Pat Speer

Ball and Belin failed to ask the questions necessary to establish who was where and when. Heck, they didn't even know there was a west side entrance to the building. As a consequence there are a lot of questions. When weeding through this stuff, a reasonable person leans to the scenarios that answer the most questions--that provide the fullest picture. For example, Sawyer said someone took him up to the fourth. Shelley said he took someone up to the fourth. While it's possible they were each talking about some mystery person, It's reasonable to assume that they were talking about each other. This is not what I want to believe. It is what's logical.

No. He indicated that he saw them run up the back stairs. As this was something I discovered, it's not something many people know about or talk about. Here is the relevant section of my chapter/book on all this stuff... Suspicious Omission #27 4-7-64. Warren Commission attorney Joseph Ball also fails to ask Lovelady if he saw Roy Truly and Officer Baker run up the back stairs. This omission is particularly egregious and suspicious in light of subsequent events. On 7-5-78, Billy Lovelady was interviewed by an HSCA investigator, accompanied by an HSCA photo analyst (Robert Groden). While the tapes of this interview were not transcribed, copies of the tapes were eventually acquired by researcher Richard Gilbride and placed on Youtube. Towards the end of Tape 1, Lovelady is asked "What did you see inside the building?" after he and Shelley returned to the building. He says he saw some co-workers, but does not name them. He is then asked to describe what the police did as they ran into the building. His response is blurred as the tape runs out. At the beginning of Tape 2, however, he repeats for posterity what he was describing as the tape ran out. He repeats: "One policeman (and) Mr. Truly had run up the steps...I guess they went up the steps when they couldn't get the freight elevator to go upstairs." Lovelady is then asked "What else did you see that went on at that time after the police came in?" He responds "At that time, after Mr. Truly and (the) officer ran up, there were more Secret Service and FBI, I guess it was, that came in." Well this suggests that Lovelady (and Shelley) were inside the building when Truly and Baker ran up the stairs.

I have what amounts to a book on all this. There is a ton in there on Garner, etc. As far as Adams' transcript, the Stroud letter in which she famously admits she talked to Garner and that Garner supported Adams' claim she descended the stairs before Baker and Truly ran up, is a summary of the changes Adams made to her transcript before signing. The transcript in the archives reflects all these changes, in pen, and Adams' signature, in pen. In any event, it is really really silly to say we know something happened because Stroud said so, and then say the rest of that letter is a hoax, or whatever. OF COURSE, Adams said she saw Shelley and Lovelady. If she hadn't, Ball/Belin wouldn't have gone to the lengths they did to pretend Shelley and Lovelady were outside for far longer than they actually were. As far as Shelley and Lovelady--Lovelady said they saw a girl when they came in--who was this if not Adams?--and Shelley said he talked to Adams but couldn't remember just where--where was this if not on the first floor? There are statements by Baker and Truly, etc, that support this as well. So, yikes, the pieces only fit when we assume they were there when she came down. As far as the stenographer's tapes, I seem to remember Weisberg pursuing these and being told they'd been destroyed. But I may be confused on this. I do know that there was an order to destroy all copies of the Executive Session in which Oswald's possible connection to the intelligence agencies was discussed, and that Warren wanted to destroy all the transcripts at one point but was pulled back from this by Russell and Goldberg. So...there's little reason to believe the stenographer's tapes exist.

This is all covered in detail in my chapter. Shelley and Lovelady were racing towards the railroad tracks when Baker approached Truly at the front of the building. Shelley and Lovelady then went around the outside to the west entrance, beating Baker and Truly to the back of the building by 10 seconds or so. (This leads me to believe Baker and Truly paused a few times on their journey to the back elevators.) The "official" story leaves a number of loose strands that are only explained by the scenario I've offered. 1. Baker saw two men at the back of the building. If not Shelley and Lovelady who were they? No other white employees were anywhere near there at the time. 2. Lovelady saw a girl when he came in from the west. If not Adams, who was it? 3. Shelley said he spoke to Adams but thought it might have been on the fourth floor. He didn't get to the fourth till 5 minutes or so after the shots. Did she not go down for five minutes after the shooting? No, she said she saw a policeman standing on a corner looking up at the building when she came down. This would have been Welcome Barnett, if I recall, who said he ran over there right after the shots. So, yes, we know she came down right away. But did she go back up to the fourth in time to run into Shelley? My recollection is it doesn't add up. It goes on and on. For whatever reason, neither Ball/Belin nor the researchers to follow spent any real time on this--figuring out who saw who, etc. I suppose it was a bit daunting, but from putting together my database of witness statements, I came to realize that there really weren't all that many players, and that if Sawyer said someone took him to the fourth, and Shelley said he took someone to the fourth, well, they were talking about each other. 4.

