and wishing to read about Mr. Baldwin should not be subjected to reading your diatribes and ramblings without seeing that at least one member of this Forum found your distortions a bit looney, IMO. Sorry to rain on your hostility parade.

Thanks, Doug, for staying and fighting. All too often, in conspiracy-land, people get so far out there on their own little limbs they begin to suspect the nearby limbs of being hatchets. (Hey, I just made that up...but I kinda like it.) Sometimes pleasant discourse with these people can be difficult. I believe a certain someone--who just so happens to share a name with a Canadian porn queen--is simply misguided. He's picked up on the fact that stories told from different angles are messy, and rather than accepting the "Rashomon factor," is obsessed with the idea that people who fail to remember the details of their lives with absolute precision are "liars." He then has convinced himself these "liars" are part of some grand conspiracy to hide the truth about the CIA and Gerry Ford. As if this country would have been so much better off if only Nixon had remained in office... Hopefully we can bring him back to Earth in the coming days. But I share your concerns re infiltrators. IF this Forum is to be targeted, it won't be infiltrated by right-wing-types who come in here and are willing to discuss facts, made-up or otherwise. It will be infiltrated by petty people with wild theories who throw insults around and drive reasonable and respectable people away.

What cables? Where are some of these cables? I want to see them. Post some, and then I'll address them. Are you going to put these alleged cables into evidence or not? I don't see any cables. Do you? If not, your entire bloviating sermon assumes "cables" not in evidence. Some people call this "hallucination." So are you busy propagating more of the CIA-generated fiction—and in a thread where it's completely off-topic to boot? I thought so. See my sig. Ashton Gray The Director of the FBI lost his job after admitting he destroyed these cables. John Dean saw these cables. I believe Ehrlichman saw these cables. Hunt admitted creating these cables. I believe Nixon even admitted to having Hunt "correct some gaps" in the historical record or some such thing. If you really believe these cables did not exist, and were a CIA myth designed to damage Nixon, and will curtail your outlandish diatribes once I post all the evidence suggesting that these cables existed, I'll read back through my Watergate books and testimony and slap you down big time. So... are you really willing to rest the entire credibility of your scenario on the existence of these cables? P.S. Why would the CIA, which most certainly covers their butt on occasion by creating fake cables, generate a fiction designed for public consumption that includes a long-time CIA agent creating fake cables? Wouldn't they have much rather kept the public in the dark on this CIA "method"? P.P.S. Gotta go now. My black helicopter is waiting outside.

James, I only recently noticed that the man called Pakse Base Man has a partner. The man to the right of him in your post #34 is seen with him in both the Willis and Bothun shots of this corner. In a Bond photo as well? Anyhow, they can be seen together in several photos. I'm wondering if you've ever done any comparisons of this other man, and whether this led you anywhere. It would seem that by linking the two together, and finding two men who both looked like these men and knew each other, it would increase the odds of us getting it right.

Cliff, the C7/T1 entrance is a LN invention. The FPP put it at T1...period. All their drawings and descriptions place it at T1. As far as whether it was T3 or T1 in the re-enactment has no bearing. Specter BEGGED the WC to give him access to the autopsy photos so he could test the proper location, precisely so he wouldn't be made to look like an idiot later. When Warren agreed to let Humes look at the photos, but then changed his mind, it fell on Specter to back-door the WC and arrange for Kelley to show him the photo. He saw the photo. He admits this. Why in heck would he not then use this info when conducting the re-enactment? Perhaps they marked the jacket based on the face sheet and that Specter then looked at the photo and said "close-enough." This is beside the point. The point is he suspected the Rydberg drawing was inaccurate before the re-enactment, he then looked at the photo and CONFIRMED that it was inaccurate, and yet he ended up using the entrance on the Rydberg drawing to measure the angle. This is preposterous and possibly criminal. The FBI made many mistakes, but the May 24 re-enactment was all WC.

