Pat Speer

Len <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Len, this incident doesn't actually support your argument. By your own analysis, this accident occurred as the result of not only pilot error, but TWO electrical glitches which distracted and confused the pilots. Is there any evidence that similar glitches distracted and confused the pilots of Wellstone's plane? If so, is there any evidence to demonstrate that these glitches occurred purely by accident, and were not helped along by someone with a screwdriver or a remote control device? If not, then we're back at square one, with Fetzer's argument that it would be highly unusual for two pilots to just sit there while their plane goes down. No matter how bad the pilots were, and how many mistakes they made in the past, is there any known reason why they both would make the biggest aviation mistake of their life at the exact same time? I don't think you or anyone else can answer this, and, as a result, the cause of thiis crash will justifiably remain open to speculation.

I just watched a video of Gary Aguilar's 2002 COPA presentation on Holland, and I suspect you're right. He's not much better than Posner. His determination to prop up LBJ and the Warren Commission as nothing but noble makes me questionn the intentions behind his assassination tapes book. It could very well be he wanted to beat a conspiracist to the punch so he could give it the proper spin.

Hi, Pat On what page in the book 'The Search For Lee Harvey Oswald' by Groden is the quote located?. Could it be a result of W.R. Morris, and attributed to me?. Please let me know full details. Thanks much. Harry <{POST_SNAPBACK}> On page 248 Groden writes "The former FBI and CIA agent known as Harry Dean stated that Oswald impostors were used by the conspirators to plant evidence against Oswald in Mexico, New Orleans, and Dallas...Actually, according to Dean, the man parading around as Lee Harvey Oswald was "William Seymour." Did Morris mis-quote you and Groden repeat it?

In an incredibly tacky move, Pat Speer has bumped his own thread so those simply browsing on the Controversial Issues in History Forum will see his seminar.

Strange, I just clicked on the link in your post and it worked. If this link doesn't work for anyone out there who's interested,you should be able to reach my original presentation by going to the JFK online seminars section of this Forum and clicking on the link provided. I put it at the top so it's easier to find.

Try this. <http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu5.html>

Just took a quick look through books by Garrison, Lane, and Groden. On The Trail says Russo met the bearded Oswald in September '63. Rush to Judgment quotes the FBI as having looked into Seymour's payroll records and finding that he worked from Sep. 5 to October 10 in Miami Beach, Florida (maybe someone can shed light on whether or not this covered weekends). The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald, on the other hand, says that Seymour is believed to have "impersonated" Oswald in New Orleans. His source???? Our own Harry Dean. Harry, how did this come to your attention? Perhaps my assumption of the confusion between Oswald and Seymour was incorrect and you were right. Perhaps it was Seymour at the meeting but that he was "pretending" to be Oswald. I know others have thoroughly researched this. Curious as to what they think. Is there any known connection between Seymour and Ferrie?

While looking through an old book on the Garrison investigation, Plot or Politics?, I learned something new. Since most of what I've learned of the Garrison investigation came from On The Trail... or JFK, I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised, but it turns out the Oswald Perry Russo recalled seeing with David Ferry was wearing a scraggly beard. While I have seen no picture of Oswald with a beard, nor have read of him ever having one, I do remember seeing pictures of William Seymour with such a beard. It then really hit home that Russo also said he remembered that Oswald was introduced as "Leon Oswald." Leon Oswald...William Seymour...four syllables in each with a similar rhythm. It then occurred that the last name "Oswald" is quite reminscent of the last name "Seymour," in that both are first names of the kid who gets beat up in school. Perhaps I'm barking up a wrong tree. But does it make more sense that Seymour would be with Ferry at a party than Oswald? Does anyone know if Seymour was in New Orleans at the time of this supposed party? While it could be that Russo was just making stuff up to please Garrison, the man did stick to his story till the day he died. If anyone can post a Seymour photo by the Oswald with a beard drawing shown in Plot or Politics? it might prove interesting to those who don't know what I'm talking about.

