Pat Speer

The EOP entrance is right where the doctors said it was. It's just hard to make out in the photos, seeing as they failed to shave the hair. But it's there, alright, and is readily visible in gifs combining the color and b and w back of the head photos. Here it is in a still. Now look at that location in the gif. P.S. This is discussed in great detail in Chapter 13 at patspeer.com, which also features a large blow-up of the gif above. https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster

The media reported on much of the testimony, including testimony suggesting a conspiracy, during the committee's hearings. It then waited around for a report. The report was a compromise, and Blakey and Stokes' public defense of the report didn't help much. As the committee concluded there was probably more than one shooter, but failed to connect Oswald to a specific second shooter, it was purported that the committee had concluded that a second shooter--ALSO ACTING ALONE--just so happened to fire shots at the exact same time as Oswald. This, of course, was nonsense, and led to much confusion. Blakey, of course, publicly pushed and continued to push that Oswald fired the shots as part of a mob conspiracy. To the point that many believed the committee had concluded as much, when it did not. In short, the HSCA is exhibit 1A as to why government committees quite often fail. The congressmen were just too busy and too political to get to the bottom of it all. Some would never conclude there was a conspiracy in which Oswald had been a patsy, and some were overly friendly with Arlen Specter, and were reluctant to second-guess the Warren Commission. It's incredible, in retrospect, that any good came of it.

I don't recall anyone saying the sniper was wearing a red shirt.

It's safe to say we've reached the same conclusion. That the single-assassin solution is highly unlikely, and that the WC and subsequent panels twisted the evidence to make it seem reasonable to assume Oswald fired all the shots, when this was--by their own test results--demonstrated to have been highly unlikely.

I discuss the shooting re-enactments and what they demonstrate here: https://www.patspeer.com/chapter-4g-thoughts-on-shots-and-the-curtain-rod-story

I believe I mentioned this documentary recently to counter the oft-stated claim the mainstream media has always covered for the CIA. Not exactly so, eh? FWIW, Moyers wrote a book to accompany this documentary, which I'm fairly certain was heavily promoted on his PBS program, etc. In any event, I have it somewhere.

In order to have perspective, one needs to see things from another angle. Suppose Hunter Biden enthusiastically met with Chinese agents prior to an election. Suppose Joe Biden then publicly called on China to hack into computers and find some useful dirt on his opponent in this election. Suppose a website soon thereafter put up this useful dirt, and suppose a subsequent investigation proved this dirt came from hackers sponsored by the Chinese Government. Now suppose one of Biden's closest advisers was in contact with this website at this time, and that he lied about his contacts to investigators. Now suppose as well that Biden's campaign manager was providing important polling and demographic information to Chinese billionaires, who were in contact with Chinese government sponsored hackers, who were using fake profiles to spread reams of misinformation on social media. And now suppose that within months of taking office, Biden covered Xi with praise, defended China against its adversaries, and presented China with top secret information from another country, that was meant for U.S. eyes only. An investigation into the Biden campaign's actions would be appropriate, yes? YES!! YES!!! Absolutely YES!!!

I asked someone who'd been close to Lifton if any progress had been made in reviving Lifton's unfinished book. I failed to receive a response. So I suspect it really is lost.

I believe that is what she said. She said she was trying to piece together what happened, and added some post-assassination-reported events onto her calendar so she could better understand the timeline.

I remember them discussing Russo's "conclusion" regarding Oswald's supposed belief he was killing JFK on behalf of Cuba, and his attempt at getting to an airplane which would fly him to Cuba. But I don't recall seeing his face. Maybe I was looking the other way at that point. In any event, the last half of the program presented Cuba-did-it, the Russians did it, the mob did it, etc, and even presented a bit on Garrison which acknowledged Oswald knew Ferrie, etc. So the last half wasn't a total disaster. Like I said, it seems the History Channel is now open to any conclusion, any conspiracy, as long as Oswald is the shooter.

