Pat Speer

My understanding is that he did screw up his line. He meant to say "That's one small step for A man" but instead said "That's one small step for man."

To Gerry's question, I would say "no." Although I think myself and others have made discoveries that have crept us closer to the truth, I no longer believe people, as a species, give a rat's ass about the truth. On this event or on anything, really. I see this all the time. When people find out I've researched the case, they almost always ask "So who do you think did it?" When I then tell them I don't know but that the research of others and myself proves beyond a doubt that the government blew smoke and that the evidence actually suggests more than one shooter, their face goes blank, They are disappointed. They were hoping I would tell them something exciting like "a midget in the gutter did it on behalf of the mafia" or one of the agents did it. Not that they would have believed me. But they were hoping for something that would brighten up their day and not something that would confirm what they already know--that conspiracies happen and governments lie. Ho-hum. The truth is just too boring for most...people raised on TV and fantasy and sci-fi franchises. They crave something more exciting. We see this, moreover, internationally. People around the world are embracing autocrats because they prefer the excitement of having a "hero" fighting for them as opposed to the mundane reality of bureaucrats doing what is best, or easiest. They don't care much that these autocrats are most always corrupt, and bleeding their countries dry. The truth just doesn't matter. My cynical rant of the day.

To reiterate, the eyewitness evidence is conclusive on this issue. I compiled all the known witness statements and added probably a couple of hundred more, and it's clear that, of the three sounds heard by most witnesses, the first one corresponded to the first shot hitting Kennedy. In other words, there was no first shot miss. The evidence for such a miss was cherry-picked years later to give "Oswald" enough time to fire the shots. But it's nonsense. While some cite Connally's turn as "proof" for example, the reality is Connally himself viewed the Z-film numerous times and said he thought the first shot was fired circa 190 and hit JFK. He also said he had straightened out in the limo just before the first shot. The more telling fact is that a dozen or more witnesses, including Connally, described the limo's location at the time of the first shot, and they uniformly placed it where it was between Z-190 and Z-224. This is not something one can just ignore because one thinks one can see a missed shot on a silent film.

The evidence strongly suggests no shots were fired prior to Z-190. I go through hundreds of witness statements on my website, and it's quite clear no one saw JFK continue waving after the first shot rang out, and that the vast majority of those watching him at the time of the first shot thought he reacted to the first shot. In addition there are a number of witnesses whose position is now known who described JFK's location in comparison to themselves at the time of the first shot, and these witnesses routinely place JFK at his location Z-190--Z-224, and not at his location seconds before. The first shot miss is a hoax cooked up to sell the single-assassin scenario. It is as ridiculous as the SBT.

n The point is that only a handful of witnesses thought the first shot missed--and their statements all suggested the first shot hit when you compared their statements to the Z-film and photographic evidence--and that no one following the story thought the first shot missed. And then--oh my God--CBS performs their own analysis--which suggests the shooter needed more time--and--BINGO--they now pretended the first shot missed. This then became the go-to scenario for the Oswald-did-it crowd. But it wasn't written in stone. The LNs wrote it in stone, however, after Posner's book came out and cited the lapel flip, which suggested Connally was hit circa Z-224 and made the first shot circa Z-190 accepted by the HSCA enemy #1--so much that most if not all the key LN books to come out since the 90's have ignored that a panel of photographic experts determined JFK was hit before he went behind the sign in the Z-film, and not after. In short, then, the "miss" at Z-160 is garbage, a hoax. Numerous witnesses saw JFK come off the right side of the limo in response to the first shot, and none saw him continue waving for seconds and then respond to a second shot. The Warren Commission/Specter knew damn well they couldn't claim the first shot missed so they just threw a potential first shot miss into the mix. But no one took it seriously. Until a few years passed. And people forgot about all the witnesses claiming they saw him respond to the first shot. But people with an interest in history know better.

Except you're wrong about the 6 seconds. The first shot did not miss. That was offered up as a possibility by the WC when they knew it was unlikely and offered up as a likelihood by CBS in order to give "Oswald" enough time. It is, essentially, a hoax. The reality is that most LNs assume JFK and JBC were hit by the same shot at Z-224, AND that most if not all LNs assume JFK was hit by the last shot, at Z-313. This means their favored scenario is actually not three shots in 6 seconds, but three shots in...4.9 seconds.

Farewell, Michael.

