Pat Speer

I believe Stephen is right on this one. I seem to remember seeing it established that this "rifle" was nothing more than a police-issue shotgun. Don't remember where I saw this, though.

I have revised this presentation, and greatly expanded it. It can be found here. http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html JFK: A New Perspective (2005)

Tim, I hope the North line was just bait. If you read the books of others involved in the scandal, such as Robert Macfarlane and Gen. John Singlaub, you'll see that North is held in very LOW REGARD, even by those who defended the operation. The way he weasled out of prison and implicated Reagan in an attempt to gain immunity, was downright sleazy. If you're gonna fall on your sword, fall on your sword, a la Poindexter. North was just a sneaky self-righteous wimp who saw no problem with Secord etc making MILLIONS off this supposedly patriotic deal. He was like a John Dean who failed to learn his lesson. Wheaton was right to speak out against him. That North, after bragging about lying to congress, ran for the senate, is reflective of the contempt this man has for American institutions. In some ways I wish he'd been elected, if only so that a few of the more upright senators could have had the chance to kick the crap out of him.

Lynne, seriously, do you have anything to ADD to this case, besides attacking Garrison? If you knew anything about this case you'd know that Epstein discredited himself by joining with former CIA agents to try and claim Oswald was a Russian agent. You'd also know that Lifton is pretty much in the same ballpark as Garrison: a well-intentioned guy whose attempts at solving the case proved as much a distraction as a help. At the very worst, Garrison deflected attention away from the mob and onto the CIA. Do you honestly believe that was such a bad thing? I mean, we had the chance to nail the mob ten years later and guess what? The "Justice Department" under Ronnie Raygun REFUSED to investigate. So why not go after them? As far as the CIA, the facts that have come out over the years have pointed more and more to the involvement of a number of its agents, if not in the killing itself, at least in the cover-up. Was Garrison a bad guy for pointing this out? As far as Clay Shaw, while I believe he was probably innocent of murder, he was ABSOLUTELY UNDOUBTEDLY GUILTY of perjury and obstruction of justice. Screw Clay Shaw. While I'm somewhat sympathetic to a man put in his position--having to face the heat for something he didn't do--I can't say I'm sympathetic to a man who refuses to tell the truth when it could save him and HARM NO ONE. Who would have been damaged if he'd admitted he'd been in contact with the CIA and had told them of his trips overseas? LIKE THE RUSSIANS DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THE DOMESTIC CONTACT SERVICE? No, the only people in the whole world who weren't allowed to know about the DCS were the American people!!! Clay Shaw was part of an ongoing conspiracy to deny to the American people that we'd become the kind of country that has a shadowy secret police keeping track of every citizen. I repeat, SCREW HIM. If Jim Garrison had to prosecute Clay Shaw to get the Zapruder film showed in court, and to expose the sloppiness of the autopsy, and to show the possible connections of Oswald to Bannister and Ferrie, then I wish he'd tried ten Clay Shaws. As much as you claim to hate Nixon, by your attitude towards Garrison, one would think you blame Mark Felt for Watergate. Garrison is to the Kennedy assassination what Mark Felt was to Watergate: a complicated man with unclear motives who nevertheless helped expose the truth. Give him his props and move on.

The WC reasoning that the first wounding occurred at Zf-210 was based upon the timing of the limo coming out from under the live oak tree. I don't really understanding placing the source of JFK's backwound at Zf-188 from the TSBD. Even the WC said this was an impossible shot. I do concur that JFK was hit at approx. Zf-189, but I don't see how that shot could have originated from the TSBD's southeast sixth floor window. T.C. Knowing that there was a second shooter who needed fire from the sniper's nest to cover his fire, the sniper in the nest would shoot at the earliest opportunity. The WC showed there was a brief opening in the twigs at 186. A shooter following Kennedy with his rifle for a few seconds leading up to the brief sojourn behind the twigs would be unlikely to hold off firing simply because a few twigs appeared in his view. He needed to get the thing started. I see the twigs as a non-issue. As mentioned, I was concerned about including this scenario. One of the reasons is my concern that people will go straight to my conclusions, see that I don't include a knoll shot and just stop right there. I'm hoping people will read on even when they disagree with me. I believe the photos and x-rays offer strong evidence for more than one head shot. I'm hoping enough will come to agree with me that we can force the medical establishment to come to the table and explain why their forensic journals say the exact opposite of what so many experts have proposed.