I spent months studying the statements and movements of the TSBD employees and the first responders. My findings are reported in my chapter Pinning the Tale on the the Oswald. Here are the key findings, all of which are supported by multiple statements. 1. Oswald came down for lunch, and was seen by multiple witnesses. 2. Vickie Adams and Sandy Styles raced down the stairs shortly after the shots and did not see Oswald. 3. Jack Dougherty was downstairs at the time of the shooting, and took an elevator upstairs a few minutes later, after Baker and Truly ran up the stirs. This means that an elevator came down as Baker and Truly ran up...and that Dougherty was not in this elevator. And this suggests that someone other than Oswald descended in this elevator from the fifth or sixth floor after the shooting.

Nope. The very films you claim show Oswald on the front steps show Shelley and Lovelady race towards the train yards. They were not stopped by cops. They then came back in through the side so Shelley could call his wife. And we know this took a minute or so because... 1. Adams said she saw them when she came down from above, and placed them near a phone. 2. Shelley said he saw her but couldn't remember when...and this would have been the only time that made sense. 3. Lovelady said he saw a girl when he came in but he couldn't say for sure if it was Vickie, and Adams and Styles were the only girls to be at the back of the building at the time. 4. Baker said he saw two white men at the back of the building when he came in, and Shelley and Lovelady are the only two that make sense. '5. Shelley said Truly asked him to guard the elevator. As Truly went upstairs within two minutes of the shots, and didn't come down till 7 or 8 minutes later, when cops were pouring in the building, this only makes sense if Shelley and Lovelady were the two men at the back of the building. 6. Sawyer said he came In at 4 minutes or so after the shooting, and was escorted up to the fourth floor by an employee waiting near the front elevator. 7. Shelley said he escorted a cop up to the fourth floor shortly after the shots. It is clear this cop was Sawyer. Now, it is quite telling, IMO, that Ball/Belin never created a timeline of the movements of the employees. If they had it would have been clear Shelley and Lovelady were on the first floor within a minute or so of the shots, and saw Adams come down...BEFORE Baker and Truly reached the back of the building. 8. This fact was supported, moreover, by Lovelady, who told the HSCA he saw Baker and Truly run up the stairs. Well, huh, in the WC scenario he was outside at the time.

Adams was made to feel like an idiot for what she'd said about Lovelady and Shelley. So it's not exactly a surprise that she would much much later say she never said it. But she said it more than once, and Lovelady and Shelley both confirmed that she'd seen them, albeit indirectly. It should also be noted that the transcript to her testimony is in the archives, along with her hand-written notations. There was no attempt on her part to remove the testimony regarding seeing Lovelady and Shelley, quite obviously because she stood by her testimony. As far as the stenographer tapes...they were alll destroyed beck in 1964. FWIW, it's clear to me that if there was a deliberate attempt to change the record and make it look like Adams said something that could be used to suggest she didn't come down the stairs when she said she did, that Lovelady and Shelley's testimony would also have been changed. Well, their testimony suggests they did see her, but weren't sure where they saw her. As stated, you can tell what was going on by the questions never asked. Neither Lovelady nor Shelley were asked if they'd seen Baker and Truly approach the stairs. This was one of the most important questions they could have been asked. Baker said he saw two unidentified men standing at the back of the building. Shelley said Truly told him to guard the elevator. So why was no attempt made to figure out the identity of these men? Or just when Truly told Shelley to watch the elevator. I think we know. The fix was in. Ball/Belin decided to pin it on the Oswald, and to do what they needed to make out that some of Oswald's co-workers were idiots. Adams wasn't alone. Piper and Dougherty were also set up.

