Pat Speer

While one of the complaints about Fetzer's position seems to be that he continues to trumpet the same arguments even after they have been refuted, this is far from a one-way street. Does Fetzer hold that Coleman was personally responsible for the crash? No? Then why does Len keep repeating that Coleman would have had no way of knowing the outcome of the election, and that this cuts into the possibility of foul play? If someone killed Wellstone they were in the business of killing Wellstone. not merely helping Coleman. Let's not forget that Wellstone was perceived as the anti-Bush, and that ANY Democrat would have been considered preferable. I keep thinking of Bobby Kennedy. He was killed before he was even nominated. On one level, Hubert Humphrey was the biggest beneficiary of Kennedy's death. But on another level, Richard Nixon was the one who benefitted most, as a head-to-head competition with RFK would have reminded the public of the 1960 campaign, when the public went for JFK. Nixon needed RFK out of the way, on an emotional, and political level. Furthermore, the taint of Kennedy blood cast a shadow over Humphrey, much as it did LBJ. Does that mean Nixon had Bobby killed? Who knows? Like the NTSB Report, Sirhan Sirhan as lone nut is a possible explanation with a lot of evidence going for it. But there are pieces to the puzzle that don't quite fit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Robert, your points are well taken. The U.S. media did a HORRIBLE job covering the Kennedy assassination. As a relative newbie I decided six months or so ago to explore just what was being said in the days after the assass and looked through all the Life, Time, U.S. News and Newsweek mags from Nov 63 May 64. I was dumbfounded. The reporting was so ill-informed and prejudicial against Oswald it was ridiculous. By mid-December Newsweek was running articles about Oswald (containing material obviously leaked by Hoover) with subtle titles such as "Portrait of a Psychopath." Around two weeks after the assassination, there was an article in a Toronto paper asking whether or not an autopsy had even been performed on Kennedy. I found this amazing article online. You mean NOT ONE news source in America had even asked that question? Not one televison anchor man, in his zeal to calm down speculation, had assured America that yes, virginia, there was an autopsy and yes, everything will be revealed. How crazy is that? I did a quick look-up of the Lincoln assassination and found that not only was his autopsy discussed in print within a week of his death, but that the article was written by one of the witnesses to his autopsy, a military man to boot. The media black-out of the autopsy was such that the New York Times was still reporting in late January that the bullet causing the back wound had fallen out onto a stretcher. They got this from the out-dated FBI script. This would be akin to someone reporting today that New Orleans is well-prepared to withstand Hurricane Katrina, at least acccording to FEMA director Brown. What?

Gary, has Moore ever mentioned the name of the FBI agent? What year was Moore's first article written? Is it possible this was a KGB creation from the same period as the "Hunt" memo?

Tim, this is a weird post. What's with all the "quite certain" stuff? If Don or his editor made an error, you should simply ask him if he is certain his dates are correct, because (insert your sources here) said (insert dates) were the dates. By saying "I am quite certain" and "I am quite confident" you're sending the message you have some intimate knowledge of these events. You don't, do you?

Thanks for all your work on this, Gary. Do you think Moore faked it? If so, outside his one article, how come he never tried to capitalize on it? It would seem to me that faking such a document would be fairly difficult and not something someone would do for a temporary kick.

Matthew, while I have yet to read your book, I have a few questions about your work on The Men Who Killed Kennedy. Last year, literally in Dealey Plaza, I met Ed Tatro, who worked on the final episode about LBJ. He told me about the efforts of former Johnson aides to ban TMWKK from television in the states. Do you have any insight into this? Did their efforts extend overseas? Any pending litigation?

David's right, Mark... that's not Patty. I would suspect someone in the SLA did their homework and noticed Patty's resemblance to Tania, particularly with the beret. Who'd have thought that Donald DeFreeze (as I remember the name of the SLA's leader) actually knew his history? The media spin on the SLA was extremely negative; not only were they presented as violent and dangerous but also as basically clueless, not as real revolutionaries but as fools. This was helpful in convicting Patty Hearst for her "crimes". Her number one crime? Betraying her class...