Mike, a lot of people came in for the conferences on the weekend, and were off to the races by Sunday night. There was a small gathering (perhaps 100 people) on Saturday for those who didn't elect to stay on till the 22nd.

First of all, the kind comments expressed here are all greatly appreciated. Approximately two years ago I realized that in order to prove there was conspiracy the research community would have to put the discussion of the medical evidence back on a rational footing. The research community had gotten so far away from looking at the actual evidence, focusing instead on the possibility it was faked, that most seemed to accept that the evidence suggested only one shooter. My understanding of the evidence led me to believe the opposite. Hopefully, with the input of men like John Hunt (and eventually some doctors) we'll be able to use the medical information to prove that the evidence wasn't altered, merely misunderstood by the "experts". Those who take the time to swim through my presentation will find that several of the men on the Clark Panel and FPP either twisted the information into saying things they should have known wasn't true (Baden) or wrote papers or articles with analysis of the medical evidence that were in direct contradiction to their findings concerning Kennedy (Fisher, Spitz, Coe). That the top doctors in the country can be so easily pressured into going along with something they had reason to doubt, without even acknowledging those doubts, may be an even greater tragedy than Kennedy's death. Why was Cyril Wecht the only one to express doubt? Why was it so important to "sell" the findings of the FPP to the American people? These questions are to me perhaps even more important than who killed Kennedy, in that whoever killed Kennedy is probably dead himself, while the use of government appointed panels of experts continues. As for my "scenario," I debated whether to even include it in the presentation. It was just my conjecture based upon the medical evidence, and is by no means my final decision on the subject. I deliberately left open whether the shot at 224 was a single-bullet or multiple bullets fired by an automatic weapon. As mentioned on this Forum, home-made silencers will often cause a slight yaw, which could help explain the shape of the entrance on Connally. The other question I have yet to make a firm decision on is whether or not a subsonic small caliber bullet would have enough juice to pass through Kennedy and inflict such damage on Connally. At this point I'm leaning towards a "no" on this question. As to your questions, I believe the dictabelt studies are as much junk science as the Neutron Activation Analysis. While there might be something to the science itself, the conclusions were based on so much interpretation that they were just wrong. McClain was not where they said he was--an honest understanding of the Hughes film proves this. I did some study on this early on, and realized McClain would have to have traveled 50-60 mph for something like 2 seconds to get where he needed to be and then to have slowed back to 12 mph BEFORE any shots were fired. It's ludicrous. He was not where they said he was and it wasn't even his microphone. He WAS at the Lancer banquet, by the way. Evidently, he is convinced the mob killed Kennedy. The rearward head movement is, I believe, best explained by a tangential shot striking Kennedy on the top of his head by his ear. Lean slightly forward, look at your left knee, and slap the top of your head towards your right eye and see how your head reacts. But DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME! (obligatory warning so no one sues me after giving themselves a concussion.) The first and second shots, if they did indeed come at 188 and 222 (and strike Kennedy at 190 and 224) are too close together to have both been fired with any accuracy from the Sniper's nest. It's totally interesting to me that both the WC and HSCA and EVERY EARLY LNer held that Kennedy was shot significantly before he came out from behind the sign in Z-film, and that now virtually every LNer holds that Kennedy was hit at the very last split-second, at Z-224 along with Connally. (While the WC said somewhere between 210 and 225, they clearly were leaning to 210). Apparently, the media feels you can disagree with the government's findings all you want as long as you say Oswald did it, but if you agree with the WC or HSCA on most of their findings, but conclude there was a conspiracy--YOU ARE A WACKO. Of course, if the stretcher bullet was switched by the FBI--something I don't consider all that unlikely, there is nothing to connect the Carcano to either of these early shots. In that case, a different rifle may have been fired twice in that period. But since the eyewitnesses to the shooter in the sniper's nest--I found Worrell and Euins most helpful--indicate the sniper fired at least one early shot, I lean towards two shots from two different rifles between 188 and 224. (Euins and Worrell both heard two early shots but I suspect they saw the rifle in the sniper's nest and heard the shot from the Dal-tex and made the incorrect but reasonable assumption the shot at 222 came from this rifle.)

