Pat Speer

Tim, I didn't say Castro had no motive, but that the Russians had no motive. Kostikov, in particular, would have seen that if Fidel was killed Raul would take over, and that he would need Russian assistance even more than Fidel, due to his comparative lack of popularity, and that from this the Soviets would gain in influence over Cuba. They would also have been able to use Fidel's murder to damage U.S. relations all over Latin America. In fact, if the Soviets were half as dastardly as you make them out to be, they would have allowed Oswald into Cuba, killed Fidel themselves and framed Oswald. I've acknowledged there's a slight possibility Castro was behind the assassination. I just think that this possibility grows smaller and smaller the more you include Soviet intelligence in your scenario.

[/color]

I know little about this part of the case. Are these the NSA intercepts of the Corsicans? or something else?

It looks to me like it was at Love Field. The motorcade seems to be just about to leave the airport. If not, there were certainly only a few hard lefts like this on the route and it should be easy to figure.

Tim, I have no doubt that the KGB murdered a few Americans during the cold war. I also suspect they murdered dozens if not hundreds of Eastern Europeans. But what I'm asking about is this: is there any evidence of any Russian plot on U.S. soil which involved not only the murder of a prominent American, but the setting-up of numerous intelligence officers as witnesses and/or suspects. And the answer I'm quite sure is no. So then I go to the next question: is there any evidence that the Russians planned and carried out ANY acts of terrorism within the United States during the cold war, when terrorism is defined as a public act designed to terrify the public? And once again the answer is no. This was just not their M.O. It doesn't mean it didn't happen, but it does mean that if it did happen, it was a complete fluke and not the everyday cold war business-as-usual you seem to think. The Russians attempting a big conspiracy political assassination within the United States is about the same as Shaquille O'Neal shooting a three-pointer in a close game with twelve seconds on the clock. It's unexpected, beyond their presumed ability, and not worth the risk.

Sorry, I'm too dense, it is not obvious to me who you think would “burn” Robertson, Conein, and other operatives in Dallas. (Unless your reference to "rocket scientist" is a hint that it was Wernher von Braun, a main culprit in the assassination according to the Turbid Document). If you mean the CIA, it's generally thought that even if it weren't involved as an agency the CIA would have immediately helped cover up for fear some of its agents were involved, for fear of exposure of the plots against Castro, etc. It doesn't make sense to me that the CIA instead would deliberately set up some of its agents (particularly of the legendary kind like Conein and Robertson, as opposed to deep cover expendables like Oswald) as assassins of the president. If you believe the GRU was behind the assassination, I don't understand what control the GRU would have over these "Company & Military figures" in order to burn them. You told Twyman that Hoover was the mastermind of the assassination, working with John Magruder, Harvey, Siragusa and others. Are these the people who were ready to burn Conein, Robertson, et al? And who was then going to eliminate Conein, Robertson, and any other U.S. intelligence or military patsies before their various trials? How plausible would be the government’s deniability in their systematic extermination, no matter how many Mob-connected nightclub owners were used to rub them out? Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I understood Gerry's comments to mean that it was Russian intelligence, as only the great all-powerful vodka-fueled Russian Boogeymen were capable of such masterful manipulation. Just imagine the powers necessary to manipulate America's best and brightest CIA agents (who all happened to HATE Kennedy) into being witnesses to his assassination! Well, guess who won the cold war, and guess whose all-powerful intelligence service has been revealed to be scarcely more real and dangerous than an Iraqi WMD? It seems to me that Americans, true to their paranoid nature, (after all, we have had it a little TOO easy; the ghosts of Native Americans and former slaves feast on our souls) built the Russians (remember the missile gap?) and their KGB up into a more awesome adversary than they ever really were. People like Helms and Angleton saw Russians in their closets and under their bed. If Mr. Hemming or Tim or Trento or anyone else can think of an equivalent Russian-fueled violent act involving dozens of people, and the massive deception of the U.S.' best and brightest, within the United States, I might believe them. The truth seems to be, however, that the Russian operatives in the U.S. were simply watching and selling information, and not developing HUGE, wreckless and violent plots to overthrow democracy. Perhaps this was a handshake agreement between Truman and Stalin, or Ike and Khruschev, no matter, but its a matter of historical fact that we didn't plot violent acts against them within the Soviet Union, either. Any book will tell you that the third world was the front lines in the Cold War. Occam's razor tells us that if there were people who hated Kennedy in Dealey Plaza watching him get killed, the most logical reason would be that they were there because they wanted to watch him get killed. The argument that they would have avoided Dealey because of some fear that they would be recognized and their plan would be discovered is refuted by the simple fact that not one of these men were ever questioned about their being there, and, outside of the half-assed investigations into the identity of umbrella man, and whether Jack Ruby or Joseph Milteer were in any of the photos, no government agency EVER tried to determine the identities of the people in the photos. (Whaa! It's too hard! Why try to figure out who the witnesses were when we can inspect Oswald's pubic hair?) While Gerry has the advantage over the rest of us of having seen the room while the light was on, that doesn't mean he can't stub his toe once in awhile. I think this is one of those times.

