Pat Speer

John, from what I've read, whether or not a sub-sonic cartridge was used, the use of a silencer is likely. The HSCA performed a test using expert listeners, at the same time they tested the echo patterns in Dealey for the Dicta-belt analysis. And these listeners found that the location of a rifle shot in Dealey was easy to distinguish, even with motorcycle engines running. They were at a loss to understand how the vast majority of witnesses didn't immediately turn in the direction of the shooter and point him out to the police. Their report even suggests that perhaps the sniper fired from inside the TSBD, something which doesn't jive with the eyewitness reports of Oswald's rifle sticking outside the window, and doesn't jive with the position of the boxes in the sniper's nest. Anyhow, with the use of a silencer and a reduced muzzle blast, the sound of a rifle would be greatly decreased. People near the bullet's path would still hear the sonic crack of the bullet flying by but it would be difficult for these witnesses to get a clear take on the direction of fire, with a small percentage of them actually pointing in the exact opposite direction. The HSCA report tried to use this in conjunction with the theory that the rifle was fired from within the builidng, as an explanation as to why so many pointed towards the grassy knoll, conveniently forgetting that the MAJORITY of witnesses beneath the sniper's nest pointed in that direction. I believe there was a silenced rifle possibly using subsonic ammunition firing from the Dal-Tex Building, which was disguised by a non-silenced rifle firing from the TSBD and some sort of noise, perhaps an m-80 or cherry bomb, from behind the arcade. I also suspect the first shot from the TSBD was of a subsonic nature, which would explain why so many thought it was a firecracker. That this cartridge was hand-loaded and subsonic could also explain the shallow wound in Kennedy's back, and the indented lip on one of the cartridges.

For the record, Justin, I do not believe in a wide-spread conspiracy to kill Kennedy. I do believe that after the Warren Report was released there developed a vast conspiracy to shut up and shut down the critics, as they were making Americans think uncomfortable thoughts. I believe the mainstream media willingly participated in this. Look at the NBC White Paper or the CBS specials in the sixties. I also believe that both the FBI and CIA determined that the conspiracy community was anti-American and was quite possibly a communist plot, and that they used and perhaps still use their resources to discredit and attack the conspiracy community. I also believe that the agents who participate in this do so out of misguided patriotism, and not because they are trying to protect Kennedy's murderers. That is why Posner, McAdams and Jennings are so powerful--not because they're paid to lie--but because they have a built-in audience for their distortions of the truth. I'll go even further--while I don't believe Posner or McAdams are on the CIA payroll I wouldn't be surprised if it was suggested by someone in the government that they go out and push the lone-nut idea after Stone's JFK turned a few heads. I can almost see the full-court press when Bugliosi's book is released. I've already got my spot reserved at the neighborhood puke-atorium.

Stephen, I'm glad you spoke up. If we were to disregard every photo somebody has doubts about, we'd have nothing to look at. This isn't really my area, but since you seem to be the expert on this photo and the CAP, I thought I'd ask you about something that arouses my curiousity. Was Barry Seal in the CAP at the time of the photo? Is he in the picture? Or were his links to Ferrie and Oswald just some writer's fantasy?

My understanding of Russo is that he was a committed conspiracist until the mid nineties when he met Seymour Hersh and learned to hate the Kennedys. The program was before then.

Come on guys, while Posner and McAdams et al annoy the heck out of me, I have no doubt their interest in Joannides is legitimate. After all, if Joannides' files reveal a few dirty secrets, they want to be able to say they were on the side of disclosure and openness, else they'll be discredited to the mainstream media they so covet. Let's not forget that Warren Commission attorneys like Belin and Specter became advocates for a second investigation after the CIA assassination plots and the Hosty note were uncovered in the 70's. Maybe Jeff Morley will chime in and let us know the current status of his ongoing investigation???

Marcel, who else is in the deck?

I first became aware of the photo from watching the PBS program "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?" Since Gus Russo was the main investigator for that program, I figured he'd received the photo from one of Oswald's old mates in the CAP. Now I'll have to watch the program again to make sure.

I don't doubt that he told you what you say he told you. This just isn't what he's been saying all along. It kinda reminds me of an experience I had last year when I met Robert Groden. He agreed there was an entrance where Humes said there was an entrance. He swore he'd always said so. I got back to my room and checked his book. He'd never said so.