Correction: It was inded the autopsy face sheet that was used to mark the low back wound. Why would Specter himself mark a wound location 5+ inches below his SBT trajectory? Cliff, if you re-read the testimony of Frazier, Shaneyfelt, and Kelley, you'll see that the re-enactment was run by the Commission, basically Specter. It was he who decided what angles were to be measured, etc. He pushed for the use of the autopsy photos in peforming the re-enactment. He saw an autopsy photo on the day of the re-enactment. This autopsy photo was of the back wound, the very photo necessary for him to accurately mark the back wound on the FBI stand-in. This back wound was marked acurately. It follows then that he used the autopsy photo he saw in the re-enactment. Here is the passage in my presentation: "Since the back wound used in the Warren Commission’s re-enactment of the assassination was far lower on the back than the entrance in the Rydberg drawings, it seems obvious to many that the re-enactment showed the impossibility of the single-bullet theory, and that this led them to create the Rydberg drawings. A thorough reading of the Warren Commission’s timeline, however, indicates that the Rydberg drawings were created long before the re-enactment. But how could this be? And if the Rydberg drawings were available to the re-enactors on May 24, 1964, why weren’t they used to establish the location of the back wound? Warren Commission Counsel Arlen Specter, in his 2000 autobiography, Passion for Truth, finally shed some light on this matter by explaining that on the day of the re-enactment he was shown an autopsy photo of the back wound by a member of the Secret Service, Thomas Kelley. (Kelley had admitted his role to researcher Harold Weisberg many years before.) While Specter doesn’t say if he consulted this photo before placing the chalk mark on the jacket of the stand-in, one can only assume he used it to confirm its location. Kelley himself testified that the basis for the chalk mark was the face sheet, which seems about right. When one looks at the photographs taken just after the re-enactment, however, one can see what appears to be a second chalk mark on the jacket of the JFK stand-in, in the location of the wound in the Rydberg Drawings. In addition, one can see that Specter is ignoring the lower chalk mark, whose location he has presumably just verified, in favor of this higher wound. So where did this higher mark come from? The Rydberg drawings? The Warren Report, which was written collaboratively by the Warren Commission’s counsel, including Specter, acknowledges that, during the re-enactment, the FBI measured the approximate trajectory needed to support the single-bullet theory, and that afterwards this angle was compared against the President’s and Connally’s wounds. The Report states “That angle was consistent with the trajectory of a bullet passing through the President’s neck and then striking Governor Connally’s back…The alinement of the points of entry was indicative and not conclusive that one bullet hit both men…Had President Kennedy been leaning forward or backward, the angle of declination of the shot…would have varied…The angle…was approximately the angle of declination reproduced in an artist’s drawing…made from data provided by the autopsy surgeons.” Specter was thus citing the Rydberg drawings, which he had expressly refused to trust before the re-enactment, as support for his theory. Why he failed to trust them before the re-enactment isn’t known. But we should suspect he was aware that the artist who made the drawings was, in opposition to Dr. Humes’ sworn testimony, and in opposition to Specter’s subsequent words in the Warren Report, not provided with any data outside the verbal descriptions of the doctors. Specter’s April 30, 1964 memo to Rankin, we should remember, admitted that the Rydberg drawings “were made from the recollections of the autopsy doctors as told to the artist.” No mention of measurements. When one considers that Specter admitted to U.S. News in 1966 that he’d seen the back wound photo (but coyly side-stepped the fact it didn’t match the Rydberg drawings by declaring “It showed a hole in the position identified in the autopsy report”), and that Specter failed to mention his seeing any autopsy photos when called before the HSCA (despite repeated discussion of the commissioners’ decision to withhold them from him) it seems obvious that Specter is hiding something. But what? Specter and Kelley’s use of the photos wrongly denied them in their passion for truth can only be considered admirable. On the other hand, if one looks at the re-enactment photo re-printed in the Doubleday edition of the Warren Report, it is clear that a bullet passing through the stand-in’s back and continuing on to hit Connnally’s stand-in in his armpit would most likely exit from the President’s stand-in’s chest, and not his throat. There is no way one can say this trajectory works. Specter had seen the Zapruder film. He knew Kennedy wasn’t leaning forward before the first shot. He knew that his theory left no room for deflection and he knew that the wounds didn’t align. It seems logical, therefore, to assume that Specter’s “crime” was one of rejecting his self-identified “passion” for the benefit of his career. An old story, indeed… and as American as apple pie… That Specter was willing to take shortcuts in order to help establish that his single-bullet theory was indeed “close-enough” is made clear by his using Connally’s actual jacket in the re-enactment in order to establish the entrance location on his back, but disregarding the location of the entrance on Kennedy’s clothes. This allowed him to mark his own point of entry, based upon his subjective (and, as it turned out, liquid) impression of the bullet entrance. Also suspicious is that there was no effort by the FBI to measure the right to left trajectories of bullets entering the car from the sniper’s nest, while the car traveled down Elm. This allowed the commission and its experts to say the alignment of Kennedy with Connally was “close enough” for the single-bullet theory to have occurred, without them making any actual calculations. When one considers that if Specter had returned to Washington and informed the Commission that their operating premise of Oswald’s sole guilt was made doubtful by his (Specter’s) failure to get a couple of wounds to align, and that he’d used evidence expressly denied him to make this determination, his career would have been shot, then one can see how easy it was for Specter to determine the trajectory was “close enough.” After all, he was just a 33 year old assistant district attorney, by no means an expert in forensic pathology or wound ballistics. And after all, the proposal for the re-enactment (contained in an April 27 memo by Norman Redlich, chief counsel Rankin’s chief deputy), promised Rankin and the Commission that the point of the re-enactment was not to establish the facts “with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin.” Hopefully, Specter, currently the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, will tell the rest of us with a “passion for truth” the whole truth after his political career is finito. But I wouldn’t hold my breath. Over the last forty years, Specter has repeatedly defended his single-bullet theory. It seems way too late in the game for him to admit he was wrong. In his memoirs, he tries to defend his actions as best he can. When he discusses being shown the autopsy photo at the re-enactment, for instance, he describes it as “a small picture of the back of a man’s body, with a bullet hole in the base of the neck.” This disguises the fact that the photo was copied by HSCA illustrator Ida Dox and that her drawing shows the bullet hole to be inches below the base of the neck. Specter then admits he failed to tell anyone at the commission he saw the photo, but discounts the role of cowardice in his decision by adding “an unauthenticated photo was no way to establish facts for the record.” Oh, hogwash! He admits he was shown the photo by Thomas Kelley, the Secret Service inspector responsible for conducting its investigation of the assassination. And he was undoubtedly aware the Secret Service had the photos. It would have been a simple matter then of his stopping by Bethesda for ten minutes and talking to Dr. Humes, to verify the wounds, and John Stringer, the photographer, to verify it was one of the photos he took on the night of the autopsy. He would then have an authenticated photo. Instead, he played it safe. Later in his book Specter recounts visiting the National Archives in 1999 and looking at the autopsy photos with Dr. Boswell. Not surprisingly, they convinced themselves the President’s back and neck wounds were “consistent with the Single Bullet Conclusion.” As if at this point we should take their word on it. Unfortunately, it seems the closest thing to an acknowledgement of error we’ll ever get from Specter is his admission that the Rydberg drawings were “rough” and that he would never have had them created if he knew that people would credit them “with more precision than was intended.” Ironically, Specter’s failure to tell the Commission that the wound he saw on the autopsy photograph was too low on the President’s back to support his proposed theory left a permanent stain on the reputation of another prominent Republican, Gerald Ford. It was recently discovered that Ford, who would eventually become President, but who in 1964 was merely an influential Congressman from Michigan, was the member of the Warren Commission who had the words “a bullet had entered his back slightly above the shoulder” changed to “a bullet had entered the back of his neck,” in a draft of the Warren Report. When this was revealed in 1998, Ford explained that he believed this wording was more precise. Apparently, he was confused by the Rydberg drawings, which did indeed depict the back wound as residing at the base of the neck. Thus, the back wound was officially moved to the back of Kennedy’s neck by a series of mistakes, first by Humes and Boswell in the original creation of the Rydberg drawing, then by Warren in his withholding of the photographs, then by Specter in his failing to report the inaccuracy of the Rydberg drawings, and finally by Ford in his changing the language of the report. Truth by committee had become a lie. "