While some maintain the Harper fragment was occipital, I tend to agree with the likes of Dr. Angel and Joseph Riley that it was parietal, although an inch or more more forward on the head than in Angel's drawing. Dr. Mantik agrees that it could be parietal but that the lead smudge on the OUTSIDE of the skull indicates it was the location of an entrance; he concludes from this that it must be occipital. Well, this blew my mind because the location on the parietal bone that would have been an entrance if the Harper fragment was indeed parietal, is EXACTLY where I placed the entrance in my analysis of the x-rays and bullet trajectories. I hope to convince a lot of people of this in the near future.

Maybe you could alert the professor to my just re-activated thread on Silencers and the CIA and have him respond. The two exhibits mis-labeled are F-113 and F-114.

Since Tim has asked me what exhibits are mislabeled on the McAdams site, I thought I'd revive this thread for further consideration. The mislabeled exhibits are F-113 and F-114.

I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. The only men I meant to call nincompoops were Posner and McAdams. To be honest, I'm not sure what a nincompoop is. I merely meant to communicate that these men are considered experts by the media, but don't appear to be remotely open-minded or curious about the evidence that points away from Oswald, such as the un-likelihood of the single-bullet theory. I included Fackler not because of any failings of his own--the man is considered to be a God in his chosen field--and I've certainly learned a lot from reading his work--but because he's defended the single-bullet theory, and there are those who would say "Fackler said it" therefore it's true.. In Fackler's case, I believe what he said was that it was possible that a bullet creating the wounds on Kennedy and Connally in the manner described in the Warren Report could end up nearly pristine. What I'm saying is that just because Fackler said it could happen doesn't mean it did, or was even very likely to happen. For the record, then Dr. Fackler is not a nincompoop! Posner and McAdams are nincompoops in my opinion because they deliberately distort evidence and denigrate others to try to hold onto their position as protectors of all things lone-nut. Entire sections of Posner's book and McAdams' website are devoted to trashing prominent members of the conspiracy community; as I recall Posner discredits Sylvia Meagher simply because she was a socialist or some such thing. On McAdams' site he discredits Wecht by pointing out that Wecht was on the alien autopsy video testifying that it looked pretty real; he fails to point out that fellow lone-nut theory protector Michael Baden was paid 100 grand by O.J. Simpson to testify that O.J.'s wounds were inconsistent with a man engaging in a long knife fight, and that Ron Goldman's wounds indictated he was in a long struggle. To answer Dawn's question, I doubt that Posner or McAdams are paid directly by anybody, but I'm sure both men know that the mainstream media will go to a lone-nut defender before a conspiracy writer, and that that is where the money is. Look at how Dale Myers changed his work for ABC! Anyhow, the one thing that makes me worry is that I've found exhibits on the McAdams' website that are labeled differently from the identical exhibits on the History Matters website, which simply scans pages out of HSCA reports. I have great concern that this was not a mistake and that someone or some agency put McAdams up to this.

Thanks a lot, James. Although it appears to be the same photo as the one on Wim's site, your image is quite a bit clearer. Thanks. I'm curious. Just how many photos do you have in your archive? It's gotta be thousands. Pat