As stated, my conclusion comes from a study of the films, statements and testimony. Shelley and Lovelady left the front steps within seconds. Although they made varying estimates as to how long they spent outside, Lovelady made clear they spent more time at the front of the building than they did overlooking the tracks. This puts them then at the back of the building within a minute or two. As Shelley said he came in and called his wife, and Adams placed them by the phone when she came down, and Baker said he saw two white men standing at the back of the building when he ran in, it all adds up. Further cementing this, moreover, is that Shelley said Truly told him to guard the front elevator. Well, when did this conversation take place? Baker and Truly were (officially) upstairs when Shelley came in, and didn't come down for 5-10 minutes, so that's a problem. And Sawyer came in at 4 minutes or so after the shooting and said someone took him up to the fourth via the front elevator. Well, this was obviously Shelley, who said he took a police officer up to the fourth. Now, here's the kicker. Sawyer and Baker acknowledged seeing each other on the fourth as Sawyer came down with Truly. So...Shelley was on the fourth floor when Truly came down from the roof. Well, would Truly tell Shelley to guard the front elevator when Shelley was on the fourth floor at the back of the building, and the building was rapidly filling with police officers? Nope. Shelley's statements and a number of other statements (such as Lovelady's remembering that he saw a girl after they came in but he couldn't swear it was Vicky Adams) only make sense when one pieces it together and realizes Shelley and Lovelady did in fact arrive at the back of the building before Baker and Truly, and even before Adams. And we have reason to suspect Ball and Belin knew this, moreover, and conspired to hide this from the public. I mean, I don't think it's a coinkydink that they pressured Shelley and Lovelady into shooting down Adams but NEVER made any real attempts at establishing a timeline regarding Shelley and Lovelady's movements, such as asking them if they saw Baker and Truly before they went upstairs, or Truly if he saw them in the building before he went upstairs. (FWIW, when interviewed by the HSCA, Shelley did, yessiree, indicate he saw Baker and Truly run upstairs.) (This is is all discussed in detail in my chapter Pinning the Tale on the Oswald.)

FWIW, from studying the films, witness statements and testimony, it's clear to me that Lovelady and Shelley made a brisk walk around the outside of the building and entered through the west roll-up door while en route to a phone. They were then spotted by Adams, who quickly ran outside. They were then approached by Baker and Truly, who asked Shelley to guard the front elevator and stairs. This lasted but a minute or two. When Sawyer came in, Shelley took him up to the fourth floor. In any event, this puts Shelley at the bottom of the front stairs when Oswald is purported to have come down those stairs and exited the building. As a result, I suspect Oswald was telling the truth when he said he went outside with Shelley. I mean, they could have been chatting as they walked for a sec. So...did Shelley lie about this? I suspect so. Oswald was dead. The authorities said he was guilty. If Shelley were to have admitted he'd let Oswald pass or even said he could go home his life would have been severely disrupted, perhaps even ruined.

FWIW, while working on my website, it became apparent that newspapers are often sloppy or worse. I found numerous instances where they quoted someone from a taped interview where their version of what was said was in contradiction to what was on the tape. There were also a lot of mis-understandings. For example, one journalist misunderstood the doctors' claims there was a large hole on the back of the head, and reported instead that there was a large hole on JFK's back,

And neither did Dulles. Dulles was negotiating with Japanese leaders to end the war. So, yes, it is an historical fact that Japan knew it had lost and was willing to end the war, and that the bombs were not necessary to end the war.. The problem was that word..."unconditional". The U.S. decided it wanted an unconditional surrender, which Japan was reluctant to accept. And this brings us to the other problem--The Soviets. While the U.S. on its own might have let the war wind down while pressuring Japan to accept terms we (and they) could live with, there was a bear running onto the scene that both sides wanted to stop in its tracks. As a result, 1. The dropping of the bombs was not necessary to end the war. 2. Russia's approach to Japan helped end the war. 3. The dropping of the bombs ended the war. All three are true, IMO.

I wish people would stop claiming the Hosty "notes" in question were written during his interview with Oswald. There is no reason to believe they were, outside desperation. He published his actual notes in his book. Those were sentence fragments--the way one takes actual notes. The fuller sentences of the notes in question suggest they were written as an outline for a report. Now, it's always been curious that Bookhout wrote a report by himself, and then one with Hosty. Perhaps this was done to cover up that Hosty's own report suggested Oswald had given an alibi, or some such thing. So the "notes" found later may indeed be important. But there's no reason to believe they were written during the interview.

