Pat Speer

Specter's challenger was a holy roller lapdog and I'm glad Specter won. That said, I believe Specter has been less than honest on a number of occasions. His book, Passion for Truth, is one of the more self-serving memoirs I've read. The man clearly has an ENORMOUS ego. Even so, I think he served the country well on at least two occasions. One occasion would be his shooting down of Robert Bork. Specter's account of this in Passion for Truth is quite interesting. The other occasion that comes to mind is his efforts at preventing Clinton's impeachment. If Scaife, Starr, Hyde etc. had been allowed to get away with their witch hunt, it would have been a travesty. On the other hand, it might have prepared Gore for the Bush-league tactics employed by the right in Florida.

Without taking a side, Gerry, I believe Tim has raised a good point. There are obviously a few around here who lack credibility. What is your specific problem with Plumlee? Is it because he claims to have been part of a secret world and you know that he's a xxxx? Or is it because his "message" if you will, rubs you the wrong way? Is it your desire to silence the messenger, or his message? Do you discount everything Plumlee says? Was the CIA not an accessory to the drug trade? I noticed that you leave Harry Dean alone. Is it because you believe that Dean believes his story, but that you believe Plumlee is an out-and-out xxxx? Why not just let Plumlee have his say and periodically inject that FWIW you don't believe his story. Al Carrier doesn't believe you, and yet he for the most part lets you have your say. Perhaps you should give Plumlee the same space.

I respectfullly disagree, Tim. I value both Hemming's and Plumlee's input.

Robin, I usually post on a computer different than the one I use to make images. Will have to go back and try to figure out how to post images on this site. And you are correct. I over-stated how obvious it is to non JFK researchers. In replaying the scenarios in my mind, I have usually coached them a little. It usually goes something like this. Me: Do me a favor. Take a look at this. Friend: Yikes!!! What is that? Me: It's an autopsy photo of Kennedy's skull with his brain pulled out. Friend: Wow! That's disgusting. Let me see here uhh... Me: Some people say the photo is taken from behind and some say it's taken from the front. Friend: Well, that seems to be his neck lines there. Me: That's what I think. Friend: Well, how can anyone say that photo was taken from the front? Me: They say that's his forehead there, with his scalp pulled over here. Friend: Oh, I see. Well, I dunno. How do they explain the neck lines? Me: They either ignore them or say that they're a towel. Friend: A towel? What a bunch of crap! Me: And what about this? Do you see this? Friend: That's the bullet hole, right? Me: You say that's a bullet hole near the neck lines. I say that's a bullet hole near the neck lines. But you won't find a single book acknowledging that that bullet hole even exists. Friend: You're kidding me! Me: No, I'm not. Now do you see how I got sucked into this? Friend: Sounds like you should just drop the whole thing. Sounds like no one wants to see what's right in front of their face. Repeat this scenario approximately 15 times over the past year...

Not that everyone needs to air their dirty laundry--my own family is not without a few brushes with the law--but since Gerry and Tosh are having a credibility contest, I think it might be helpful for each to re-cap their own criminal history, including the circumstances that led them there. Or is that asking too much?

James, the Robertson look-alike photo comes from Altgens, correct? And the Robertson official photo comes from Gray Lynch's book. I noticed the other day that there is a Croft photo taken of Houston and Main within seconds of the Altgens photo. I don't recall...have you ever done a comparison of Rip (Lynch) Rip? (Altgens) and Rip?? (Croft)? What about Conein?, pakse base man? and Barnes??? Sorry if you've already done this... P.S. According to Pictures of the Pain, Croft still has his color originals. Does anyone know if anyone has tried to purchase them?

