Pat Speer

It should also be noted that Bennett's purchase of Mullen was orchestrated by Colson. Colson was Nixon's point man in winning back Howard Hughes, and his money... When Hughes fired Maheu, Nixon was horrified to find out that Maheu had put Larry O'Brien on Hughes' payroll. Nixon was scared that Maheu had told O'Brien about the pay-offs Maheu had given to Rebozo. Nixon had Colson work with Hughes and find Hughes a Washington representative, one that Nixon could trust. It's unclear whether it was Hughes or Colson who came up with the idea of finding a good Mormon to work for Hughes. (Hughes trusted Mormons.) Anyhow, Bennett fit the bill, got the Hughes gig (through Colson) and got Mullen (through Colson). Ironically, Neither Nixon nor Colson had any idea that Mullen was also a CIA front, and that, as a result, Bennett also got a case officer along with his Mullen gig. When Colson and Nixon found out about Bennett's CIA ties, they decided that all of Watergate had been a set-up and that it had been orchestrated by the CIA using Hunt, and Bennett as its principle agents. The irony, of course, was that both these men had achieved their proximity to the White House entirely through Colson's machinations. I've read where Bernard Barker said that Hunt worked for Hughes in the early sixties. Hunt's story was that he was with the CIA during this time. Did Hunt ever let on that he'd worked for Hughes prior to his working oin the Hughes account at Mullen? Do you still talk to Hunt? Is he working on any more books about his exploits?

As a teen-ager, I used to go to ballgames with my sister's boyfriend and his father. His father had numbers tattooed on his arms from his time in the camps. He had a job dragging bodies to the ovens, and pulling out their gold teeth, etc. That is how he survived. Among the bodies he dragged to the ovens were members of his own family. He said nothing. He survived. You spend time with a man like that and you know the holocaust was real. Around this same time, I had a friend at school who started reading neo-Nazi propaganda. His best friend was a Jew, who was given twenty bucks a week in allowance. This friend would loan out most of his allowance to other kids and charge interest. I kid you not. Anyhow, in exchange for a couple of bucks a week, my propaganda-reading friend would make "collections" on behalf of his Jewish friend. One day he pulled me aside, and told me that it was unfair how we aryans had been made to feel guilty for the holocaust. He thought because my last name was Speer, the last name of Hitler's favorite architect (and his ideal German) I could relate. When I told him that I believed the holocaust was real, he explained that, at the most, 3 million Jews were killed. When I told him that 3 million or 6 million, it was still a horrible thing, he stopped talking to me. A few weeks later, a black kid and a white kid got into a fight at our school, and all the black kids threatened to walk out in protest. For a few days afterwards, tensions ran high. When the principal checked the lockers to see if anyone had brought any weapons to school, he found a machine-gun in my friend's locker. He was expelled and I never saw him again. I mention this to explain why I find nothing cute or intellectually challenging about holocaust denial. It's a hateful flat-earth society. That said, I don't think it's impossible that Israel would kill an American President if its future was at stake. I don't believe there's any evidence Israel was that desperate, however. If Mr. Piper believes his theory is as credible as the Mafia-did-it, LBJ did-it, CIA-did-it, oilmen-did-it, and even Castro-did-it scenarios, I say show us the evidence. Maybe it's worth considering. If he's CONVINCED Israel did it, however, then I must admit I suspect he's a member of a hateful flat-earth society. At this point, I don't see how anyone can be completely convinced of any suspect's guilt, to the exclusion of all others, without their having a personal agenda.

Tom, this is evidence? Some guy on Yahoo talking out of his butt? Who doesn't even know in what state this mythical 'shooting match" took place? Who doesn't even know that Oswald shot right-handed? No one has ever duplicated Oswald's purported shooting feat. Ever. No average shot has picked up a bolt-action rifle with a mis-aligned scope for the first time in months and fired 3 shots from elevation at a moving vehicle more than 50 yards away in less than 9 seconds and (according to you) created 3 hits. While some have re-created the shots--hitting a moving target two or three times in a short time span-- none have done so, to my or anyone else who's written on the subject's knowledge, using a defective scope and after not having shot a rifle for months. If your defense of Oswald's shooting ability rests on his having a substantial amount of practice beforehand, you should say so. But you should realize that this is pure conjecture unsubstantiated by any of the accepted facts. Neither the WC nor the HSCA found any credible evidence Oswald had fired any rifle, let alone the assassination rifle, in months.

