Pat Speer

Oh my. It's not subjective. We know within a few feet where Wiegman was when Thomas' first shot was fired. We also know that McLain is captured in the Bond photo, a second or so after passing Wiegman. If McLain was where the acoustics faithful place him at the time of the first shot--well ahead of Wiegman--it necessitates Wiegman's passing McLain within seconds of the shooting. Thomas as much as admits this on his map, in which he shows what he interprets to be the movements of McLain, and has him traveling less than 5 mph after the shots were fired. So...do you honestly believe Dave Wiegman, carrying a heavy TV camera, ran past H.B. McLain, who was riding on a motorcycle? And, if not, can you explain how Wiegman is busy filming the end of his film on the knoll as McLain rides by in the Bond photo?

As stated, my rejection of the McLain theory had been noted, and I was asked to provide arguments against it to help those working with Tink on his book, Last Second in Dallas. This was years after Thomas' last writings on the subject. I read all of Thomas' articles and found they only provided more reasons to doubt. I wrote an article on the subject to try and dissuade Tink from publishing what was essentially a thumbs up on the McLain theory. But, tellingly, the book focuses on shortcuts and mistakes by the Ramsey panel, etc, and spends very little time as I remember it arguing against anything I'd brought to Tink et al's attention. https://www.patspeer.com/debunking-the-dictabelt

Have you read my article on the photo evidence regarding the shooting? I hate to say it but Dale Myers is right. And McLain was telling the truth. He was not where the acoustics experts claimed he would have to have been at the time of the first shot. I was asked to provide my analysis to Tink and co. while his book was in preparation. I did so. Evidently they felt the best way to avoid the obvious was to not mention it. The films and photos prove McLain was not where they said he was. I will not dismiss the acoustics altogether because it could be that a different mic at a different location could record a similar impulse. But it certainly looks like the whole thing is junk science. I mean, the HSCA report used a still from the Dorman film to prove McLain was in the proper position, but that still was taken 20 or more seconds later. Don Thomas tried to counter this by moving the first shot to a later time. But his claims are equally problematic, as he has McLain traveling something like 4 mph across the plaza, hiding behind this car than that car etc, so there is no photo of him crawling across the plaza. What we have instead is this... McLain is at far left. Note that Dave Wiegman is filming the Newmans. Well, when one studies the Wiegman film one realizes that this moment occurs towards the end of his film, so this is something like 30 seconds after the first shot. Now, the acoustics experts claimed the motorcycle traveled at a consistent speed across the Plaza--I believe they estimated 11 mph. This speed supposedly put McLain in the proper position to be in place for the sound signature of each sound on the recording. And yet here he is, just passing Wiegman, a cameraman who ran from a car after the first shot, a cameraman who has been on the knoll for a number of seconds. Now get this. The acoustics experts claimed they identified the location of Mclain's mic at the time of the first shot. And, golly, this location was roughly two cars ahead of Wingman's location at this time. So, yeah, to subscribe to the HSCA acoustics analysis means you believe Wiegman, carrying a heavy camera, not only raced past McLain, who was riding a motorcycle, but passed him so rapidly he had time to film the scene on the knoll for a number of seconds before McLain caught up to him. Neither Thomas nor Thompson have dealt with this. Because they can't.

It's ironic, Michael, that you are pushing this after vilifying me for disagreeing with Mantik. Mantik, to be clear, is one of the few prominent researchers to publicly dispute the acoustics evidence. This has led to some interesting situations for me personally. I was at a conference where David spoke against the acoustics evidence, where people, knowing of our disagreements on the medical evidence, came up to me and said David was--to be nice--totally incorrect about the acoustics evidence. Well, these people were shocked to hear me say I largely agreed with him on this issue.

Nonsense. JFK's anatomy and slight alterations in JFK's posture could very well have lifted the bullet hole on the clothing to the bullet hole on his back. This is inches below where the bullet hole would need to be to support the SBT. Why not take the win? Why pretend the back wound location and clothing hole locations are not compatible? Because it's more "fun' to pretend all the evidence is fake, than it is to admit the evidence proves conspiracy?

