Pat Speer

Since a lone-nut finding would not have been necessary to cover-up the CIA's mistakes--they could have simply claimed they didn't know or didn't have the resources to uncover Oswald's activities--and as the men of the CIA as a rule were committed to overthrowing Castro, it would seem clear that the decision to cover-up Oswald's possible ties to Cuba and head off a possible retaliation against Cuba came from somewhere else. It seems likely they were told by President Johnson himself to cover-up. We must remember that Helms was a Johnson pet. If Helms saw evidence that the military set up Oswald, and told this to Johnson, that might explain a few things... Of course if Helms found evidence showing that it was Somoza and Artime, or the mob for that matter, it may have led to the same result... In my opinion, the suspect that LBJ and the CIA were LEAST LIKELY to cover for was Castro.

Tom's comments aside, I believe that within the strong evidence there was more than one shooter in Dealey Plaza are some indications of who employed these shooters. On the one hand, we have the probability of a second shooter, probably in the Dal-Tex Building, where Jim Braden--a man with extensive connections to both the oil business and organized crime-- was arrested. On the other hand, we have the likely use of a silenced automatic weapon of small caliber; this would seem to indicate an AR-15/M-16, which at that time was not widely available. I believe its availability was limited to the Secret Service, Air Force, and Special Forces. If James Richards is correct about having a photo of Mitch Werbell holding an AR-15 in 1963, then we should include his circle as well. If Werbell had the mob contacts some believe he had, one could probably tie him to Ruby and Braden relatively easy. If one is inclined to go the other route, through the Special Forces in Laos and the Opium Trade etc, one can end up in the same place, albeit with more government involvement. In either scenario, Trafficante and Lansky are implicated on some level. Of course, this is not concrete, but it is a starting place. If somebody can figure out what Werbell was up to in 63, it might actually lead us someplace. Does Mr. Hemming have any ideas?

If studying something for two years full time and coming to a different conclusion than someone with a lot more overall experience than myself makes me arrogant so be it. I'm arrogant. But what you seem unwilling to realize is that no matter what side anyone takes on photo alteration, Z-film alteration, x-ray alteration, etc. one has to reject an expert. The question becomes "which expert do I reject?" Does one merely look at the credentials of the different sides of an argument and choose the person with the stronger credentials? Or does one do one's best to analyze the data on one's own and come to an informed decision? George Bush has more experience in politics than you or I ever will; does that mean we should blindly trust his judgement and analysis on all things political? I respect Dr. Mantik. I've read his chapters in Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, as well as his paper on his "20 Conclusions". He obviously knows much more about x-rays in general than I ever will. But I believe in this instance my analysis is correct and his is wrong. My mother was an RN; my sister has been an RN in county hospitals for over 20 years; my brother has been a respected Bio-med tech for over 20 years; my sister-in-law is the head delivery nurse in a large hospital. All of them support the idea that doctors make mistakes. They've spent a lot of their lives FIXING these mistakes. Why, oh why, should I automatically defer to Dr. Mantik when you won't defer to Dr. Baden or Dr. Humes? Because he's YOUR expert? Well, that's not good enough.... The refusal of certain elements of the "research" (or should I say "Pet Theory") community to explore new ideas that differ from their own has been quite disheartening. My analysis was built on the hard work of others, including men like yourself and Dr. Mantik. I wanted to share my research and analysis with them, which is one of the reasons why I put it up on the internet. That much of the "community" has been fractured into cliques that refuse to learn or read anything new is to me perplexing. Rather than treating me as an enemy, I had hoped you would be congratulating me on my debunking Canning's trajectories, or my attacking the single-bullet theory. I don't demand or expect anyone to acccept everything in my presentation. But this blanket rejection by men like yourself and Lifton because I disagree with elements of your research (and lack the support of meaningless letters after my name) is incredibly annoying. (After all, if we took all the doctors in the country and asked them about the assassination, we would almost certainly have the inverse of the 70% pro-conspiracy numbers we see in the general public, now wouldn't we?) Whatever happened to the free marketplace of ideas? As far as the Z-film, the focus of this thread, I never claimed to be any kind of expert. I just asked if there is a widely-accepted timeline available that theorizes what was changed, where it was changed, and how it was changed. I also asked what was meant by "re-staging." By your personal attack I assume you refuse to answer such questions.