Margaret, You live in God's country. Far North Queensland as far as I am concerned is the very best this planet has to offer. I live on the Gold Coast but my wife and I also spend a few months a year in Port Douglas. James Yes, box jellyfish, irikanji jellyfish, sharks, cane toads, crocodiles, Ross River fever, cyclones etc. Best on the planet, IMO. Only joking. I think I'm Sydney-centric. p.s. welcome to the Forum, Margaret. Mark, You forgot Taipans, cockroaches you can put a saddle on, mosquitoes with the attack capabilities of Apache Helicopters and Victorian tourists. I lived in Sydney for a couple of years. Just watch out for those blind mullets at Bondi. James I vacationed in Port Douglas during the off-season some years back. Geckos on the walls, crocs in the marina, beautiful waitresses in the restaurants with no one to talk to... Snorkeled the Great Barrier Reef. Amazing. Came face to face with a 'cuda. Devoured an "Outback Special" in a local restaurant: crocodile, ostrich and kanga. Made another meal of something called a Morton Bay Bug, or something equally disgusting. The strangest thing. however, was the local news. My ole high school chum John Elway and the Super Bowl were all over the sports. The lead stories however were all about stabbings. Stabbings, stabbings, more stabbings... It took me few days to realize that all the guns had been rounded up and that the criminals had to improvise...

Tom, I don't get this part of your theory. It appears you're saying that the bullet that entered the hairline exited out of the large skull defect. Is this correct? If so, then why was there not a second spray of brain mist? And if the bullet continued at a downwards angle to hit a nearly horizontal Connally in the back of his right armpit, why didn't the bullet continue on towards his heart? Instead of flattening its trajectory and REVERSING its right/left direction and heading downwards in his body toward his right nipple? And then changing angles again and basically pulling a 90 degree turn from its original trajectory to injure Connally's thigh? I don't think this trajectory makes much sense once one considers Connally's wounds. If you have any overhead drawings demonstrating how this might work, they might prove useful in demonstrating this trajectory.