Robin, it appears that you disagree that this photo is of the back of Kennedy's head, and that you are still interpreting it as showing an entrance on the forehead. May I ask if you've taken a look at the section on this photo in my presentation? I'm just wondering if you've taken a look, but failed to find it convincing. If so, well, I did my best. A number of my friends, who are not researchers, told me they got the point within the first ten slides, and thought it was ridiculous that I go on and on trying to prove the photo was taken from behind, which they unanimously said was OBVIOUS from first glance. It just goes to show how different people's impressions can be... If I misinterpreted your impression of the photo, never mind... And John, the photos on the internet--except for the color one on this website posted by Tim Carroll--all came from the Fox set of photos. They were copies made by secret service photographer James Fox within a few days of the assassination. They were first shown to a researcher named Mark Crouch, who introduced Fox to David Lifton, who made copies, and who allowed Robert Groden to make copies of his copies, etc... I believe Fox gave Crouch his first generation copies and Crouch eventually sold these to writer Walt Brown. I'm not sure if Brown has scanned his versions onto the net, but I doubt it. Groden, by the way, also had a color version, which Tim Carroll got from a Groden pamphlet and posted here. One of the things I came across in my presentation is that few of the versions on the internet match. Most of them seem to have been cropped in some way. The neck lines and bullet hole are darker on many, as if someone was trying to disguise them. Ironically, there seemed to be little correlation between the version of the photo used and the attitudes of the researcher using the photo. There is a version on the Lancer site with the bottom portion cut off. I asked Debra where she got this but didn't receive a reply. There is also a version in Trauma Room One, in a chapter written by conspiracists Aguilar and Wecht, that has been deliberately cropped and altered to make the orientation more difficult. On reading Boswell's ARRB testimony and his comments about the F8/BE7 picture in Livingstone's book, I became concerned that the Fox set had been doctored in some way. The more I thought about it, and the more I compared descriptions of the photo at the archives, the more convinced I became that Lifton and Groden had lightened the area of the neck lines when they'd made their copies. Thus, I don't believe any content was changed, only its appearance. Upon writing this post, I realized a mistake I made in my presentation. On one slide, I discussed the possible colorization of the photo. Groden's color version seems almost identical to the black and white, even though the listings of the photos by the HSCA and descriptions of the photos by those who've been to the archives make clear that the color photos have a wider field of view than the black and white. What I'd forgotten was that Fox made black and white prints for his set---that doesn't mean that the originals were black and white....thus, on this photo, he may very well have made a black and white copy of a color photo--the same color photo Groden copied. One of the many frustrating elements of all this is that certain visitiors to the archives have claimed that the color photos there show SO MUCH MORE than the photos available to researchers, and make abundantly clear that the photo was of the forehead. I believe it's Chad Zimmerman who says the photos even show the Y incision on Kennedy's chest. This is crapola, as the Y-incision was not performed until after the head shot photos were completed. (At least according to the doctors...) Here is the link to the page where it simply says Fox made black and white prints, and not the nature of his source material. If I'm wrong to think you can make black and white prints from color positives or color photographs please let me know. http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/arrb...md122_0003a.htm History Matters Archive - MD 122 - USSS Letter dated February 23,1967 from Chief James J. Rowley to Assistant Attorney General Barefoot Sanders which forwards 4-page typewritten joint statement concerning chain-of-custody of Autopsy Photographs of President Kennedy; joint statement is signed by Roy Kellerman, Robert Bouck, Edith Duncan, James K. Fox, and Thomas J. Kelley, pg

In straightening out my library I came across a book entitled "McCarthy: the Man, the Senator, the "Ism." This book, which is clearly an indictment of McCarthy and his tactics, was published in October 1952, which means its author had started working on it 7-8 months before, when McCarthy was at the height of his power. One of the authors who dared to confront McCarthy and chop him down to size was Ronald May. His co-author was Jack Anderson. In the author's note section it acknowledges that both men know McCarthy well. In the book's conclusions they state that McCarthy's tactics have aided the spread of communism. From this alone, it's clear that Anderson played a rather large part in McCarthy's defeat.

1. Show me an American flag on the front fender of the QM. 2. The SS men in the QM were STANDING. Show me anyone standing. 3. The QM had nobody climbing on the trunk. 4. The QM had nobody wearing a pillbox hat in the back seat. Show me. Jack I finally got back home and took a look at the Weigman and Daniel films, and now agree that the car disappearing into the tunnel in the Weigman film is indeed the Presidential limo. I think someone said this frame corresponded to Z-380 but I think that's wrong, however. The limousine disappeared into shadow at Z-470 or so, so the Weigman frame would correspond to approximately Z-460. On re-watching the Weigman film I was unable to isolate a clear frame showing an empty pedestal BEFORE the limousine disappeared into the tunnel. Approximately one second before the film shows the limo there is a fairly clear shot of the arcade area, but it appeared to me that the pedestal was blocked off by the Thornton Freeway sign. Perhaps some of the confusion is caused by the fact that after Weigman films the limo, he pans back to the Stemmons Freeway sign, and an empty pedestal is revealed in the background. Also of note: the Weigman film on the Groden Assassination Films DVD has been edited. Groden doesn't say where the film was cut, but maybe that's a factor in all the confusion.

