Pat Speer

I'm totally with you on this one, Robin. The roof of the Dal-Tex was the best spot in Dealey, as it had a look straight down Elm with no panning. By merit of its altitude it also insured the sniper's ability to shoot over the secret service men in the follow-up car. When one looks at the shot at 224, and properly aligns Kennedy and Connally, the shot leads back to the Dal-Tex. When one projects the 25 degree angle through Connally backwards, it leads straight to the roof.

The "murderer of babies" comment was a reference to the alleged bomb plots' twist over time from one aimed at the infrastructure--the bombing of the UN or the Brooklyn Bridge--to one aimed purely at civilians--the bombing of subways and shopping malls. As such, it was rhetorical excess. My feeling about abortion is that as a man I have no say---I don't believe men have the right to vote on abortion issues period. Women have the right to be judged by their peers, not holier than thou men sitting on a hill looking down on them. The Cider House Rules got it right. I suppose on some level I was also thinking of the Marita Lorenz story, where it was reported that Castro had raped her and forced her to have an abortion, neither of which turned out to be true.

Oh, I have no doubt that Castro has done some horrible things, and that he should have stepped down twenty years ago for the good of his country, I just don't see an historical pattern of him engaging in terrorism for terrorism's sake! Can you think of one strategic reason he would plan a terrorist attack AFTER he has just gotten what he wanted--a pledge from the U.S. not to invade? If there was a plot, I'll bet you a buck it was a contingency plot if the U.S. invaded, along Oppenheimer's reporting...

Tim, that was the point I was trying to make...that the plot received NO attention at the time and was available in various versions later makes it suspicious to me. Are you SURE it was reported in the New York Times? If so, why does Oppenheimer mention the source of the story as being someone who defected in 87? And why do books like Red Friday, Dagger in the Heart, and The Losers not mention it at all? I believe there is a kernel of truth to the story--that Castro had a plan of attack if the U.S. invaded--and that this has been blown up into his attempting to kill innocent civilians even after the tensions had died down and the U.S. had promised not to invade. I'd wager this Castro evil terrorist murderer of babies nonsense is just crapola spread by the anti-Castro crowd. Don't believe it.

1962, Tim. 63 assassination 62 missile crisis... (I know you know) I glimpsed through the Andres Oppenheimer book Castro's Final Hour and it tells quite a different story than the one Tim posted. On page 39 it states that during the missile crisis, Castro sent Tony De La Guardia to New York on a special mission, which was to blow up the UN with 500 kilos of dynamite should the U.S. invade Cuba. It notes that other versions of the story say it was the Brooklyn Bridge. That Oppenheimer, a Pulitzer Prize-winner, cites various stories of the same event, and never mentions any arrests or news articles, makes me suspect the whole story is a rumor. He cites the source of the story is Brig. Gen. Rafael Pino, who defected to the US in 1987. Having seen The Fog of War and learned along with McNamara that Castro had operational nukes and was planning on using them should the US have invaded, I have no doubt of the man's ruthlessness when his back is up against the wall, but this story smells like Cuban gossip, a la the Russian defectors of the Bayo/Pawley raid.

David, I was hoping this tread could be a spirited but respectful discussion between Mel and others over the single-bullet theory and other ideas prevalent in lone-nut country. If you wanna discuss film alteration let's do it on another thread. P.S. I have read Dr. Mantik's work, and find him credible on certain issues. I respect the man. I also respect Dr. Fetzer. I've read Assassination Science and much of the Zapruder Film Hoax. I just don't agree with them on the alteration of the autopsy photos or the Zapruder film. I do suspect the lateral x-ray has been tainted or damaged in some way. While I don't worship expertise I do try and respect people who know what they are talking about , and I have yet to meet someone with a film background who believes the tecnology existed in 1963 to create a fake Zapruder film. My personal argument is that it is nonsensical to believe the government would fake the film, since the film. as is, is convincing evidence that 1) Kennedy was hit before 224 from behind 2)Kennedy and Connally were both hit at 224 from behind, from a trajectory inconsistent with the TSBD, and 3) Kennedy was hit at 313 from behind. This makes at least three hits, which is inconsistent with Oswald's abilities. So why fake something that shows a conspiracy and then deny there's a conspiracy? If you choose to respond to this, let's start a fresh thread.