This is the full-length version of my Lancer presentation. I will be re-writing it and correcting it from time to time. As it is, I believe it represents a significant breakthrough in the case and is well worth a look for anyone even marginally interested. http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu18.html

Lynne, I'll be nice about it. Most of the people here have either done a mountain of reading on the Kennedy assassination, etc, or are respectful of those who have. You've come here with the attitude that your opinion is equal to everyone else', and that it's up to them to change your mind. It's disrespectful. If you're interested in Nixon's role in the assassination, search the word Nixon, read previous threads and posts on same, and add any references or analysis that has not already been brought up. Your reference to the Colson memo was worthwhile. It's rarely discussed, even in books on Watergate, but is a clear indication Hunt was doing some dirty work for Nixon months before he was hired by the White House. Please keep searching for interesting tidbits like that. Please stop these nasty rants. They're distracting.

This little blurb sounded familiar until I realized I was thinking of Guatemala! I believe one of the CIA's documented plans to discredit Arbenz was to place a cache of Russian weapons ashore and then claim Arbenz was receiving weapons from Russia. Supposedly he played into our hands by purchasing a whole shipload of weapons instead. When one reads between the lines, however, the amount of rifles etc on this ship were far more than his army would ever need. I've suspected that instead WE purchased the arms through a middle man and had them shipped into Guat to give us a reason to support his overthrow. Did Arbenz ever do any interviews or write on this subject? Do we have any confirmation that it was Arbenz buying the weapons? Did Ydigoras Fuentes write about this in his book, which I've read was not exactly complimentary to the U.S.? In any case, the "discovery" of a cache of weapons smells like a CIA plot. They'd done it before.

Tim, I'll try again. Look at the actual speech. It is you and/or your sources that are taking JFK's words out of context. The barrier that needed to be removed was NOT Castro, but his dealings with the Soviets. As for Bundy's interpretation, it doesn't matter. His job was to spin Kennedy's policies to appease the right. "it is a fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond the hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American Republics. This and this alone divides us. "As long as this true nothing is possible. "Without it everything is possible. "Once this barrier is removed we will be ready and anxious to work with the Cuban people in pursuit of those progressive goals which, a few short years ago, stirred their hopes and the sympathy of many people throughout the entire hemispohere." And I'm not the one who called Helms a xxxx, you did. He testified that he and Des decided to keep RFK out of the loop on Cubela. Of course, he was a convicted perjurer. But why would he lie to protect a dead RFK at the expense of his own reputation? And don't give me that falling on his sword crap... it would have served no purpose. If you read my post clearly, I believe I said it's possible something was inserted into the speech. As Cubela was thought a possible contact in Castro's inner circle, they may have been sending him a sign that they were aware of him. But as to the speech giving a formal go-ahead to kill Castro? Really doubtful. It was more likely the formal go-ahead to the right-wing Cubans to kill Kennedy.

It was Bagley, was it not, who refused to give Nosenko his bona fides. This allowed Angleton to live in his delusion that Golitsyn was the end-all. So of course Angleton defended him. Petty sounds even more paranoid than Angleton...

Lynne, it's not so much your views that are upsetting people. It's just that you're kind of like a an over-eager bull in a china shop. Most of the people here have been discussing this information for years. The transcript you described as "incredible" is in fact what is known as 'the smoking gun tape." Why? Because it was that little passage you cited where Nixon talks about Hunt that led to his resignation. When the power behind the Republican party, including Barry Goldwater and George Bush, read that transcript, it was bye-bye Nixon. No way did they want an impeachment trial where he would have to explain what he meant by the "Bay of Pigs" thing. No way did they want him to explain why he was blackmailing the CIA. Probably every person here has read this passage and has analyzed its every word. Tim Carroll created an online seminar last year called "The Bay of Pigs Thing" in which he tracked down the links between Watergate and the Assassination. I do agree that the memo on Hunt is significant. If you look at the date of Colson's memo, it was several months before Hunt was officially hired by the White House. What were these "special assignments" Colson referred to? One of them most logically involved buttering up Howard Hughes, the biggest client of the PR firm where Hunt worked. But what were the others? Was Hunt digging dirt up on Ted Kennedy BEFORE he was even working at the White House? Maybe you can contact Colson and find out?