Excellent essay, Tim. Thanks.

That's a bunch of crapola, my friend. Liberals are just as patriotic, probably even more patriotic, than those who rap themselves in the flag and refuse to acknowledge the tremendous mistakes we've made in recent years. I agree with Reagan that we could be "a shining city..." I just don't believe we've fulfulled our promise. To paraphrase some fool "some look at what is and ask why...while others look at what could be and ask "why not?" Liberals ask why not while conservatives think it's un-American to ask any questions at all... I'll go further. Those who honesty believe in "America: right or wrong" are not patriots at all, IMO. Is an employee who lets his employer squander business opportunity after business opportunity without pointing out the company's mistakes a good employee? I think not. Similarly, is a citizen who sits back and rallies round the flag whenever his country's leaders make a mistake a good citizen? But that's simplifying things. Conservatives whine like a stuck pig when they find some DOMESTIC issue they disagree with, e.g. Roe V. Wade. Why is it then that "conservatives" consider it un-American and un-patriotic to protest our involvement in a war that is causing the world to hate us, but consider it patriotic to cut taxes and reduce the size of government even at the expense of social services for the needy and the poor? And why do "conservatives" think it's okay for our government to throw its weight around on the international scene but not okay for our government to set standards for the teaching of science and history in our own schools? The only reason I can come up with is that they are not conservatives at all, but IMPERIALISTS.

I know that's what we're supposed to think, but does anyone really believe that terrorists are that stupid? There's a reason Osama and his friends have been hard to capture. I feel 100% confident that the only people deceived by Bush's ploy have been the American people. Like LBJ with the Warren Commission and the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, Nixon with his Vietnam policy and the early stages of the Watergate investigation , etc... the game is to do what one finds desirable for domestic reasons, and then come up with some sort of rationalization involving "National Security" when caught. It deeply saddens me that the citizens of the United States of Babyland are so scared of the world that we feel we need a lying Uncle to protect us. What makes me even sadder is that we'll elect any lying sack of crap who says he'll cut our taxes and beat up the boogeymen in the bushes, no matter how ineffective he is, as long as he doesn't make us look at ourselves in the mirror and see ourselves for what we are... a decadent empire unworthy of respect...

T.G. I share your feeling that the warrantless listening in on overseas phone calls made by suspected terrorists is not such a bad thing. BUT...how do we know that's all they've been listening to? There is no public record...no paper trail...of whom they've been spying upon. It's been revealed that they consider PETA and Greenpeace terrorist groups, along with some Catholic charities... Were the phone calls of their members all listened in on? And what about the family members of their members? How long is the list? Just as they made a judge and members of congress swear not to reveal that warrantless spying was taking place, they may have made NSA employees swear to never reveal WHO they've been spying upon. It's an incredibly slippery slope... AND TOTALLY UNNECESSARY, since they already, under the law, can spy on people and get the necessary warrants retroactively. As far as I can see, the only logical reason for them not to seek warrants is that they are trying to hide whom they have been spying upon... Hmmm... And then there's the question of credibility. Bush outright LIED about the Patriot Act--he assured us that no one would be spied upon without a warrant...even while he was already conducting warrantless spying. This is not only a LIE. It is a DAMNED LIE. A LIE told purely for his own political gain... Under what scenario pray tell is national security jeopardized by our knowing that warrantless spying has been conducted? LIKE TERRORISTS DON"T ALREADY SUSPECT THEY ARE BEING SPIED UPON??? Give me a break... Bush's lies and his swearing Pelosi and others to silence was done for one reason and one reason only. Bush is a COWARD and is afraid to face the music for his desperate acts...he was trying to deceive US... Think about it... warrantless spying, torture, holding suspects indefinitely without benefit of counsel, without their even being charged with crimes??? What country is this?