Was this also the end of Boggs? Was this the same 1971 speech referred to by Groden in TKOAP (p. 129), in which Boggs "accused the FBI of tapping his telephone (as well as other congressmen's telephones) and publicly denounced the Bureau's 'gestapo tactics'"? Groden notes that Boggs "disappeared, never again to be found, while on a flight to Alaska." It has often been suggested that Boggs was murdered, but I've never read of a motive other than vague statements that he had come to doubt the WC Report. I wonder if it is not more likely that Hoover had Boggs killed out of pure vengeance for such an attack on his bureau. Ron <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Boggs disappeared on October 15, 1972, some five months after Hoover died. This doesn't mean there was no connection, but it would certainly indicate that Hoover himself was not involved.

While I agree that the media behaves like a flock of birds, and that they will rarely question the established government line, I find it impossible to believe that men like Jack Anderson and Ben Bradlee took orders from anyone. When Anderson wrote his Sturgis and Rosselli-based stories, he was stirring up crap, raking the muck,and upsetting people, which he believed was his job. His mentor, Drew Pearson, was close to LBJ and had performed the occasional hatchet-job, but there's no evidence Anderson was in anyone's pocket. Let's remember here that Hunt and Liddy made plans to murder Anderson due to the government's inability to control him and prevent him from leaking CIA top secret info. Let's remember that Anderson was the one who broke ranks and talked about the Glomar Explorer, which was a total slap in the face to the CIA and its attempts at controlling the media.

Haldeman's book was the one that convinced me there was a connection between Watergate and the JFK assassination. It should be pointed out that Haldeman discusses the Nixon/ Fred Thompson theory that Bennett and the CIA orchestrated the Watergate break-in to bust Nixon and he dismisses it. As I remember it, he concludes, instead, even though he was still friendly with Nixon and would remain so for the rest of their days, that Nixon ordered the break-in through Colson, and that the reason was to uncover O'Brien's knowledge of the Hughes pay-offs . I believe both Magruder and Hunt have confirmed the pressure came from Colson, and that Colson, who became a holy roller after his Watergate experience, has never publicly called them liars. If you're intrigued by the Nixon/Helms relationship, Ehrichman wrote about it in a work of fiction, The Company, which many believe to be dead-on. Sullivan's book was another one that excited me awhile back. He did testify before the Church Committee, and said a lot that was damaging to the FBI's reputation, so it's not impossible that someone had him murdered before his truth-telling became contagious. But his family was friendly with the young neighbor who shot him, and never suspected foul play. If you're looking for possible foul play, the death of William Colby is far more suspicious, although the motive would be less easy to ascertain, outside of delayed revenge.

John, your post has the timing of the Huston Plan wrong. It was before Hoover's death. Hoover killed it because he was scared the FBI would end up taking the fall for everyone else's illegal activities. He demanded Mitchell give him an order in writing. Mitchell refused and Nixon backed down. Hoover then fired Sullivan, who had been the FBI man attending the meetings in which the Huston plan was discussed. On his way out the door though, Sullivan wrote Hoover probably the most scathing critique he'd ever seen. It's in Sullivan's book and is a real beauty, including pretty much what anyone would ever want to say to their egomaniac boss. Sullivan also stole back from the FBI files records of the wiretaps Nixon and Kissinger had had Hoover place to help them capture leakers, as he was convinced Hoover would use these to blackmail Nixon. This got him in good with Nixon. Over the next few months both Gordon Liddy and Pat Buchanan wrote extensive analyses for Nixon explaining why he had to sack Hoover, but Nixon kept backing down. In early 72, shortly after Hunt first contacted Bernie Barker, someone broke into the FBI office in Meridian Pennsylvania and began distributing documents to the media, which included the words COINTEL PRO. The revelations of FBI agents-provacateur targeting the anti-war movement among others spurred Hale Boggs to publicly criticize Hoover on the floor of Congress. Many thought this was the end of Hoover. But he somehow hung on. Then bam he died in his sleep. A month later the Watergate burglars were captured. I'ved often wondered if Nixon didn't have Hoover killed, and if someone--maybe McCord, maybe the CIA--figured it out, and arranged for the Watergate bubble to burst. I believe it's as likely Hoover was murdered as Sullivan.

I believe Trafficante was called by Sprague very early in the investigation, took the fifth, then came back under Blakey a year or more later, and lied his ass off. Marcello did pretty much the same...the whole tomato salesman routine.