Dr. Fetzer, you're obviously a bright guy. Can't you see the slope you're on? (Other people's "experts" don't agree with my "experts" so their "experts" must not be as "expert" as my "experts".) If the case has shown us anything, it's that being an "expert" is no substitute for using one's common sense. Larry Sturdivan has admitted that he made a mistake in his testimony and mis-identified exhibit F-114. Why didn't any of the experts catch that? Why did a non-expert catch something that all the experts seem to have missed? In my presentation I also offer a rational explanation for the white spot on the x-rays (it's the wing of bone seen in the right lateral autopsy photo) and the mystery bullet slice on the back of Kennedy's skull (it's not on the back of his skull at all but behind his right eye-precisely where Humes found it.) Why did I catch this when none of the "experts" could? Is it because I'm smarter than them? Or is it because I came to the case with few pre-dispositions and tried not to let myself get caught up in proving anything? I support Len's efforts to get White and Healy to present an alteration scenario that is consistent and makes sense. From what I've read this is yet to have been done. Not sure if I'll agree with it or not once (and if) it is presented. If I'm incorrect, and you feel that a logical and consistent alteration scenario has been achieved, I apologize for my ignorance. I would consider it helpful if someone out there would list a short scenario--the when-where-and what--so all of us can better understand what's being argued. In your last post you stated that Costella's study of the sprocket holes indicated little alteration of the film, but instead a re-staging. I'm confused. What does that mean? Does that mean that the film was taken of a crowded plaza, and that all the cars and witnesses were added in later? Or was the whole motorcade re-created using look-alikes?

My second post trumps my first post. I don't think this photo has anything to do with the backyard photos. From what my friend told me, it seems apparent that someone at UPI wanted a picture of the rifle found in the sniper's nest, but could only find this photo of the upheld rifle. They then had a graphic artist create an image of the rifle all by itself. The photo on the left was part of this process. Do David and Craig (perhaps for the first time) agree that this is the most likely scenario?

According to a friend who's done professional photo layout, a rubylith mask is taped onto the top of the photo. It allowed a graphic artist to isolate the gun and create an image of the gun by itself. She swears this was totally standard behavior for graphic artists in the sixties.

In the words of Colonel Klink, "very interesting." At the very least you confirm the sloppiness of the FBI investigation. How else can Frazier have received the bullet at the same time Johnsen was giving it to Rowley? Frazier's either a screw-up or a xxxx.

To me it looks like someone photographed the photograph on the right (failing to match the exposure), darkened the rifle, painted in a few details on the scope, and then overlay the darkened rifle segment of the photo back onto the original. Since this came from UPI, it seems likely the gun was changed for the same reason Life changed the gun in the backyard photos--so that it would show up clearer on the reproductions. That might explain why the fingers are so much darker where they overlay the gun. Evidently, this kind of "alteration" by news agencies was commonplace back in the sixties. Of the newspaper and magazine published versions of the backyard photos, all of them had been altered in some way, as acknowledged in the letters of the various news agencies to the Warren Commission. (I believe this is discussed in Shaneyfelt's testimony.)

While there is probably some truth in the Granma article, it is mixed in with so much hearsay and non-fact that it is essentially lost. Yes, it would be interesting to hear what Veciana and Quintero have to say... but what is this stuff on Rodriguez working as a recruiter? As I remember Rodriguez's story, he was basically a kid during the Bay of Pigs, and was still living in Cuba. He was committed to working with the underground, and knew an invasion was coming, but was not informed beforehand and was totally caught by surprise when it came... As I recall his book, he is quite critical of the CIA on this issue. He felt the underground should have been forewarned so that they could either have joined in or taken evasive action. As it was, Castro merely had them all rounded up... In my opinion, this Granma article is a knowing collection of half-truths and innuendos designed to counter-attack Russo and Huisman's movie. The U.S. Government isn't the only one that lies to its people.

Hunt and Sturgis in Dealey? Bush recruiting Hunt? Methinks Granma is a bit senile...

Would love to see that slide. Do you remember if there was anyone with him in that slide? Any of the usual suspects? I'd come across that reference to HEL before. It was one of the things that sent me down Paranoid Road (see my Sturdivan thread.) The thought that the WC's and HSCA"s ballistics experts, Olivier and Sturdivan, had helped design the silencer used on Kennedy was most disturbing. While I now am skeptical, it bothered me for some time. Evidently Aberdeen Proving Ground is huge, with many different departments. If anyone is aware of any interaction between Edgewood Arsenal and the Human Engineering Lab, of course, please let me know.

Jim, Tom is correct in that the bullets were never tied to Oswald's gun. The shells recovered at the scene, however, were. Strangely, however, the officer who claimed to have initialed those shells couldn't find his intiials on them later. This is one of the many reasons people suspect something's fishy with the Tippit slaying. I have resigned myself to the probablity it was Oswald. An often-overlooked element of the Tippit slaying is that the number of shots fired conflicts with the earwitnesses. While the doctors discovered four bullets, and the police discovered four shells, the shells didn't match the bullets. This meant there was one shot fired that no one found and one shell used that was never recovered. (Unless of course the shells were a DPD plant.) This led the WC to conclude there were 5 shots fired. Amazingly, however, the majority of earwitnesses heard only 3 shots. That the WC failed to acknowledge thiat something similar could have happened in Dealey Plaza is indicative of its bias, IMO.