Has anyone related to the case performed a detailed analysis of the evidence? Has Marina? Almost certainly not. Has Ruth? Almost certainly not. I have spoken to Frazier on three occasions, for a total of an hour or more. As I recall, he had trouble believing it was Lee, but accepted as much seeing as the authorities told him it was. But he also knew--as much as he could know--that the bag was not as big as these authorities wanted it to be. It was only years later that he realized there were a number of other pieces that didn't fit. And this led him to where he is today: a believer in Lee's innocence. I mean, think about it. There's Lee, who you considered a friend. And then there's a bunch of slick lawyers in Washington trying to trick you into saying what you don't believe to be true. Who would you believe? P.S. If you say the latter, well, I feel sorry for your friends, LOL.

You're entering this conversation a bit late, Michael. When I was a relative newbie, Cliff offered me a few insights. We then became allies in that we both argued here and elsewhere that the clothing holes destroy the single-bullet theory. At a certain point, however, he realized that I didn't think the autopsy photos were fake. And he has been on the attack ever since--a dozen years or more. Those claiming the back wound in the photo is inches above the location of the clothing holes simply haven't done the work, IMO. I spent some time on this way back when and it's clear the back wound in the photo is lower than most believe--in line with the shoulder tip, as described in the autopsy report, and as depicted on the face sheet. This destroys the single-bullet theory. It perplexes me that some would rather claim the photo proving a conspiracy is fake than acknowledge their pet impression of the wound in the photo is incorrect. Let's refresh. Here's Dr. Baden in his HSCA testimony, pointing out the location of hole on the back of the jacket. Look at where this is in comparison to the shoulder tip. Perhaps an inch below, right? Well, JFK was not a mannequin. He was a swimmer, with strong shoulder muscles, which may very well have lifted the back of the jacket a bit. And he was leaning forward a bit. It is totally disingenuous to pretend that no way no how could the hole in the jacket, when worn by JFK in the motorcade, overlay a wound in line with his shoulder tip.

And the Earth is flat. Saying it doesn't make it so. I've studied it ad nauseam, and the HSCA's approximation is basically correct--it could be just below T-1, but that's irrelevant. What matters is that these guys--who could have just played along, like the Clark Panel--did not, and placed the wound in a location consistent with the autopsy photos, face sheet, autopsy measurements, chalk mark, etc... This pretty much killed the SBT. Only...Blakey was impressed with Guinn's NAA, and his dishonest conclusion the wrist fragment came from CE 399. So the pathology panel signed off on the SBT under the impression JFK leaned forward while behind the sign in the Z-film. No one told them the photography panel had determined he was hit before this. So, yes, the HSCA was a fluster cluck. But the fact remains that the last medical panel to study the evidence said the back wound location precluded the SBT unless something no one believes happened happened. And this went un-noticed. Because some would rather pretend the photos are fake etc than acknowledge that the medical evidence to which we've gained access proves the WC's conclusions were doo-doo.

Rankin never saw a photo. He was clearly referring to the face sheet. As far as Specter...he admitted being shown the autopsy photo on the day of the re-enactment by Kelley. He did so to prop up that the re-enactment was accurate, and that the SBT was in keeping with the autopsy evidence--which people at that time were clamoring to be reviewed. When the HSCA released tracings of the back wound photo, he once again went quiet on this issue, and once again made out that the WC was denied access to the photos by RFK--which even Katzenbach said was nonsense. In short, then, Specter's viewing the photo on the day of the re-enactment is proof of the cover-up. When I tried to discuss this with Willens, and later Griffin, they ran into the hills, because they knew just how damaging this was.

It just isn't so, Michael. The wound location in the back wound photo is consistent with its location on the face sheet and the location of the chalk mark used during the re-enactment. Here's something I put together demonstrating that the face sheet and measurements align. And here' something I put together demonstrating that the HSCA's conclusion regarding the back wound location--which they derived from studying the back wound photo--is far below the location of the wound in LN drawings, and is consistent with the location demonstrated at left above.

The location of the back wound in the photo is consistent with the location of the holes on the clothing. The LN crowd wants you to believe the back wound is at the base of the neck, but it is not. Put a sticker on your back an inch to the right of midline and in line with the shoulder tip and look in the mirror. Now move your shoulder up and down. The sticker will move closer to your head, creating the illusion it is at the base of the neck. But it is not. It is on the back, as presented on the face sheet.