I really appreciate the candor of the last few posts. When I first started looking into this case a few years back, two of the books that left the strongest impression on me were Assassination Science and Six Seconds in Dallas. Consequently, it was most discouraging for me to discover this feud between Fetzer and Thompson. From my perspective, FWIW, I believe Dr. Fetzer is incredibly mistaken in believing Thompson to be a disinformation agent. I don't see Thompson's continuing to champion a frontal head shot if he's a disinfo agent. I don't see Thompson's collaborating with Dr. Aguilar on a new article about the stretcher bullet if he's a disinfo agent. On the other hand, I don't see Thompson's negative reviews of Fetzer's books as justified, and a matter of his simply disagreeing with the content. After all, Thompson's recent collaborator Dr. Aguilar wrote a long chapter in Murder in Dealey Plaza. Certainly, there are mistakes in Fetzer's books, but as Thompson himself acknowledges, there were mistakes in Six Seconds as well. Sadly it seems the biggest problem Thompson has with Fetzer's books is that Fetzer produced them. At the risk of sounding soft, I think both men have been insensitive. Fetzer has admitted that he considered Six Seconds an important work; consequently he probably wanted Thompson's approval of his own books, and has almost certainly been stung by Thompson's rejection. Thompson's continuing assault on his work must be even more galling. Fetzer must feel that there's no way of gaining Thompson's approval, and that consequently Thompson must have some other agenda. Similarly, I believe Thompson's feelings have been hurt by Fetzer's accusations against him. For someone who was right there in the early years, risking his career and possibly his life by investigating a murder case that might very well lead directly to the sitting President, to have to put up with a Jimmy-come-lately accusing him of not only being irrelevant to the ongoing investigation, but being a disinfo agent, must prove highly irritating. Dr. Fetzer's occasional temper flare-ups and self-defensiveness can only add to Thompson's annoyance. Sorry if this attempt at dimestore psychology wasn't worth the price of admission. I'm merely trying to show how personal feelings can affect men's judgment, even within the conspiracy community. I believe this is important because we can use this to understand the behavior of men outside the community as well. In 1993, Dr. George Lundberg, the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association defended the findings of the WC against men like Wallace Milam, David Lifton, and Cyril Wecht. His main reason cited: because he'd trust Dr. Humes with his life. Similarly, I believe many of those on the HSCA's forensic pathology panel affirmed some of the findings of the Clark Panel because they had a personal loyalty to Russell Fisher, one of the Clark Panel's doctors. That educated men will often make their brains follow their intuition, and that their intuition is inextricably entangled with their emotions, seems to be commonplace on both sides of the fence. I think we should all be as sensitive to others as possible, and as thick-skinned to attacks from others as possible, in order to learn as much as we can on this Forum. We have a tremendous opportunity here with some great writers among us sharing information. Let's not blow it by slapping each other silly.