Mr. Thompson, thanks for your response. Your book is one of the reasons I became obsessed with this case in the first place. (While it's only been 2 and a half years it feels like a LONG time.) While I'd originally intended to write a book, I got sidetracked last year on the creation of a power point presentation, which debuted last year on this website. It can be found here. <http://homepage.mac.com/bkohley/Menu5.html> For whatever reason I haven't been able to stop working on this presentation, and it has now ballooned to over 200 pages, representing my views on the wounds, trajectories, etc. I believe there are many fresh arguments included. I should have it online in the near future. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate any comments on last year's presentation. While it represents a drastic new approach to the assassination, of the hundreds who've looked at it, none have argued with me on its merits. Consequently, I think I'm onto something. In my appraisal, the evidence for conspiracy is right out in the sunlight. The autopsy report.. the trajectories...the autopsy photos...the Zapruder film... these all suggest that there was more than one shooter. It is only through the (deliberate?) misrepresentation of this evidence that the Warren Report, Clark Panel Report and Forensic Pathology Panel Report could be twisted into saying this evidence suggested one shooter firing from behind. My goal is to unravel these twists and show the evidence as it was and as it should have been interpreted. A vast CONSPIRACY including mass alteration of the evidence wasn't necessary, just people's willingness to please authority and tell the government what they knew it wanted to hear. Larry Hancock and I have exchanged thoughts on this and have concluded that in many ways the idea of a VAST EVIL CONSPIRACY is more comforting than the possibility that a bunch of half-assed "experts" were unable to discern, or unwilling to divulge, the truth. The cult of expertise is such that people desperately want to believe that policeman, doctors, lawyers, rocket scientists, nuclear physicists, and supreme court justices are competent to investigate the death of a man and come to a non-political solution, i.e to hold that their only client is the truth. Consequently, it's easier for many to believe that Dr. No and the oil barons arranged a cover-up reaching into every corner of America, than it is to believe that Earl Warren was a sentimental boob and the media are basically lazy and easily fooled. Anyhow, welcome to the Forum. With the history you describe, I understand your frustration with Dr. Fetzer. I don't think you should connect your annoyance with him with a general dislike of everything he touches. While I disagreed with many of the arguments in Assassination Science and Murder in Dealey Plaza, I found many of them provocative and interesting, and the books well worthwhile. Maybe when Bugliosi's book comes out you two can put the bad blood behind you and join in on a joint stomp and trashing. (But I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath for either his book coming out or you two working together.) P.S. Is Six Seconds gonna be revised and re-issued? Or is that hoping for too much?

I disagree, Ron. I think both Johnson and Nixon harbored a tremendous amount of guilt about the assassination, if only survivor's guilt. They were both torn, however, because to keep Bobby and then Teddy away they had to constantly minimize Kennedy. So they were in this death struggle with a ghost. The result was truly Shakespearian. One can see in Nixon's having Hunt doctor the Diem assassination memos his efforts to purge himself of this ghost. In Monica Crowley's book Nixon Off the Record she reports that even in old age Nixon was prone to go off on tirades about how over-rated Kennedy was blah blah blah. He couldn't get over him. Methinks there may have even been a homo-erotic element to it; Jack had all the skills and privileges Nixon WISHED he had, and he was charming; at the risk of being trite, perhaps the Kennedy assassination was nothing more than Mr. Ripley goes to Washington. Someone like Max Holland who has no interest in the assassination itself SHOULD write a book similar to Woodward's book Shadow about Watergate, except on the Kennedy assassination and its long shadow over American politics.

Is Tim the only other person to have a comment on my last few posts?

Mr. Turner, I just watched a video of your 2002 COPA appearance. In your talk, you discuss Lee Harvey Oswald's role as an FBI informant as if you have definite knowledge of this possibility. Did you gain this knowledge from one of your former colleagues in the FBI? If so, will you ever name this source? I believe this could be very important. Which brings me to a related question. I believe there was (is?) a publication put out by former FBI agents. (Was it called Grapevine?) Since Robert Maheu, Edward Morgan, William Harvey, Guy Bannister, Jim Garrison and a number of others were all former FBI, I wonder if you or anyone you know has ever searched through these mags to see what there's to see. If there was a blurb on Bannister, Maheu, and Harvey at some get-together in 1963 that would certainly prove interesting. Do you know if anyone has ever looked into this?