John, I was trying to get Mr. Gray to explain his attitudes towards Nixon. His dismissal of Nixon as largely irrelevant to Watergate is mind-boggling. Nixon is Watergate. Watergate is Nixon. The other stuff involving Hunt as discussed by Haldeman and Nixon was, officially, I believe, a reference to the forged CIA cables. The destruction of these cables, along with other items of evidence, led to the downfall of FBI director L. Pat Gray (any relation?). As stated earlier, (and still not addressed by Mr. Gray) Howard Hunt created these cables under orders from Charles Colson and Richard Nixon. If word of these cables had reached the public before November 1972, Nixon may very well have lost to McGovern. This was the President of the United States ORDERING A FALSE PAPER TRAIL be created implicating his predecessor and one-time rival, a man he believed cheated him of the Presidency, in a MURDER, a murder which was in fact chiefly supported, and possibly orchestrated, by Nixon's former running mate, Henry Cabot Lodge!. The articles of impeachment were written for just this sort of thing. Talk of abuse of power! And yet Hunt told no one about this before the election! In fact, this information was only revealed after John Dean spilled the beans to save his own hiney. If Hunt was trying to bring down Nixon, why would he use the Watergate break-in, which prior to Nixon's involvement in the cover-up, was only a smoking BB gun, when Hunt had, in his own safe, A SMOKING CANNON? Any theory holding that Nixon was somehow an innocent victim of Gerry Ford's and the CIA's plotting, is absolute bunkum, and deserves to be exposed as such, not applauded. This Forum had two men involved in the Watergate story as members. These men were willing to answer questions about their role. Now Mr. Gray has come here, found a few flaws in their statements, and boldly accused them of being deliberate liars and participants in the biggest hoax ever perpetuated (outside of that one about the souls of long-dead aliens giving us head-aches). This is most unfortunate. Hopefully, he will either go away or come back with something more substantive than that Mr. Baldwin mistakenly called the "Democratic Party Headquarters" "McGovern Headquarters", and was quickly corrected by another knowing participant in this GRAND conspiracy to undermine Nixon.