This photo is one of the most important finds in the last twenty years, as it is the only known photo of Oswald together with Ferrie. Furthermore, it is accepted by the mainstream media as being legitimate. Unless, Jack is saying that a fellow conspiracist faked the photo, I can think of no reason anyone would fake it. It simply makes no sense.

Pat...you should check the evidence before making such definite statements. Jack I have done just that, Jack, and Newman said it was the THIRD shot, at least five seconds later, that he interpreted to have come from behind him. He said he thought the first two shots were close together and that he thought they were firecrackers. Perhaps you can put up a photo of Newman's position at the third shot, with an arrow. Newman, as Zapruder, seems to have honestly believed the head shot came from behind him, but NOT from the stockade fence. We should all be aware there is an ongoing controversy over just what the "knoll" is. While it was initially interpreted as being the grassy area between Zapruder and Newman, in front of the arcade, it is now used interchangeably with the parking lot beyond the stockade fence, due west of Zapruder. I believe many of those who originally said knoll never meant for their words to mean the parking lot.

Last November in Dallas I spoke at length with Bill Newman. I specifically asked him where the shots originated. His answer: "I was directly in the line of fire. The shots came FROM BEHIND ME, from behind the wooden fence." The first time I ever spoke to him in the late 80s HE SAID EXACTLY THE SAME THING. I do not know where you heard him say anything different. Jack <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Jack is correct - That is exactly what Newman has said. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, this is what he told Larry Sneed in No More Silence: "at that time I thought the shot came from directly behind us in the grassy knoll area. The ONLY basis I had for that was what I visually saw: the President going across the car and seeing the side of his head come off. The sound played little factor....A lot of people did run up the grassy knoll in that area afterwards...I don't know why they were running up that way. Maybe the Secret Service men or whoever initiated it, but I just think it was more or less a crowd reaction. I doubt if the people saw or heard anything up there." Need I point out that the area directly behind the Newmans was quite a bit east of the stockade fence... I believe I read almost identical comments from Newman in that book by the Dallas PD officer in which he sought to debunk the dictabelt--I forget its name right now. It seems Mr. Newman has fallen into the habit of telling people what he thinks they want to hear.

Lee, while you seem to believe that the films have all been faked, I'm having trouble going that far. Who knows, maybe in another year? A year ago I wouldn't have believed a lot of the stuff I now know to be facts, e.g. that the government turned an autopsy photo sideways in order to prove that Oswald was the only shooter. And Jack, I specifically remember reading interviews with Sitzman and Bill Newman where they make it quite clear the sounds they heard did not come from behind the fence. I believe Mary Woodward has said the same. Hudson's testimony is confusing and can be read a number of ways. While the sound's coming from behind the fence would make my "diversion man" theory worka lot better, and this would also help the badge man theory, the sounds seem to have come from elsewhere, further back. The HSCA analysis of how shots are heard in Dealey concluded that a shot fired from the fence would have been incredibly obvious to anyone nearby. (Even so, the HSCA concluded a shot was fired from there.) I tend to trust this report because it says a lot of other things that are VERY damaging to the lone-nut theory. It says the shots from the sniper's nest should have been readily identifiable as well, which leads me to suspect loud sounds DID come from somewhere else.

Look at Nixon's memoirs, LBJ's memoirs, RFK's oral history interviews... There were a lot of books and interviews written and conducted which leave the assassination out. Look how many books on Kennedy's life completely ignore the relevant issues raised by his death, beyond that he was killed by some wacky guy who may have been a commie. I don't think you can draw anything out of LeMay and Rabin leaving the assassination out of their memoirs. Perhaps they doubted the WC and felt no compunction to say so, hoping to avoid jumping into the middle of a firestorm. Look at O'Neil's, Caliifano's and Haig's memoirs--all that we can remember about them is what they said about JFK's death. As for LeMay, it seems pretty clear he disrespected Kennedy; he may have thought that sharing his thoughts on the assassination would be in bad taste. In Hillary Clinton's memoirs she writes about the effect Kennedy's assassination had on her and her family--yet she doesn't say who she believes pulled the trigger! You could make yourself mad trying to decipher what was not said.