As I recall Bush 41 left office and proceeded to make appearance after appearance for Wall Street firms--at a million bucks an appearance. it seemed obvious it was a payoff for the Wall Street friendly policies he'd kept in place throughout his term.

That lift is supposedly from the barrel, but yes, you are correct--there was a print on the right side of the trigger guard when Day carried the rifle through the press corps that subsequently disappeared. The trigger guard prints photographed by the DPD--that were later purported to be Oswald's prints--were on the left side. P.S. Now that I think about it, I think you convinced me of this--what--ten or twelve years ago!

Thanks, Kathy. At quick glance, I see that I wasn't hallucinating. Tink was indeed hired as part of a lawsuit against Silverstein, and he did indeed make Fetzer look silly.

As their inability to replicate the proposed shooting is related to the rapid rate of fire of the shooting, it strongly suggests that a shooter using that rifle could not have fired as rapidly as proposed and that at least one of the shots was fired by a different rifle. This problem was recognized, moreover, shortly after the WC, and led to CBS' 1967 assertion that the first shot must have missed. This, of course, was smoke, as most everyone viewing the President at the time of the first shot saw him react to this shot, and no one saw him continue waving for seconds afterward.

Sorry. Once upon a time you could mention something that had been discussed on this forum and anyone with an interest could use the search engine and find the old threads in which it had been discussed. Sadly, that doesn't seem to work anymore. I couldn't get anything from the old days to show up.

I discuss the WC's claims about the shooting and Oswald's ability in Chapter 4g at patspeer.com. As pointed out by Michael, the test shooters were Master rifleman aiming at the middle of their targets. And yet notice where they hit their targets firing shots two and three with the presumed assassination rifle. (To be clear I have added two red stars to these images to demonstrate where two of Oswald's shots were believed to have landed.) "Oswald" had TWO shots land near the middle of his moving target while firing rapid fire when three top shooters failed to have any land as close to the center of their stationary targets while firing rapid fire! Something smells, right?

Nope. I was pointing out that since this is a JFK forum, and since Tink is so widely regarded, that someone sincerely interested in 9/11 might--my God--want to check out what he wrote, in a professional capacity, after looking into the collapse of WTC 7. As pointed out by Matthew, I have publicly disagreed with Tink on a number of issues, so your "argument from authority" is incorrect, as I don't hold him or any other veteran of this stuff to be an irrefutable expert. There is probably no one on this forum, if not all research-land, as willing to challenge the status quo, as I. Most of my "discoveries" if you will, are discoveries that this or that expert was totally full of it on this or that. So the last thing I would want is for anyone to take my word on something. I was hoping instead that someone would express an interest in what Tink wrote and check it out and report back whether or not it still holds water or whether there have been subsequent discoveries and analysis that make it obsolete. As it is, I'm not sure if Tink's paper is even online anymore. I reached out to a mutual friend to see if he could provide a link but have yet to hear back.

It was built largely on Hamlet. As I recall, the story runs all the way through the JFK, MLK and RFK killings, but I couldn't swear to it. I do remember a surprising gospel music interlude and am fairly certain that happened after MLK was killed. I assumed at the time it would come out on DVD, or be shown on cable somewhere. A number of the actors were recognizable from minor TV roles and I think they were hoping for more exposure as well. You might want to contact the playwright and see if he has a video he can share. He is a researcher and would almost certainly enjoy hearing from you.

I think in this case we both could be correct. When I had an interest in this, I went to a college library and pulled out several books on this, and I later picked up a couple from used bookstores. The books were written by military people--one of whom was an officer on the ship. I also came across what I recall to be the Israeli government's internal investigation of the incident. In any event, these materials were all written by military people in the 60's, up to the 80's, I believe. It could very well be that since that time, those continuing to push the conspiracy angle are of a different sort.

The link below is to a local production of a play I saw a few years back. It was actually pretty good. It took shortcuts, of course, trying to make the JFK case fit into a Shakespearian narrative, but the actors were all in, and many of the facts presented came straight from the research community. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwjIqdOK4NT-AhVgLkQIHR87BIgQFnoECBIQAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.performingartslive.com%2FEvents%2FThe-Tragedy-of-JFK-as-told-by-Wm-Shakespeare-The-Skylight-Theatre&usg=AOvVaw2MZavOy6vv1EmYcv6U1SzZ

While I have done some reading on the Liberty incident and agree it was an accident, I think you are wrong to claim those now using it against Israel are Far Left. Most of the books and articles I have read accusing Israel of deliberately attacking the Liberty knowing it was a U.S. ship were written by people like yourself--conservative military buffs.