Robert, in looking through forensics journals while writing my presentation, I came across a number of cases of multiple gunshot wounds to the head. Coroners are a morbid sort, and like to write papers about unusual deaths, and show everyone the groovy pictures they took. One of the cases, if I remember correctly, involved a senior citizen who shot himself in the head four times. He was using a .22 and the bullets kept deflecting or flattening upon impact. I think one of them lodged in his jaw. Sometimes the dark humor of these guys is a bit over the top. One scholarly paper involved "Death by Dylan," in which a psychotic listened to a Bob Dylan record--I think it was "Blood on the Tracks"--over and over until he decided to kill his mother. My all-time favorite, though, was "Death by Vending Machine" in which someone shook a vending machine until it toppled back over, thereby crushing the shaker, a la Mrs. Joyboy in "The Loved One." Classic stuff.

Ashton, you're so high on your own supply you're positively giddy. You need to take a step back and re-think this whole thing. You're great at insulting people and imagining wide-spread conspiracies but not so good at history. The history of the Warren Commisssion shows that Ford was Hoover's man, and that his loyalties were with the FBI. And yet you seem to believe the big bad evil CIA was backing him... WHO in the CIA backed Ford? Helms? Please cite any evidence you have that Helms and Ford were close in any way. Colby? Colby was a minor figure in the CIA who rose to power only upon Helms' departure. Who are these evil conspirators pulling the strings on Ford, Hunt, McCord, Liddy, Baldwin, the members of the Watergate committee, etc. Please name names. Otherwise your contentions have no more relevance than saying the "boogeyman." You point out inconsistencies in people's memories and testimony and fall over laughing. Your contention that the Watergate break-in, which led ultimately to the most wrenching examinations the intelligence agencies of this country have ever received, and the greatest reduction in power the CIA ever received, was a CIA op is far more ludicrous. Only I don't find it funny. Your purported motive for this undertaking--to put Ford in the presidency--is positively baffling. As pointed out earlier, Ford TOLD large media barons in passing that the CIA had been involved in assassinations, and then tried to take it off the record. This gaffe led to the Rockefeller Commission, the Church Committee, the Pike Committe, and ultimately the HSCA, which determined that Ford's beloved Warren Commission was not all that. Ford himself was called to testify for the HSCA and subjected to grilling about his role in the WC and his behind-the-scenes contacts with Hoover. Was Ford's gaffe simply the verbal equivalent of his falling down a flight of steps? Did the CIA put their money on the wrong horse? Or hmmm. MAYBE ASHTON, to use your convoluted logic, Ford was a double-agent!!! Yeah, that's it! He snowed the CIA into putting him in power, and then immediately set about destroying them!! Yeah, and then they tried to kill him using Manson followers, who were really sheep-dipped members of the Church of Scientology... You obviously think you're onto something. You might be. It's reasonable to think some lies were told by the conspirators in order to cover up other crimes...after all, the death of Hoover and the shooting of Wallace were incredibly convenient for the NIXON camp. Your inability or refusal to believe that whatever these men were up to, it was most logically for the benefit of Nixon, and NOT Ford, reveals a tremendous blind spot, in my opinion. There is no evidence that Ford was particularly power hungry, or that his presidency was advantageous to the intelligence communities in any way. If you read Haldeman's The Ends of Power you'll get an inside look into the world of Richard Nixon, and see that the CIA dood it scenario was pushed by Colson, who couldn't quite accept that his super-spook buddy Hunt was simply a screw-up. Nixon was no one's victim but his own.

