Pat Speer

Are you just trying to annoy people, David? Because this seems to be deliberately annoying. We KNOW we don't know exactly what was said in the interviews. We KNOW the only person to ID Oswald as the shooter refused to do so when it mattered, and only did so after a visit to his house by the FBI. We KNOW the shots purportedly fired by Oswald were beyond his presumed skill level, and could only have been fired from him if he got "lucky". . So why are you SO SURE he was on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting? What is it that nails it down for you? I know some will say that his demeanor after his arrest proves his guilt, but that, to me, is bonkers.

My responses in bold.

While I too think the Bookhout report is in error about what Oswald said, Sandy's solution to this makes little sense. By re-arranging the passages he has Oswald take THIS Coke--the one he was buying when approached by Baker--down to the first floor and go outside...BEFORE Baker ever entered the building. Is this correct? If not, what am I missing?

Geez. It's really quite simple. 1. The doctors and a number of observers said they removed a large fragment from behind the right eye. 2. There is a fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray that matches up with the location of the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray. 3. The doctors said as well that they removed some smaller fragments from right next to this large fragment. 4. There are small fragments next to the fragment behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray. 5. Lattimer claimed the large fragment removed at autopsy can be seen on the x-rays...inches away...in the middle of the forehead. Wecht et al followed his lead. As did Mantik... 6. But there are no small fragments adjacent to this forehead fragment. 7. It seems clear, moreover, that much of the confusion stems from the fact these are 3 dimensional objects, and the measurements provided by the doctors were 2-D. In such case a large object 8 x 2 x 10 can be mistaken for a much smaller object 8 x 2 x 1. The first object is ten times larger and yet they can both be described as 8 x 2. 8. My irritation with Mantik stems in part from his deceptiveness on this issue. He has repeatedly told his audience that the forehead fragment is the fragment removed at autopsy, even though he claimed in his earliest writings that the fragment in the archives is not the forehead fragment on the x-rays. He is familiar with John Hunt's work, moreover, and knows full well that Hunt obtained an image of the archives fragment before it it was broken up by the FBI, and that the fragment on this image is consistent with the large fragment on the x-ray. As far as the x-ray images being inconsistent with M/C ammunition, that's just not true. While a lead snowstorm is normally associated with hunting ammunition, a full-metal jacket bullet striking tangentially will explode and leave a lead snowstorm. I have seen it argued, moreover, that the fragments in the so-called trail of fragments on Kennedy's x-ray are larger than would be expected if the bullet had been hunting ammunition. If so, it may be that the trail of fragments is proof of a FMJ bullet, not proof against.