I don't think there's a contradiction between loving your country and admitting it has made mistakes. A lot of the history textbooks appease the south on the civil war and the whole country on Vietnam, by insisting they were noble efforts. As Loewen shows in his book, the Civil War was all about slavery--states rights was a smoke screen--and yet most school books in the south gloss right over the S word. Certainly the North is NEVER given credit for fighting a moral fight; Lincoln is often treated as ambivalent and opportunistic, rather than as the anti-slavery crusader he really was. Loewen's follow-up book, Lies Across America, dealt with the local historical societies, particularly in the south, who erect markers and statues to battles and events and tell outright lies. I noticed one of these plaques in Memphis, by the Mississippi. It told the story of how Nathan Bedford Forest, I believe, liberated the city from evil carpet-baggers after the civil war. What it doesn't say is that he lined up all the blacks he could find and slaughtered them in the streets. Martin Luther King was murdered a few miles from this marker. It's long past the time these lies were removed from public places, the Daughters of the Confederacy be damned!

Actually, I'm pretty sure it wasn't that Hoover objected so much as he wanted political protection from the fall-out. He insisted that before he could embark upon such a plan, whereby the FBI would perform domestic spying at the beck-and-call of other agencies, he needed a letter from the attorney general ordering him to do so. Mitchell, I believe, refused to sign such a letter, and Nixon, afraid of the eventual fall-out, refused to order Mitchell to sign it. Hoover then fired Nixon's man in the FBI, William Sullivan, for conspiring with Nixon behind his back. Sullivan then smuggled out the transcripts of Nixon's illegal wiretaps in order to prevent Hoover from blackmailing Nixon. At this point, Hoover, formerly a Nixon ally, became a pariah, with Nixon loyalists such as Pat Buchanan and Gordon Liddy writing extensive reports on the need for his removal. Hoover, evidently, continued to spy on Nixon, as he told a journalist a few months before the Watergate break-in that Nixon had hired some ex-CIA agents and had formed his own black bag squad. Then Hoover was dead. Hmmm... If he wasn't such a geezer his death would be mighty suspicious..

WIN buttons. (For those not old enough to remember them, don't ask. It's not worth it.) Whip Inflation Now Do I win a prize?

John, there was a great book called Lies My Teacher Told Me that came out a few years ago. It was one of the books that got me on my history kick. The book details how public school history text books, in order to be acceptable to very conservative school boards, mostly in the southern United States, and specifically Texas, routinely include lies and distortions of history, which are, in turn, un-taught in most college history courses. Unfortunately, those who don't make it to college go through life believing these lies. There was a movement in the seventies to make school books PC, and there was a major backlash against this in the eigties and nineties. One of the leaders of the effort to return false pride, the flag and apple pie into the history books was none other than Lynn Cheney, VP Dick's wifey.

John, to throw more trivia on to the fire, I believe the Colonel Byrd who owned the TSBD was the same man who founded the Civil Air Patrol, wherein Oswald first met David Ferrie. Now ain't that a coinky-dink!

I did that search and I found this article, the very same one I posted today. and it is listed under my thread, Watergate and the kennedy assassination. But when I initially posted that, the material on the website was very, very different, it has evidently been updated. Websites are evidently updated all the time, and the material that you will find there today, may not be the same tomorrow. At any rate, I did not find anything that anybody else has posted, can you post a link I can look into? I suspect you searched the web at the top of this screen. If you scroll down to the bottom of this screen, you should see a search topic section. This applies to the Education Forum only. Once you search a topic, you'll be able to search by any keywords you like. You're even able to search by the person posting. So, if, for instance, you want to search what everyone is saying about you, you can type in your name and see what comes up.

I just want to go on record as stating this is the worst thread I've ever read on this Forum.

Lynne, please stop embarrassing yourself by calling us all Nixon fans. A few months back there were a number of threads about the ties between Watergate and the Kennedy Assassination. Please use the search feature and find these threads and read them. You may learn a thing or two.

