Pat Speer

Possibly not. After reading all the WC medical testimony, all the HSCA medical testimony, all the ARRB testimony, all the interviews with the autopsy pathologists I could find, all the interviews with HSCA forensic pathology panel members I could find, every article on the assassination in a medical journal I could find, the accounts of the HSCA investigation by doctors Michael Baden, and Cyril Wecht, etc., the only thing that's absolutely certain is that people see what they want to see, and that in order for doctors to see what they want to see, they sometimes make stuff up. When the body gets exhumed, the pathologists may very well conclude there was no entrance hole in the cowlick. But I wouldn't bet on it. In 1968, they realized that a bullet entering near the EOP would not exit by the temple, so they moved the wound. In 1978, they realized that the bullet reallly did hit Kennedy in the back, at a point even with or below the wound in his throat, so they decided he was leaning forward. While the medical evidence will undoubtedly prove someday that there was a conspiracy, it won't be a government-sponsored team that will decide it. Only a Kennedy family-sponsored exhumation and re-examination can resolve this thing, and WITHOUT government assistance. As to the state of forensic pathology in 1963, it was quite established. The problem is that the chief autopsist, James Humes, was not a forensic pathologist. Colonel Finck was, but he was not in charge. He had to suck it up while Humes, in order to rush through the thing, failed to talk to the Dallas doctors, failed to look at the clothes, failed to inspect the neck, and failed to surgically trace the bullet track of the wound in the back. This led to his mistaken belief that the back wound connected to the throat wound. He also failed to shave Kennedy's skull, failed to take adequate pictures of the bullet entrance in the back of the head, failed to have proper x-rays taken of the back of Kennedy's head, and failed to section the brain in the subsequent brain examination. These mistakes contributed to the fallacious belief that a bullet entered near the cowlick. As Cyril Wecht has complained, the President of the United States received an autopsy less thorough than that of the average John Doe brought into a city morgue. It is a national disgrace. That said, I honestly don't believe it was by design. The people who brought Kennedy to Bethesda, particularly Jackie Kennedy, would have had every reason to believe his autopsy would be sufficient. Much of the guilt I believe falls on Humes himself, whose military mindset and tremendous ego made him incapable of telling his superiors that he was unqualified, and whose subservience to superiors made him vulnerable to the pressures to perform an incomplete autopsy, and simply find the bullets. There was a concern by the Kennedy family that Kennedy's Addison's disease would be exposed by his autopsy, and thus his lies to the public. There was also a concern about the first lady, who was determined not to leave the hospital without JFK. Unfortunately, these concerns. as communicated by Kennedy's physician, Dr. Burkley, to Humes, contributed to Humes' mistakes. I don't believe an exhumation is necessary. I believe the existing medical evidence proves conclusively that Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy. Not because it is faked. But because it is real. I'm beginning a fight to get the medical community to concur. But it is an uphill fight. The WC's refusal to let the autopsy doctors look at the photos and x-rays they took is another matter. If there was any conspiracy regarding the medical evidence, circa 1964, this would undoubtedly be it. Since the responsibility for this decision falls entirely on Justice Warren, a champion of the left, however, believers in a conspiracy almost always ignore this sad fact, preferring to dump their suspicions in the laps of the military men and the always abrasive Arlen Specter--who in fact fought valiantly for the doctors to be able to double-check their work, but was shot down. If one looks at Warren's decision, unprecedented in American history I believe, to deny a doctor a review of the photos and x-rays HE took prior to his testimony, essentially depriving him of his notes, then one can only conclude that the great Warren was either a BLITHERING IDIOT, or under great pressure from someone with something to hide. Well, who could this person be? Well, who was it that insisted that Warren be on the commission, despite his ardent protestations? LBJ. Since LBJ bragged about twisting Warren's arm to be on the commission by telling him that 40 million American lives hung in the balance, it's reasonable to assume he told a similar lie to get Warren to deep-six the autopsy photos. Or perhaps this inital lie haunted Warren, and he was afraid LBJ would blame the commies and start a war if the evidence indicated conspiracy. We'll never know. To me this "Warren decision" is one of the biggest enigmas of the century, and is Warren's real legacy, even more so than his decision in Brown V. Board of Education. It's unfortunate.