1. As was always the original concept, the first shot only entered a short distance into the back of JFK. This was, if most will recall, the autopsy conclusion at the end of the autopsy, and was therefore also what the FBI agents present (Siebert & O'Neill) thereafter carried back to JEH. 2. Even the FBI shooting scenario of 2/7/64 still carried that the first shot only lodged a short distance into the back of JFK. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- & one can rest assured that neither JEH, nor his personnel are/were so stupid that the believed that a 2,000-2,200 feet per second bullet only penetrates a couple of inches without some form of interference to it's velocity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well, which shot caused the neck wound? The anterior neck wound was created by the small flat-based/cone-shaped lead fragment which sheared from the base of CE399, apparantly from it's abrupt halt and striking of the right transverse of the C-7 vertebrae. The fragment (CE340) was recovered in the rear floorboard of the Presidential Limousine and was originally photographed. Only to later disappear. Which of course gave someone a lead fragment, which was from the base of CE 399, which weighed in at .9 grains, with which to pull the sleight- (slight) of hand transfer/exchange to & with the JBC wrist fragments. Therefore insuring that NAA would demonstrate that the JBC wrist fragments and CE399 had comparable NAA contents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are you defending the single-bullet theory? If it was the last shot that caused the neck wound then how come Kennedy reaches for his neck long before that shot? And how come Connally reacts to his wounds long before that shot? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am a complete and total supportor of the SBT theory, as it is a fairly well established fact. Might I also add that CE399 has nothing to do with the SBT theory and/or the "Magic Bullet" theory. The SBT/Magic Bullet is the one that was fired; impacted it's target(s), created severe physical damage, and then had it's bullet disappear. Somewhat like the third/last/final shot to the head of JFK which occurred some 2.3 seconds or so after the second shot which struck him in the head at Z-313. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And how come Connally reacts to his wounds long before that shot? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There are: A. Reactions to being shot at B. Reactions to being shot Having been on the receiving end of both, the correct answer is "A". ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you actually believe in the SBT, then you have no business calling anyone here a "sheeple ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Last time that I looked around, it was quite lonesome out here on this limb, by myself, claiming that: 1. There was only a single assassin 2. Three shots were fired and all three shots struck JFK 3. That the head shot at Z313 is the second shot fired in the shooting sequence 4. That the third/last/final shot also struck JFK in the head as well 5. That there is a true SBT/Magic Bullet 6. That CE399 is not, and has nothing to do with the TRUE SBT/Magic Bullet 7. That the WC is an intentional lie and misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination, even though there was in fact only a lone shooter. 8. That the only SBT that exist in the assassination is the third/last/final shot fired in the shooting sequence, which: a. Struck JFK in the rear of the head, just in/at the edge of the hairline, travelling/tunnelling up (in reference only to the direction to the top of the head) to strike in the vicinity of the EOP. And, after having traversed the remaining brain of JFK, exited to strike JBC in the right shoulder as he lay across the open area of the Jump seats, directly in front of the head of JFK. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In every "Magic" act that I have ever seen, items are made to "disappear" right in front of one's eyes. CE399 is just a plain ole everyday bullet. Certainly nothing magic in it that I am aware of. Anymore "sheeples" wish to get on this wagon and ride to the facts and truth of the shooting? Ultimately, I may get lonely out here all by my lonesome. You're right, Tom. You're so out there on the limb, it's unfair to call you a "sheeple". You are undoubtedly an original. I'm still having trouble with some of your theory, however. If CE 399 impacted backwards on Kennedy and the base of the bullet exited his throat, where did the low head bullet exit? Did it go down Kennedy's throat and exit from the same location? I'm having trouble understanding how this bullet could go on to strike Connally in his armpit and exit from his chest. Or was it a fragment from 313 that struck Connally?

Tom, I gather from your posts that the first shot caused the back wound, the second shot caused a high head wound, and the third shot caused a low head wound. Is that correct? Well, which shot caused the neck wound? Are you defending the single-bullet theory? If it was the last shot that caused the neck wound then how come Kennedy reaches for his neck long before that shot? And how come Connally reacts to his wounds long before that shot? If you actually believe in the SBT, then you have no business calling anyone here a "sheeple".

You mean between the Hatfields and McCoys? While there are those who might say that whichever one was both the most "moral" and the "strongest on terror" was right, I'm quite sure they both were wrong. Back to Alfred... While I have not yet read your book, I have a great interest in this topic. I'm wondering if your research led you to the IPA, the International Police Academy, in Washington. When one skims through hundreds of books on international politics, one will find an occasional reference to this place. It appears that, at least at one time, policeman from throughout Latin America were brought there and trained in anti-communist techiniques, including torture. Is it still there, and, if so, did Uncle Sam in fact use this facility to train our American brethren torture techniques?

FWIW Medford Evans would go on to write articles tying the Kennedy assassination to Johnson.

Actually, Haynes Johnson wrote about it in TWO different ways in the Washington Post -- originally, when he wrote about the incident in 1981, he reported that Bobby told Ruiz Williams, not him. In his later article, in 1983, as Lamar points out, Johnson said Bobby was talking to HIM. I interviewed Johnson about this last year to clear up the confusion. He now insists that Bobby was talking to Ruiz Williams, as he originally reported. But he also strongly believes that Bobby did not mean to implicate Ruiz Williams in particular -- in fact, they remained friends after the assassination. Johnson believes that RFK was simply referring to Cuban exiles in general. I have another theory: I think that by the time Bobby talked to Ruiz Williams, he might have already heard that Oswald had been arrested -- and RFK associated Oswald with the anti-Castro Cuban exile effort. Johnson himself implied this in one of his Wash Post pieces, but not in my interview. This is intriguing of course, because it raises the question, how did Bobby know the name Oswald and his political background on Nov. 22? Does anyone know when Oswald's run in with Bringuier was first reported? Is it possible Bobby saw it as the publicity stunt many now believe it to be?