The History Channel was home to the most prominent conspiracy TV series--The Men Who Killed Kennedy. But they received a ton of crap over that. So then they reversed course and only played Oswald did it stuff for the past few decades, while, at the same time, embracing tons of conspiracy stuff regarding UFOs and aliens. Now, it appears, they think it's safe to push a possible conspiracy re JFK--as long at they make it clear Oswald was the primary shooter.

I suspect the history channel will repeat this episode, at the very least.

Greetings. For the past decade or so I have had my TiVo record anything with the word JFK in the description. Most everything that comes up is related to JFK airport, or is a documentary I've already watched, usually something from the 50th anniversary. There was a recent recording, however, that I didn't recognize. It took me months to get up the gut-strength to watch it, but I finally did a few days ago. The program was an episode of a series called "History's Greatest Mysteries." It is now viewable online, here: https://play.history.com/shows/historys-greatest-mysteries/season-4/episode-3 I watched it expecting the usual Oswald-did-it stuff. But I quickly saw that Phil Shenon and Jeff Morley were among the talking heads, and knew that they both suspect there was more to it than Oswald acting alone. Well, sure enough, after mis-reporting what happened to prove Oswald was the shooter, the program went on to list various theories as to who else was involved. Not surprisingly, the program ends with a "We'll never know." This was bit of a surprise, as The History Channel, for the last 20 years or so, has been very much in the "Oswald did it all by himself" camp. So, yes, I think they've tweaked their stance. It is interesting, nonetheless, how badly they mis-reported the shooting itself. The program had a series of talking heads, Shenon, Morley, and three others who were probably friends of the producer (as they had no apparent expertise related to the case). While describing the assassination and evidence against Oswald, these heads blew some serious smoke. Deceptive at best, quite possibly deliberate disinformation. For example, after mentioning that some police stormed into the TSBD after the shots, Shenon said "they" found a paper bag in the sniper's nest. Well, as we know "they" did no such thing. The first cops on the scene did not see the bag, and the "bag" wasn't found until much later, after the first cops on the scene had left the building. One of the talking heads then said something about three shells being found "next" to the rifle. Not true. Shenon later says that Tippit stopped Oswald because he matched a description given for the sniper. But Tippit never told anyone why he stopped him, if he did, and the description only marginally matched Oswald. Still later, Shenon says Oswald's palm prints were found on the weapon discovered in the building. Well, hell's bells, this hid that the FBI found no such print, and that the only palm print purported to be found on the rifle appeared essentially out of nowhere days after Oswald's death. And yet, not surprisingly, the biggest deception involved the President's wounds. Although this program was clearly a low budget affair, it presented a profile shot of Kennedy in the limo to demonstrate the wounds he suffered. As one of the talking heads, a history professor with a lisp, reports "Two shots hit Kennedy. The first enters his upper back and comes out his throat. And then the second enters the back of his skull" the viewer is shown some animation of the shots passing through Kennedy, culminating in the image below. Well, as you can see, the first bullet doesn't hit the "upper back" and the second bullet hits at the cowlick entrance proposed by the HSCA, and not the WC. By continuing the line through JFK's head, moreover, the program, apparently inadvertently, reveals the laziness of the program's creators. I mean they would have to know the entrance location for shot one and the exit location for shot two were total nonsense. But they showed them anyhow. Because, to the History Channel, the medical evidence just doesn't matter. What matters is that Oswald did it...so let's move on to discuss who else might have been involved. Just awful.

I agree. I wrote my website for someone like myself, someone who was willing to swim through a lot of evidence and analysis. I am glad to see that has resonated with some. But I have also been attacked numerous times by those who want to have an opinion on the case, who refuse to earn the right to have an opinion. I remember one character who told me if ANY conclusion took more than one sentence to explain then it wasn't worth reading, and that he thereby refused to read anything from my website, or by Weisberg, Lifton, Newman et al. There were just too many words.