Thanks, Robert. These are great. It's interesting to see how much is still redacted in the Elder document, even after the Church Committee. I'm wondering if this is because the redacted items were not interpreted to have any possible connection to the assassination, and were therefore excluded from the JFK records act. After all, if I'm not mistaken, the HSCA records released by the ARRB redact all detailed references to the MLK investigation. If that isn't the case, of course, then one can only conclude there's a whole lot of secrets the taxpayers are unworthy of knowing. At least in the eyes of Big Brother.

Tim, you know where this leads. While Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich was probably the wrong thing to do, and may have been done in order to get a fat contribution for the Dems, his misuse of pardons PALES in comparison to that of Nixon and Bush I. Nixon commuted Jimmy Hoffa's sentence, in exchange for the support of the Teamsters, knowing full well this meant that Hoffa would be locked out of the Teamsters for a given time and the mob would hold onto absolute control as a result. Read Hoffa's memoirs and see what he says about the commutation. It should also be pointed out that Bush I pardoned men whose upcoming trials would involve him as a material witness. These trials would have revealed that Bush had lied to the American public about his knowledge and involvement in the Iran-Contra affair. ln this way, Bush was even worse than Nixon, who had the opportunity to pardon Haldeman and the boys, but refused. As for Ford, you're correct that Caroline mentioned him in her update of her father's Profiles in Courage. A close look at the history of his appointment and Nixon's pardon reveals that Ford was made VP precisely because he was middle-roader and would have the credibility to pardon Nixon, and that Haig repeatedly had conversations with Ford about the pardon before Nixon agreed to resign. According to Ford there was no quid pro quo, but this was plausible deniability. When Nixon appointed Ford veep he knew Ford might pardon him if worse came to worse, and when he left office he had every reason to believe this would come to pass. To his credit, Ford has always insisted that Nixon's acceptance of the pardon was an acknowledgement of guilt--that he had committed crimes. Some Nixon apologists insist there was no such acknowledgement, but Ford disagrees. History will probably show Ford to be an honorable man, but it's far from black and white.

I'd ask Robert Maheu how much Hughes paid him to have Kennedy killed, just to see his response. I'd ask Howard Hunt what the Chief of Covert Operations for the Domestic Operations Division really did. I'd ask Gerald Ford what reason was given by Earl Warren for forbidding the doctors and Specter from even looking at the x-rays. I'd ask Specter why he failed to tell the WC that the autopsy photo he saw contradicted the Rydberg drawings he submitted to depict the President's wounds. I'd ask Dr. Finck and Dr. Boswell, (who I believe are still living) what was discussed between January 20th and January 26th 1967 to get them to sign the so-called "military review" which includes several outright lies. I'd ask the same men what Carl Eardley told them while briefing them on the Clay Shaw trial. I'd ask Ethel Kennedy what her husband really thought of the Warren Commission, and what Bobby did with his brother's brain. I'd ask Ted Kennedy what he really believes happened. But, if I had to narrow it down to one: I'd ask Caroline Kennedy to have her father's body exhumed and inspected by a team of doctors picked by the family, with no connection to the government.

It's also intriguing that William F. Buckley, Hunt's protege in the CIA, went on to write spy novels, whilst simultaneously producing the right-wing bible-the National Review. It makes one wonder if Buckley's whole world view, the blueprint of sixties through eighties conservatism, was a deliberate creation designed to excite and titilate the easily fooled.

John, I think you're way off to suggest that Bellino was CIA. He was a Kennedy family loyalist, through and through. The CIA excuse to Maheu makes perfect sense. McCarthy was shaking everyone up, and Bobby was, at least for awhile, in bed with him. What I think is hard to grasp is the nature of the private spooks, the cut-outs. They were not CIA employees. They would just as soon work for a Latin-American dictator, Howard Hughes, or the mob, as for the CIA. And they would often play both sides. That is what is so interesting to me about Maheu. And Howard Hunt, later on. While working for Hughes, they used their government connections to do his dirty work, and made it look like it was in the national interest. These men were all up for grabs. We will never know where their real loyalties lay. Consider that Frank was working for Maheu during the Galindez disappearance, which may or may not been at the request of the CIA. Consider that Shimon was with Maheu during his supposedly top secret meetings with Giancana. While you can make the connection then that Maheu and the CIA were conspiring with Kennedyand Bellino to overthrow Nixon in 72, where does that leave these men? By talking about Bellino's wire-tapping they are clearly co-operating with Nixon, and are therefore against Maheu and the CIA. Why would they do this? I believe it all came down to who was buttering their bread that week.