Trafficante testified early on in the HSCA in closed session and took the fifth something like 30 times. I believe Sprague was out as chief cousel within a week. (Not that there's any known connection.)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have the Oppenheimer book but have not read it. I'll look through the book and try to answer any specific questions you guys may have.

I did not know this. Have you a date for his death? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I read about this in Belin's book Final Disclosure. Now that I think about it, Edwards might have died between the Rockefeller Commission and the Church Committee, a year or so before the HSCA. In any case, it was between 75-77, before his connections to the mob could be fully explored. As I remember Edwards was in his early 70's, old enough to die of "natural" causes. If it weren't for the deaths of Giancana, Rosselli, Prio, Pawley, de Mohrenschildt etc. I wouldn't have raised an eye brow.

Artime was best buddies with HUNT. The suspicion of him being a double came purely from one of his top men in Nicaragua being a double, as I remember. Your Castro obsession, Tim, is just wild; it is just illogical to me to believe that the leader of this powerless and destitute country 90 miles off the American coast could orchestrate numerous murders of high-profile people on American soil, without an American response. If he is so ingenious, why the heck can't he spread his revolution beyond his borders without the U.S. slapping him down? Why do men like Bosch run free?

Another CIA guy who died between the Church Committee and the HSCA was Sheffield Edwards, whose idea it was to use the mob in the Castro hits. While many of the men on John's list were in bad health, and supposedly died of natural causes, most of them were not very old. I wouldn't be surprised if the average guy was only 60. If someone could do the research of age at death and purported cause it would probably prove most interesting. The number of gunshot deaths, self-inflicted or otherwise, certainly defies the odds.

I haven't read Lambert's book, but have read a lot of the anti-Garrison stuff online at Dave Reitzes' site. As on so many of the issues, I'm right in the middle. I believe Garrison AND Billings were well-intentioned. Garrison smelled a rat and ran around the house looking for it, over-turning furniture; men like Billings also smelled a rat but were reluctant to tear up the floor to find it. I have read the Di Eugenio book. P.S. I re-wrote and added to my earlier post about the NAA tests of Vincent Guinn.

While I'm not aware of Castro's supposed plans for terrorist acts in the U.S. in 1962, I do know one simple fact: the Cuban Government has not been shown to be behind numerous acts of terrorism in the U.S., while the United States has admittedly sponsored dozens if not hundreds of acts of terrrorsim against Cuba. If Castro was so set on self-preservation that he'd murder Kennedy, and if his intelligence network was so strong, why were the lives of much-easier to kill people like Richard Helms, David Phillips, William Pawley, Clare Booth Luce, Antonio Veciano, Tony Varona, Manolo Ray, Manuel Artime, Pedro Lanz, and Frank Sturgis spared? Why wasn't Hemmings killed? Why wasn't Bosch, for Christ's sake, killed? All of them were more immediate threats to kill Castro or have him killed than Kennedy yet none were killed. Why? Because Castro's assassination capability within the United States was then and remains a myth perpetrated by those trying to paint him as a fall guy. The man, as brutal as he has been within his own country against dissent, simply does not go into other countries to murder people. That's something he leaves to the good old U.S.A. The entire argument that Castro would risk WW3 to kill Kennedy relies on the presumption that Castro saw no other way to avert his own murder. Since Castro had not sent Kennedy any personal warnings or attempted any urgent personal contact, there is no reason to believe that level of desperation existed. Castro had hundreds of enemies, who wanted him dead, who he did not kill; it's simply wrong-headed to insist that the one American he would have killed would be the President, and that he would elect to have him killed by someone who was publicly a supporter of his cause. It's just weak. No one protects themself by implicating themself; while it might happen on Columbo, in reality it's just too risky.