In the autopsy photo, the back wound is elevated slightly due to JFK's shoulder being raised in that position. But the chalk mark is an inch right of mid-line and in line with the shoulder tip in the re-enactment photo, and this mirrors the location of the back wound in the autopsy photo. P.S. If one is to convince oneself the chalk mark is lower than the location of the back wound in the photo, one must explain why Specter--tasked with finding support for the single-bullet theory--would mark the jacket lower than the bullet wound in the photo he'd just been shown.

A location marked by Specter in accordance with the autopsy photos. The measurements made at autopsy reflect a wound as far below the lowest part of the skull as it was inward of the shoulder tip. That is where it is shown on the face sheet and that is where it is shown in the autopsy photos. This location has been measured as T-1. This places it far too low to support the single-bullet theory. This has always been the case. The problem is that the doctors and supporters of the WC long claimed the Rydberg drawings showing a wound at the base of the neck were consistent with the autopsy measurements, when they were not, and far too many researchers fell for it. These researchers then claimed that the autopsy measurements were false or that the back wound photos were fake--when such claims are a total distraction. The truth about the SBT--that it was a hoax perpetrated on the American public--was in the autopsy protocol and autopsy photos from the beginning.

Does the chalk mark reflect a wound at T-1 or T-3? If T-3, can you tell us why Specter would make a mark in that location? If T-1, do you think it was placed there to help sell the single-bullet theory?

I had a number of friendly exchanges with Willens around the time his book was released. He came across as sincere and even admitted his mistake when he called the back wound a wound on the back of the neck in a TV appearance while defending the single-bullet theory. At the time, I was combing through a few hundred Warren Commission memos and related items (not available on the Mary Ferrell site) that Willens had put up on his own site. Among these was a journal he'd kept during the WC investigation, which had formed the basis of his book. We had a bit of an argument, as I recall, over one of the posts in his journal. He made out that no one saw the back wound photo until after the May 24, 1964 re-enactment, when Specter had long admitted he'd viewed the photo on that date. When I pressed him to admit Specter, as well as Warren, knew the Rydberg drawing was inaccurate and should have not allowed it to be published, he made out that the higher location for the back wound in the drawing when compared to the back wound photo was not really important, and that I was making a mountain out of a molehill. He then said we had nothing more to talk about. Shortly thereafter, after I brought a section of Willens' journal, in which he admitted the WC had prevailed upon the archives to hold back problematic material from the public for a decent interval (in which the WC could sell their conclusions to the public), to the attention of others via Jeff Morley's site, Willens' removed his WC-related material from his website. So, yeah, he's out to defend the WC--by whitewashing the whitewash.

This is two times in this thread you have posted a bizarre response to one of my posts. I am not arguing about the location of the back wound. That's your thing. What I pointed out is that it is a misnomer to claim the chalk mark reflects Burkley's T-3 approximation, which Specter may not have even known about. The chalk mark was created to reflect the location of the bullet hole according to the autopsy measurements, clothing measurements, and autopsy photo. Do you think the chalk mark is inches above the "actual" location of the back wound, and, if so, do you think the chalk mark was part of a hoax designed to sell the single-bullet theory? And, if so, why didn't Specter put any photos of his re-enactment in which the chalk mark was shown on the record?

Actually, no. The SBT was proposed to account for the timing of the presumed responses of JFK and JBC in the Z-film. The 5-24-64 re-enactment was performed to see if it could be sold to the public. The chalk mark was placed on the jacket by Specter and SS agent Kelly AFTER they viewed the back wound photo some now claim is fake. After the re-enactment, Specter studied the SBT trajectory up close, while moving the re-enactors around in the limo to try to get the shot to align. He claimed it was close enough. But we have reasons to believe he knew this wasn't so. For one, the photo put into evidence to "show" JFK's back wound and throat wound aligned with JBC's back wound was taken from the front and failed to show the chalk mark on JFK's back, even though there were numerous photos showing JFK from the side, which showed the chalk mark...inches below the trajectory connecting the throat wound and JBC's back wound. For two, Specter began calling the back wound a "back of the neck" or "neck" wound only after being shown the photo proving it to have been a back wound, and continued to play games with the description for the rest of his life. This is documented ad nauseum in chapters 10 and 11 of my website, and was the subject of my presentation at the 2014 50th anniversary of the Warren Report Conference. (This was the presentation which drove WC counsel Burt Griffin running from the room.)