I thought about it at the time and I think Nolan wanted to show that their relationship was PHYSICAL, as opposed to most of Oppenheimer's life, which was intellectual. In doing so, he offered an "innocent" explanation for their relationship, IMO. She wasn't having sex with him on behalf of a cause, and he wasn't having sex with her while taking advantage of her devotion to this cause. No, they were effing because they liked it. Because they had bodies as well as brains. As far as the casting of Damon, I suspect that was not based on his acting per se as much as other reasons. One, Murphy (and perhaps Oppenheimer himself) come across as European, which is slightly at odds with the project itself, which was American as apple pie. By having Damon in the role, the American-ness of the project is made clear. A second reason could be budget. Nolan's films have huge budgets--and he needs to have some star-power in the film to justify such a budget. Murphy, Blunt, and Pugh didn't qualify. So he needed the likes of Downey, Damon, Oldman, Affleck, and even Mallek to get the thing made. I mean, look at how many Oscars these guys have. And how many nominations... And a third is probably personal. When grappling with an ambitious film with a huge budget, a director will often rely on the reliable, and select a few actors he or she's worked with in the past that he or she knows will be no problem. It comes as no surprise then that Nolan worked with Murphy on Inception and The Dark Knight Trilogy, Oldman on the Dark Knight trilogy, and Damon on Interstellar. I mean, think of that. That's twice now that Matt Damon, a star, has taken a minor role in a Nolan film. They clearly have a friendship.

Saw the film last week. It digs into a lot of the issues surrounding the bomb, and Oppenheimer's thoughts about his role in history. Now some thoughts about the war. As the war closed in on Japan, the Japanese military as well as its people made it clear they had no interest in unconditional surrender, and would fight on no matter the cost. The war was lost. They could not win. They were banking that the U.S. would allow them to save face and hold onto power in exchange for an end to the war, but they failed to see that the American military and American public was as determined as they were...to punish them. While it's true that the war could have ended before Hiroshima, such an ending would not have satisfied the American beast, which was determined to make Japan pay. This is perhaps the darkest side of propaganda. Once it is unleashed to stir people into action, they are not satisfied with a handshake. Only blood atonement will do. In this case, the U.S. could have fire-bombed Japan into oblivion and the American people would have been delighted. The atomic bomb, however, was a very Big Bang, and might very well shock the Japanese leaders into unconditional surrender. So...ironically, the bomb saved lives, hundreds of thousands of American lives, sure, but perhaps a few million Japanese lives as well. It worked. Now, was it ethical? No. But is war ever ethical? Now, back to the movie. There is an excellent scene where Oppenheimer meets Truman and tells Truman (the always-amazing Gary Oldman) that he, Oppenheimer, feels like he has blood on his hands. Sad, right. But Truman's response is classic. He tells Oppenheimer that the Japanese don't care who built the bomb, they care about who dropped it. As Oppenheimer leaves his office, moreover, Truman tells an assistant to make sure he never sees that cry-baby again. War is hell, and sometimes you have to sell your soul to win. P.S. I just went to a school orientation for my son and ended up rapping with some other parents. One couple just moved back from Japan, where they confirmed that few Japanese bear any grudges against the U.S. about the bomb. IOW, they understand that it was the quickest way to end the war. This, of course, doesn't answer one of the questions raised in Oppenheimer. Should the military have told the Japanese people what was coming if they didn't surrender? It seems like a long-shot. But long-shots are not impossible shots.

As a result of my poor health and COVID, I haven't been on a vacation for three years. So here I take a few days off and return to find this same old stuff regurgitated for the umpteenth time. I have mentioned this many times, but the ONE topic that has always led to a tread being killed is the topic of this thread. Tha Jews. It seems that every time someone brings up the possibility of Israel's involvement the thread quickly degenerates from there, with one side claiming the discussion of such a thing is anti-semitic, and the other side citing Ruby's Jewishness or Mark Lane's Jewishness, or David Lifton's Jewishness, as reason to believe all the Jews even tangentially involved in this case were working together. There can be no middle ground because everyone with the gumption to comment is committed one way or the other. Let it die.

