Pat Speer

Except it isn't.

LOL.

The fragment in the FBI photograph discovered by Hunt is almost certainly the fragment in the archives today. It was cut up for testing. But the fragment as seen today was part of the original.

The EOP entry was rejected by the Clark Panel on down because there was no upwards path ending at the large defect. They never looked down. We can presume, moreover, that they weren't allowed to, because that would mean a second shooter. Now I know you're gonna pretend there's no evidence a bullet went down the neck, but there is a massive amount of such evidence, which is widely discussed on my website. If you had actually read my chapters on the head wounds, you would know this.

Robert Edwards (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 19H 473, 19H647) “Today, November 22nd, 1963, I was with Ronald Fischer, and we were on the corner at Elm and Houston, and I happened to look up there at the building, the Texas School Book Depository Building, and I saw a man at the window on the fifth floor, the window was wide open all the way; there was a stack of boxes around him, I could see. Bob remarked that he must be hiding from somebody. I noticed that he had on a sport shirt, it was light colored, it was yellow or white, something to that effect, and his hair was rather short; I thought he might be something around twenty-six, as near as I could tell. The motorcade rounded the corner at this time, and then I thought I heard four shots, but it never occurred to us what it was. The shots seemed to come from that building there.” (12-2-63 FBI report, CD205 p.21-22) “Shortly after President Kennedy’s car passed his position, he heard shots, which he thought were three or four in very rapid sequence.” (4-1-64 testimony before the Warren Commission, 6H200-205) (When asked what he saw before the president's arrival) "Nothing of importance except maybe one individual who was up there in the corner room of the sixth floor which was crowded in among boxes." (When asked what side of the sixth floor, to his left or right) "To my right...The corner window." (When asked to describe the man) "White man." (When asked tall or short) "I couldn't say." (When asked if he had anything in his hands) "No." (When asked if he could see his hands) "I don't remember." (When asked what kind of clothes he was wearing) "Light colored shirt, short sleeve and open neck." (When asked how much he could see) "From the waist on. From the abdomen or stomach up what..." (When asked fat or skinny) "Oh, about average. Possibly thin." (When asked if he could tell if he was light-skinned) "No." (When asked his hair color) "Light brown...That is what I would say; yes, sir." (When asked if he noticed anyone else on the floor) "No...I just didn't see any." (When asked if he saw anyone on the fifth floor) "No." (When asked why he said he saw someone on the fifth in his statement) "That has been straightened out since...they discussed it with me later and I took that back. That was the FBI...I went with them and I showed them the window, and I didn't count the bottom floor." (When asked how many floors in the building) "I think seven in all, seven floors. It is next to the top." (When asked if the man's hair was short or long) "Don't know." (When asked how long he looked at the man) "Just a few seconds." (When asked how many shots he heard) “I heard one more than was fired, I believe…I still right now don’t know how many was fired. If I said four, then I thought I heard four. (When asked if he knew where the shots came from) “I have no idea” (When asked if he’d said the shots came from the building) “No, I didn’t say that.”

Read the website and all shall be revealed, LOL.

I have long wondered why Fonzi's book was never turned into a movie, as it seems like a natural. Perhaps it was deemed too controversial.

There are books with lots of info and there are books with reliably accurate info, and they are rarely the same books. While I was initially drawn to the former, I would suggest the latter to those expressing an interest. It's been awhile since I read it, but Someone Would Have Talked might be a good beginning.

I stand by my assessment. I have seen professionally-improved images from first gen films of Prayer Person and, all claims aside, they are nowhere near what would be necessary to make a convincing case. As far as your last line, nope. I'd heard this kinda thing so many times I'd assumed someone had ID'ed every other person on the steps. So I asked if someone could show me where Stanton and Sanders can be seen in the films, and received three different answers. Until there is unanimity on the IDs of those in the films, and everyone is accounted for, the probability it is someone other than Oswald can not be discounted. And will be accepted as fact by historians and journalists etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, etc. And the current state of the Prayer Man argument is nowhere near where it needs to be to be convincing to those who would need to be convinced. Sorry, I know this makes me a demon. But I really think people need to take a step back. There is a possibility Oswald was on the front steps at the time of the shooting. This is supported by a blurry image that may be Oswald, and may be somebody else. It is also supported by one interpretation of a long dead person's notes on an interview of Oswald--an interpretation that is at odds with the clear-cut statements of this person over a span of decades, and the reports and statements of others present during the interview. In the numerous public statements made by Oswald in the days before his death, he never said he was outside at the time of the shooting. Nor did he say as much in private conversations with his family. There is not one eyewitness who said they saw him on the steps, moreover. There are, however, several witnesses who probably would have seen him should he have been on the steps, who specified that they did not. There are also numerous statements placing Oswald elsewhere In the building shortly after the shooting, that those pushing he was on the steps, assume to be orchestrated lies. Even though these statements, in sum, suggest Oswald's innocence, and were long-cited by the research community as evidence for Oswald's innocence.