I know I've written about this in the past, but what's interesting about Pivall is that he was a paramilitary man who discovered that an undercover operative had left important papers behind in his (Honduran?) apartment. This undercover operative was subsequently reprimanded. The only key man in the Guatemalan operation removed after the operation was underway, and who was subsequently denied attendance at the party thrown by Eisenhower and Nixon... E. Howard Hunt. Morales earned his stripes by ratting out Hunt.

Charles, we are thinking alike in many ways. I've spent much of the last year developing a presentation that will use the medical evidence as a base to show beyond a reasonable doubt that more than one shooter was involved. Without claiming alteration. Without claiming falsification of the evidence. The evidence compiled by the government itself does indeed point conclusively to conspiracy. The problem is that the medical establishment has been too cowardly to admit it. It's time to seek out some brave souls, and overturn the myths of Baden and the FPP.

Robin, I'm tech-challenged at times, and this is one of those times. Rather than my trying to figure out how to post images on this forum, let me just go around the horn and explain what I see in F8. You can add my comments in if you like. As you know, there are predominantly two schools of thought on this photo. One school of thought, by most conspiracists and by Humes and Boswell in 1966, is that this photo is as you present it, with the bottom of the head and neck at 6 o'clock. The other school of thought, the school of thought of the lone-nutters and of the government starting in 1967 until the present day, is that the head connects to the body out of shot at the 9 o'clock position. I call this the "sideways" view, much as you Aussies have your "upside-down" view. Using the photo as you present it, let's go around the clock face and compare the two schools of thought. At roughly the 1 o'clock position there is what I call a scalp triangle. This matches perfectly a triangle of scalp just under the v-shaped tear in the scalp of Kennedy apparent in the photos showing his face. I conclude from this that this is the underside of Kennedy's right face. What is important to realize is that the wound was only measured and this photo was only taken AFTER the scalp was reflected and the brain was removed. Boswell himself has forgotten this. Humes repeatedly testified that they did not shave Kennedy's head, and that as they reflected the scalp BACK (his word) large chunks of skull fell to the table. These statements and this scalp are completely incompatible with the sideways view, as, in this view, the scalp at the back of the head, which was reportedly intact, was not reflected at all, but is, instead, lacerated and left dangling. At the 3 o'clock position, roughly one third of the way across the photo, past the ruler, there are several small holes in what appears to be the bottom of the skull. A quick look in an anatomy book will show that in the bottom of the skull in this exact region are a number of foramen, openings. I believe that one can make out the jugular foramen and internal auditory meatus, at the least. Some vein-like material remains by the jugular foramen. When looked at in the sideways view, these openings would seem to be on the side of the left cerebrum or on the far side of the skull. The brain, however, had already been removed, and there are no such openings in the upper rear cranium. At the 5 o'clock position, there is what appears to be neck. Several lone-nutters have claimed this is a towel, but I don't believe them. I've found that the lines on this neck can be matched to the lines on Kennedy's neck visible in the so-called "red spot" photo, the color photo of the back of his head with his scalp intact. When one matches these lines, the skulls match perfectly. When one looks at this from the sideways view,you have to not look at this, or pretend it's a towel, as neck lines can not possibly emerge from a forehead, can they? At the 6 o'clock position, one can see a small entrance hole, which to me is obviously the long-lost entrance by the EOP. I will scream until I'm blue in the face, or type until my fingers fall off, to make sure this bullet entrance gets acknowledged. When the photo is lightened one can see that this entrance is transversal, running right to left, and that it