I view assassination research as an opportunityto develop a greater understanding of the world. For instance, when one engages in eyewitness research, one learns about memory research and psycho-acoustics, the study of how people hear. Similarly, when one studies the gunshot wounds, one learns about the relative energy of mass and speed, and the relative strength of skin versus bone. I think Salandria's theory, if I remember it right, that some sinister force made all the evidence confusing, is a major cop-out. It only doesn't make sense when you stop when things don't agree with your pre-conceived notions. When you hit a wall, you have to examine the wall, see if it's real, and then follow the wall to where it leads. For instance, for the first year or so I was researching I was intimidated by Guinn's Neutron Activation Analysis. Although my instincts and the rest of my analysis concluded that the bullet found on a stretcher did not go through Kennedy's back and Connally only to be found intact, Guinn said the fragments in Connally's wrist were from that same bullet. When I finally got around to reading Guinn's reports, (examining the wall), however, I nearly went into shock. He was just WRONG. If he'd been deliberately lying, I believe he would have faked his results to begin with so jerks like me wouldn't be able to come along and second-guess him. In my interpretation, men like Salandria backed off when they had to start arguing with so-called "experts". JFK didn't trust "experts" nor should we. We should educate ourselves on the topics necessary and not trust men like John Lattimer, Robert Groden, Jack White, James Fetzer, David Mantik, Martin Fackler, Ken Rahn, Thomas Canning, Larry Sturdivan, Vincent Di Maio, Michael Baden, Cyril Wecht, or Gary Mack, for that matter, just because they are recognized as experts by some. While it takes time, assassination research is an opportunity to learn how others think, and how they process information. I, for one, am fascinated by Tim's insistance that Castro was behind the killing; something tells me that if I could only understand his obsession then I'll be able to understand why Bush got re-elected after probably the worst four-year performance since Carter, and possibly before. Anyhow, I'm 100% convinced there are no GIANT POWERFUL EVIL MEN playing with us, just nincompoops like Gerald Posner and John McAdams.

I found the full image on our old buddy Wim Dankbaar's website. It's not very clear, but it is a shot of the exterior. If anyone has or knows where I can find a picture of the exterior which is as clear as the photo of the interior skull posted by James, please let me know. Thanks, Pat

Thanks, James. I think that grayish blur on the top section is what Dr. Cairns was talking about. Unfortunately, this is the interior view of the fragment. According to Dr. Mantik and others the lead smear was on the outside. As stated, the only color view of the exterior I could find online was Groden's shot on the JFK Lancer site, but the edge in question is cropped.

When one reads about the Harper fragment, one finds reference to a discoloration on one edge that could be lead. Evidently John Hunt claims to have seen the x-rays at the Archives and that there are indeed specs of lead on this edge. The HSCA published a black and white photo of the exterior as figure 28. There is a color photo of the exterior in Groden's books, but they crop off the edge in question. This image is also up on the Lancer website. Does anyone have a copy of the full color image of the exterior? And, if so, could you put it up on this website or send it to me? Any help appreciated.

I believe William Manchester's The Death of The President gets into the whole football thing. I'm pretty sure one of the book's big revelations was that the football got left behind when LBJ took off for Love Field. I can research it further if nobody else remembers.

O.K. Tim, why DID your editor leave out these statements? Maybe because they sounded a little wacky and would destroy the credibility of the article? Pardon me for having trouble believing RFK was an acquaintance of Oswald's. When was this? How did they meet? Did De Mohrenschildt introduce them through Jackie? Please explain false flag recruitment and how it applies to RFK meeting Oswald. I'm a little dense. I'd really like to know how someone PROTECTS someone by acting as a spotter at his assassination. I don't mean to insult your intelligence Gerry, I'm just trying to understand.

There's a number of scenarios which are possible. 1. Oswald was working for CIA, and could be shown to be working for them, and some conspirators set him up, believing that their use of Oswald would force the CIA to back off. This seems to be what you're proposing. I think this is possible, but the combo of Russian military and anti-Castro Cubans makes no sense to me. 2. Oswald was working for CIA, had infiltrated a conspiracy, and was set up by those he'd infiltrated. I tend to go for this one; I think it's possible Phillips covered-up because he suspected someone within the intelligence community had stabbed Oswald in the back. 3. Oswald was working for CIA, was part of a conspiracy, and was set up by a faction of the agency itself. While you seem to think the CIA wouldn't sell out its own, if they're gonna kill their President, what does Oswald matter? The only flaw in this theory is that they would have needed to make sure Oswald never had a chance to talk. I think there's a possibility Oswald was supposed to go out the back door to make his escape and he fooled them by going out the front, right out into the scene of the crime. Possible, particularly if Robertson was in the Plaza. 4. Oswald wasn't working for CIA, and was just a com/symp who got framed by the likes of Walker. 5. Oswald had accomplices without ties to CIA. 5. Oswald did it alone. I really doubt the last one.

Tim, you're engaging in wishful thinking here. If the CIA engaged in a cover-up, as SURELY they would, that would mean they would deny their involvement with him, which would leave him exposed to the world as a communist, and make Russia look responsible. By the same token, your argument for the CIA's innocence is completely backwards, as Oswald was under deep cover with no obvious links to the CIA, and the CIA would have little to fear from his being the patsy, AS LONG AS HE WAS KILLED AND COULDN'T TALK. Since the Russians were undoubtedly aware that JFK was the most restrained member of the Government, for them to kill him and expect a calm, reasoned response, by LBJ, the CIA, and the military, well that would be wishful thinking on their part.