Blowing smoke as usual, Cliff. The back wound isn't even mentioned in that video.

The vast majority of LNs do not ignore JFK and JBC's movements as they come out from behind the sign, but claim them as proof they were hit at the same time, Z-224. It is JFK's movements before he went behind the sign that have been ignored, and lied about. The HSCA photography panel's conclusions were largely ignored, by LN and CT alike, before I started talking about them a few decades back. In fact, much of what is discussed today along these lines comes from the 50 Reasons for 50 years video Jeff and I put together for Len in 2013.

I think you are incorrect about the majority of papers endorsing Mondale over Reagan. I know for a fact they got behind Nixon over McGovern, and Nixon over Kennedy. As I recall, Carter suffered through minor scandal after minor scandal, while Reagan largely skated through Iran/Contra, in which he engaged in impeachable offenses. I think you are also being somewhat disingenuous by citing the circulation of papers over number of papers. No one disputes that Dems have been better for and stronger in large cities than Republicans, for decades and decades and decades. That's not a media bias, per se. I mean, you wouldn't expect a community that is largely black to have a morning paper endorsing the overthrow of civil rights legislation, right? It's also telling, IMO, that you call MSNBC "far left" but Fox, OAN, and Newsmax "conservative". That would appear to be a deliberate distortion designed to make MSNBC appear to be extreme, while the ones you name are not. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the average American is a 5, the views presented on MSNBC are a 7, with 10 being extreme left, woke, socialist, whatever. While Fox would be a 2, and Newsmax and OAN would be a 1 or lower. It's like you're comparing Adam Schiff and Marjorie Taylor-Greene, and making out that Schiff is the extremist.

Define "liberal." if you mean the Clinton, Obama, and Biden school of liberalism, then you are probably correct. If you mean the Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and AOC school of liberalism then you are quite wrong. The media being "liberal" has long been a rallying cry of the right, long before it was true. If I recall, the 1964 election marked a turn in direction to the Dems, and Watergate made it official. But it wasn't by much. If you go back through the papers from 76 to 88, for example, you will see that Carter received much worse press than Reagan.

If you can get over your hatred you will realize that just about the only people caring about the issues you raise are those "hairdos" in Hollywood.

You can't be pro-Kennedy and anti-Hollywood. Old man Joe owned a movie studio. JFK roomed with movie stars, befriended the biggest stars and slept with the most glamorous actresses. Outside of Reagan, JFK was the most Hollywood-connected President in history. I mean, heck, even RFK had a friendship with Frankenheimer and others in the Hollywood crowd.

Trump forced the mainstream media and intelligentsia to recognize the dangers inherent in conspiracy theories. True or not, they lead to a lack of faith in institutions, and the next thing you know you've got soccer moms and grandfathers climbing the walls outside the Capitol like they are characters from a Shyamalan movie. The nature of the theory is not the point. If someone thinks vaccines are a hoax, or the Earth is flat, or the moon landings were fake, or the water supply is infected with chemicals designed to control our minds, it leads to fears among the gatekeepers that this person will soon be saying something like Jews drink blood, or Dems eat children. This is not the CIA at work. It's society at work. When I first heard RFK Jr. was running, I called up a friend of his. I told him it would be poop show with most everyone lining up to denounce him as a wacko, and a minority lining up to gain his ear in hopes they could convince him of their own pet theories. His friend said I was right--that whatever positives could be gained would likely be offset by the negatives. Sad to say, RFK Jr. should not be the face of the JFK research community. Instead of pulling people in, he'll probably push people away.

The clip I posted comes from the digitization of the original film, which was put out on DVD 20 years ago or so. There were no substantive differences between that version--which I think people call the MPI version--with the many other versions of the film released over the years. The only difference was clarity, and color. Perhaps you can post the Costello frames you believe show no reaction.