This is the final slide of my presentation, reproduced here for the benefit of anyone subscribing to the absolute fiction espoused by Hoover/Specter/Posner/Jennings that there is not one scintiilla of evidence indicating anyone other than Oswald was involved. Scintilla In conclusion, I should make clear I don’t pretend to know who killed Kennedy, only that the evidence suggests he was murdered by a conspiracy. The decision within the Johnson Administration to shut down independent inquiry and staunchly defend the flawed conclusions of the Warren Commission does not in itself prove that anyone within the administration was involved in the murder itself, or was deliberately covering up a conspiracy. When one studies Lyndon Johnson and the history of the Vietnam War, in fact, one finds that Johnson’s behavior was such that he would worry out loud to his advisers to such an extent that they would become uncomfortable, and tell him what they thought he wanted to hear, and not necessarily what he needed to hear. Some believe this was a deliberate tactic of Johnson’s designed to get others to back him up on controversial decisions, as he would often turn around and use what amounted to a capitulation on the part of one of his advisers to get others to capitulate as well, saying “I’m just a poor old country schoolteacher, but Walt Rostow’s from Harvard, and he says we oughta bomb that country into the stone age, etc.” (Not actual quotes, as far as I know.) Anyhow, it certainly seems plausible that this may have been a factor in the assassination investigation as well; men like Assistant Attorney General Katzenbach, FBI Director Hoover, and even Chief Justice Earl Warren may very well have taken from Johnson that he’d be much more comfortable if the investigation didn’t really dig too deep, and that he (the President) felt this would be the best course of action for the country, for national security purposes, etc. This may not have been Johnson’s overtly expressed desire. The Watergate burglary and the Iran/Contra scandals are perfect examples of crimes committed and covered up in the President’s name, without the President’s full knowledge beforehand. Irregardless, it took the United States 90 years to correct its official view on slavery; one can only hope the government’s forthcoming admission it erred on the Kennedy assassination will not take as long. But in the meantime, I’m hopeful I’ve been able to show those who habitually claim there’s just not one “scintilla” of evidence for a conspiracy that there is, in fact, a whole boatload of scintillas. No, scratch that, a flotilla of scintillas. If nothing else, I pray my efforts have lessened the chances of anyone taking the “not one scintilla” argument seriously. In Latin, scintilla means spark. If the evidence in this presentation has sparked your imagination, then you should conclude there is a scintilla of evidence. For those of you still in denial, in this presentation, it has been demonstrated that: 1. There was a verifiable lack of interest by the FBI in uncovering the facts of Kennedy’s autopsy. 2. The drawings prepared by the autopsy doctors and presented in their Warren Commission testimony ignored their own measurements of the President’s wound locations and presented a grossly distorted picture of his wounds. During his testimony, Dr. Humes lied about the use of the measurements in creating these drawings. 3. There was a verifiable lack of interest on the part of the Warren Commission in determining the facts of the President’s wounds, and how these related to the possibility of conspiracy. 4. The re-enactment on May 24, 1964 was deliberately not as accurate as it could have been, in ways that indicate it was designed not to uncover the likelihood of the single-bullet theory, but merely whether it was remotely possible. 5. A report was created in 1967 that verifiably misrepresented the autopsy photos of the President at the very time CBS News was pressuring the administration to create a report confirming that these photographs supported the conclusions of the Warren Commission. 6. A similar report was created in 1968, and released in the final days of the Johnson Administration. This report is verifiably false in its defense of the single-bullet theory. Its re-appraisal of the President’s head wounds is also in conflict with the autopsy photos on the internet. 7. This incorrect appraisal of the head wound was seconded by the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel in 1979. To support their conclusions a number of contradictory exhibits were presented. 8. Dr. Michael Baden presented an important exhibit to the HSCA upside down. He made statements in his testimony that, when compared to the pathology report created by his panel, reflected his total confusion about Kennedy’s head wounds. He also lied in his testimony about the nature of the skull exit observed at the autopsy. 9. The enhanced x-rays as presented by the HSCA were cropped in a suspicious manner, with an area of supreme interest in the un-enhanced x-ray, the occipital region, deliberately left off. 10. The interpretations of the autopsy photos and x-rays by the HSCA’s various panels and consultants were frequently in disagreement with each other. The committee for the most part ignored these conflicts, and presented the reports of the consultants as if they had all been accepted by the committee. While this may have spared the doctors some embarrassment, it left an extremely confusing public record.. 11. The x-rays as presented included fractures and fragments that were in conflict with the HSCA’s conclusions on the head wounds. While some of these items of interest were acknowledged by the HSCA’s radiology consultants, they were left unexplained by the pathology panel. 12. The HSCA’s trajectory analysis presented verifiably false depictions of both Governor Connally’s position in the car at Zapruder frame 190, and President Kennedy’s posture at frame 313. These false representations supported the committee’s conclusions on the single-bullet theory and its assertion that Oswald fired all the bullets striking Kennedy. 13. The conclusions of the bullet lead analysis performed on behalf of the HSCA were almost certainly false and were undoubtedly in conflict with the earlier writings of its author. These conclusions were also in conflict with the guidelines of the FBI in place at that time. 14. The exhibit titles and testimony of the HSCA’s ballistics expert were changed in such a manner as to disguise that he'd been studying the wound ballistics of subsonic ammunition. This was probably done on purpose and without his knowledge. 15. The single-bullet theory simulations and recreations shown on TV have all been deceptive in one way or another. None of them present the proportions of Kennedy and the locations of his wounds accurately. They are quite often deceptive about Connally’s position in the limousine as well. Even worse, neither the Warren Commission, nor any of the subsequent medical panels, nor any of the television programs defending the single-bullet theory, have demonstrated the internal passage of the magic bullet through Kennedy and, specifically, how this bullet evaded bone. 16. The autopsy photos and x-rays available on the internet, whose authenticity has been acknowledged by a number of men who’ve inspected the originals, reveal an entrance on the skull right where the autopsy doctors said it was. I am at a loss to explain why so many men who’ve viewed the originals of these photos and x-rays, lone-nut theorist and conspiracy theorist alike, including the autopsy doctors themselves, have failed to notice this entrance. If this failure is due purely to human error, then perhaps many of the suspicious “mistakes” listed above are not so suspicious at all. Perhaps the level of competence we expect from our “experts” is simply unrealistic. Or perhaps I am simply wrong in my appraisal of these photos and x-rays. But am I wrong about all of this?