I am not defending the CIA, which was prone to over-reach, and not above murdering people they thought were communists, or even supportive of communists. I am just pointing out that the thinking was that the world was at war, a Cold War, and that blood would be spilled, just not in the numbers of WWII or Korea. As far as early books on the CIA, one of the ones that got a lot of stuff right that pre-dated the Church Committee's investigations by a dozen years or so was CIA: the Inside Story by Andrew Tully. This came out in January 1962. I wouldn't be surprised if Truman had read this and that this had helped inspire him to make his anti-CIA comments the next year. In any event, my point was that many of the CIA's activities were not as hush-hush as people now seem to think, and that the American people largely knew what the CIA was doing. They just didn't care.

The beginning of this piece makes it seem like the public was oblivious to the actions of the CIA for decades and decades. When I first got sucked down the assassination rabbit hole, I sought out background materials in the form of old paperbacks...then sold at a local used book store for 10 for 2.00, if I recall. In any event, I picked up a number of early books on the CIA, from the late 50's/early 60's. And these mentioned Iran, Guatemala, the Bay of Pigs, etc. At the time, moreover, I suspect most Americans thought the CIA's actions were a good thing. The American people did not want to get dragged into another world war. If we could shape the world and steer the third world away from communism without direct military involvement, well, that would be spiffy.

A final thought on this, Ben. I taught my son to read when he was 2. By the time he was 5, he was reading at a faster rate than any adult I knew, and with better comprehension on topics he cared about. So I was and remain very active in my son's education. And I can tell you this. ALL children's stories have an agenda. They always have, and always will. For many years the moral was to listen to your parents, or love your country, etc. But, from Dumbo on, the moral has been to not judge a book by its cover, to not be prejudiced, to be fair, to believe in yourself...etc. Progressive ideas. It's not a mistake that the characters on Sesame Street come in an assortment of colors, and that the humans on Sesame Street come in a variety of tones. It's by design. And it's not a mistake that the central characters of Disney, Pixar, you name it, children's films are now mostly female. They are sending a message. And the message is that little girls need no longer feel inferior, in any way. Now, a certain percentage of the population is terrified by this, and would like us to go back to a time that never really existed. I mean, I always preferred Nancy Drew to the Hardy Boys anyhow, and I always thought Gretel was the hero of Hansel and Gretel. So Girl power rah rah!

Yes, there is a middle man. The CPB receives a relatively small amount of funding from the Federal Government, and disperses this funding among hundreds of stations. There is no one in the Federal government barking out orders as to what PBS' position should be on this or that--much to the chagrin of Republicans. As stated, they cut CPB funding under Trump (although apparently they didn't cut it all), in no small part because Trump and his acolytes hate the fact PBS has been so gol-darned progressive for the past 60 years or so--and has been pro-diversity, from Mr. Rogers on down to Sesame Street and Sid the Science Kid. As to the whether or not PBS should receive any funding...yes, yes , yes. We give billions to farmers NOT to grow crops. So why can't we give less than 1% of that amount of money to PBS stations to support quality children's programs, etc. As a father, and my son's primary care-taker, I can state that the best kid's programs were on PBS. There were a few on Nick as well. But the PBS programs--Sesame Street, Sid the Science Kid, Dinosaur Train, Word World, Super Why, etc, were far better and helped prepare my son for Kindergarten. Now, the MAGA folks hate these programs because they support diversity and fairness. God forbid. I mean, the mama pterosaur on Dinosaur Train just so happened to be raising a baby T-Rex whose egg ended up in her nest. Eegads!

PBS is not run by the evil guv'ment, nor is it government-funded. It used to receive some funding from Uncle Sam but the Repubs put an end to that because they didn't feel their views had received proper representation. And, oh yeah, Elmo is gay. The Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) is an American public broadcaster and non-commercial,[1][2][3][4][5] free-to-air television network based in Arlington, Virginia.[6][7][8][9] PBS is a publicly funded nonprofit organization and the most prominent provider of educational programs to public television stations in the United States,[10][11][12][13] distributing shows such as Frontline, Nova, PBS NewsHour, Arthur, Sesame Street, and This Old House.[14] PBS is funded by a combination of member station dues, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, pledge drives, and donations from both private foundations and individual citizens. All proposed funding for programming is subject to a set of standards to ensure the program is free of influence from the funding source.[15] PBS has over 350 member television stations, many owned by educational institutions, nonprofit groups both independent or affiliated with one particular local public school district or collegiate educational institution, or entities owned by or related to state government.[4] As of 2020, PBS has nearly 350 member stations around the United States.[16]

Thanks, David. I'm not sure how this fits into the Harvey and Lee scenario, but I think we can all agree the person at the table is the Oswald who later ended up in police custody, and who was later shot by Ruby.Assuming this is real, that is...