As far as the Christic case.... the law suit was supposedly about the La Penca bombing. Avirgan and Honey did the ground work on that. Sheehan, unfortunately, became a zealous conspiracy theorist and tried to use the case to prove the existence of the Secret Team. Evidently, Wheaton and Jenkins were his sources on that. Well-intentioned or not, I think it's clear Sheehan destroyed his case when he tried to prove the nebulous. Evidently, as stated on a number of the other threads, he made a boatload of legal mistakes and alienated his clients in the process. Now, back to Trento's book... does it include any interviews with Shackley? I find it interesting that in Shackley's memoirs he swore by Harvey but had mostly negative things to say about Angleton. Now Angleton's friend Trento writes a book which apparently rips into Shackley...

Good point Robin. It might be Connally. By the way, you're correct that that's Weigman in the Couch film. He jumps out of the car, runs around, and then piles back into the car, quickly followed by Lem Johns, one of LBJ's SS agents. Johns had jumped out of LBJ's back-up car, raced up to the knoll and got left behind. The press gave him a ride to Parkland.

That's pretty good, Jack. Thanks. I think my ongoing problem comes from my taking a close look at the limo in Z-380, and comparing that to the Weigman frame. In 380 Kennedy appears to have fallen almost entirely below the level of the seat. The passenger in Kennedy's position in the Weigman frame, on the other hand, appears to be much more erect. Even worse, there appears to be a vertical strip of chrome on the right side of the limo in the Weigman frame, while the President's Lincoln limo, with its suicide doors, lacked such a strip. The Queen Mary, on the other hand, had such a strip, as revealed by Warren Commission Exhibit 903. So I still have my doubts on this.

You're absolutely right about the motorcade, Duke. Great post. I did something similar when I read the Palamara article a few years back. "Slowed" or "sped up" does not equal stopping. Motorcade stopping does not equal limousine stopping, etc... Some people will distort info to reach whatever conclusion they desire. and that's not only the lone-nutters... In my opinion, one of the key factors in the motorcade coming to a stop is only seen in one film and is rarely discussed. I think it's the Nix film that shows Chaney and Jackson--the moto-cops to the right of Kennedy--slam on their brakes after the head shot. This would undoubtedly have created the accordion like effect you've discussed. Those nearby who saw the limousine slow and the motorcycles slam on their brakes would easily be fooled into thinking the limousine stopped as well. There is this desire within the community to give eyewitness testimony--selective eyewitness testimony at that-- much more weight than it deserves. If Howard Brennan sees Oswald in the window he's blind but if Jean Hill sees 8 Secret Service men on the knoll playing dice with Jack Ruby she's got x-ray vision... Thanks to Bernice for posting the actual quotes and to Vince Palamara for gathering them to begin with, so that Duke could make an intelligent post... It takes a village... Accordingly, if anyone could zoom in on and clean up the purported JFK car visible in the Weigman film, I would appreciate it. I'm not so sure the car in the photo isn't the Queen Mary, the Secret Sevice back-up car used in the May 64 re-enactments. While there is clearly someone on the back of the car in the Weigman film, Jackie and Clint Hill weren't the only ones riding on the back of a black limousine. George Hickey was sitting up on the back of the Queen Mary with his Ar-15 at the ready while 3 agents riding on the side of the car piled in.

The "slice" of bullet which was purported to be on the back of the head was the lead bullet fragment removed from behind Kennedy's right eye. The FBI performed tests on this fragment. As a result, the fragment entered into evidence by the WC is much smaller than the fragment seen on the x-rays. Researcher and Forum member John Hunt has made copies of the FBI pictures of the fragment made before the testing, and he showed these in Dallas. Perhaps he can upload it here so you can compare it to the shape on the x-ray.

I'm not sure about the Altgens reference but Rather has admitted many times that he simply made a mistake when he described Kennedy's reaction to the shots. He saw Kennedy get hit in the head, fall back onto the seat and fall over on the seat. Rather says he simply forgot about the back-and-to-the-left motion as he ran back to the station. He has never suggested that the film he saw that day was any different than the film as shown today. People make mistakes reporting things. It doesn't mean they are part of any conspiracy. Since by the time Rather saw the film he wasaware of the gun in the TSBD, and since, unlike Hoover, he had an understanding of the layout of Dealey Plaza, it's possible he'd expected to see evidence for a shot from behind and that this poisoned his ability as an impartial witness.