tunneled through the flesh before entering the skull. This is exactly as the doctors have said. But they have contradicted themselves as well. Humes and Boswell have said repeatedly that the entrance was longer than wide, but this doesn't match their original measurements and drawings nor does it match the words of Finck, the wound ballistics expert on the scene. In the sideways view, of course, this entrance is on the forehead, and must be ignored. Slightly above this entrance is a v-shaped opening in the bone. I believe this corresponds to the v-shape of the two removed skull fragments apparent on Boswell's drawing of the skull from the autopsy, which he places slightly above the entrance in the occipital bone. In the sideways view this is forehead. At the 7 o'clock position, is what appears to be a specimen jar with its lid open. The one thing this seems to show is that this photo was taken with the body lying on its left side. From 7 o'clock to noon, all along the left side, there is what is clearly reflected scalp. While in the sideways view this is reflected over the face, I don't believe this to be true. The angle of bone in the 5 o'clock position would indicate a forehead of Frankenstein proportions. I believe that this scalp is instead reflected to the left over the midline of the skull. The doctors were concerned about having an open casket, and it only makes sense that they would try not to disrupt the left side of his face, which was undamaged. In the sideways view, however, it would seem they tore the whole top of his head off. Since in the sideways view the ear is under scalp at approximately 11 o'clock, this would mean that, unless they removed the left side of his skull as well, the brain was removed from an opening stretching from the top of his ear to the midline of his skull. Not enough room. While many seem to have a problem with scalp being reflected in any direction except over the face, the various medical technicians contacted by Livingstone over the years have had little problem concluding the scalp is reflected to the left. Slightly above the center of the picture is the root of the problem, and the cause of all the confusion. This outwardly beveled piece of bone represents an exit. For conspiracists, who want to believe there was an exit low in the occipital bone, this is a problem, as it shows a small exit far higher than they presume. For those who view this sideways, however, they rejoice that this PROVES the bullet came from rear and exited from the front. No one seems to notice that they can't agree where this front is. While Dr. Baden and the FPP placed this exit along the coronal suture, just lateral of the right eye socket, Dr. Angel, Larry Sturdivan and many others place this exit just above Kennedy's right eye, where NO ONE saw an exit. The forensic anatomy panel of the HSCA even said that the crack visible at the 10 o'clock position underlay the v-shaped tear of scalp visible in the photos taken from the front. This is nonsense. When I matched the necklines of this photo with the "red spot" photo, I found that this exit matches the size and shape of the red spot. When I adjusted the A/P x-rays to match the back of the head I found also that the bullet "slice" was precisely this size and shape and in this location. From this I've concluded that a bullet entering the top of Kennedy's head from behind exploded, and that a sliice of this bullet impacted on the inside of his parietal bonel, creating beveling, but not tearing through his scalp. As this came from a second bullet to strike Kennedy in the head, I believe it is indicative of a conspiracy. I hope this helps.

Man, I can't believe I wrote this. Here I am trying to walk down the center of the road and this obnoxious blast from my recent past comes back to haunt me. To clarify, I'm not SURE people will find my seminar more rational than Dr. Mantik's, I merely believe. Dr. Mantik has put a lot of time in on the case and has my profound respect. I apologize for mouthing off. I suggest people read everything they can by Dr. Mantik and Dr. Gary Aguilar, and then read my stuff and make up their own minds. I'm still working on a massive expansion of my presentation. Hopefully it will open some eyes.

If only we could get Bremer and Sirhan Sirhan on Jerry Springer...

I'm confused by this paragraph. Does Freed say that Gordon saw Ulasewicz, or is that what you're assuming?