This is all material discussed ad nauseam on my website. You keep missing the central point. The-called 6.5 mm fragment is NOT on the back of the head. Mantik and I agree on that. It is not in dispute. So why do you keep saying it is? As far as the 7 by 2 fragment, etc... Humes et al said the fragment retrieved at autopsy was retrieved from behind the eye. The fragment spotted by Lattimer was on the middle of the forehead, possibly on the outside of the skull. This is around 2 inches away. Mantik himself, moreover, admits that the fragment now in the archives could not possibly be the forehead fragment. But could it be the so-called 6.5 mm fragment? YES. John Hunt found photographs of the largest fragment taken before it was broken into pieces for testing by the FBI. And it could easily be the fragment on the x-rays. As far as Humes et al's thoughts on the so-called 6.5 mm fragment and whether or not it was the fragment removed on 11-22-63... From chapter 18b: The autopsy report written by Dr. Humes states: “There is edema and ecchymosis (bruising) diffusely over the right supra-orbital ridge (the eye socket) with abnormal mobility of the underlying bone” and that “roentgenograms (x-rays) of the skull reveal multiple minute fragments along a line corresponding with a line joining the above described small occipital wound and the right supra-orbital ridge… From the surface of the disrupted cerebral cortex two small irregularly shaped fragments of metal are recovered. These measure 7 x 2 mm and 3 x 1 mm.” While these statements supported that the fragments were behind the eye, one might stretch them to support they were just behind the forehead as well. Perhaps then Humes' testimony was more specific. Indeed, it was. Before the Warren Commission, Humes testified that while studying the x-rays taken at the beginning of the autopsy, he'd observed "A rather sizable fragment visible by x-ray just above the right eye" and that the majority of the fragments visible on the x-rays were "dustlike...with the exception of this one I previously mentioned which was seen to be above and very slightly behind the right orbit." After being shown Exhibit 388, on which this fragment was depicted behind the right eye, he then explained: “We attempted to examine the brain, and seek specifically this fragment which was the one we felt to be of a size which would permit us to recover it.” Arlen Specter then asked: "When you refer to this fragment, and you are pointing there, are you referring to the fragment depicted right above the President’s eye?” To which Humes replied: “Yes, sir. Above and somewhat behind the President’s eye." He then continued: "We directed carefully in this region and in fact located this small fragment, which was in a defect in the brain tissue in just precisely this location.” Humes tried to get through to the HSCA as well. Dr Petty: “the least distorted and least fuzzy portion of the radiopaque materials would be closest to the film, and we would assume then that this peculiar semilunar object with the sharp edges would be close to the film and therefore represent the piece that was seen in the lateral view” Dr. Humes: “Up by the eyebrow.” Dr. Petty: “no up by the—in the back of the skull.” Petty returned to the topic later: “we’re trying to establish whether this particular sharp-edged radiopaque defect is close to the back of the skull or close to the front of the skull." Dr. Humes: “I can’t be sure I see it in the lateral at all, do you? Do you see it?” Dr. Petty evaded Humes’ question and turned to Dr. Boswell: “Were these fragments that were recovered at all?” To which Boswell, obviously trusting Petty that the fragments were where he said they were, replied: “No. They were not.” When asked about the large fragment by the ARRB, Humes similarly relented: “I don’t remember retrieving anything of that size.” Later, however, when asked if he could spot any fragments on the lateral x-ray, he said: “Well, you see, there’s nothing in this projection that appears to be of the size of the one that appeared to be above and behind the right eye on the other one.” Wait. He claimed not to recognize the fragment, and yet he still knew exactly where it was—and it just so happened to be in the exact location where he’d found a fragment during the autopsy??? From this strange slip-up, one might assume Humes suspected all along that the Clark Panel’s fragment on the back of the head was in reality the fragment he’d found near the forehead. By the end of his ARRB interview, in fact, he admitted as much, telling Jeremy Gunn that the large fragment “that you saw in the first AP view of the skull could be the 7 by 2 millimeter one that we handed over to the FBI.” Well, at least Humes tried to tell the truth. Unfortunately, no one believed him… that is, except Dr. Boswell, who shared his faith the fragment was the one removed at autopsy. In 1994, when asked about the largest fragment on the x-rays by Dr. Gary Aguilar, Dr. Boswell asserted "The largest piece was up along the frontal sinus, right." When shown the lateral x-ray by the ARRB, moreover, Dr. Boswell told Gunn “I think we dug this piece out right here,” and then explained “right here” as near the “right eye...right supraorbital area.” He later told Gunn that the large semicircular fragment he’d initially had trouble identifying on the A-P x-ray might very well be “the same as the one that appears to be in the frontal bone in the lateral.” Well, which part of the frontal bone? In any event, he was on the right track. And he wasn't alone. While the radiologist at the autopsy, Dr. Ebersole, died years before he could be called to testify before the ARRB, his two assistants at the autopsy, x-ray technicians Jerrol Custer and Edward Reed, who actually took the x-rays, were called to testify, and both confirmed that the large fragment on the x-rays was found behind the right eye. When asked in a series of questions if he could see the large fragment visible on the A-P x-ray on the lateral x-ray, Reed told Gunn, "Yes, I can...In the frontal lobe...Right above the supraorbital ridge...Supraorbital rim. It is right impregnated in there." Even more telling, when asked the same question a week later, Reed's boss on the night of the autopsy, Custer, testified that the large bullet fragment was located in the "Right orbital ridge, superior." Their statements, moreover, echo what Secret Service Agents Roy Kellerman and William Greer told the Warren Commission. On 3-9-64 Kellerman told the commission that both he and Greer were shown the x-rays during the autopsy and that the only fragment he recalled being removed came from "inside above the eye, the right eye." Shortly thereafter, Greer testified in a similar fashion. He recalled: "I looked at the X-rays when they were taken in the autopsy room, and the person who does that type work showed us the trace of it because there would be little specks of lead where the bullet had come from here and it came to the--they showed where it didn't come on through. It came to a sinus cavity or something they said, over the eye." As Custer and Reed were but technicians, and not officially qualified to interpret the x-rays, we can only assume the "person" who claimed this was Ebersole. And this wasn't the last time Kellerman spoke on the matter. In 1977, when asked about his role in the autopsy by an HSCA investigator, Kellerman recalled that the x-rays showed "...a whole mass of stars, the only large piece being behind the eye, which was given to the FBI agents when it was removed." So what did these agents have to say about this fragment? On the night of the autopsy, FBI agents James Sibert and Frank O’Neill signed a receipt as follows: “I hereby acknowledge receipt of a missile removed by Commander James J Humes.” These agents were therefore intimately involved in the recovery of this missile (which they would later insist was the fragment). One might think then that they'd be sure to remember if it was the largest fragment on the x-ray and from where it was removed. While an 11-22-63 memo from their boss, Alan Belmont, written during the autopsy, claimed a bullet was "lodged behind the president's ear," we can only assume this was a misunderstanding of what the agents had actually told their superiors over the phone. Sure enough, Sibert and O'Neill's 11-26 report on the autopsy asserts “The largest section of this missile as portrayed by x-ray appeared to be behind the right frontal sinus.” As the right frontal sinus is just above the eyebrow and is an inch or so lower than the club-shaped fragment widely believed to have been the fragment recovered at the autopsy, this would put the bullet fragment, not an intact bullet as implied by Belmont's memo, behind the eye, and not the ear, as claimed in Belmont's memo. (The club-shaped fragment, it should be noted, was simply in the middle of the forehead, and not lodged behind anything, let alone another body part beginning with the letter "E".) Lest that not be convincing, Sibert and O'Neill's subsequent statements further confirmed that the largest fragment recovered at autopsy was recovered from behind the eye, and not from the middle of the forehead. Although a 10-24-78 affidavit signed by Agent Sibert for the HSCA said merely that the fragments were recovered from the head, a report on an 8-25-77 interview with James Sibert notes "Sibert believes that both fragments came from the head, probably from the frontal sinus region." An HSCA Report on a 1-10-78 interview with his partner Frank O'Neill, moreover, confirmed that this fragment was recovered from just behind the eye. It states: "O'Neill believes the doctors recovered a piece of the missile from just behind an eye and another one from further back." On 11-8-78, O'Neill even put this in writing; his signed affidavit declares "I saw the doctors remove a piece of the missile from just behind an eye and another one from further back in the head." (P.S. It seems likely O'Neill thought the second fragment recovered was the second largest one noted on the x-rays. This is an understandable mistake. He noted two fragments in his report and the doctors recovered two fragments. Problem is they weren't the same two. The second fragment recovered by the doctors was found right next to the fragment removed from behind the eye while the second largest fragment observed on the x-rays was, according to O'Neill's own report on the autopsy, observed "at the rear of the skull at the juncture of the skull bone.") And no, Sibert and O'Neill aren't the end of our parade of witnesses for the fragment behind the eye. That honor belongs to Bethesda chief of surgery Dr. David Osborne. On 4-5-90, Osborne (then an Admiral) wrote JFK researcher Joanne Braun. He told her that the fatal bullet "hit in the occipital region of the posterior skull which blew off the posterior top of his skull and impacted and disintegrated against the interior surface of the frontal bone just above the level of the eyes." So here we have the men most intimately involved with the skull x-rays ALL stating that the large fragment on the A-P x-ray was in the supraorbital ridge or that the trail of fragments came to an end above and behind the right eye.