Even more incredible, Don, the HSCA's trajectory analyst from NASA, Thomas Canning, over-ruled the doctors and decided the bullet headed downwards in the body. After much thought, I realized the doctors could be wrong and the man from NASA could be right (re the abrasion collar). Since the back is angled in the area of the shoulders it is possible for a descending bullet heading downwards in the body to strike on its lower edge first and leave an abrasion collar on the lower rim of the entrance. That the top pathologists in the country failed to realize this is evidence that they weren't all that...something I explore at great length in my presentation.

While I still feel that the evidence for Oswald killing Tippit is much stronger than for him killing Kennedy, it could very well be true that it will be easier to get someone to re-open the case if at first it is limited to the Tippit killing. As stated, there are a number of gray areas regarding the killing... the timing, the number of shooters, the direction the shooter was walking, the description of the shooter, the missing marks on the casings... the messiness of the evidence could indeed confirm someone--even a lone-nutter--that the case is worth looking into. I do believe there is a real problem with connecting the two killings, however. It makes perfect sense to me that Oswald, even if innocent of killing Kennedy, would nevertheless be smart enough to understand that he'd been set up as Kennedy's assassin, and would not willingly surrender. Oswald had read quite a bit and would probably have een aware of the assassinations of Carlos Castillo-Armas and Huey Long, etc. If he'd believed himself to have been set up, he would also probably have believed he was going to be killed before reaching trial. As a result, I think it's possible Oswald killed Tippit. Both his wife and his brother felt he was lying about something...

I wasn't aware of this part of the story. Is there evidence that Shackley told Bush what was up? My understanding was that it was Robert MacFarlane who sold out Carter, much as it was Henry Kissinger who sold out Johnson in 68.

Duke, find me this "seemingly sound rationale for why the SBT is at least possible" and I'll sell you some swampland in Florida. The SBT CAN be weakened to the point of invisibility, where no one but the blind could see it as a reasonable possibility. I've attempted to do just that in my presentation, and I believe I've succeeded... As far as re-opening Tippit, I think that would be a serious mistake. The evidence against Oswald in that case is a lot stronger than in the shooting of the President. The eyewitness testimony is much stronger. The ballistics evidence is stronger (he had the purported murder weapon on his person). And there is a motive (his escape). We mustn't pull a Belin and see the Tippit slaying as "the Rosetta stone" of the assassination. Oswald may very well have killed Tippit AND been innocent of killing Kennedy.

Owen, you've convinced me that Secret Agenda is quite different than I remember. I'll have to dig it out and re-read it... Over the years, and even on this Forum, I've come across those who hold that Nixon was set up by the CIA. I was of the mistaken belief that this theory, which originated with Colson, Thompson, and Nixon, was put into book form by Hougan. Obviously, I was wrong. As far as Hougan's credibility, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing him of anything beyond what all writers do--present their theory in its best possible light. Quite often this means leaving out important details. If you liked Secret Agenda, might I suggest you check out Hougan's book Spooks, (a book I actually read). Merry Christmas. P.S. In McCord's book, he gets into the details of the actual bugs, and explains that one of the bugs wasn't found for months afterwards. He cites this as but one example of the terrible work performed by the prosecution. Which brings me to another point (which may or may not have any bearing on Secret Agenda)... in McCord's book he goes on and on about the corruption of the Watergate prosecutors. If the CIA was in any way orchestrating his statements I would think they'd have made him focus on Nixon and would have asked him to avoid a fight with the Justice Department, if possible. But that's just speculation...