As to the article about Kennedy being a good candidate for assassination, Arthut Krock of the New York Times wrote an article in October 63 stating that if Kennedy was overthrown in a coup, it would be by the CIA. As to the theory that U.S. assassins are all lone-nuts, this was popularized by a mid-50's book entitled the Assassins, by Robert J. Donovan. John F. Kennedy liked the book well enough--Robert J. Donovan went on to write about Kennedy's war exploits in PT 109, which was made into a film starring Cliff Robertson. Allen Dulles liked the book well enough--he brought a number of copies into an early meeting of the Warren Commission and told everyone-counsel and commisioner alike--that he suspected they'd find much the same thing had happened in this instance. (Talk about poisoning the well!) Donovan himself rushed out an update (at Hoover's suggestion?) including a chapter on the Kennedy assassination. This hit the streets in January, 1964, and painted Oswald as a lone nut. Problemito: it used the FBI's report on Kennedy's wounds and by doing so said that the bullet striking Kennedy in the back, fell out. There's no mention of a wound in the back of the neck, as there was no mention of an exit in the throat, and no need to sell the SBT. Oops!

Chris, seeing as the good Quaker Dick was responsible for millions of deaths in South East Asia, your "perhaps" is a definite "yes.'

I've read Ms. Burleigh's book, but I don't have it with me at the moment. I'm trying to remember if she theorizes on the whereabouts of Mary Meyer's diary. Supposedly, Angleton destroyed it, but if he was gonna destroy it, why didn't he destroy it right away? And why wouldn't Ben Bradlee have destroyed it himself? I'm curious as to Ms. Burleigh's thoughts on what really happened to the diary, and what its political usage was, if any. Thanks.

Chotiner was also heavily connected to the mob, as I remember. And strangely enough, he also had ties with Earl Warren.

Come on, Tim. You know why Bush was elected. Rightly or wrongly, Bush and Rove painted John Kerry, a church-going Catholic, as un-Christian and against family values (code for him not sufficiently fearing homosexuals and his respecting the rights of full-grown women to decide what is best for their own bodies). Kerry won by a HUGE margin in all states and cities where a terrorist strike was likely. This election was all about moral choices and posturing--Bush acts like a cowboy and cowboys are GOOD, Kerry acts like a statesman and statesman are BAD. Of people who voted in 2000, Kerry won decisively. Of people with a college education, Kerry won decisively. The problem was that millions of new voters emerged from the Bible Belt who were conned into thinking Jesus wanted them to vote for Bush. These people were spoon-fed lies and propaganda by Right Wing "think"tanks and organizations. Using Church e-mail lists, these organizations sent out millions of e-mails telling phony stories about Kerry's war record (some actually called him a commie sympathizer) and using Church address lists they sent out millions of report cards reflecting the various candidates grades on such courses as "sanctimony of the family" (gay marriage) and "teaching homosexuality to school children" (allowing gay teachers to hold onto their jobs). It was probably the lowest election in recent history, with the shadiest and most revolting tactics ever used by a sitting president (well, except for your boy Nixon in 72).

Two more tidbits on Rebozo. Antoinete Giancana, Sam's daughter, in her book Mafia Princess, recounts that she had a brief fling with Rebozo. She claims she never told him her real name. According to Robert Maheu, when the 100k taken from the Silver Slipper Casino and given to Rebozo as an illegal contribution from Howard Hughes to Richard Nixon was returned, after having supposedly sat in Rebozo's s safe awaiting the next election, it was returned in different wrappers and was over by one hundred dollars. The clear implication is that the original money was spent and that Rebozo lied about its status to protect Nixon. Something similar happened in the Connally milk fund kickback, where money was placed into a safe deposit box so that they could claim it was never touched, but where they screwed up and used bills with George Schultz as Treasurer, who only became Treasurer after the money was supposedly put into the box.

I never liked Jennings and believed his reporting was often biased. His JFK Special was an abomination, far worse than the CBS supposed white-washes of the 60's. I remember watching his coverage of election night 2000, when I first realized the fix was in. He interviewed Dubya about losing Florida, to which Dubya responded that he was quite sure he was gonna win in Florida, and pretty much winked at the camera. Anyhow, that entire evening, whenever he mentioned the New York Senate race, or whenever it showed Senator-elect Hillary Clinton, Jennings would be sure to point out, "and that was of course, the highly controversial Hillary Clinton, the much-reviled Hillary Clinton, the highly divisive Hillary Clinton" and his face would reflect absolute disgust. That said, cancer is always ugly and sad. I can't help but wish he'd lived long enough to admit he was wrong about the JFK assassination, however.