Robert, I think you're missing part of the picture. The media botched their initial reporting of the Kennedy assassination so badly that they felt they should play ball with the government to help restore order and confidence in American institutions. By 1966, however, after Weisberg, Epstein and Lane's books were released, the media was kinda split, with some publications wanting to give the critics a fair shake and others wanting to shut them down. The November, 1966 review of the autopsy photos and Boswell's statements were part of the government's response. When Life came out that Thanksgiving with their article on Connally, this shifted the momentum noticeably towards the critics. CBS then contacted McCloy and began strategizing on how to reverse this momentum. This resulted in both the so-called Miliary Review of the autopsy materials, and the CBS 4-part defense of the Warren Commission in June, 67. This defense, by the way, did assert that the WC was wrong about a number of things, including the order of the shots. In late 67. after Thompson's book came out, raising further questions and even gaining the support of the Saturday Evening Post, the government responded withyet another review of the autopsy materials, by what is known as the Clark Panel review. Their report tried to answer some of Thompson's questions by changing the location of the entrance wound on the back of Kennedy's skull, a movement which I believe (and will eventually prove) was a mistake. So to say the media has always bought and sold the government line is a gross misrepresentation of history. The attitudes' of various networks and publications have changed with the weather. After all, wasn't The Men Who Killed Kennedy shown by a large and wealthy media conglomerate? Wasn't JFK financed and distributed by a large and wealthy media conglomerate? Weren't many of the most influential conspiracy books distributed by mainstream publishers? My take on Life Magazine is that they were all game to push for conspiracy as long as it was a foreign conspiracy, but got gun-shy when Garrison started talking smack about Johnson and the CIA. The current battle as I see it is not between the research community and the evil government, or the research community and the evil media, but between the research community and itself. As long as the research community is associated in the minds of those in power, i.e. the government and mainstream media, with UFO's. fake moon landings, and rampant paranoia, then JFK research will be treated as such by those in power, i.e. our letters and articles will be inserted into the circular filing cabinet. I was once a record buyer for a large record wholesaler. I would read 30-100 one-sheets a day on upcoming record releases. There were certain buzzwords, particularly on rap releases, that I learned meant the record had no story--i.e. that no one outside the artist's friends would buy it. Those of us within the research community who wish to take our stories beyond the bounds of the CT community need to figure out how to remove those buzzwords from our one-sheet, how to make our story both palatable and credible enough for someone like Mike Wallace to risk his reputation on it.

Gerry, are you really saying that Weberman coached Lorenz? I remember noting that at one point in the evolution of her story you were in the caravan but that in later versions she made a point of saying you left the squad before the assassination. I always suspected she did this because you'd threatened to kick her lying teeth in. Did you in fact threaten her? Or am I just imagining that your nature might lead you to perform such an act, when confronted with a woman of such low repute telling such a troublesome story? While I can understand Weberman's encouraging Ms. Lorenz to come forward with her story, as this would give his Hunt and Sturgis in Dallas scenario support, I fail to understand why he would want to throw you into the mix, and ask your permission to do so. I'm sorry if this sounds dumb. Are you accusing Weberman of manufacturing a story that would support his claims? If so, did he pay Lorenz to tell this story? And if so, did he offer you money to go along with it? No harm intended. Just trying to understand your relationship with Lorenz and Weberman..

I swear, this thread is like a visit to bizarro-world. Here we have two of the best-educated men to ever write on the Kennedy assassination throwing food at each other in a cafeteria. If I may be so bold as to insert myself between the warring parties, let me say that, to a disinterested (but fascinated) onlooker, Fetzer's calling Tink a thief for doing what almost any concerned JFK researcher would have done is hitting below the belt, as is Thompson's questioning Fetzer's bravery and patriotism for bowing out of the military when Vietnam was heating up. I fail to see much difference in Fetzer's leaving the Marines to become an academic and Thompson's leaving academia to become a P.I. Both were respectable career choices. People are allowed to make changes in their life to better their station in life and/or increase their happiness, last that I checked. As to the Wellstone crash, I think Evan touches on a good point. Are there OTHER explanations for the crash that haven't been explored? As I understand it, Fetzer's book has two elements to it: one, that Wellstone was murdered for political reasons; and two, that there are high tech weapons that may have been used in the assassination. If there are alternative explanations for part one than two, they should be explored and not viewed as a challenge to Fetzer's basic points. To that end, is there any evidence the pilots were even conscious in the moments before the crash? If not, has anyone explored ways in which they could have been rendered unconscious? Could the smoke of a small electrical fire in the cabin knock them out? Could a remote-control incendiary device be used to achieve this same effect? Has there even been any research into these things? I would bet that somewhere in the libraries of the FBI, the CIA and NTSB, is a report on how planes can be made to crash and look like accidents. Has anyone ever acknowledged such a report exists?