Mel, I'm sorry if my comments seemed hostile. I have nothing but respect for the way you've handled yourself on this forum. Here's a link to Ford's testimony before the HSCA where he makes it clear he did not know of the attempts on Castro while he was on the WC. it's page 570 of vol. 3 if the link fails. http://historymatters.com/archive/jfk/hsca..._Vol3_0287b.htm I agree that Life was pushing a conspiracy angle for a period in 1966, but it is my understanding that Dick Billings became disconcerted with Garrison when he began to focus on the CIA and the anti-Castro Cubans, rather than Castro, and that he turned around and gave his notes on Garrison to Clay Shaw's attorneys. If I'm mixing him up with one of the others who turned on Garrison...please set me straight.

net.co.uk/JFKhargis.htm[/url] I invited Ken Rahn to defend his views on our Forum. He refused, saying he did not think it was “educational”. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> ***************************** Dr.J. Fetzer : Quote: "Has no one observed that Ken Rahn's work is useless as evidence that implicates Lee Oswald because (1) the lead used to manufacture Mannlicher-Carcano ammo was recycled and therefore is not sufficiently uni- form to establish comparisons and (2) that even if his work were "good as gold", it would establish at most that some of the rounds were fired using Mann- licher-Carcanos but not (a) that they were fired from the Book Depository as opposed to the Dal-Tex, for example, much less ( that they were fired by Lee Oswald, who was actually on the second floor drinking a coke at the time of the assassination? I don't know why anyone takes Ken Rahn seriously." Jim B.. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm glad to agree with Fetzer on this point. Guinn and his disciple Rahn were both overly impressed with the NAA results. While Wallace Milam's writings have thoroughly exposed the errors of their ways, I'd like to put another nail in the NAA coffin by pointing out the results of three sets of tests. In accordance with Guinn's testimony, the three most important elements tested were Antimony, Silver, and Copper. Numbers reflect the scores of the two samples in parts per million. A vs. B. 647-602 Antimony, 8.6-7.9 Silver, and 44-40 Copper. C vs. D, 833-797 Antimony, 9.8-7.9 Silver, and 994-58 Copper. E vs. F, 732-730 Antimony, 15.9-15.3 Silver, and 23-21 Copper. So which two samples were described by Guinn as being from the same bullet? Well, that's actually a trick question, as A vs. B actually represents FOUR samples, a fragment found in Kennedy's brain, two fragments found on the floor of the limousine, and the nose of the bullet found on the front seat. And yet notice how uniform they seem to be. One might actually conclude they are probably from the same bullet. And Guinn did. Well, since they were so uniform and since Guinn also concluded the wrist fragments came from the magic bullet, then E vs. F must be the comparison between the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, right? WRONG. E vs. F is a comparison between 6001B and 6003A, test bullets taken from separate batches of ammunition from separate years. Subsequent tests showed them to be quite dissimilar. Which leaves C vs. D as the wrist/magic comparison. Since the Silver and Copper ranges are substantial, it's safe to say Guinn's conclusion came purely from the similarity on Antimony. He ignored everything else and focused on those two numbers...833-797. And yet, when one looks at the test results, one finds that 6002 A2 was at 869, and 6001 B4 was at 791, within 36 ppm of the magic bullet and the wrist fragment, respectively, and this out of only 40 tests beyond the magic bulet and wrist fragment. This translates to there being a 5% chance for the wrist and magic fragments to fall within 36 ppm randomly. Of the 14 different test bullets in fact, three of them, 6000a, 6001d, and 6001A, were within 15 ppm, even though they were from different years and different batches. This reduces the 833-797 numbers to nothing near the relevance Guinn and Rahn attach to it. When one takes into account the other six elements tested, the logical deduction is actually the opposite of Guinn's ...that it's highly probable the magic bullet and the wrist fragment ARE NOT related. Since 4 related items should create a larger range than 2 related items, we should look at a comparison of ranges of the 4 fragments found in the car vs. the magic bullet/wrist fragment on the 7 elements besides lead tested by Guinn. Antimony: 4 fragments 647-602, magic/wrist 833-797 Silver: 4 fragments 8.6-7.9, magic/wrist 9.8-7.9 Copper: 4 fragments 44-40, magic/wrist 994-58 Aluminum: 4 fragments 5.5-1.1, magic/wrist 8.1-0 Manganese: 4 fragments 0.1-0.01, magic/wrist 0.09-0.07 Sodium: 4 fragments 134-9, magic/wrist 120-5 Chlorine: 4 fragments 59-22, magic/wrist 257-19 Since the range of 2 items should be smaller than the range of 4 items (7 out of 8 times), and since the range difference should usually be significant, it's obvious that Manganese is the only element that suggests the magic bullet and wrist fragment are related, and that Antimony and Sodium are also consistent with that analysis. It's equally obvious that the other 4 elements tested are strongly suggestive there was NO relation at all between the two, as the range of the two is many times that of the range of the 4. The proper conclusion then should be that the magic bullet and the wrist fragment are MOST PROBABLY not related. In short, anyone whose argument for the SBT relies on Guinn's analysis has clearly never studied Guinn's results. His conclusion was wrong; whether he sincerely believed his testimony or was asked to lie is open to conjecture.