You call yourself reasonable. Now let's break this down. I've said I've spoken to dozens of people in the health care industry who saw for themselves the danger of Covid. You tried to counter this with some stats pushed by someone who wasn't there. I then make the proper analogy that this same kind of thinking led some--including people I've known--to claim the holocaust was a hoax. This offended you. So let's bring this back to this forum. We had a prominent member cite experts and videos to make the argument that the trade towers were brought down by energy beams from space, and the planes millions saw crashing into them were holograms. There were people who lost family members or who knew people involved, who found this irresponsible and insulting, and who left the forum as a result. In my case, not only did I personally spend months in the hospital talking to nurses and doctors about Covid, I've spent the last few years talking to my elderly mother--who suddenly found herself without friends at the senior center after a third of them died from Covid and another third stopped socializing from fear of Covid. (The final third died from other causes.) In any event, my mom was a nurse. Her senior social life was destroyed by Covid. It wasn't a hoax. And for you to sit there and call it "the Covid scam" is an embarrassment to the forum. Now, to be clear, one can have questions about how it started or how the government responded to it. But to pretend it really wasn't all that bad is disgusting. It is, in fact, quite similar to the behavior of the holocaust-denying friend of mine back in junior high. After hours of discussion, he conceded that millions had died and that his "study" of the holocaust had led him to believe the claims there had been 7 million victims were gross exaggerations. I asked him why he was more offended by an exaggerated number than he was the fact---which he'd conceded--that the Germans had slaughtered millions. He said it bothered him that so many accept the propaganda. I then asked if it was more bothersome that Hitler used propaganda to inspire the hate that led to millions of murders or that the relatives of those who were murdered used propaganda to inflate the numbers who were murdered. As I recall, he said he couldn't see the difference. So what, John, has led you down this road? Where you feel the need to attack people whose lives were upset by Covid? I mean, why call it a "scam"? And no no no, don't say the "facts." Hundreds of people, many of whom are smarter than you or I, have looked into this, and came away thinking Covid could have been a heckuva lot worse. The "facts" you cite speak to you. Why? Did you lose a business during the pandemic? Did your social life go ka-put? What was it?

Dude, whatever offense I gave you by comparing your thought process to the thought process of others I've encountered is MINIMAL compared to the ridiculously offensive, stick-in-the-eye nonsense you've been spewing. While you were sitting on a couch searching for data that could help you dismiss the efforts of others to save lives, I was in an actual hospital, talking to nurses and doctors. In all I talked to over a hundred. And not a one of them thought the response to the pandemic was over-wrought or unnecessary. Heck, the hospital I go to still has Covid protocols in place. Masks remain necessary. Only one visitor allowed per patient at a time. If you have a cough, they make you take a Covid test. Etc. And it's not because they are part of a conspiracy, or that they have been hood-winked. It's because they watched rooms fill up, and bodies pile up--real fast. And they are hoping to avoid that again.

I think very little would happen. Some people would say "I told you so" and a cottage industry would pop up overnight of people pushing that he was lying. Within weeks, people would be whispering stuff about WHY he lied, with many of them whispering something about "the Jews."

Yes, John. I have seen this same kind of magical thinking before. I went to school with a kid who'd "studied" World War II and had concluded the Holocaust was a hoax. He had reams of data and tons of scholars to back this up. The problem was that these scholars studied data and never talked to people. I had attended multiple baseball games with my sister's boyfriend and his dad, a Holocaust survivor. This man had the tattoo on his arm. He had survived because he'd had a job--sorting the clothes of the people "cleansed" in the showers or some such thing. He was the only "scholar" I needed to talk to. So, yes, my experience was anecdotal. From numerous sources, none of whom had an agenda.