Al, I remember reading the posts where Gerry let on he'd been checking up on you, so I understand why you dislike him. Unlike some of the others you might compare him to, however, he was in the the soup in the sixties and seventies, waist-high in Cops, Cubans, and Criminals. He is the last known link to many avenues of assassination research, including Sturgis, Lorenz, Oswald, etc. I believe his presence is an asset here. That doesn't mean that you or anyone else should believe everything he says. But we should at least hear him out. Gerry, did I read your post wrong or are you down on the Mellen book?

Ron's right! Last year, on the way back from Dallas, I stopped off in Roswell, New Mexico. Turns out all the bars in Roswell have closed-circuit TV of...you guessed it... Dealey Plaza! (Making a list of all the CT's that the ET's will have to neutralize, I suppose.)

Mr. Turner, thank you for answering my question about Edward Bennett Williams. He remains a fascinating figure. You mentioned in that post that you were suspicious of Williams' buddy, Maheu. Do you remember what it was that fueled your suspicion? As a former FBI man, you may have been tuned into his frequency. Did you suspect Maheu of being a spook, even before it was well-known? Did you know about his relationship with Trujillo, or his involvement in the disappearance of Galindez? Later on, when writing The Fish is Red, were you ever able to ascertain just what was going on at Cay Sal? Do you believe Hughes even knew about it? Was Maheu involved?

Al let on a few weeks back that he was making progress in identifying some shooters he suspected were flown in from Nam. Don Roberdeau is another one who hasn't posted much lately but is reportedly working on something big. Hopefully we'll hear from them soon with the results of their hard work.

Reactivated to be a companion to Tim Gratz' Scenario thread.

Tim, I created a thread espousing this very same scenario six months ago or so. It provoked a lot of response. I'm going to re-activate it so those reading this thread can see if there's any diamonds in the coal mine. It's called Thinking Black Thoughts.

FWIW, writer/producer Eric Hamburg has written about his attendance at a 40th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs event held in Cuba. He mentions that one of those in attendance was the wife of noted historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. He says she spoke openly of her belief that the CIA killed Kennedy. Her companion on the trip? JFK's sister, Jean Kennedy Smith. While this by no means indicates that the Kennedys as a family believe the CIA did it, it certainly indicates such theories are not repellent to them. I think it's clear they keep their mouths shut for political reasons, and not because they endorse the lone nut theory..

There's a whole crop of Bobby's kids that I'm betting are gonna crack and start talking about the murders of their father and uncle. John, if you're looking for one to talk with I would start with Maxwell Taylor Kennedy, who I shook hands with last year at a park opening in honor of Mexican-American civil rights and labor activist Cesar Chavez. Not only did he seem eager for his family's legacy of embracing the good fight to continue, he's a history professor! You might want to contact him.

Thanks, Gerry, for joining in in this discussion. Would appreciate your input to the main question addressed. Did Seymour know Ferrie? Is it conceivable that Russo met Seymour with Ferrie, and confused himself over time into thinking Seymour was Oswald. I don't think that his being with Ferrie necessarily reflects badly on Seymour, if that's a concern, as I imagine a lot of the get-Castro crowd knew Ferrie. Conversely, do you think Russo just made it all up? Did you meet Russo through Garrison? Was he just an attention-seeker?