I'm sorry if I offended you, David, by using the term b.s. I believe both Mantik and Fetzer are well-intentioned and I would not want any discussion about them to drift into the nastiness of the Thompson/Fetzer feud of a few years ago. I do take issue with a number of your comments. I disagree that Mantik's visits to NARA somehow make him THE authority. Your suggestion of this is self-contradictory, since you believe that the autopsy doctors, who saw the actual body, and the HSCA, which spent months discussing the wounds and exaiming the photos, were both wrong. If you wish to worship at the cult of expertise--which Thompson complains about and which even an expert like Cyril Wecht agrees is dangerous--then you have to side with all the government "experts" as well. And many of them are as you know, dead wrong. Unless you are going to somehow show how Baden, Guinn, and Canning are all in agreement with Mantik, then your whole "expert" argument is proven fallacious. Please read my seminar and compare it to Dr. Mantik's; while he has the advantage in experience, most will almost certainly agree mine has the advantage on sound reasoning. And your argument about Lifton is equally weak. While I respect Lifton's devotion I disagree with many of his conclusions. One has to wonder, for instance, why he excludes the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza from his theory of alteration. After all, since they all seemed to think the large wound was on the top or side of JFK's head, then that would mean the wound was changed en route to Parkland, only to be changed back on Air Force One on the way to Bethesda. And this is twice as wild a story. So what if he sold a bunch of books? The Warren Report sold more than Accessories After the Fact, and which one has more credibility? I suggest you restrain yourself from attacking myself and others on the basis of our "wanna-be" status. If you read my seminar, you'll see that I believe the suggestion of alteration in the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film only has merit if the photos and film do indeed show evidence for a lone-nut scenario, and I believe they indicate convincingly that Kennedy himself was shot three times, making a conclusion of conspiracy almost inevitable. Please read my seminar and tell me where I'm wrong. Argue that the photos and Zapruder film PROVE the lone nut theory, and then we'll talk.

Steven, in order to keep the debate here on as accurate a level as possible, I'd like to point out that you misunderstood the lie the CIA told. At a party in their honor after the overthrow of Arbenz, a number of the CIA officers involved were asked to tell the President and VP their personal stories. At this party, the CIA para-military officer in charge of training the rebel roops of Castillo-Armas told Eisenhower that they'd only lost one member of the rebel forces, when the real number was something like 100. The xxxx was Rip Robertson, a man who was also involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion, (and a man who bears a striking resemblance to a man photographed in Dealey Plaza--check out James Richards' thread on Rosselli.) Rip Robertson's name also appears on a note found in the CIA files attached to a list of Guatemalans with Communist ties. The CIA now acknowledges this list was given to Castillo-Armas as an assassination list, but says that none of the men were actually assassinated. Since the names were redacted, however, this can not be independently verified. Books on Guatemala state, however, that Castillo-Armas went on a bit of a killing spree after gaining power, so who knows?