Liddy's thesis is not the thesis of Hougan's book, Secret Agenda. Secret Agenda's thesis is that Watergate was a CIA operation with Hunt and McCord at the helm. It also presents some pretty irrefutable evidence that the standard story of the wiretapping isn't true, which may be why Mr. Baldwin dislikes it so much. Owen, you're a bright person. You should read McCord's book A Piece of Tape before you get sucked into the "CIA set up poor Dicky" vortex. McCord acknowledges that he resented Nixon's trying to make the CIA take the fall. He knew that Hunt was working on behalf of the White House, and not the CIA. He let the White House try to bribe him...let them hang themselves...before he sprung the trap and told Sirica what was going on. McCord's role in history is incredibly diminished when people ascribe his actions to Helms. He deserves credit for being the whistle-blower that he was. IMO, and evidently Baldwin's, he was nobody's puppet. From the excerpts Hougan quotes, A Piece of Tape appears to be a somewhat bizarre little book. IMO, Secret Agenda pretty convincingly shows all the falsehoods in the stories of both McCord and Hunt. Hunt's protestations of "retirement" from the CIA are very convincingly debunked. I don't think I'll be capable of taking McCord's writings on his supposed motivation seriously after reading Hougan's carefully documented and argued book. If McCord's role in history is diminished, then it is deservedly so. Secret Agenda doesn't absolve Nixon from blame at all. Nixon gets full credit for the cover-up (which is all he is credited with in the standard story). Hougan accepts Nixon's guilt as established and refers readers to Lukas' Nightmare for the details of the cover-up. He thinks the Watergate break-ins themselves have been overlooked, and sets about remedying the situation. I had originally thought that looking for "another curtain" was silly, but eventually decided to read Secret Agenda and was very impressed by it. Its a surprisingly cautious and careful book; it doesn't even propose a Deep Throat candidate. I get the impression that you haven't read the book, just the summaries. Owen, you need to understand that writers like Hougan have their own Secret Agenda. To sell a theory of what happened and sell lots of books... I have Secret Agenda, but only skimmed through it. I read a lot more of Silent Coup (The Dean's wife is a whore book that Liddy found so attractive). I didn't find either one very credible. Their operating thesis seems to be that Nixon and his cronies were too smart to bug the Watergate, and too smart to get caught. I just don't see them as all that smart...true believers rarely are. In order to get into the muck, IMO, you need to read the memoirs of those involved...In McCord's book he announces that he is planning on writing a series of books exposing corruption in government. His lawyer was Bernard Fensterwald, one of the leaders of the assassination research community. In other words, McCord had thrown in with the research community. I just don't see him doing that if the whole expose-Nixon op was a plan hatched by the CIA. Would the CIA want their money to go to Fensterwald, who was personally lobbying Congress for a new investigation? Would they let Fensterwald use his involvement in Watergate as a platform to expose his views on the assassination? Besides, by the time McCord's book came out Helms was long gone and had been replaced by Nixon's hatchet man Schlesinger--so who was giving McCord his orders? In McCord's book and testimony he makes it clear that he'd heard from Hunt's wife that Nixon was going to try and pin the break-in on the CIA, and that this disgusted and horrified him. He decided to expose the whole thing right there. I totally understand why he would do this and fail to see what the mystery is. Yeah, it's possible he had a talk with Helms somewhere and that strengthened his decision. But that doesn't make his actions a CIA operation, merely a political act by a former member of the CIA. I suppose it's easy for me to relate to McCord because I was in a similar position once. I was a long-time employee of a company where I witnessed mass embezzlement; I stayed at the company a year or so longer than I enjoyed simply because I wanted to help catch the crooks (Despite the involvement of the FBI and the IRS, no one was arrested.) Something about their behavior offended me to my core. I suspect McCord had the same response to Nixon's behavior. Another book you should skim through, written by a long-time government official who was similarly offended by Nixon's behavior (and who took very damaging notes on his meetings with Nixon's lackeys in order to help nail Nixon and protect the CIA), is Vernon Walter's book, Silent Missions. People like McCord and Baldwin are the reason why mass conspiracies often collapse. There are people out there who have a low tolerance for what they perceive to be unethical behavior and who will find a way to help the truth come out. I suspect Mark Felt is in this same kind of person. It doesn't make these men saints, just more complicated than the Yes Mr. Helms Yes Mr. Hoover robots so many imagine them to be. I was recently at a National Park taking in the view when a Park Ranger came up to me and started telling me about a scam he was aware of involving the National Park Service. He told me that he would write letters to every newspaper in the country if he wasn't a Federal employee. And he told me this WHILE I WAS FILMING. He clearly wants the truth to come out. While it's always possible McCord got caught on purpose, my instinct tells me that if this was the case, it was by his own doing, and not Helms'. Ironically, in your belief that the CIA was behind the exposure of Watergate, you have something in common with one or two of the conspirators, including Nixon himself. According to Haldeman, Colson convinced Nixon that the CIA, through Hunt, McCord, and (current Senator from Utah) Bob Bennett, had prchestrated his downfall. Haldeman, to his credit, wouldn't take this plunge...