John, I don't think this has anything to do with Mockingbird. Mockingird, by my understanding, was the CIA's use of the media to push their own foreign policy. The Plame incident is an example of a right-wing administration crapping all over the CIA in order to push their own right-wing agenda. Having Plame outed as a CIA agent HARMED the CIA, and no CIA director, no matter how loyal to the administration, would stomach it. I honestly don't think Bush even wanted her to be outed, as it made his administration look petty and undoubtedly upset his daddy. The Plame incident was more like a Nixon/Colson operation than a CIA operation. It reeks of Rove/Libby/Perle and not Tenet. By the way, Richard Perle has been feeding dirt to Novak for over twenty years. He was the biggest believer in Chalabi. He resigned from the administration the same week a special prosecutor was announced. He has since made derogatory comments about Condi Rice. I predict he's going down.

None of the people closest to the fence heard a loud noise from that area. Those on the knoll...Zapruder etc. heard a loud noise come from behind them, not to their right. Behind them seems to indicate an area back of the arcade and west of the school book depostory. Since what I've read about sniping indicates that the preferred shot is not the closest shot, but the shot where the shooter has the most time to aim without turning his body, it makes sense to me that a sniper would want to be at elevation from behind. I suspect the roof of the Dal-Tex was the ideal spot, although an upper floor may have been preferable if available. Since the strategic need for a shooter on the ground was negligible, and since there was undoubtedly a loud noise from somewhere west of the TSBD, I suspect this noise was created as a diversion. After all, if the REAL shooter in the TSBD was caught, the framing of Oswald would have been all for nil. Similarly, if the man who created this diversion was caught with a rifle or even a firecracker, he would be an immediate suspect. For this reason I suspect the man who caused the diversion made sure he was seen in the open at the time of the actual shooting. While I haven't fully studied it, I believe there is a man in the Muchmore film who runs out on the steps next to Hudson, and then immediately turns around after seeing Kennedy get hit. I believe further that this man has never come forward and has never been identified. If I had to name a suspect as "diversion" man, it would be him. If James Richards can I.D. this man we might get somewhere.

John, like most of the threads, it goes where it goes. Your point about people's increased awareness is not lost, and is quite relevant. In reading WWI and WWII field reports on wound ballistics and wound locations, one finds that a majority of head wounds occur on the victim's left side. Right-handers are far less aware of what takes place on their left side, and far less able to dodge shrapnel coming from that side. This phenomenon might help explain how so many people standing directly in front of the TSBD facing the motorcade could come to believe the shots came from their right when it is clear at least two shots were fired directly above them. As stated earlier, and as supported by Jack's observations, the "echo" argument is garbage. On the other hand, this argument could be used to defend that there was a shot from the County Records Building, as the turn of the SS men in the motorcade to their right may have been just their reaction, and not necessarily an accurate response to the sounds. I don't believe this, but thought I'd just point out the obvious. To address some of the other questions, the CIA's manual on assassination given to the Guatemalan rebel army in 54 included the observation that sub-sonic rifles (meaning not just silenced weapons, but weapons whose ammunition has been altered so that the bullet will fly at a subsonic speed) are accurate up to 100 yards. That these men were given .22 caliber rifles along with these manuals is indicative that small caliber rifles equipped with silencers could be effective up to 100 yards. Similarly, Al's discussion of the "canyon shoot" is quite helpful in undertstanding what probably took place. Hugh McDonald's book about Saul is also supportive of this theory, as Saul was purportedly firing "under" Oswald to disguise his shots. I tried to find verification of this phenomenon in print and was unable to find any actual tests to determine our ability to distinguish rapidly fired shots from one another. I did find numerous articles on "masking," a phenomenon whereby a loud noise can effectively make an ear "flinch." As a result of this "flinch" the witness is completely unaware of a similar tone occurring not only briefly afterwards, but briefly BEFORE, as the loud noise cuts-off the brain's processing of sounds that came immediately prior to its arrival. While the tests on masking I found were conducted at much lower volumes than gunshots, and the length of the effective deafness much shorter than I suspected was the difference between shots, these tests nevertheless verified that there is a direct correlation between the loudness of the original noise and the length of the period of effective deafness. When I remembered that many of those nearest Kennedy only heard two shots, when people blocks away heard three, with the last two almost on top of each other, I concluded that it was likely there were two shots fired close together from opposite sides of the Plaza, and that those in the middle heard the two shots close enough together whereby the second shot was masked. Since the shot at 313 has been tied via the bullet fragments to Oswald's rifle, this would indicate a second loud noise came from an area just west of the school book depository within a second or so afterwards. The blurs on Zapruder's film indicate a second response shortly after the headshot--attributed by lone-nutters to sobs by Zapruder as a way of cutting off conjecture. I suspect this was his subconscious response to a second sound he didn't remember hearing. While it may sound stupid to speculate that Zapruder responded to a sound he didn't remember hearing, one should remember that almost EVERYONE these days believes Zapruder responded to a missed shot around frame 160--a shot Zapruder never testified to hearing. In fact, Zapruder's testimony and his assistant Sitzman's statements indicate they could see Kennedy when he was first shot--which contradicts the lone nut claim that Kennedy was first hit at 224. It is one of the many ironies one uncovers when investigating the assassination that the lone-nutters and ABC et al base much of their current theories on their interpretation of the Zapruder film, while completely ignoring the testimony of the man who filmed it.