Mel, congratulations, you've done an excellent job of stating the lone-nutter position. I do have some problems with your article, however. Here's where you lost me. In the third paragraph you complain about the assassination industry in Dallas. Having been there last fall, for the assassination anniversary, I can state that this industry is much smaller than you seem to believe, and that virtually no one makes a living off of the assassination. Very few of the books have ever been best-sellers, Similarly, the websites devoted to the assassination are almost exclusively a labor of love. For most, the study of the assassination is a hobby, much the same as being a civil war buff and occasionally going to a re-enactment (which no one seems to find distasteful). Your depiction of CTs getting rich is almost laughable; the only "experts" I suspect are making any money are Gerald Posner and Dale Myers, who are dragged onto TV with regularity to preach about the evil of Oswald or show a deceptive cartoon. In the sixth paragraph you state that America's leaders had hope for detente. This isn't really true. Many of America's leaders, including Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Republican party, were suspicious of Khruschev and believed detente was a trap. You also state that President Johnson was fearful suspicions would lead to conflict, over-looking that LBJ was a man with a great sense of his own power, and had the power to stop a conflict from happening, and that LBJ was also someone who would fein helplessness in order to get what he wanted from those whose ear he was bending. You say that the cover-up was therefore well-intentioned, yet based on LBJ's proven power of manipulation, there is no reason to believe this was so. In the eighth paragraph you say that if the government agencies had released all the information they had on Oswald, there would have been little room for the conspiracy theorists to maneuver. This has litttle foundation, since we still don't know what information they were withholding. The relationship between George Joannides and the DRE is but one example of withheld information that could still prove to be damaging. In paragraph 9, you say that the Dallas PD was not conspiratorially involved. I think this judgement should be withheld until the disappearance of the negatives of the "so-called" backyard photographs has been adequately explained, and why investigations into their disappearance seem to have occurred, but never been revealed. In paragraph 10 you state that Russell and Ford knew of the attempts on Castro. I believe Ford himself denied this knowledge before the HSCA. If he lied before congress, after the assassination plots had already become public knowledge, then Ford is a damned xxxx and we have yet another reason to doubt the findings of the WC. In 11, you suggest that false witness after false witness has conned the American public into believing them. I believe the opposite has occurred. I believe that the parade of false witnesses has disgusted decent men like yourself and wrongly convinced them that nothing fishy actually took place. Every conspiracist I know has become convinced not by any individual's testimony, but by the behavior of the government itself. In paragraph 12, you mention Life Magazine's role, neglecting to mention that Life and Reader's Digest only promoted a conspiracy when they thought they could prove foreign involvement. This isn't necessary to your point, but well worth mentioning in an over-view such as yours. In 13 you state that the Kennedy family asked many of those present at the autopsy not to talk for 25 years. I'm curious as to where you uncovered this. As far as I know, the order of silence came from the military, without any input from the Kennedys. Burkley's suggestion on the family's behalf that the adrenals not be examined is about as far as their role in a cover-up goes. You also state that Bobby had concerns about the WC investigating the attempts on Castro. This is pure Gus Russo invention. Bobby was a morbidly depressed man in this period and completely withdrew and ignored the WC investigation. He never even read its report. He told Garrison an investigation wouldn't bring back his brother. As far as has been established, Bobby believed the attempts on Castro had ended by 1962., and were not relevant to the assassination. Remember, Helms testified that he and Fitzgerald decided amongst themselves to lie about Bobby's blessing to Cubela. There is no reason to believe Bobby was in the loop. In paragraph 16, you mention that CTs have ignored that the Russians and Cubans were subverting Democracy in Latin America, apparently without irony. While there has been no Communist overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Latin America, the U.S. has sponsored the overthrow of Guatemala and Chile, replacing democratically-elected governments with right-wing dictatorships, claiming that the U.S. had the right to protect countries from the will of their own people. Ironically. the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua, one of the few communist governments to ever gain a foothold in the west, allowed itself to be voted out of office. In paragraph 18, you make the bold claim that all the major issues have been addressed by America's leading scientific and legal experts. While many claims have certainly been debunked through scientific research, there are many that still have not been adequately explained. You conveniently ignore the fact that many leading pathologists, including Cyril Wecht, Thomas Noguchi, and Henry Lee, have expressed doubts about the medical evidence and the conclusions of the HSCA medical panel. In 19, you mention computer simulations which prove the SBT, neglecting to note that the Myers simulation moves the back wound up two inches in order to sell the theory. You also fail to mention or realize that the Assassination Files laser re-enactment required the model to be bent over into a position far forward of Kennedy's, in order to project back into the TSBD. You then cite the NAA results of Dr. Guinn, which have been effectively debunked by Wallace Milam, and the backward-movement-of-the-head