As I understand it, everyone on this thread agrees that there was no good reason for the plane to crash. As far as has been determined, even by the NTSB, either incompetence or foul play was involved. While the NTSB make the assumption that incompetence was the more likely cause, Dr. Fetzer assumes that foul play was more likely. While there has been anecdotal evidence supporting both assumptions, there is no data available to demonstrate that one is really more likely than the other, as we, as a society, have no real idea how many airplane crashes have been caused by foul play. Dr. Fetzer has presented a theory on how he thinks the assassination took place. If one is to disprove his particular theory on how the assassination took place, or find it sorely lacking, it by no means should lead one to the assumption that THEREFORE the crash was an accident. The two thoughts should not be connected. I should think that everyone could see this simple point. I think it's interesting that those arguing with Fetzer apparently have not looked into the Kennedy assassination to any large degree. When one looks into the Kennedy assassination, even if one concludes Oswald acted alone, one must confront the fact that one of the most extensive investigations in American history failed to explore vital evidence readily available, and misrepresented much of the information it did turn up. This is significant. Even Gerald Posner would agree this is true. While Dr. Fetzer's refusal to go along with everything in the NTSB report, written by men with presumably far more knowledge than himself on all things airplane, might sound arrogant to those without his background, his experience as a JFK researcher has taught him to distrust the experts hired by the government to look into controversial matters. To him, this distrust is well warranted. And so I have to say my sympathies are with him on this one, without my even reading his book. While Len and Craig's posts have been able to demonstrate that there's reason to doubt parts of Fetzer's theory, their unwillingness to acknowledge that the NTSB report leaves the window open that there was a 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%? chance of foul play makes it appear that they are more concerned with shutting down ALL theories on Wellstone's death outside the unproven pilot error theory, than they are in shutting down his particular theory. Guys, there's no real evidence for pilot error outside the fact that it's not impossible and might even be likely. Therefore, even if you are successful in shutting down Fetzer's particular theory on HOW Wellstone was killed, you will not be able to touch him on his theory WHY he was killed. Like the deaths of the Kennedys, Mary Meyer and Marilyn Monroe, the death of Wellstone is destined to be subject to decades of conjecture, unless, of course, Fetzer's research turns up something SO HUGE even you will recognize its worth.

I believe the man from INCA's name was Ed Butler. What's always impressed me about these interviews is the way Oswald makes a strong case for Cuba only to be derailed at the last second with the exposure that he'd defected to Russia. As I recall this information became available to the interviewer only after a convenient call from the FBI. I'm not sure if anyone's ever been able to figure out exactly which agent it was. It would be interesting though if it were Quigley, whom Oswald had spoken with after getting arrested. Anyhow, the whole thing smells of a plot to discredit the Fair Play For Cuba Committee in NO, a plot that worked, by the way.

Len, thanks for your response. For the record, I didn't mean to indicate Fetzer did misrepresent evidence. I merely meant to say that he might be prone to misrepresent evidence as a by-product of his innate willingness to believe in conspiracy theories, just as you might be prone to deceive yourself through your innate need to shut down conspiracy theories. Since you have indicated you have no such need, as you are ready to accept a number of other conspiracy theories considered controversial by many, my statement was incorrect. I do think your belief that a right-wing group would wait till after the election to kill Wellstone is unfounded. It seems you believe the Bush Administration would have been able to manipulate the votes, or manipulate the Governor of Minnesota , to such a degree that killing Wellstone before the election was unnecessary. This point only has merit, of course, if the people that killed Wellstone were the same people that control the Bush Administration. While Dr. Fetzer has explained why he believes this is so, I don't believe even he believes this is necessarily so. Since certain organizations in this country have a history of committing crimes based upon their over-zealous interpretations of what someone in power has said, and since there have been many right-wing conspiracies without even the presumption of government sanction, I see no reason to believe Wellstone's murder would have to have been planned in the highest places. Would you at least agree it's possible that some members of a right-wing group, knowing that Wellstone was a prime target of the Bush Administration, decided to take matters into their own hands? When I think of Wellstone's death, I think of that Oliver Stone film Talk Radio. I think of a man who spoke his mind and tried to speak the truth, who may not have been fully aware of the anger he aroused. I have relatives who ardently believe John Kerry was a communist and that Bill Clinton killed Vince Foster. I can only imagine some of the stuff that was being said about Wellstone by the Bush White House spin machine in their zeal to bring him down. My concern is that someone, not necessarily from the Bush Administration itself, indeed brought him down. No secret weapon was necessary. We know that there are ways to make an airplane crash look like an accident, just as there are ways to make a fatal car crash look like an accident. The driver fell asleep at the wheel, blah blah blah... In short, even if you are successful in refuting Dr. Fetzer's theory on HOW Wellstone was killed, I see no reason why anyone's presumption should automatically become that THEREFORE it was pilot error. It MAY HAVE BEEN pilot error, but the circumstances surrounding Wellstone's death certainly warrant an intense investigation, rather than a simple "well it could have been pilot error and the pilot lied about his flight hours etc.." The presumption of driver error or pilot error is government speak for "we really don't know what happened and don't know where to begin to find out." Even if Dr. Fetzer is wrong about almost everything, which I am not in a position to know, particularly as I have not yet read his book, I still respect him for writing the book, for it is only through men raking the muck and stirring stuff up that the secrets get released from the suffocating swamp of bureaucracy.