Not to be a pain in the caboose, Jim, but the movie theatre was actually several blocks back towards the boarding house from the Tippit site. Even so, it still makes sense that Oswald would go there to hide from the police... I've pointed it out several times but perhaps it bears repeating. While the program with Gary Mack and Dave Perry demonstrated that Oswald had plenty of time to get to the Tippit site if he was heading east, it also showed he wouldn't have had enough time if he was heading west. By demonstrating that Oswald was heading east, they showed that Oswald was heading in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment. While this could be a coincidence, the failure of the program to point this out was, in my opinion, indicative of its bias. (A bias shared strangely by all the recent programs.)

If I remember correctly it was four versions of the same flower, one in each corner. The exhibit had a photograph of the original flower. It was obvious to my girlfriend and I that the version of the flower in the painting was the flower in the photo turned sideways. While this could have been done on purpose, it was such a subtle difference that it easily could have been missed. Since the painting was part of a temporary exhibit--a comparison of O'Keefe's and Warhol's flowers (hers were of course more interesting, save one of Warhol's)--we decided it was just a mistake.

Thanks, Robin.

While that is one lesson that can be learned from this example, another is that THE HSCA MISLABELED AN EXHIBIT AND NO ONE NOTICED FOR 25 YEARS! I mean, I'm no ballistician. Shouldn't somebody have caught this mistake years ago? This kinda reminds me of the modern art museum that put a Pollock on display upside down. (I recently noticed that the O'Keefe museum in Santa Fe had a Warhol sideways.) In other words, perhaps the best lesson we can take from this is that we should all keep our eyes peeled... there are plenty of mistakes to expose before we reach the truth.

Well, the Church Report discusses Cubela's demanding a silencer and the CIA's decision to provide him one through B-1. The I.G. Report confirms that B-1 is Artime and that his secretary transferred a Belgian FAL rifle with silencer to Cubela on February 10 or 11, 1965. I'm still having trouble remembering where I read that the silencer was actually made by Artime's men and that Cubela found it unsatisfactory. Thanks, James. From what I've seen, Werbell didn't form Sionics until 67. On what source do you have it that Werbell was already messing with AR-15s in the early sixties? I once asked Hemming about this and he said no one in the Florida/anti-Castro world had AR-15s at that early date. The earliest reference I could find to the Florida anti-castro Crowd having AR-15s/M-16s was in 66 before the Masferrer planned raid on Haiti in January 67. I believe those guns were indeed provided by Werbell.

In this instance, the mystery surrounding F-114 was not a fundamental building block. Since most of my presentation comprised my questioning the competence of the government's experts, as opposed to their integrity, the fact that the mistake I found suspicious turned out instead to have come from a convergence of 3 human mistakes, adds to my over-all thesis. While it would have been a little juicier to say the HSCA was deliberately misleading on this issue, the fact that they merely goofed is more consistent with my other findings, and probably closer to the truth. The three mistakes that converged to lead me down paranoid lane (and thus make my own mistake). 1. Larry Sturdivan mis-spoke in his testimony and said 800 meters per second instead of 800 feet per second. 2. Someone at the HSCA, which had already printed up an exhibit list saying exhibit F-114 represented "M-193 bullet at 800 FPS velocity" re-titled the exhibit for the Final Report as "Composite of two photographs of M-193 bullet exploding in gelatin." This led me to believe the 800 fps was deliberately left out. 3. Mike Russ, on his website, incorrectly listed F-114 as "Composite of two photographs of bullet exploding in gelatin." His leaving out "M-193" led me to wonder if he was cooperating with someone by removing all references to the M-16 and M-193 on the exhibit list. (F-113, which is an "M-16 bullet exploding in gelatin" in the Final Report, is listed on his website as "shadowgraph of 30 caliber bullet in air and gelatin.") By the way, I incorrectly stated in my presentation that this misrepresentation took place on the website of John McAdams. While I found the list on McAdams website I recently discovered it was in fact a link to Russ' site. While Russ appears to be a Posner defender, I found no reason to assume there was anything suspicious about his mistakes. As a result of these mistakes and my trot down paranoid lane, I cast doubt on the integrity of Sturdivan and McAdams. If I offended them I apologize.