Oh my! To cite Spencer for anything is flat-out ridiculous. You have photos of a famous celebrity wedding. The bride, groom, preacher, and wedding photographer all agree the photos are authentic. But then some "researcher" goes back and finds the employee of the Photomat 30 years later, and asks her if they were the photos she remembered developing. And she says I think the photos I developed were different, in that the bride was wearing a different dress. This is not evidence. This is garbage. It's like going back to the hospital where you were born, and finding some old biddy who says she remembers when you were born, but that as she remembers it your mom gave birth to twins. So... I hate to tell you, the old biddy is not reliable. if your family says you're not a twin, and the birth records of the hospital say you're not a twin, guess what? You're not a twin.

You're correct. That's a tracing of the photo. It was entered into evidence in the HSCA hearings. When I said the photo has been entered into evidence I meant metaphorically, in that Humes Boswell Finck and Stringer have all testified to its authenticity, and that it was therefore a piece of evidence before the court of public opinion. Some would like to pretend that it would never be brought before a court, but it already has, metaphorically. It's important, moreover, that we realize that the HSCA's tracing was made public before the bootleg copy given to Mark Crouch by Fox was published by Lifton. Fox is presumed to have made his prints within days of the shooting. These prints were not shown to the commissioners or its staff, outside Warren and Specter, and were not published by the WC, as they basically disproved the SBT and in turn damaged the single assassin theory. As a result, it's drool on the floor stupid to think the print given to Crouch--which matched the HSCA's drawing and disproves the SBT--was a fake.

Yes, as I remember it, May tried to claim Roberts was a hack who didn't even know Hathcock. I was on that thread, however, and knew full well that Roberts had written a book about sniping years before he wrote a book about the JFK assassination, and that Hatchock had been a primary source for that book, and had actually contributed a chapter.

Well, thanks for the info, but you're still not seeing the point I was trying to make. When google first changed how it did searches, I received an email from John Simkin, creator of this forum and what was then one of the top historical sites, Spartacus. He told me about the upcoming change and said websites were being given a ranking--not based on any algorithm, but based upon some human's impression of the credibility of the site. He then said my website had been given a 4 or something like that, whereby it would only be credited with 40% of the hits. There was undoubtedly a human bias behind it all. For years and years McAdams' site came up first on many searches when it received far less traffic than this site. I've noticed, moreover, that there have been more recent changes involving image search. Images on my website used to be easy to find through image search but now they have been buried, as have the images on many other JFK research sites. Robin Unger's site used to come right up if I typed in "JFK assassination photos". Now dozens of dozens of news sites come. This is not a coincidence, IMO. Google--which makes a fortune off selling websites--has at the same time conspired with news agencies to make it harder for private websites to compete with old crap on news sites. I mean, no one but no one in research-land is going back and reading old articles in Town and Country Magazine, but many people--hundreds, maybe thousands, visit Robin's website on a weekly basis. And yet it no longer comes up near or at the top when you type in "JFK assassination photos" in image search. I remember a few years back when the government and mainstream media, rightfully upset by the rise of Trump, said they needed to crack down on conspiracy talk on the internet. I suspect this is what it looks like.

You have reminded me of some of what went down. I received numerous offers back in the day from people/companies offering to optimize my site for a price. I never did that as there was no need. On anything I cared about--say JFK's autopsy--my website routinely came up n the top ten searches. So I wasn't gaming the system or whatever by making comments here, and I was indeed the one victimized by the new policies as in fact there were no sites whatsoever that "should rank higher" Believe it or not, my website remains the definitive source on a number of topics, and google linking to a NY Times article from ten years ago in which something gets mentioned in passing instead of a detailed article on my website in which something is discussed in detail does no one favors, outside perhaps The NY Times.

OK, Cliff. We both have better things to do. But I saw that you implied the autopsy photos might not be admitted into a court of law because Baden et all lied about them to get themselves off the hook for their own lying about them, etc. This is one of your favorite talking points and it is absolute nonsense. Do the reading. To get admitted into evidence, those who took the photo or those present when it was taken need only say they took the photo and/or that it accurately represents what they remember. Bingo. It's been done numerous times. The photos have been entered into evidence. And would be entered into evidence without problem should a legal proceeding arise in the future.