I, for one, don't doubt Hemming's affection for Guevara. Both William F. Buckley and Felix Rodriguez have expressed admiration for the man. Evidently, there was a lot to be admired. What I do find fascinating is that, like Bruce Lee, Bob Marley, and Johnny Cash, Che has become a bigger icon in death than he ever was in life. He represents something--idealism and concern for the common man--that is badly missed in today's world.

Tim, you are revealing your bias. Helms and Schlesinger are liars but some obscure source a dozen years after the fact is a great truth-teller with a pristine memory. You clearly have a NEED to believe the Kennedys were murderers. Apparently, your world would cave-in if you had to accept the fact that they were nicer people and BETTER CHRISTIANS than the current regime. You are so drunk on your Kennedy hate that you will even stoop to distorting their statements. Here is the paragraph in question in Kennedy's speech, per your favorite book, pre-Russo, Red Friday, by that great Cuban-American truth-teller, and DRE minister of propaganda, Carlos Bringuier. "it is a fact that a small band of conspirators has stripped the Cuban people of their freedom and handed over the independence and sovereignty of the Cuban nation to forces beyond the hemisphere. They have made Cuba a victim of foreign imperialism, an instrument of the policy of others, a weapon in an effort dictated by external powers to subvert the other American Republics. This and this alone divides us. "As long as this true nothing is possible. "Without it everything is possible. "Once this barrier is removed we will be ready and anxious to work with the Cuban people in pursuit of those progressive goals which, a few short years ago, stirred their hopes and the sympathy of many people throughout the entire hemispohere." So, Tim, the barrier was Castro's ties to the Soviets and his exportation of revolution, and not , as you implied, Castro himself. Furthermore, in the "ready and anxious" comment, Kennedy was not only sending a message to Castro that we'd provide him with economic support if he dumped the Reds, but that under no circumstances would we allow Batistiano forces to regain control of Cuba. This speech was far more threatening to the right-wing Cubans than it was to Castro. If you can't see this, you are truly blind. As far as the book, Larry pointed out to me that the plans were for a coup, and not a second invasion. This makes a little more sense. I certainly don't believe the Kennedys would have been automatically opposed to one of their exile friends over-throwing Castro, as long as America's hands were kept clean.

The irony of this thread is amazing. Garrison was widely discredited, even within the research community, because he lacked focus. He began believing everyone who wasn't with him was against him. And here we have Lynne assuming that since Garrison didn't behave the way she would have liked, he must have been a disinformationist. And then we have Terry claiming Lynne's the disinformationist! Lynne, isn't it possible that Garrison was simply flawed, like the rest of us? The expectations of Lane, Epstein, Weisberg, etc. weren't met and they turned on the man. Big deal. It doesn't make him evil. It makes him a mixed bag, not unlike yourself... The fact remains that Garrison was almost certainly onto something. That Garrison's one solid suspect, David Ferriie, died within days of LBJ's finding out (from Hale Boggs, no less) that Garrison suspected LBJ's involvement, is worth pondering and worth investigation. Garrison screwed up and made himself bigger than his case. Let's not make the same mistake.

Tim, one of the keys to understanding this mess that you seem not to grasp rests in the wording of both the state department's statements in the article printed by James and in JFK's speech in Miami. In both instances the Kennedy administration was adamant that having a Soviet Satellite 90 miles from our shores was unacceptable. This was a veiled olive branch to Castro--"if you dump the Russkies, we'll leave you alone and maybe even make it worth your while.' By all reports, by 1963, Castro, who loved American baseball, was ready to play ball. He didn't particularly like the Russians and knew that the long-term safety of his country could only come through peace with the U.S. I believe that JFK's offering Castro this opening resulted in his death. Those Batistiano rats and their American mob allies that Hemming complains so much about were not about to let JFK sell them out again. As for Russo, I don't particularly believe anything he says. I don't remember. Does he print this log book in his book? or are we just supposed to trust him? As far as Cubela, since Helms and others never considered it an overt assassination plot, but as an opening to a potential replacement for Castro, it only makes sense that it was presented to the Kennedys in this manner. If there was a phrase inserted into Kennedy's speech, it could very well have been done without his knowing that an assassination attempt could follow.