explanations offered by Alvarez and Sturdivan, which disagree with each other, as supposedly conclusive proof. These theories can easily be debunked, and have. If there was a "jet-effect" coming from the President's right temple, for instance, why didn't his head turn to his left as his skull exploded? More on this in my seminar update. You mention in passing as well that credible eyewitness testimony establishes that Oswald fired the shots...if you're referring to Howard Brennan then you are guilty of the selective choosing of eyewitness testimony to a far greater degree than most conspiracists, as Brennan failed to identify Oswald until after Oswald was in the ground. You then go on to say that Oswald's flight establishes a consciousness of guilt, without explaining how this consciousness rules out that he was part of a conspiracy. or was afraid he'd been set up by a conspiracy. In the next paragraph, you complain of the gross speculation used by those who research Oswald's connections to Cuba and the CIA, citing it as "guilt by association." Apparently, you don't realize that this is how conspiracies are investigated by the FBI, from the mob, to the KKK, to Al Qaeda. One looks for a circle of people and then tries to understand what actions are occurring in the middle of the circle. As Gary Cornwell has said, you can only investigate a conspiracy by suspecting a conspiracy. You then mention the selective use of witnesses by conspiracy writers, failing to acknowledge that the Warren Report and Case Closed are as guilty of this as any other book, and more than many, and that you yourself have decided to rely upon Brennan and ignore the testimony of others with whom you disagree. In paragraph 21, you cite the deluded notion that a conspiracy would have to have involved hundreds if not thousands of people, and that whistle-blowers would have blown the lid off it by now, failing to remember that the murders of several prime suspects, Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli, remain unsoved. Why it would take more men to kill Kennedy than to kill any of those three men needs to be explained. If you intend this paragraph to refer only to the grand conspiracy of Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone fame, you should have said so. You fail to acknowledge that many conspiracy theories revolve around a select group of operatives acting on their own, without a paper trail. Such a conspiracy could remain a secret forever. In 23, you declare the assassination attempts on Castro were common knowledge in New Orleans. I believe this is over-stating the case. While the CIA's backing of Castro's over-throw in 1962 was well-known, by 1963, the government had begun seizing ammunition and shutting down the training camps. If Oswald was the lover of Castro he was claiming to be, he could only have been encouraged. In 24, you selectively choose one witness who implies Oswald was proud of killing Kennedy and had raised his hands in salute. This is weak, my friend. I've watched that footage dozens of times and have always interpreted Oswald's "salute" as a "yeah, I'm the guy they arrested, look at how they're abusing me"--type motion. There is no sense of satisfaction in Oswald's face, only dismay. Besides, even if he did raise his hands in "salute," it doesn't rule out that he was part of a conspiracy. It probably even supports this possibility, for who else would he be hoping to impress with his salute? In 25, you mention that many CTs have been ridiculed by the scientific community, failing to mention that men like Wecht, Aguilar, Fetzer, and Mantik are all respected doctors within the scientific community, and men like Posner and yourself are not. (I personally believe this means nothing--after having studied the "science" of men like Baden, Guinn, and Canning, I'll take the common sense of a Harold Weisberg or a Josiah Thompson any old day!") In your closing paragraph you cite the old maxim that NO evidence has been produced blah blah blah. At least you didn't use the word "scintilla," a sure sign of lone-nut indoctrination. You do hedge yourself a little bit by saying "which can decisively point a conspiratorial finger" and that nothing has "negated the argument for Oswald's guilt." If you're saying that no conspiracy has been decisvely proven, and that Oswald was almost assuredly involved at some stage in any conspiracy that was likely to have occurred, I'll agree with you. But this doesn't remotely mean that we should believe Oswald acted alone. The physical evidence just does not add up to one shooter firing from behind, Mel. Not the bullets, not the trajectories, not the reactions of Kennedy and Connally in the Zapruder film, and, in particular, not the medical evidence. I look forward to convincing you on this point.

Mike and Mel, I'd like for you to read my seminar on the autopsy evidence, available in the seminars section of this Forum. I'm currently updating it and would like to know where the weak spots are from a Lone Nutter viewpoint. I agree with you that there's an awful lot of bs on this Forum and within the research community--Fetzer's work on Zapruder film alteration, for example. or Lifton's work on body alteration. (Although at least Lifton bases his theory on some terribly confusing eyewitness testimony.) But I've tried to stick to the plausible in my seminar. Please let me know what you think. Thanks, Pat

Tim, have you read McCord's A Piece of Tape? If you did, I bet you'd realize that McCord had a personal axe to grind, and wanted to drag down as many of the President's men as possible. He takes great satisfaction in recounting how they tried to buy him off, and make him take a fall, and how the Justice department cooperated with Nixon in the cover-up. It was personal for him. Who was there in the CIA by 73 who could orchestrate such a thing? And to what ends? To place Spiro Agnew, the bumbling stooge, in power? Of course, if Nixon had got wind of such a plan it might explain why he turned on Agnew. Read Agnew's book, or Goldwater's; it was Nixon who forced him out, without ever telling Agnew why. My personal theory: Nixon felt there was room for only one crook at the White House.