I tend to agree with Ron. There's just too much evidence that CIA and/or anti-Castro Cubans were involved. The Robertson likeness is convincing to the point that it merits a full-fledged investigation into his whereabouts on that day. Gerry, since in the past you've hinted that the hitters were anti-Castro Cubans, and have even thrown out some names, are you now of the belief that these men were working for the Russians, even though they DESPISED the Russian influence on Castro? Are you saying they were duped by the Russians into thinking they were working for an anti-Castro group? What about Oswald? Was he duped as well? I find your change of heart on this matter very dis-heartening. I don't think this scenario of anti-Castro Cubans, who were financed by the mob and the ultra-right wing, and sometimes by the CIA, taking orders from the GRU, makes ONE BIT of sense. When one takes into account Oswald's involvement, this scenario becomes LUDICROUS; why would the GRU pick a shooter (or a patsy) who would immediately be linked back to Russia and Cuba? Were they trying to start a war? Why not just start a provocation in Berlin? Or elsewhere? Were they specifically trying to provoke an invasion of Cuba? Why? So they could justify an invasion of Berlin? Well, that's like trading Queens, isnt it? They could have done that without killing Kennedy and under-taking all the risks associated with killing him. A scenario involving the GRU could only make sense if they used Castro double-agents to pretend to be anti-Castro, and then used THEM to kill Kennedy, thereby discrediting the anti-Castro movement. Now THAT would make sense, and might have even worked. Ironically, Oswald's involvement, on any level, destroys the likelihood of such a plan. That would be like using a gun registered in your name as a throw-down. Dumb. If you're really going to push this crazy theory, then I can only conclude you're just playing games with us.

Larry, you understate the case. It was Wisner's "MIGHTY wurlitzer." There have been some good articles written about this over the years. Bernstein wrote one for Rolling Stone. I think you're pretty much right on that these men saw it as their patriotic duty. I just don't picture Ben Bradlee or Joe Alsop cashing checks from one of Tracy Barnes' or Cord Meyer's cut-out companies, do you? The one guy I'd like to know more about is Hal Hendrix. Were his stories CIA plants? Or was he simply given more access than others because of his friendly attitude? I know he gave Seth Kantor info on Oswald long before anyone else had it. I think Hendrix also turned up in Chile around the time Allende was over-thrown. Has the CIA ever admitted to what extent he was working with them, and what extent he was working FOR them?

Mr. Hemming, did I miss something? Are you now saying you believe it was the Russian military behind the hit? Also, I'm curious about the .22 caliber assassin's rifle you described. Was it designed to be fired with sub-sonic ammunition? Was this common practice? Your response appreciated

Yuchh, yucch, yucch. How did I put myself in the postion of defending Tim, when a few posts ago I was trying to nail him for hiding his relationship with Rove? Anyhow, Dawn, I think you misunderstood the story. Segretti was hired by the WH, not CRP. CRP had Liddy and Hunt working on their own dirty tricks. After Tim grew suspicious of Segretti, CRP was informed and Liddy and Ulasewicz began to investigate to find out if Segretti was working for the Dems. Somewhere someone involved in the WH and CRP, Magruder?, realized that the suspected Dem was their own man. It would be a comedy if it weren't so tragic. Anyhow, to avoid any more confusion, Segretti was moved over to CRP, which is why his phone number was in Hunt's phone book, which is why the whole thing was exposed, which is why an orchestrated cover-up took place. That this cover-up was sponsored by the President in order to prevent Segretti from becoming a campaign issue helped steer the Watergate investigation. So Tim played a role in history.

I hope you're kidding, Shanet. While Tim's theories are, in my opinion, not supported by the evidence, they are, on the surface, no more wacky than body alteration theories or military coup theories. I think Tim has handled the inquistion on his Segretti and Rove connectiions about as well as could be expected. You know and I know there are right-wingers spread all over our land, who take it on faith that their government is the good guy, and are constitutionally opposed to seeing things any different. I suspect that is the case with Tim. His acknowledgement that Nixon abused his power, and was not merely set-up by the big bad evil CIA, is proof he's not a total dupe for the GOP. (I just wish he'd say ONE bad thing about Rove or Bush, so we could be sure he's not insane...)