I'll play, Len. I choose answer 4, for reasons stated on the other threads. Probably no. Since I believe the Zapruder film, when taken together with the autopsy evidence and eyewitnesses, STILL suggests conspiracy, I think it's illogical to think it's been altered in order to change its value as evidence. To me, that's like saying O.J. planted Nicole's blood in his car.

Tim, as Johnson was co-writing a book on the Bay of Pigs with several of the Brigade's leaders, to Kennedy, Johnson may have had any number of "guys".

You might be thinking of this letter, written by Harry S. Truman to the Washington Post, a month after the assassination of JFK (21st December, 1963) For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the government... I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak-and-dagger operations. Some of the complications and embarrassment that I think we have experienced are in part attributable to the fact that this quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue and a subject for cold war enemy propaganda. That was probably it.

Although I'm not a shooter myself, I've read quite a bit on this topic and the conclusion I've reached its that it would be slightly possible for Oswald to make the shots. VERY slightly possible. People don't just get up one day, put together a rifle they haven't fired for months, and hit a moving target from elevation 3 out of 3, or even 2 out of 3 times. There is no record of a casual shooter accomplishing such a feat. Experienced snipers are skeptical that even they could perform such a feat. Even Tom knows such a feat was unlikely, which is why he adds extra seconds onto the scenario. IF Oswald had been practicing with the rifle, and had the extra time, then it becomes more likely that he could hit the shots, but since neither one is accepted by most lone-nut theorists, their theory is full of holes. As far as potential shooters that were not Oswald... whoever used the Carcano would have to be top-notch, in my opinion. The rifle was crap but he made two hits, if the ballistics evidence is to be believed. Other potential shooters may not have been as good, seeing as they made only one hit or seeing as they missed entirely. If there was a shooter in the Dal-Tex using subsonic ammunition, as I believe, he would have to be very experienced, in order to account for the substantial bullet drop. He was probably a professional.

John, anything on politics by Senator Proxmire, Supreme Court Justice Willam O. Douglas or Senator J. William Fulbright will be of interest to you. They were trying to change the Government from the inside out, when so many students were trying to change it from the outside in. Fulbright's The Pentagon Propaganda Machine is particularly insightful. It question's the military's misappropriation of funds allocated for the nation's defense, for the purpose of propagandizng the public on the necessity of a large nuclear arsenal, and a continued war in Vietnam. It was basically taking the money earmarked for Johnson's Great Society and spending it on campaign ads for Johnson's foreign policy. The military was spending millions on propaganda films, pushing Johnson's and then Nixon's policies on Vietnam. These films were provided to television stations free of cost and were often played late at night a la today's infomercials. Fulbright questions whether the military has the right to lobby its own government, using funds allocated by that government for the nation's defense. He is absolutely right. I remember having these same thoughts as a kid after sitting through an extended presentation in my school auditorium ...who's paying for this Marine Corps Jazz Band? Why? Why does the military need us to think they're "hip"? Fulbright deals with these questions, and his answers didn't win him any friends at the Pentagon.

Thank you for coming here, Mr. Ray. I think I found a question John didn't ask. Within the literature of the Bay of Pigs and the Kennedy assassination one will often find references to a squad of anti-Castro Cubans known as Operation 40. It's been theorized that Operation 40's original mission was to assassinate leftists who hoped to become part of the new government This was to occur when these men returned to Cuba, assuming the Bay of Pigs proved successful. Presumably, you were at the top of their list. My question is if you were aware of this group, or if it is just an urban legend. My follow-up question would be about Howard Hunt. Have you had any contacts with him since the Bay of Pigs? Was he behind Operation 40 (presuming it was real)? Any thoughts about Hunt and Operation 40 appreciated...