I've acknowledged my bias in the Tippit case. While people like Myers and Belin have called the Tippit shooting the Rosetta Stone of the case or some such nonsense, insisting that if Oswald killed Tippit then he must have killed Kennedy, I have found quite the opposite. To me, it makes sense that Oswald would kill Tippit, and there's evidence he did kill Tippit. When one accepts that Oswald killed Tippit, however, there are several arguments that Oswald did NOT kill Kennedy that become available. I'm not suggesting people who believe Oswald did not kill Tippit should change their minds because of these arguments, only that people undecided on the issue realize that they can decide Oswald did kill Tippit without weakening their belief that Oswald did not kill Kennedy. Reasons why Oswald killing Tippit makes it easier for me to believe Oswald did not kill Kennedy: 1. The paraffin test peformed on Oswald revealed that he quite possibly had fired a pistol, but that he had most likely not fired a rifle. If one says he did not shoot Tippit, then one calls into question the validity of the entire test, and therefore can not use the test to call into question Oswald's firing a rifle. 2. If Oswald was at the Tippit site then he was walking in the direction of Jack Ruby's apartment. If Oswald knew Ruby, of course, this indicates a larger conspiracy. As Oswald was not a great shot, and had apparently not been practicing, his being a sniper would therefore seem unlikely. If Oswald was not at the site, and not heading towards Ruby's, this argument must be ignored. 3. Both Robert Oswald and Marina Oswald felt that Lee was hiding something when they talked to him at the police station. Some of Lee's comments to Robert, which made Robert think Lee killed Kennedy, make sense when put into the context that Lee DID kill Tippit. If Lee did not kill Tippit, then Oswald's strangeness would seem to be related solely to the Kennedy assassination, and his brother's instincts become more likely. 4. Oswald fought with the police in the theater, saying "well, this is it" or something similar; this makes total sense if he'd just killed a cop and assumed they were gonna kill him. It makes less sense if he merely assumed they'd identified him as a suspect in the Kennedy assassination. If that was the case, he would certainly have been wondering how they knew where he was; his first instinct in fact would probably have been that they were looking for someone else. His pulling a revolver then would seem to be an over-reaction. That Oswald soon calmed down and played his games with the cops and the press indicated he was NOT suicidal. Many, including his brother, believed that Oswald enjoyed the cat-and-mouse interrogations and press conferences. If that is why he killed Kennedy (the "great man" theory espoused by the WC, Priscilla Johnson-Mcmillan, Posner, et al) then why would Oswald have jeopardized his moment in the spotlight by inviting his own death in the theater, with no audience to speak of? If Oswald did not kill Tippit, then his actions in the theater make no sense, since they are not indicative of a man who killed Kennedy to gain attention, nor of someone who was innocent. By alllowing the Tippit killing to explain Oswald's actions in the theater, therefore, one eradicates that his violent action was related to the likelihood he killed Kennedy, and makes his being innocent of that crime all the more likely. I'll try to think of some more...

----------------------------- First off, when read in plain English, my statement is that RFK ordered Conein to PROTECT the lives of Diem and Nhu, and if there was ANY risk to their safety, he [along with Polgar, Aderholt, Magruder, et al.] were to force an abort of the coup. GPH _________________________________ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thanks Gerry, for clearing that up. The proper understanding of your words is that Conein was ordered to protect their lives, and failed to do so, NOT that Conein was ordered to fail to protect their lives, as Dawn and I misunderstood you. This makes sense. Gerry, while some here may criticize you for your often brash style, I find your posts intriguing and interesting. I encourage you to write a book. I'd certainly buy it. I'm not saying I'd believe every word you said, but I don't believe every word I read in any book. I think your insights into a number of controversial characters, i.e. Hall, Sturgis, Lorenz, Rorke--not to mention yourself--would make any book by you a valuable resource for historians, who are trying to make sense of the anti-Castro movement's connection to the JFK assassination. Keep posting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I actually purchased Murder In Dealey Plaza last night. As you said, my readings on the medical evidence are incomplete without it. That Dr. Mantik has demonstrated the so-called magic bullet would have had to pass through Kennedy's cervical vertebrae was news to me; this was something I'd uncovered in my own research, usng cross-sections of human torsos and the HSCA trajectory analysis. It's gratifying to know that Dr. Mantik and I agree on this point. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just got the book, and began reading Dr. Fetzer's article The Smoking Guns. I realized while reading this that I'd read at least this article before, (probably in a Library). When it mentioned Dr. Mantik's CAT studies demonstrating that the magic bullet would have to have passed through Kennedy's spine, and that this information was in Assassination Science, one of the first books I read on the assassination, I realized that, in disagreement with my post above, I HAD known of Dr. Mantik's studies. It certainly seems likely then that knowledge of his studies was somewhere in the back of my mind when I decided to use anatomy cross-sections, available online, to study whether or not the bullet flight would hit Kennedy in the spine. Credit is due where credit is due.