Gosh. 1. Yes, I know. The lateral x-ray does not show a companion for the 6.5 mm fragment apparent in the AP...where Mantik and others have looked for it. To be clear, the Clark Panel, without checking with those who'd attended the autopsy, or even studying their statements, conjured up that the large fragment shown on the AP x-ray was on the back of the head...beside an entrance in the cowlick. Mantik and others then recognized that heck, there is NO fragment apparent in that location. So he theorized that this "fragment" was added to the AP x-ray. 2. 20 years ago, I came along, and started double-checking much of what I'd read in the conspiracy literature. For the first few years, I was intimidated by radiology and deferred to Mantik's expertise. When I finally looked into it, however, I realized that Mantik and others had made numerous mistakes, and had made numerous false claims. But one of these was that the large fragment removed at autopsy can be observed on the middle of the forehead. This was a fabrication, first told by Dr. Lattimer, which hides that the large fragment was removed from behind the right eye and not from the middle of the forehead.. And it's worse than that. When one looks behind the right eye on the lateral x-ray--VOILA--one sees a fragment of some sort that is not on the pre-mortem x-ray, that matches precisely the location of the large fragment on the AP x-ray. Now, Mantik has said that he thinks this is a piece of bone, and not bullet, and that he thinks it's just a coincidence that it's in the exact location described by the doctors. But this is weak sauce, IMO. The doctors specified that they'd found some smaller bullet fragments right beside the large fragment, behind the right eye. And these can be viewed in both the AP and lateral x-rays...by the so-called 6.5 mm fragment, and NOT by the small fragment in or on the middle of the forehead. 3. As far as witnesses... On my website I have a number of witnesses who, when pointed out the large fragment on the AP x-ray, ultimately said they thought it was or could be the large fragment found behind the right eye. Dr. Humes is among them.