I'm skeptical as well. Would a computer program be able to assess what is a credible source vs a non-credible source? I mean, there's all sorts of Oswald sightings no one takes seriously. Would a computer program try to make them all fit, where Oswald was in one state one day and another the next, like a traveling salesman? Or, what about the medical evidence? Many researchers make the mistake of relying upon what one witness said, as opposed to what all the witnesses said. Would a computer program know not to trust latter-day outlier statements made by octogenarians? Or would it give all statements equal weight no matter when they were made, and no matter how peripheral the witness? My point is that with any presentation of evidence, the sorting and presenting of the evidence can determine the viewer's response to the evidence. When I first created my website, google sorted by number of views. As a result, I could post something here and tell people to read more on my website, and a few days later my website would come up near the top of a google search of the topic. But then google--probably as result of complaints from mucky-mucks--started weighing views based on whether or not "google" (not really google but someone working there who probably knows next to nothing about anything, along with a computer program) found a site credible. At that point, searches which used to lead one to this forum or my website got rerouted to The NY Times or egads! John McAdams' site, etc. So...beware. If a program emerges in which you can access hundreds of JFK books and articles and then have summaries on certain subjects written by the program, dollars to donuts the program will have a human element--and it will be the same kind of human that is currently controlling google and wikipedia, etc.

Oh yeah, I forgot. In Cliff's world, the back wound photo--perhaps the single most damning piece of evidence ever made public by the government, as it proves the WC as a whole, and Specter and Warren in particular, as knowing perpetrators of a fraud against the American people (seeing as it proves the Rydberg drawings presented to the public and then re-presented to the public as accurate depictions of the President's wounds were a hoax) is itself a hoax. CBS could do a special on the medical evidence, and use the back wound photo to prove the WC's depiction of the wounding was a hoax, and that a former Senator and a former Chief Justice were behind this hoax, and Cliff would fill the forum with complaints about them using a back photo that doesn't show a face, and an autopsy protocol written in the wrong way, to distract and distract and distract and distract and distract from the truth presented by CBS. I mean anything--anything--but admit the truth. That the official evidence--the autopsy protocol, autopsy photos, x-rays, and photographic evidence, proves a conspiracy, that was then lied about. Nope can't have that.

I just checked in, and here we go. There must be 20 threads already in which you just make stuff up to attack me. As you well know, the bunching of 4 inches or so is required to lift the clothing hole to the back of the neck hole depicted in the Rydberg drawings. I have long proposed that the back wound was circa T-1, in line with the autopsy measurements and face sheet. The clothing hole would only need to be slightly elevated to reach that location. Back in the day I performed numerous tests where I put a mark on an old shirt at the clothing hole location, then sat with my arm and shoulders in various positions, while my wife poked toothpicks through the mark. The marks made by the toothpick were in line with the hole depicted in the autopsy photos. And yeah, I know it's coming. Once you start on your parade of nonsense, you never stop. Next you'll be saying the autopsy report is not "legal" or some such thing, because it was written in the wrong way, or some such thing. When this is something I've called you on in the past and you were forced to admit you just made it up. Autopsy reports--or autopsy photos, for that matter--are not legally admissible based upon whether they are written in pen or completely filled out, etc, but whether someone will swear under penalty of perjury that it is a report they've written and that it reflects their recollections. Well, that happens to be the case. No, what you miss because you just have to or your whole house of cards collapses is that Burkley's report in which he approximates a wound at T-3 would be given no weight in a court of law, since he never swore to its accuracy and never described even how he came to make such a claim. (I mean, did he get that from viewing the body itself or by looking at the face sheet--which had a misleading body outline? Who knows? Or did he even know basic anatomy? Who knows? A lot of doctors forget the basics after 30 or 40 years of listening to coughing patients and prescribing rest and/or expensive medications. And a lot of them probably suck at anatomy from the get-go.)

My recollection is that they really didn't out-maneuver anybody. They realized they could bring box-cutters onboard and that box-cutters could be used as a weapon. This allowed them to get into the cockpit. Once in, they crashed the planes. Almost anyone with a week of flight training could have done the same. As someone once quipped, flying a plane is fairly easy, the challenge is landing the sucker.

For some reason my earlier post didn't register as a new post and never appeared on the front page. Weird.