One juror said he was guilty. Maybe they all felt he was,. But that wasn't what the trial was about. Heck, he wasn't even on trial. The trial was to determine if he'd been libeled against in an article suggesting his involvement in the assassination. The jury found that the article was not libelous, as it may even have been true. But that is not a criminal conviction.

Bradlee's wife Toni was Mary's sister. After Mary's death, Toni received a call from her sister's best friend, telling her of the diary, and they raced over to the studio to retrieve it before the police searched the studio. Only to find Angleton leaving with the diary. His wife was also a friend, and he had supposedly went there at her direction. My recollection is that Bradlee and his wife decided it was best for Angleton to keep it for the time being. Their interest was in keeping it away from the cops and out of the papers. Years later the best friend underwent a divorce, and her husband decided to make some money off his wife's secrets. At that point Bradlee came forward and told his staff what had happened. He figured it was gonna come out, and didn't enjoy being scooped by the National Enquirer.

I remember him joining the forum. And that I pestered him about the memo... I think he was invited here by Simkin to answer questions about a new book. I see now a thread from 2005, but I don't see any questions about the memo, specifically, but he acknowledged speaking to Angleton and that Angleton had told him Hunt had been in Dallas while en route to Mexico City. Here's the give and take. 1. I accept it as history. It was widely discussed by people in Air America and the support staff. Chris Robbin's book is very good. 2. Angleton said Hunt was in Dallas not to kill Kennedy but on his way either to or from Mexico City where the Agency had a Station Chief who had been injured in an accident. Angleton's take on the Kennedy case is all in Secret History. 3. He gave it to her children. The diary was more a sketchbook then smoking hot diary. But there was enough personal stuff in it to make clear she had been JFK's lover according to Angleton.

Thanks. Can you show us LFF again? And from multiple angles? (Or is there only one angle?)

I think you were here, Jim, when Trento joined the forum and confirmed he'd been shown the memo. As I recall, he said he couldn't authenticate it, or say for sure why Angleton showed it to him, but he wanted it made clear he was in fact shown a memo saying what he said it did.

So here's a third version, where Stanton is at the front of the top step. I naively thought there was a consensus on Stanton's location, and that I was missing something. That's fine, maybe it will get there. I envision, however, a "debate" or some such thing where CT A says "We know Prayer Person couldn't be any other TSBD employee because they have all been accounted for" and LN A counters with "Well, okay, where's Sarah Stanton?" CT A then points out where he/she thinks she was which then leads LN A to say "Interesting, because CT B says she was here and CT C says she was there. Why should we trust any of you?" Do you see what I'm getting at? It's a problem. To a skeptic, Prayer Person can only be Oswald once everyone else on the stairs has been eliminated, and not everyone else has been eliminated. To be clear, I was looking through Bart's book and saw that he's eliminated Stanton by claiming she's down a couple of steps. Can we at least agree this was a mistake?

Thanks, Sandy. I have started looking through Bart's book and was surprised to see he had them a few steps down from the top. That's okay. In fact it's good to know there's some disagreement among those intrigued by Prayer Man.

Thanks, Sean. I didn't see a person at the C in Altgens. I thought it was the underside of Williams' arm in shadow. But now, looking at it, it could be the side of a woman's head. But why should we believe that is Stanton, who said she was on the top step, and had confirmation for this from Frazier and Sanders? P.S. I believe Greg Doudna has concluded Stanton and Sanders were both elsewhere. Is it correct to assume then that there is no consensus on the locations of the witnesses? I am trying to understand the state of the investigation.

While I am perfectly willing to believe Sarah Stanton is NOT Prayer Person, I am confused as heck as to where she can be seen standing in the films and photos. I have seen some place her several steps down from Frazier, along with the claim Pauline Sanders is standing next to her. But I believe those women were previously ID'ed as Madie Reese and Ruth Dean. Is there a photo showing Stanton, Sanders, Reese, and Dean?

Some are missing something. LBJ was never gonna allow an independent and thorough investigation. Those advising him to form the Warren Commission were advising him not on how to cover up the crime--that was a given--but how to convince the public it had been a thorough job. The mannequin had been picked out--the Warren Commission was just the clothing put on the mannequin. Heck, some of those pushing the commission on Johnson may have been naive enough to think Warren would get to the bottom of it.