Oh my. Mantik's whole journey into darkness started when he realized THE "6.5 mm" fragment visible on the AP x-ray was NOT on the back of the head. This led him to conclude it had been added to the AP. He later concluded that this added "fragment" over-lapped a much smaller fragment, not readily visible to the naked eye, NEAR the back of the head. But he has never, to my knowledge, said Russells Morgan and Fisher and the HSCA were correct, and that a 6.5 mm fragment is on the back of the head, adjacent to the cowlick entrance. For one, Mantik believes, as I, and most to have studied the evidence over the past few decades, that the entrance wound observed on the back of the head was observed down by the EOP. For two, Mantik believes the Harper fragment derived from the middle of the back of the head. So where...ON the back of the head...could there be such a fragment? Now, as to why and how my disagreements with Mantik became personal, you'd have to look through the archives of this forum. For many years, Fetzer and his minions waved Mantik in my face whenever I discussed the medical evidence. "How dare I disagree with the top medical expert, blah blah blah"? They then pushed him to respond, which led him to publish a blithering attack article, which I then dismantled on my website. In any event, this feud led the Wecht family to invite me to "debate" Mantik at their next conference. I didn't want to debate--but agreed we could have back-to-back presentations on the same evidence, so the audience could decide for themselves. Mantik went first. In his presentation he changed course on several of his findings, and acknowledged I was correct on a major bone of contention. I was grateful for this because my presentation was over-long, and this allowed me to cut some stuff out. But I also appreciated that he would fly across the country, and stand before the likes of McAdams, and admit I was correct on a major bone of contention. As far as I was concerned, that was the end of our "feud". A few years later, moreover, I found myself standing behind Mantik at an Aguilar conference. He had challenged Don Thomas' findings on the dictabelt, and most everyone was whispering about him, the same way some had once whispered about me. "Is he insane? How dare he question the great blah blah blah"? In any event, I now see Mantik and myself as two very different peas in a pod. We think differently, and aren't afraid to upset others. So, in sum, your insinuation there is a consensus on the medical evidence, and that Mantik is at the center of this consensus, falls flat. I know many of the "top medical experts" on the JFK case, and they don't exactly defer to Mantik's findings. One of his recent conclusions--that there were three headshots--has gained zero point zero support, outside the Horne/Chesser echo chamber.