My source is probably not all that reliable, and is probably even impeachable (or would have been). It's Nixon himself in RN, page 639. He says they were heading off on a trip to China. He mentions that Alexander Butterfield brought him some papers after their departure, and then Haldeman came in and they had the so-called "smoking gun" discussion. In other words, he spoke to no one in between his conversation with Ford and Boggs, and his infamous talk with Haldeman. I find this an incredible coincidence, considering all the theories about the meaning of the "Bay of Pigs thing." Since this talk was at 10 AM, it means that Ford and Boggs were in and out before Haldeman arrived. Hmmm. Haldemanmakes no mention of their breakfast with the Prez in his diary and may not have even known about it.

Just noticed something a bit odd. Perhaps it's already well known but it was news to me. On the morning of June 23, 1972, the day Richard Nixon told his assistant Bob Haldeman to talk to CIA Director Richard Helms and tell him that, due to the involvement of ex-CIA agent Howard Hunt in the Watergate burglary, if Helms didn't call the FBI off of the Watergate investigation it could bring up the whole "Bay of Pigs thing," Nixon had breakfast with two men. The identity of these two men may have fed directly into Haldeman's subsequent belief that the "Bay of Pigs thing" was a reference to the Kennedy assassination. The Two men? Gerald Ford and Hale Boggs, who by 1972 were the only members of the Warren Commission still active in government. Was it just a coincidence that Nixon met with them before telling Haldeman to call off Helms? Was it just a coincidence that Boggs was dead within a few months, and Ford was soon to become the first-ever appointed President? Perhaps nice-guy-Gerry Ford knows a lot more than he's ever let on.

I stand corrected. Nic did not leave the Forum and she certainly isn't taking a break.

Come on Jim go back and see how you replied to Pat's post. You did not use the word idiot but you called him "massively ignorant" among other things [see post 23 for the 'lowlights']. Your infamous temper and unpleasantness do you a disservice. Are you so detached from reality that you don't remember what you wrote only 2 days ago! If feel a certain responsibility to defend him because in a certain way "I got him into it" and he is such a nice guy that he apologised to you after you insulted him! Do yourself a favor and do the right thing apologize and admit you were wrong. Try to make it sound sincere. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Len, I can do my own feuding. I took Dr. Fetzer's post as an attempt to find common ground. As such, it was an acknowledgement that he had over-reacted. I respect Dr. Fetzer and his attempts at unveiling a "secret history," in both the JFK case and the Wellstone case. I have noted the looks on people's faces when I've told them I'm investigating the JFK assassination, and I imagine the looks Dr. Fetzer receives are far worse. There's a security one derives from touting the official government position, or defending the "safest" viewpoint. You know you're on the side of the American flag, and Walter Cronkite and Uncle Ron. I don't know the entire history between you two, Len, but I can see clearly how your sudden arrival on this Forum to continue your assault on his book, would make Dr. Fetzer paranoid. He probably feels like he's being stalked. While you claim to be a liberal, one doubts you were as upset by the Bush Administration's attempts to blame September 11th on President Clinton, as you are by Dr. Fetzer's attempts to link Wellstone's death to the Bush Administration. I wonder as well how you responded to the Clinton Chronicles videos which purported to prove that Clinton was behind the murder of Vince Foster, not to mention those poor little kids by the railroad tracks. Somehow I don't see you as having devoted as much time and energy to fight those kinds of outright lies, as you do in refuting Dr. Fetzer's not-unfounded opinion that it was unlikely for a plane with two pilots to crash in the manner described, and that an alternative explanation is worth exploring. If I'm wrong, and you've spent a lot of time arguing against the multitude of right-wing lies, I apologize to you for my incorrect impression. If I'm right, however, then maybe you can answer me why it is so important to you that people NOT THINK Wellstone was murdered. Your answer could be most helpful to us studying the JFK assassination, as it may help us understand why the media at least initially cooperated with the government in depicting the Warren Report critics as cranks and scavengers, and why even today a TV show such as Bullxxxx would pick Jim Marrs as a representaive of the research community, and then use his UFO studies to make us all look like wackos. I'm sorry if my dimestore psychiatry offends you, but I'm sincerely interested.