You are just blowing smoke, Michael. Sorry. For one, 27 of 29 experts? Really? Where do you get this? Not from Mantik--who says there is no such fragment. And not from the ARRB experts, right? And not from Ebersole, or Custer and Reed? Right? So you're pretending you believe The Clark Panel, Rocky Panel, and HSCA Panels--the very guys who conjured up an entrance in the cowlick? If you read the HSCA info you will find some hints about what did happen--Davis noticed that the trail of fragments was on the outside off the skull--but you can't take anything that was said as gospel. Let this sink in. Only 2 measurements were given for 3-d objects. I myself am 6 x 2 from the front, 6 x 1 from the side, and 1 x 2 from the top or bottom...and that's just the straight on looks. If you view me from an angle, I can be a number of different sizes. When you read radiology textbooks they specifically warn against measuring fragments or bullets on x-rays, as the angles and magnification. can lead to some very bad guesses. And let this sink in as well. Lattimer's claim the forehead fragment was the fragment removed at autopsy was a guess. It wasn't science. It was a guess. And he was clearly wrong. It appears you put men with letters after their names on a pedestal. When it's convenient. Something tells me you hate Fauci and his ilk. And, finally, this. Mantik's conclusions are questionable, and often obviously incorrect. HIs methodology is also questionable. If you'd read my website you would know all this...

People remember important events more often than they do everyday events, but their memories as to specifics are rapidly buried under their memories of emotion. If someone says they were happy on their 3rd birthday they are probably correct but if they say their best friend was wearing a green outfit and orange shoes at their third birthday, they may very well be incorrect. An exception would be if this was something they'd talked about over the years. But even then they wouldn't be remembering the event itself but the story as it had been told and re-told. P.S. Some of the most telling studies dealt with people's confidence in their own memories. Something like 80% of those studied think their memory is better than average, and while understanding that the memories of family members' and friends are frequently faulty, nevertheless believe their own memories are stellar.

At a certain point I realized that I couldn't trust anyone's recollections re the Assassination, seeing as they were so erratic. So I spent roughly six months reading all I could on human memory and cognitive psychology, and ended up exchanging a dozen or so emails with two prominent experts in the field. Here's some of what I uncovered. 1. We are not tape recorders. Much of what's recorded as a memory is inaccurate to begin with. Stress and fear can alter our memories. Our physical point of view also has an impact, e.g. humans are notoriously bad at rotating images in their head. (This comes into play when analyzing the Parkland witnesses.) 2. We are also extremely prone to suggestion. A choice of words in a police line-up "That's the guy isn't it" or whatever can sway someone to make an inaccurate choice. And it's not just from fear of authority. Numerous tests have been performed among subjects after viewing a white car where they are asked about a red car or whatever, and then asked the next day the color of the car. A large percentage will say red because their memory of hearing red has supplanted their original memory. And they're not even aware of it. Some will argue that they really saw a red car even after being re-shown the film of the white car. 3. Our long term memories are liquid and ever-changing. Over days weeks years our recollections morph to more accurately capture our emotions at the time, and become less accurate as to facts...with each telling. A woman accosted by a normal sized man with a knife may over time add in that the man was huge and scary-looking, and carrying a super long knife or machete. Ultimately our initial impressions are wiped clean by our memories of the stories we tell. In short then, the witnesses many are most excited by--someone who comes out years later with a fantastic tale that will change history--are the least credible--even if, perhaps especially if, their story confirms something many want to believe. Audrey Bell is a textbook case. She expanded the number of fragments she was handed over time, and changed who she gave them to, and suddenly began describing the head wound when she never had before, with a story without support. She is not to be believed on the things that make people ooh and ahh. While Micah's discovery is helpful to her credibility--in that it lends credence to her being in Trauma Room One--it is also harmful--in that it shows her story was liquid, and changed over time.

Except Jenkins denied all of that. He said he was there the whole time and witnessed no body alteration. He heard Humes say something about the brain basically falling out and made some observations himself that made him wonder if the brain had been switched. But not at Bethesda. As far as Spencer, she was asked to describe photos she'd developed over 30 years earlier. That's ludicrous. It would be like asking you the color of the dress worn by your girlfriend on your third date 30 years earlier, or the brand of basketball shoes worn by a guy who dunked on you in your freshman year 30 years ago.

Yes, and he also specified that the back of the head was not blown out.

A funny thing about that drawing. For years we were told it showed the wound on the front of the head, to hide that it was really on the back of the head. But it is not on the front of the head at all. It's at the middle of the head and could represent an exit from the front or rear. The main thing telling us the shot came from the rear is the bullet path depicted from low to high--a bullet path the doctors admitted they did not trace. So no, no one needed to lie about the wound location. They just needed to speculate there was a path between a low entrance and a high exit, and draw such a path for public consumption.