Those familiar with my presentation may recall that one of the things I discovered was that HSCA exhibit F-114. the ballistics gelatin of a subsonic M-16 bullet, was misidentified in Larry Sturdivan's testimony and on the exhibit list. I took from this that there had been an effort to disguise its existence, to hide the fact that subsonic ammunition had been tested. I took from this that the HSCA knew that the use of a silencer in the assassination was likely and that someone had sought to hide this from the American public. Well, I was probably over-zealous in my analysis. I finally got up the nerve to ask Larry Sturdivan about this. (He's created a website to help sell his book.) http://thejfkmyths.com/ The JFK Myths - the Author's Official Site He surprised me by answering my question right away and admitting that the exhibit has been mis-labeled. He even blamed himself, stating that he mis-spoke in his testimony and said 800 meters per second instead of 800 feet per second. While it's nice to know I was right about something, it's somewhat upsetting to think my analysis of the reasons why could be so wrong. I think we all need to walk a line of skepticism and doubt. Sometimes the simplest answers are right in front of our face.

Thanks, Robert, The Last Investigation was one book I forgot to check. While the quote you cite doesn't suggest the use of Werbell's guns in the assassination, it DOES suggest that Werbell was close to the mob. The only million dollars ever associated with the hits on Castro was the million dollar bounty put on Castro's head by Lansky. When one takes into account that Sturgis and Lorenz made their moves on Castro before the CIA's pills were ready, this should make one suspect that Werbell and Sturgis were in pursuit of Castro's bearded skull BEFORE Sheff Edwards ever had his brainfart to use the mob. Does Mr. Hemming have a comment on this? Did Sturgis and Werbell know each other? Did they know Lansky and Trafficante? Did S and W ever do L and T's dirty work?

Many assassins knew how to make their own silencers. A study I found in a forensics publication came to the surprising conclusion that the "home-made" silencers the writers (German police if I remember correctly) had recovered from murder weapons were quite often superior to the military or mass-manufactured silencers. It's significant as well that when Cubela asked for a silencer for his rifle, the CIA had Manuel Artime MAKE him one. The book Silencers Snipers and Assassins notes that organized crime used silenced weapons in the 60's. The book notes that the mob had its own gunsmiths to design and supply these weapons. I'm wondering if Werbell was in this line of work.

In Singlaub's book he recalls partying with Hunt on a slow boat back from China. He also mentions one of the OSS secretaries by name--Julia Child, the legendary chef.

While studying the earwitnesses I came to the conclusion that there was almost certainly a suppressed (or subsonic) shot fired from the Dal-Tex Building. This brings up the question not only of who fired the shot but of who built or designed the suppressor system. Does anyone know what the legendary "genius" designer of suppressed and silenced weapons, Mitch Werbell, was doing at the time of the assassination? Does anyone know when he first began working on suppressors for the M-16? He's quoted in Jim Hougan's Spooks as saying that the CIA was worse than the Mafia, which implies he was familiar with both. Does anyone know if he ever worked with the mob? I believe at least two members of this Forum knew Werbell. Is it possible he was involved in the assassination, or that, at the very least, his weapons systems were used?

While Specter has been a periodic hatchet man, he has also been a periodic lone wolf. This week's Newsweek article on the secret spying controversy discusses the September 2001 congressional resolution authorizing force against terrorism (cited by the adminsitration as authorizing their acts), and notes "Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter wanted to limit the scope of the measure, but he was successfully rolled." Intriguingly, the article also notes that the number 2 man in the Justice Department, James Comey, forced the White House to back away from their torture memo authorizing intelligence agencies to use torture up to the level of pain associated with organ failure. It says that in 2004, when there was clearly no longer a need for emergency measures, Comey tried to force the Administration to re-justify their use of unauthorized spying and open it up to discussion. It notes that the current AG, Alberto Gonzales (one wonders if Bush appointed him in part because it would help him keep the initials straight) who was then a Bush puppet lawyer, approached former AG John Ashcroft in the hospital to try and get him to over-rule Comey, but that Ashcroft REFUSED. Of course, Ashcroft was forced out within months and replaced by Gonzales, and Comey--I wonder where he is. Anyhow, the compromise forced by Comey was that the Administration would finally create GUIDELINES which would helpthem determine who could be spied upon. Yep, as I feared, there were NO GUIDELINES in place up until that point. Wouldn't be surprised one bit if somewhere in the NSA's vaults are files on John Kerry, Dan Rather, etc... In sum, you know things are bad when John Ashcroft and Arlen Specter look like the good guys... and even worse when the attorney general of the United States in charge of applying our laws has been appointed to his position precisely because he believes the laws don't apply to the President. It really makes you wonder how far we will swirl down the toilet before the next election.

T.C., don't get discouraged. I think most who read this thread will see that the documents show Plumlee to have had some military service, and to have testified. They will also see that Hemming attacked this evidence with more gusto than seemed appropriate.