Ironically, Jean Hill may have heard echoes. She was in the middle of the Plaza. What COMPLETELY DISPROVES the lone-nut theory is that more than half of the witnesses directly beneath the sniper's nest heard shots from the west end of the Plaza. The HSCA ran tests on how shots were heard in Dealey and found the echo excuse for these witnesses was completely bogus. As Jack said, echoes were easily distinguishable. There was a loud noise from that area. The HSCA got that part right. It might not have been shots. It probably didn't come from behind the stockade fence. But something happened down there and it wasn't done by Oswald.

I've done quite a bit of research on silencers and psycho-acoustics, and it is an absolute fact that a silenced shot could have been fired from the Dal-Tex or County Records Buildings without being obvious to the spectators below. I believe that the fact that neither the WC or HSCA mentions the possibilities of silencers being used in their reports is indicative that they were aware one could have been used. It makes sense to me that if there were reasons to believe one wasn't used they would have definitely discussed it. The earwitnesses reveal beyond a shadow of a doubt that SOME LOUD NOISE was heard from an area west of the TSBD. The lone-nutter argument that the earwitnesses heard echoes is completely refuted by the HSCA tests of an actual M-C rifle being fired in Dealey. If there was a shot fired from the knoll area, it missed. Due to the reports of smoke on the knoll, which would have been minimal if a shot had been fired, I suspect that someone up there may have lit off a cherry bomb or some other explosive, designed to distract everyone from the TSBD, so that the REAL shooter(s) could escape. But back on point... Larry's post seems to shut down my speculation about the SS being deliberately distracted. While I agree that Greer's mistakes are understandable, we still don't know exactly why he was driving so slow. We'll probably never know.

I totally agree with Al's basic point. It's highly likely that the White House Detail was not knowingly involved in the conspiracy. It's highly likely that Greer's behavior was innocent. What I'm stretching for here, and seeming to find some confirmation, is that their behavior might not be by chance. That is, that some outside factors were put into play in order to get them to fall down on the job. Admittedly, I have not researched this at all. I'm away from my books and am just throwing out ideas. (Thank you Ron for posting Greer's testimony, BTW). I believe Chief Curry's car had pulled over and was trying to get those men off of the bridge. I remember reading that somewhere. I wonder if Greer didn't see that and fail to increase his speed as a result. I'm trying to remember who had the car pulled over. Was it Lawson? Wasn't Lawson also the man who planned the route? We know the WHD went out drinking the night before--were they accompanied by any of the local SS? Would not these men know the "cool" dives? Is it unreasonable to speculate that one of the local SS "invited" the WHD out for the evening? Is it a coincidence the bar they went to was owned by a pal of Ruby's? Did Ruby's friendship with the DPD extend to the local SS? Could not getting the security detail hammered have been part of the plan? I believe these are valid questions, and ones that should be answered, before we convince ourselves that there was nothing suspicious about the SS' behavior in Dealey.