I asked this same question, Joe, and then fell down a rabbit hole. The witnesses saw but one large head wound. Some made out it was on the far back of the head. Some made out it was a bit further forward. I ended up concluding this second batch of witnesses were largely correct, in part because their recollections are consistent with the autopsy photos and x-rays--which absolutely positively suggest more than one shooter. It made no sense to me that "someone" would fake the evidence to suggest a conspiracy. I discuss this in great detail in chapters 18c and 18d of my website.

Oh my. The whole issue first rose up because the large fragment seen on the AP x-ray and ASSUMED to be on the back off the head can't be spotted on the back of the head on the lateral x-ray. This led Mantik to claim it must have been added to the AP x-ray. After studying the magnification and angle of the head in the x-rays, and matching up the AP and lateral x-rays, I realized that the fragment is not on the back of the head but behind the right eye, exactly where Humes et al said they found the largest fragment--and precisely where they presented it on CE 388. That can hardly be a coincidence. And now you're trying to tell me that most everyone agrees that the fragment they can't see on the back of the head is actually on the back of the head. They can't see it. But you think we should take their word for it. Priceless. I mean, think about it. IF there is a 6.3 or 6.5 mm fragment on the far back of the head, as claimed by Morgan on down, who is to say that that fragment is not the fragment on the AP? And no, you can't assume the whiteness of an object on an AP x-ray will match the whiteness of that object on a lateral x-ray. As demonstrated on the slides above, that's not the way it works. It's just not.

The supposedly 6.5 mm fragment on the AP x-ray lines up perfectly with the fragment found behind the eye. I pointed this out years ago. Mantik's argument against this is that he "thinks" the fragment behind the eye on the lateral x-ray is just dis-placed bone. He avoids the incredible coincidence of there being a fragment exactly where a number of autopsy witnesses said there was a fragment, and instead tells his readers the fragment recovered at autopsy was recovered from the middle of the forehead, which he has to know is false.

I did a ton of research on x-rays and found that much of what we've been told, by LNs and CTs alike, is nonsense. I have chapters about this on my website. In short, I discovered that, as with the rest of the medical evidence, the CT notion it was all fake is wrong and incredibly counter-productive. The story as pushed by CT-world has been that the official medical evidence points to a single-shooter, and that it must have been altered to do so. I found that this was wrong on both points. The official medical evidence is and has always been proof of more than one shooter. It's just that the autopsy doctors mis-interpreted it (probably on purpose while under pressure to claim there was but one shooter). No, to me, the bigger scandal begins when CT-world got its wish, and civilian doctors were granted access to the medical evidence. They moved the bullet entrance on the back of the head, and found a 6.5 mm fragment on the back of the head, etc. All of which helped them sell the single-assassin conclusion. It was bs, of course. Pure smoke. Unfortunately, there remains a bias among most of those who've studied the medical evidence, whereby they tend to believe the findings of the Clark Panel on down, and assume Humes, Boswell, Finch, etc, were incompetents, who couldn't even figure out on what bone they discovered and measured a bullet hole. There's an old saying about following the money. I've found that if one follows the "corrections" made by the Clark Panel on down one will find the true story of the medical evidence--how the autopsy doctors told the truth about what they saw but misrepresented what it meant, and how subsequent panels realized the true implications of what the autopsy doctors said they saw, and decided to say they must have been blind idiots. I mean, ANYTHING, but admit the truth: that the official evidence--the autopsy protocol, x-rays, and photographs--is clear-cut evidence for more than on shooter. As far as white and black on x-rays, it's not what most people think. It's not as simple as white being bone and black being no bone. What is shown on the x-rays is RELATIVE density. An inch of brain might be as white as a thin slice of bone, etc. Making matters worse, moreover, is that the relative density changes based on the voltage of the x-rays, the length of exposure, and the distance between the x-ray tube and subject . So...two x-rays taken on the same machine only moments apart can look quite different. Here are two slides from my website demonstrating this point.