And the name of this thread is......(drum roll)........Civil Discourse...?????!!!!!. Come on people, we're capable of better.

Tim, I've read elsewhere that the JBS put out the line that Kennedy was killed by the communists because he was about to become an American. Did the JBS ever visit any Young Republican Groups you belonged to? The bookThe Radical Right makes it sound like there was a lecture tour.

Tim, what the heck are you doing? You have to know that this Forum is no different than any other Forum in that it reflects the bias of those who run it. Andy and John have made it more than clear they are leftists. In an effort to preserve freedom of expression, however, they have given you much rope. You can pretty much bet your marbles that a right-wing oriented website would not give their resident leftists so much rope. They would probably report the guy to Little Green Footballs and arrange for his computer to be assaulted by poisonous spyware and spam. It's an imperfect world. It's an imperfect Forum. Sometimes it seems like you wanna get kicked off so you can blame all those narrow-minded leftists who refuse to support freedom of expression. No such luck. Instead, it seems that your little feud with Nic has caused her to take a break or even leave the Forum. Shanet.... Nic... How many members will have to leave before you can feel comfortable with the fact that you have better control over your emotions than others? Is it all that important for you to know that you have a cooler head than many of those on the left? Isn't that the sin of pride? Is it more important to be a "gentleman" than to actually communicate? Is it the messenger not the message? If so, this might explain your attraction to Nixon in 72, when America voted against McGovern more than they did for Nixon, as McGovern's supporters were just too angry, too scary, too...right about the pointlessness of the Vietnam War.... It's okay to let others be wrong sometimes. IMHO I think you should quit pushing people's buttons. If they start to get rattled, back off and say well, I'm sorry to offend you. It seems to work for me.

I was intrigued by Gerry's statement that it was he who introduced Russo to "Angelo" and dug up Russo's book to see the results of this meeting. According to Russo, Angelo told him that he accompanied RFK on more than one occasion to the home of Norman Rothman, a mobster with ties to Lansky. According to Russo, Rothman himself told the HSCA he met with Kennedy aides within the White House and discussed killing Castro in Kennedy's office. And yet Rothman seems to have left out that he'd met with Kennedy himself in Florida! Hmmm... Why would he leave this out? Wouldn't it bolster his credibility if he could show he'd actually met with RFK, at a time when RFK was actually in Florida? I'm sorry but I think Russo is wrong to cite Angelo's story as support for Rothman's story. The two stories are, if anything, in conflict. I believe Angelo's story even less now. I suspect he threw in the Rothman bit to give the Kennedy-hating Russo his money's worth.

I am a used book store addict. Over the last few years, in book store after book store, I have seen dozens of copies of of a special pressing of Leo Damore's Senatorial Privilege. In this pressing, the book is only about 80 pages long. I have seen similar special pressings of books by former Treasury Secretary William Simon, and of the speeches of Ronald Reagan. It seems clear the Republican Party was behind the circulation of these special pressings. Does anyone know if Damore was witting to this act, and if he'd received funds from any right wing "think tank" to write his book in the first place?

I guess I haven't followed this is as closely as I should. (Too busy reading Dershowitz's thrashing of Rehnquist, I guess.) Have they announced that Roberts will be chief once confirmed? If so, then I think they oughta make available every bit of his work for previous administrations. To do anything less would be to engage in deliberate deception.