Professor Mcknight, I was re-reading Post Mortem today to find a section on the paraffin tests. Sure enough, Weisberg mentions on page 437 that nitrate tests performed for "control" purposes showed that the cheeks of men who fired rifles tested positive seven out of seven times. Presumably, these were the NAA tests performed by the AEC. I don't recall seeing these tests, and this reference to the control group in any of Weisberg's books or online. Have you seen this reference to the seven control tests in Weisberg's papers? Are you aware of anywhere online where one can read these tests? I checked Breach of Trust. While you do mention the paraffin tests, and that the ERDA file can be found at the Weisberg Archive, I didn't see a specific reference to the results of these control groups. If they in fact show that seven out of seven times nitrates were found on the cheeks of men who'd fired rifles, but that no nitrates were found on Oswald, this would have to be considered significant. And that this was hidden from the public equally significant. Your help appreciated.

Jason, I dug up my copy of Post Mortem. On page 414 Weisberg says that in response to one of his lawsuits, this one seeking records on the NAA tests performed by the AEC for the WC, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Ryan handed him 400 uncollated and unidentified papers. On page 437, he discusses the fact that Oswald's having no nitrates on his cheek should be considered exculpatory, as "The tests given me show that in seven "control" cases where others fired a rifle this evidence was left on the cheeks." He then spends dozens of pages discussing how the FBI and the WC conspired to hide this evidence. I can't find, however, in Post-Mortem or any of his other books, the actual documents that show that nitrates appeared on all the "control" cheeks. Perhaps Forum member Gerald McKnight can answer this question on his Breach of Trust thread. All of Weisberg's documents were given over to Hood College, and were used by McKnight for his book.

On reading about Truman I came across a letter he wrote to a magazine, shortly after the Bay of Pigs. He said that, to his mind, the CIA was created as an intelligence-gathering organization ONLY. He said that the words used to justify the CIA's covert acts had been misinterpreted from their original intent, and disavowed any responsibility for its actions. He said he never would have created the CIA if he knew what it would become. It's intriguing to think what might have happened if Robert Bork had made it to the Supreme Court. In his zeal to embrace the concept of "original intent" and thereby undo all of Warren's liberal interpretations of the laws, would he have also embraced "original intent" in regards the CIA, and forced the dissolution of its operations wing? Somehow I doubt his backers would have stood for this. Their hypocrisy would have been exposed.

According to Connally, JFK's primary goal in heading to Texas was raising MONEY. The BIG money funding elections came from the eastern establishment (Rockefellers, etc.), Texas, and California. The California money was earmarked for the Republicans, thanks to people like Nixon and Reagan. Only the Texas money was up for grabs. It could very well be that Kennedy wanted to get to Texas and grab that money before LBJ took a fall, a fall he knew was coming. As I've mentioned on other threads, the November 22 Life Magazine had an article on the Baker scandal that made clear that Baker was Johnson's protege. If an article had come out during the early days of the Watergate scandal stating that Hunt and Liddy were Spiro Agnew's proteges and that they'd learned everything under his tutelage, how long would Nixon have kept him around? JFK was a shrewd man. He was not gonna jump the gun. He was gonna wait for the scandal to come to a boil, and then ask Johnson to step down for "personal reasons". Kind of the way Bush got rid of Tenet, Powell, and Ashcroft. If the media and the people were in lockstep calling for LBJ's resignation, LBJ would have obliged, no matter how much dirt Hoover had on Kennedy. Perhaps JFK would have PARDONED Johnson in exchange for his and Hoover's silence, (much as Bush pardoned Weinberger and Abrams)!