I have read some of Palamara's interviews with the SS, and have read the WC Report's section on the SS. I was simply interested in whether there was a standard speed for a motorcade, and whether the Dallas motorcade was exceptionally slow. And, based upon the responses I've received the answer seems to be YES. The next question is who told Greer to drive so slow. I've been to Dealey, and watched the cars drive by, and driving 11 mph on the street at the point of the fatal headshot amounts to a deliberate crawl. If 20-30 was the preferred rate of speed, why wasn't Greer going 20-30? It's a downhill stretch with no intersection or traffic lights for several hundred yards. There were only a handful of spectators nearby. They were running late. Why hadn't the man sped up? Was he concerned because of the men on the railroad bridge? Could the men have been allowed onto the railroad bridge for specifically that purpose? Is that why the shooter waited till the limo was well down Elm before firing? While I don't necessarily believe there was a conspiracy involved in the limo's behavior, so much attention has been given to the possibility that the motorcade route was changed in order to facilitate the assassination, I thought I'd point out that there are other solid questions about the motorcade that have not been fully explored.

I believe the WC established that the car was going roughly 12 mph along Elm Street. It slowed down to perhaps 8 mph on the turn, which is slower than a man can run. I believe Greer testified that he was going between 10-15 throughout the whole motorcade. What I'm trying to establish is whether or not this was slower than usual. Thanks for your input.

So, Larry, in essence, you're saying this issue is probably a non-issue, but has never quite been resolved. While people talk about the SS breaking its own rules on the 22nd, no one has actually ascertained just what their rules were. So, then, it remains to be determined whether or not the Dallas motorcade traveled at a rate that was slower than mormal. I wonder if anyone with footage of the other Texas motorcades might be able to make an estimate.

Just reaching here. While many find something suspicious about the motorcade route, it seems the route used was the most logical one considering Kennedy's final destination. There is another question to be raised in connection to the motorcade, however. The other day I was reading an article from U.S. news from Dec. 1963. This article made the point that while Oswald was a good enough shot to have hit Kennedy, the fact that Kennedy was moving at 12 miles an hour made it almost certain Oswald had been practicing a lot in anticipation of the motorcade. (Ironically, the WC was unable to find ANY evidence that Oswald had practiced at all.) The article goes on to say that if only the motorcade was going 20 miles an hour, it would have been almost impossible for Oswald to have hit Kennedy. At this point a light bulb went on in my head. Was there a standard speed for Presidential motorcades? Was this standard speed observed in Dallas? If the standard speed was 12 mph, and a speed of 20 mph would make it many times harder for a sniper to be successful, why wasn''t the standard 20 mph? Was U.S. News and World Report that much smarter than the Secret Service? While I could dig around and probably find an answer, I'm hoping someone out there will save me the trouble.

Jefferson has lost a lot of his popularity due to the recent acknowledgement that he created a family with one of his slaves, who, even worse, was his dead wife's half-sister. This combination of exploitation/miscegenation/sexual obsession on his behalf has tarnished his legacy, in the eyes of most Americans.

Tim, you seem so skeptical of this. I believe there is nothing suspicious about this at all. The forward to Buchanan's book says that Edward Kennedy arranged for Buchanan to present his findings to Katzenbach, and Katzenbach arranged for him to meet with a representative of the WC (not sure who). What's so odd about this? A man contacts Teddy and he says talk to Nick, and Nick says talk to Rankin, whatever. The WC undoubtedly had Buchanan's material and efffectively debunked much of it. You should be impressed that the man came forward early and gave them the opportunity to investigate his theories. Instead, you're blinded by this thought that he somehow is lying. Why would someone present an easily provable lie in the forward to his book? Why do you think he was lying? Has Katzenbach or Kennedy ever stated that they had no contact with Buchanan? I don't believe Buchanan lied. As a communist he may have had a pre-disposition to believe that right wing businessman were behind the assassination. But the evidence he cites was real evidence. Although much of it was based on speculation, and easily-debunked, there seems to be no reason to believe that Buchanan was making any of it up. You seem unable to fathom that Buchanan could honestly have believed the right wing was behind the assassination, and Angleton could honestly have believed the KGB was behind the assassination, and that both were telling the truth as they knew it.