Everyone to study the x-rays including Mantik has concluded that the X-rays are of Kennedy's skull, and show brain inside. So the x-rays were taken on 11-22-63. The incident described by Custer was at a later date, and involved him x-raying a skull with a bullet taped to it, or something like that.

Thanks. I was able to find his drawing of the "6.5" fragment, in which he shows what he thinks is a real fragment beneath it. It's basically half the large fragment cut vertically, making it roughly the same height. So I was correct in remembering that it was much smaller in its width, but had forgotten that it was about the same in its height.

My disagreement with Mantik's conclusions aside, I don't recall his ever saying the small fragment on the back of the head was 6.3 mm. That's basically the size of the "fragment" he thinks is a fake. As I recall the small fragment he sees on the lateral x-ray is fair smaller than the so-called 6.5 mm fragment. Can you point me to something where he says the "real" fragment and "fake" fragment are nearly the same size?

Yes, that's true. This is important for two reasons. 1) it demonstrates that it is as I said--that his report claiming the wound was of the left temple was either a mistaken reference to the right temple, OR a reference to a wound he never saw, whilst simultaneously failing to mention the wound he did see. And 2) it demonstrates that those citing him as a forehead entry witness are full of beans. He would ultimately tell people he THOUGHT there had been a wound on the forehead...that went unseen at Parkland, And he marked this wound on drawings demonstrating what he THOUGHT were the President's wounds. But he was clear about never seeing such a wound, and only coming to believe there had been such a wound much much later.

I am not aware of anyone's disputing McClelland's presence in the room or his seeing brain, etc. The doubts about his latter-day claims stem from his earliest statements. On the day of the shooting he wrote that the President's death was due to a wound of the left temple. He made no mention of a wound on the back of the head. While he later tried to cover by saying he'd been confused by Jenkins and thought Jenkins had pointed out an entrance wound on the left side of the head, this makes little sense to me. Doctors DON'T write reports claiming what they thought someone else saw, while neglecting to report what they themselves saw. Well, this leads me to conclude he saw a wound on the right temple--where it was observed by Newman, Zapruder, Buckley, etc--and got confused as to left and right. In any event, within a few weeks of the shooting he told a journalist that there was nothing about the President's head wound to make him think the shot came from the front. I have seen him interviewed, furthermore, in which he admitted believing the fatal shot came from behind until seeing the Zapruder film on TV. In short, then, his actual statements don't support what many believe about him. Most CTs believe he was an unimpeachable truth-teller, who saw a blow-out wound low on the back of JFK's head, and KNEW the shot came from the front from day one. They assume then that he took decades to come forward out of fear. And that is why I asked him if he'd ever felt pressured to lie or go along with a story, etc. And he said no. While, in his final years, his impressions of the President's wounds were at odds with those of some of his colleagues, he agreed with them that Crenshaw was blowing smoke in his implication they all were pressured to lie or go along with the official story, and did so out of fear.

Oh, I agree. It's hard to find an innocent reason for this guy's behavior. But there's still a lot that we don't know.

I am fairly certain that the Secret Service does not provide security to everyone running for President prior to the primaries, outside those considered a front-runner. I don't think any of the Republican candidates outside Trump have Secret Service protection at this point. As I recall, they only started guarding candidates after RFK was killed, and Nixon shat all over that by using the Secret Service detail to spy on Ted Kennedy in '72. As a consequence, some candidates refuse protection.

FWIW, I saw an article in which the brother was interviewed, and denied any animosity towards RFK Jr. He said as well that his brother HAD worked as a security guard. So it seems possible the whole thing was a bit of a miscommunication. But we can suspect otherwise.