Did I miss something? Did someone say somethng to offend Tosh? Did Gerry Hemming send him a threatening e-mail?

Ashton, I looked at the Timeline the first time you posted it. When it started dragging the Church of Scientology into the conspiracy, I lost interest. Maybe I'll give it another shot when I have more time. And you still haven't answered my basic questions. 1) What was the objective of this purported hoax? 2) Who was victimized by this purported hoax? And I'll add another two: 3) Was Nixon corrupt? 4) Was he justifiably removed from office? What bothers me most, Mr. Gray, is that you seem far more upset by what you believe Mr. Baldwin and others did, than by what we KNOW Nixon did. Or were the Watergate transcripts transcribed by Liddy as well? You are probably aware that one of the many items on the neocon agenda has been the rehabilitation of Nixon (Karl Rove's hero) in the public eye, and the demonization of his enemies, including the Kennedys. (There I go again, mentioning those damned Kennedys!) Where do you stand on Bush? On Iraq? Who in your mind has been worse for America, John Dean or Donald Rumsfeld? James McCord or Dick Cheney?

Cliff, the May 24 re-enactment was the WC's baby and the FBI was just taking orders. In the Examining the Examinations section of my presentation, on the Movement of the Back Wound slide, I get into it and examine Specter's role in the re-enactment.