Another inconsistency in the thinking of some of those here comes from their acceptance of some of what Hosty says, and complete disregard for the rest. On page 36, he says that on Saturday the 23rd Shanklin told him "one of our agents in New Orleans, DeBrueys, discovered that one of Oswald's aliases was A. J. Hidell. This alias was given to all FBI offices YESTERDAY. Someone found out that rifles like the one found in the depository are advertised in certain magazines and can be mail ordered from Chicago. BY USING BOTH OSWALD'S TRUE NAME AND HIS ALIAS, the Chicago agents made a hit and traced the ownership to Oswald." So here Hosty tells us of what Shanklin said, every bit as credible as what Hosty said Barrett said, and it contradicts some of what has been theorized-- that the Hidell card was used to show that Oswald was Hidell. Consequently, it gets overlooked. While it is possible the conspirators created a fake Hidell ID and left this at the Tippit site with the intention of setting up Oswald, and linking him to the rifle, this was by no means logical or necessary, as it seems clear the FBI, MI, etc already knew Oswald was Hidell and were re-acting accordingly.

In an affidavitt filed with the Warren Commission, Mrs. Roberts said "Oswald went out the front door. A moment later I looked out the window. I saw Lee Oswald standing on the curb at the bus stop just to the right, and on the same side of the street as our house. I just glanced out the window that once. I don't know how long Lee Oswald stood at the curb nor did I see which direction he went when he left there..." TO THE RIGHT OF 1026 BECKLEY IS NORTH, AS I HAVE SAID. IN ADDITION, THE BUS STOP IS AT LEAST 100 FEET NORTH, AT ZANG. IF HE DID NOT GO SOUTH ON BECKLEY OR CROSS THE STREET TO ZANG, HE HAD TO CIRCLE THE BLOCK TO CRAWFORD...ADDING TO THE DISTANCE. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack, you'veadded the "if he did not go south on Beckley" into your statements. Earlier you insisted he must have went North. The route tested was of Oswald heading south. You are almost certainly correct in your assertion that if Oswald went around the long block to the North he couldn't have arrived at the Tippit site in time. But we have no reason to believe he did that. Roberts said she just saw him the one time. There is no reason to doubt he went south.

Thank you. Thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who wouldn't swallow this theory. I'd also like to note a few inconsistencies in the reasoning of others on this thread. God knows they've been pointing out my inconsistencies. According to Robert and Greg, we are to believe that because none of the officers mentioned the Hidell ID in their original reports we should believe that they never saw the ID in Oswald's wallet, no matter what they testified to later, or told Larry Sneed. And YET, Robert Barrett never mentioned the discovery of Oswald's wallet in any of his reports either, and we are supposed to believe that he did indeed see Oswald's wallet. Why is it that when one group of men exclude something from their report, it's proof something did not happen, but when someone else excludes it from his report, well, never mind????? That Barrett may have said something about it later has no bearing on this. After all, when the DPD officers said something about it later, Robert and Greg chose to disbelieve THEM. If their words have no credibility even 30 years later, then neither do Barrett's. Similarly, a number of witnesses to emerge much much later without any yardstick to measure their credibility have been given instant credibility, but a number of men like Westbrook and Bentley, who have been fairly consistent from day one, are to be automatically doubted. Simply because their initial reports did not say what Robert thought they should say. This reflects his bias. IMO