FWIW, here's a NY Times article from the other day... January 24, 2006 It May Look Authentic; Here's How to Tell It Isn't By NICHOLAS WADE Among the many temptations of the digital age, photo-manipulation has proved particularly troublesome for science, and scientific journals are beginning to respond. Some journal editors are considering adopting a test, in use at The Journal of Cell Biology, that could have caught the concocted images of the human embryonic stem cells made by Dr. Hwang Woo Suk. At The Journal of Cell Biology, the test has revealed extensive manipulation of photos. Since 2002, when the test was put in place, 25 percent of all accepted manuscripts have had one or more illustrations that were manipulated in ways that violate the journal's guidelines, said Michael Rossner of Rockefeller University, the executive editor. The editor of the journal, Ira Mellman of Yale, said that most cases were resolved when the authors provided originals. "In 1 percent of the cases we find authors have engaged in fraud," he said. The two editors recognized the likelihood that images were being improperly manipulated when the journal required all illustrations to be submitted in digital form. While reformatting illustrations submitted in the wrong format, Dr. Rossner realized that some authors had yielded to the temptation of Photoshop's image-changing tools to misrepresent the original data. In some instances, he found, authors would remove bands from a gel, a test for showing what proteins are present in an experiment. Sometimes a row of bands would be duplicated and presented as the controls for a second experiment. Sometimes the background would be cleaned up, with Photoshop's rubber stamp or clone stamp tool, to make it prettier. Some authors would change the contrast in an image to eliminate traces of a diagnostic stain that showed up in places where there shouldn't be one. Others would take images of cells from different experiments and assemble them as if all were growing on the same plate. To prohibit such manipulations, Dr. Rossner and Dr. Mellman published guidelines saying, in effect, that nothing should be done to any part of an illustration that did not affect all other parts equally. In other words, it is all right to adjust the brightness or color balance of the whole photo, but not to obscure, move or introduce an element. They started checking illustrations in accepted manuscripts by running them through Photoshop and adjusting the controls to see if new features appeared. This is the check that has shown a quarter of accepted manuscripts violate the journal's guidelines. In the 1 percent of cases in which the manipulation is deemed fraudulent - a total of 14 papers so far - the paper is rejected. Revoking an accepted manuscript requires the agreement of four of the journal's officials. "In some cases we will even contact the author's institution and say, 'You should look into this because it was not kosher,' " Dr. Mellman said. He and Dr. Rossner plan to add software tests being developed by Hani Farid, an applied mathematician at Dartmouth. With a grant from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, which is interested in ways of authenticating digital images presented in court, Dr. Farid is devising algorithms to detect alterations. His work has attracted interest from many people, he said, including eBay customers concerned about the authenticity of images, people answering personal ads, paranormal researchers studying ghostly emanations and science editors. For the latter, Dr. Farid is developing a package of algorithms designed to spot specific types of image manipulation. When researchers seek to remove an object from an image, such as a band from a gel, they often hide it with a patch of nearby background. This involves a duplication of material, which may be invisible to the naked eye but can be detected by mathematical analysis. If an object is enlarged beyond the proper resolution, Photoshop may generate extra pixels. If the object is rotated, another set of pixels is generated in a characteristic pattern. An object introduced from another photo may have a different angle of illumination. The human eye is largely indifferent to changes in lighting, Dr. Farid said, but conflicting sources of illumination in a single image can be detected by computer analysis and are a sign of manipulation. "At the end of the day you need math," Dr. Farid said. He hopes to have a set of tools available soon for beta-testing by Dr. Rossner. Journals depend heavily on expert reviewers to weed out papers of poor quality. But as the Hwang case showed again, reviewers can do only so much. The defined role of reviewers is not to check for concocted data but to test whether a paper's conclusions follow from the data presented. The screening test addresses an issue reviewers cannot easily tackle, that of whether the presented data accurately reflect the real data. Because journal editors now have the ability to perform this sort of quality control, "they should do it," Dr. Rossner said. The scientific community has not yet come to grips with the temptations of image manipulation, Dr. Mellman said, and he would like to see other journals adopt the image-screening system, even though it takes 30 minutes a paper. "We are a poor university press," he said, without the large revenue enjoyed by journals such as Nature, Science and Cell. "If they can't bear this cost, something must be dreadfully wrong with their business models," he said. Science, in fact, has adopted The Journal of Cell Biology's guidelines and has just started to apply the image-screening test to its own manuscripts. "Something like this is probably inevitable for most journals," said Katrina Kelner, a deputy editor of Science. She became interested as a quality control measure, not because of the concocted papers of Dr. Hwang, two of which Science published. Dr. Mellman says the system would have caught at least the second of Dr. Hwang's fabrications, since it "popped out like a sore thumb" under the image screening test. But other editors are less enthusiastic. Emilie Marcus, editor of Cell, said that she was considering the system, but that she believed in principle that the ethics of presenting true data should be enforced in a scientist's training, not by journal editors. The problem of manipulated images, she said, arises from a generation gap between older scientists who set the ethical standards but don't understand the possibilities of Photoshop and younger scientists who generate a paper's data. Because the whole scientific process is based on trust, Dr. Marcus said: "Why say, 'We trust you, but not in this one domain?' And I don't favor saying, 'We don't trust you in any.' " Rather than having journal editors acting as enforcers, she said, it may be better to thrust responsibility back to scientists, requiring the senior author to sign off that the images conform to the journal's guidelines. Those guidelines, in her view, should be framed on behalf of the whole scientific community by a group like the National Academy of Sciences, and not by the fiat of individual editors.