Mr. Gray, what is your purpose here? You came to this Forum for what exactly? You didn't come here to gain information, that is for certain. I doubt Mr. Caddy or Mr. Baldwin will even respond to your insulting rants. You made certain of that. While John has given you the benefit of the doubt, as he believes the official story of Watergate is a limited hang out designed to hide greater crimes, I believe in this last post you revealed your true cause: Nixon. Are you a Nixon worshipper, Mr. Gray? I ask this because you seem obsessed with all the people who were wronged by the Watergate investigation. To whom do you refer? Not Baldwin, Dean, McCord, Magruder, Liddy, Hunt, etc... or any of the burglars. These were all co-conspirators in your world. No, it seems the only person you can be talking about is Nixon and maybe a few of his closest aides. Are you acquainted with Charles Colson, Mr. Gray? Karl Rove? I'm just trying to figure out what YOUR real agenda is here. As for my own agenda, which you've called into question, and why I often refer to the Kennedy assassination, it's because of the many possible connections between the Kennedy assassination and the Watergate break-in. That's right, Mr. Gray. This Watergate Forum was created as a spin-off of the JFK Assassination Forum. If you did any research into this Forum before you began spouting your self-serving bile, you'd have noticed that, and have noticed that I have been one of the biggest contributors to this Forum. You'd have also noticed that, while I don't believe the CIA planned the Watergate break-in (or the release of the Pentagon papers) in order to harm your hero, Nixon, I DO believe there was CIA involvement on some level in the Kennedy assassination. I have suspicions in particular about Hunt's involvement. I ask you again...IF the CIA was out to get Nixon, why embark on such an ARCANE, SLOPPYand SLOW process? Nixon was dirty as dish water. All the CIA would have to have done to bring him down was arrange for the cables forged by Hunt to get exposed for what they were--a Nixon attempt to smear John Kennedy's legacy. Such a revelation would have led to Nixon's complete disgrace. Hunt also had Nixon by the cojones through his spying on Ted Kennedy, his role in the ITT affair, and the break-in at Fielding's office. His arranging for any of these stories to come out through his buddy Buckley would have ended Nixon's reign. He could even have used Jack Anderson, if he could control his urge to kill him, as Sturgis and Anderson were long-time pals. But he did not. Why? Because until the moment he turned himself in--remember, he'd thought about fleeing the country--he was a LOYAL REPUBLICAN. As was Liddy...Liddy, who DID HARD TIME rather than rat on his Fuehrer, Nixon, had additonal dirt on Nixon regarding Nixon's attitudes about Hoover, and the campaign financing of his GEMSTONE activites. And yet he kept silent. It would have undoubtedly been damaging, perhaps fatal, to Nixon's campaign, should these little details have come out before the election. Your assertion that he faked a bunch of conversations in order to help smear Nixon is preposterous. Liddy is as conservative as they come. If he was gonna fake a bunch of transcripts, wouldn't these transcripts have at the very least been damaging to the DEMS? Instead of the waste of paper they were purported to be? Your suspicions of McCord, while having more foundation than your suspicions of of Hunt, also run into a trouble once one thinks about the over-all motive of the convoluted plot you envision. If the over-all goal was to remove Nixon from office, then why didn't McCord come forward to Sirica BEFORE the election, when the public could simply have voted the crook out? Why wait till after the election, so that Nixon could try and stop the investigation, and drag it out for two years? If there was an ongoing conspiracy among McCord, Hunt, and Liddy, it was not to bring down Nixon, but to get him re-elected. That is what they set out to do when they first went into the Watergate, and that's what they accomplished, BY KEEPING THEIR MOUTHS SHUT until after the election. If they were really working for Agnew, or were secretly working for Gerry Ford, I suspect we'd have heard about it by now. Ford, after all, was so devious that he told owners of media companies about the CIA's role in assassination attempts, spurring the most intense investigation into CIA activites to date. If he had in fact come to power via a CIA-orchestrated coup, that was some "thanks" he gave them. In short, your theory makes little sense to me. If the CIA was out to get Po' Lil' Richard, and the Watergate break-in and burglary was the BEST they could do, we all deserve a refund. Might I suggest you find Hunt in Florida and repossess his wheelchair in our name? P.S. your assumption that people witnessing or experiencing the same event will have similar and precise recollections of the event is completely without factual support. Your assumption that the eyewitnesses I was referring to were "liars" is indicative of your own obsession. There are dozens of innocent by-standers in the Kennedy assassination whose stories changed gradually on the day after the assassination and over the subsequent years. THIS IS NORMAL and to be expected. If you have any doubts about this, I suggest you read up on the research of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus and Dr. Barbara Tversky, among others. Many of their papers are available online.