Len, without taking a stand on whether or not Wellstone was killed by a conspiracy, I believe this argument weakens your case. Should someone have wanted to kill Wellstone and make it look like an accident, waiting until after he was elected would have drawn too much attention and made it all too obvious to the American people. Do you think the murder of Bobby Kennedy before he received the nomination makes it less likely he was killed by a conspiracy??? Seriously... Just as Bobby's winning the California primary made him look unstoppable, Wellstone was on very solid ground to win his election, enough that someone might want to have killed him before it would be impossible to make it look like an accident. As for the public's response to the funeral, I've read enough to know that the poor behavior by some of Wellstone's friends was blown way out of proportion by the supposedly left-wing media. There's no reason to believe Karl Rove and his pals were not in some way responsible for the spin created. Should you think the man incapable of such behavior, you should remember that Nixon (whom he idolized) was concerned that the killings at Kent State would make him look bad, and, as per Haldeman, immediately began trying to spin the incident so that the victims and the anti-war movement would look responsible for the deaths. Think about it. Your arguments with Fetzer are far more solid when you stick to the possibility of pilot error than when you try to make the case that no one would try to kill Wellstone before the election. This gives the appearance you are trying to show the undecided, including myself, that Wellstone being murdered is unthinkable. Many of us on this Forum have read enough about the Kennedyassassination and the CIA to know that nothing is "unthinkable." People hate. People lust for power. People kill. People use whatever technology they have at their disposal to kill. If Fetzer is able to show that these rays exist, will you then admit his theory is possible? It seems just as he may be pre-dispositioned to believe in conspiracies you and your pilot friend may be pre-disposioned not to believe in them, even though a five-minute course in history will show they exist. While he may be guilty of misrepresenting evidence, you may be guilty of lying to yourself. As I admitted earlier, I'm intrigued by those who devote an inordinate amount of energy to show that conspiracies DON'T exist. Is it really truth you're after? To prove me wrong, please list some conspiracy theories you believe have some merit.

Len, this thread is supposed to be about Josiah Thompson's book and work. Please restrict your flame war with Fetzer and Healy to the thread on Fetzer's book. While you make your point that book sales do not reflect quality, your choice of Posner's book is needlessly antagonistic. You may as well have said that the Warren Report sold well. No, scratch that. There is probably no recent book on the assassination as reviled, and as undeserving of respect, as Posner's. While I assume your mentioning of this book was done to annoy Fetzer, if you choose to defend Posner's book I suggest you go the JFK Forum and start a new thread. A number of us will be waiting to pounce. If you really want to compare Fetzer to Posner, you should compare them by their behavior. While Fetzer is willing to go online and duke it out with you, and defend his work, Posner was a hired hack who has refused to defend his book outside of the occasional television appearance, where he'll field only softball questions. The man simply couldn't stand the heat if questioned by anyone who really knew anything. While you might believe the same is true of Fetzer, you gotta acknowledge that his coming here and arguing with you indicates he passionately believes what he's written.