Anthony Summers wrote about Cobb as well. In The Arrogance of Power he discusses Cobb and her role in Lorenz's abortion. She also had some connection to Nixon. Since, beyond her connection to Lorenz/Castro, she ended up involved in the Duran/Oswald love affair story as well, I think it's reasonable to assume Cobb was CIA all the way, with a specialty in Latina honey traps... But that's just a guess...

Ron, while my gut instinct tells me there's something to what you say, we can't draw the inferences you draw and stand on sound reason. If you wrote an article in a newspaper or created a TV program stating that REAGAN killed Kennedy, for instance, there would be a HUGE backlash against you, and the FBI would probably investigate you, no matter how much evidence you had to back up your claims. There are a number of sacred cows in this country; you can't call a President a murderer, or even a xxxx, without some hatchet man coming out of the woodworks to attack you. If you were a gay man who claimed to have had sex with JOHN WAYNE, there would be a similar attack. It has little bearing on the truth or untruth of your claims.

I wrote about this the other day on another Forum. I think it's a non-issue. Why would you want to read a book review by someone with no outside knowledge of the topic of the book? Outside of his pursuit of Joannides, Morley has taken no public stand, and has not offered no opinions on who killed JFK. He has studied the case intensely, but has refused to offer a pet theory. As a result, I can think of NO ONE better qualified to review Lamar's book. I suppose he should have mentioned that he has an interest in the case in his bio. But, does that mean every reviewer who reviews a book by Ann Coulter should have to mention that they once shook hands with Michael Moore, etc? Of course not. I'm not sure who decided to make this an issue. I suppose Lamar's supporters or friends decided they needed to counter Morley's negative comments. That they chose to do this through this attack on Morley's credibility is unfortunate. They should have dealt with the issues at hand and avoided questioning Morley's right to read and review a book on a topic upon which he is knowledgeable.

Come on. While I won't disagree with your contention that Felt's zealous pursuit of the truth caused the cover-up, your last sentence implies he did this for "fame and fortune". That's ridiculous. He certainly never achieved that, nor is there any evidence he sought to achieve "fame and fortune" in return for his acts. The only book he wrote about his FBI experiences omitted his role as Deep Throat entirely. It makes a lot more sense that he went after Nixon (or at least helped Woodstein in their pursuit of Nixon) for his own reasons, probably related to Nixon's putting the lapdog L. Pat Gray on the coveted Director's chair. It's quite likely Felt was concerned that the independence of the FBI was in danger. McCord and Walters had similar concerns about the independence of the CIA. Overtly and covertly, these men hoped to see Nixon take the fall. Humpty Dicky had reached too high. I'm also confused by your contention that Hunt and Liddy embarked on the cover-up after Felt's heavy-handed treatment. They immediately embarked on a cover-up, destroying evidence etc. Hunt went into hiding. The White House opened his safe and gave its contents to Pat Gray. Liddy clammed up entirely and was more than willing to fall on his sword. He even got off on it. If Felt's dogged pursuit of corruption scared these men into these desperate acts, I can only say that I wish we had more men like him today in Washington, when crimes the size of Watergate barely get a mention. I mean, why hasn't there been a public investigation into the no-bid Haliiburton contracts?