By the time I met McClelland--only briefly, while he was walking down the hall after a presentation--I had studied his statements and had come to doubt the accuracy of some of his claims. So I just asked him a few questions no one else had thought to ask. I remember asking him if anyone had ever threatened him or pressured him to change any of his impressions. He adamantly denied this. I believe I nodded my head as he did so. He seemed in a bit of a hurry, and was soft-spoken, so I felt guilty pushing him further. So I thanked him for coming forward and sharing his recollections. My impression at the time, and largely still, is that he was a nice man, and that the inconsistencies in his statements were the work of Father Time and peer pressure. Shortly before he died, however, I noticed that there were dozens of drawings of his for sale on eBay, showing what was purported to be his impression of JFK's wound locations. These drawings showed wounds he never saw and wounds in locations where he had once said there was no wound. The placement of the head wound, to be clear, seemed to be an attempt at replicating the drawing made for Six Seconds in Dallas. The people selling these drawings were asking for large sums. I want to believe that people approached him at conferences, and asked him to make a drawing, and then decided to sell them at a profit, without his knowledge. But I am forced to conclude that he created the drawings for his own profit and was simply giving his customers what they wanted.

As far as missed opportunities. I met a number of witnesses while in attendance at conferences. I chatted with most of them. As most of them at one point got up and told their story, it felt wrong to grill them off-stage. But in retrospect I wish I'd had a hand-held recorder and a prepared list of five to six questions to ask these witnesses--people like Newman, Frazier, Tague, Moorman, Rike, McLain, McClelland, Sawyer, Oliver, Baker, etc. I can't say anything ground-breaking would have come of it, but having a prepared list can be quite helpful. Unfortunately, it can also be intimidating to the witnesses, who just want a nice visit and chat, as opposed to a grilling. At one point, I was asked to prepare some questions to ask Gerry Hemming on camera. He backed out, citing his health. Although I believe he was in poor health, I can't help but suspect that he knew--based upon my behavior on this forum--that I wasn't gonna just let him get away with saying whatever sounded good at the time--and that this was more than what he'd bargained for. .

I believe the reality is that the world is not as big as most think it is, and that most people are connected to historical events in one way or another. This is demonstrated by my own trip down the rabbit hole. At one point I became intrigued by Robert Maheu. He was the cut-out between the CIA and the Mafia for the attempts on Castro, was Howard Hughes' public face for a decade or so, and was quite possibly the reason Nixon's men bugged the DNC. While reading his auto-bio, however, I received a surprise. At one point he mentions meeting a Texas oilman on a plane, and becoming friends with this man for life. This is if I recall the only personal friend mentioned in the book. Well, this oilman was my dad's boss when I was growing up, someone I had met a number of times. Shortly thereafter I read a book about Hughes, in which the theft of documents in his possession relating to a top secret spy ship he'd built on behalf the CIA, using Maheu's connections, was discussed in great detail. While reading this I discovered another connection. One of the men involved in this theft was a former actor, who had testified against the security guard. Well, upon reading this book, it became clear that this actor was actually the ring-leader of the gang who'd ripped off Hughes. Now get this. This man was a buddy of my mom's ex-boyfriend, whom she'd met and hung out with on several occasions. On reading through the book, moreover, it became clear to me that one of the unidentified members of the gang who'd ripped off Hughes was my mom's ex-boyfriend, who'd sold his house and moved in with us around the time of the robbery.

It's worse than that. The Ambassador Hotel was on Wilshire.

Jack Ready was JFK's bodyguard. He stood in front of Landis on the right side of the Queen Mary. He started to step off and race up to the limo but was called back when Hill beat him to it.

The reality is that everyone's memories change over time. It's been proven over and over and over again. I have chatted with Bill Newman about this, and he kinda throws up his hands. He said he now remembers hearing three shots, and has no idea why he initially said he'd heard but two. He said he could understand why someone would look at that old footage and conclude he'd only heard two., and that he might even agree with them...Except for the fact that he now clearly remembers three.