Dr. Fetzer, I'm sorry if my post upset you. If you read my words closely I think you'll see that I am withholding judgement on the Wellstone case, at least until I read your book. You clearly put a lot of time into it and I heartily agree that someone should read someone's book before criticizing it, which is more than many have been willing to do for Bugliosi, by the way. I was merely applauding Len on his hard work. I applaud you on your hard work as well. I was also probing Len to see if he's uncovered anything on his own that smells of foul play. He insists the answer is no. Since I haven't read your book, I am at this time non-committal on Wellstone's death. I'd be more likely to trust Len's research if he was willing to admit there were some signs that didn't add up. As strange as it may sound, the fact that according to him everything points to pilot error makes me suspect that in his own zeal to prove you wrong he's missed something. To me, the truth is rarely neat and tidy. You seem to have a bit of a temper, Dr. Jim. In some ways I envy you that. But you mustn't let a rush to judgment blind you. You completely misinterpreted my statements about the magic bullet. In your book, Murder in Dealey Plaza, which I purchased after we exchanged some relative pleasantries on another thread, there was quite a bit of material by Dr. Mantik. Consequently, I know you stand behind his work and his words. Dr. David Mantik has written "If the evidence in the JFK case is merely accepted at face value, then the conclusions are rather trivial. The rookie Scotland Yard detector can easily solve this case--it was Oswald alone. The real challenge is to assess the credibility of the evidence.” This to me means he believes the magic bullet and the cowlick shot and all the other garbage of the medical evidence all add up, which I know is not true. My offer to debate the Davids was predicated on them defending the premise that their "proofs" of alteration are necessary to prove conspiracy and not just a distraction. I made this debate offer half-jokingly, fully believing that Dr. Mantik's words were merely hyperbole intended to convince readers that proving alteration is the key to proving a conspiracy. I don't expect anyone to take me up on it. If however, he is willing to stand by his words and defend the SBT, and the existence of phantom skull entrances, as I said, I'm game. I firmly believe that science, not necessarily assassination science, will eventually rule the day, but not by proving alteration. Instead, I expect that scientists and doctors will gradually break ranks and admit that the analysis of the Forensic Pathology Panel, the Trajectory Analyst Thomas Canning, and the Neutron Activation Analyst Vincent Guinn, among others, was unscientific and heavily flawed. I expect the Neutron Activation Analyis, which concluded that the wrist fragments were highly probable to have come from the magic bullet, CE399, will be debunked within the year by a group of established and respected scientists, experts in their field. So let's make nice. I'll read your book if you please stop calling me an idiot.

Well, Len, it certainly seems you've done your homework. You make an excellent case that pilot error is a strong possibility, perhaps even a probability. Thanks for sharing your research. Have you looked into other areas as well? Have you looked into how someone could make an accident look like pilot error? While this may sound paranoid, it is a matter of public record that the CIA in the 50's and 60's did a lot of testing and research in a successful effort to make poisons that could kill a man while leaving the appearance of a heart-attack.With that in mind, it's unthinkable to me that they didn't also develop techniques to make plane crashes look like pilot error, etc. While I have no reason to believe the CIA or the Bush Administration itself had anything to do with the Wellstone crash, the possibility exists in my mind that some right-wing fringe group, aware of Wellstone's reputation as the most liberal Senator in America, brought about his downfall. I'd feel the same way if Tom DeLay suddenly went down. While you argue that the technology described by Fetzer as having caused the plane crash is not really operational, I was wondering if you were aware of any other techniques whereby a plane crash could be made to look like an accident. Do such techniques exist? Have you uncovered anything that makes you suspect foul play? I guess I'm probing to see how open-minded you are. The zeal with which you are attempting to shut down Fetzer's arguments reminds me a bit of the Warren Commission apologists of the sixties who WERE RIGHT 80% of the time, but ultimately wrong. There were dozens of writers and newscasters who strongly rejected the claim of the "research community" that the wound on the back of the neck mentioned in the Warren Report, was really on Kennedy's back. That is, well, until the HSCA released a drawing in 1978 that showed that OOPS the "research community" was right and it really was on the back. The zeal with which you are pushing pilot error could, to my mind, be a similar mistake.

That's the best Freudian slip I've made in a long time. Classic.