I have done no such thing, my friend. I have no dog in this hunt. I merely pointed out that I thought the collapse of building 7 was suspicious as heck before reading a paper by someone for whom I had great respect, and wondered if anyone still holding such doubts had read that paper. It turns out they haven't. I have no idea if reading Tink's paper would sway you or anyone from your closely held views. But I found it convincing. I have admitted as well that it seemed particularly convincing because at the time the main alternative pushed on this forum and elsewhere was the nonsense being peddled by Fetzer and his scholars for truth group, i.e. that no planes struck the buildings, that a missile hit the Pentagon, that the planes seen hitting the towers were holograms, that the towers were brought down by space lasers, and building 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. Most all this stuff was silly on its face, and supported by voodoo science, mostly scientists theorizing outside their field of expertise, but also actual experts pushing particular data points that Fetzer and his ilk would then combine into theories that were silly on its face. I had witnessed him do much the same with JFK research, where he would take his fervent belief it was Oswald in the Altgens photo, and combine that with the fact it's Lovelady's face in the photo, then propose the photo was altered to show Lovelady's face on Oswald's body, then combine that with the fact the Altgens photo was published within hours, to claim there was a CIA photo alteration trailer in the train yards where Altgens took his photos for alteration right after the shooting. In any event, Fetzer poisoned me on 9/11 research. I am content with the official story that a supposedly tough on national security Presidential administration was exposed as being hopelessly clueless and inefficient, and that some clever fellows were able to exploit that to their "advantage", and pull off a terrible deed. I do find one element of this of continuing interest, which I hinted at earlier in the thread. I wonder if it's a coinkydink that so many questioning the 9/11 official story painted it as an inside job, and that this caused a bit of a backlash to where most said "No, of course it's not an inside job," and that this led to virtually everyone ignoring the implications of what history will tell you had happened--that an incompetent regime run by Bush/Cheney had been shamefully ill-prepared for a major attack, and had thoroughly botched the response to this attack. (We should recall that Bush's incompetent response to 9/11 sent him to record positive approval ratings, and that it was his similarly incompetent handling of Hurricane Katrina and the economy that brought them back to Earth.) So...I sometimes wonder if it's a coincidence that some of the same people telling us the towers were brought down by space weapons, then began telling us the families of murdered children were crisis actors, hired to take away our guns. Both theories stood no chance of being accepted by the mainstream, and both theories effectively distracted the public from the larger issue, IMO, of the government in general and one party in particular's...failure to protect the nation from widespread incompetence and corruption. Just a thought...

A bit of background. This website was started by Andy Walker and John Simkin. The idea behind it was to have a serious wide-reaching discussion of the JFK case among people who've written about it and people who claimed to have specialized knowledge about the case. I believe Judy Baker, Gerry Hemming, Tosh Plumlee, Daniel Marvin, and Harry Dean were among the first members. A few years in, however, some of the latter-day invitees started wondering about the Israeli connection, and things got ugly. People who wrote about possible Israeli involvement would routinely push a button by insinuating everyone involved even tangentially to the case who was Jewish, from Jack Ruby to Mark Lane, was working together or some such thing. Whereby the thread would devolve into chaos and name-calling. After this happened a couple of times it got the attention of some pro-Israel hackers, who shut down the forum more than once if I recall. So...Andy and John ended up making a hard-fast rule: discussion of Israeli involvement was verboten. It just isn't worth the headache. There was one researcher who continued to post about it, however, under moderation, whereby the moderators would eventually approve or disapprove his posts after a day or two. But the problem largely dried up. I think it was after this period, moreover, when Michael Collins Piper briefly joined the forum. He was well-behaved and offered to send some members free copies his book. But he never followed through and went away. I think he died a few years later, so perhaps his health was a factor. So...if you check the back pages of this place, you might find a lot to chew on...

Hey, Mark. Since you seem to know about this stuff more than I, perhaps you can help me with something that's been bugging me for more than a decade. The Archives allowed the late John Hunt to scan the rifle lift, and John kindly shared his scan with me on this forum. What's been bothering me is the line of black marks on the lower right side of the lift. These marks appear to be letters of some kind. I spent hours trying to figure out what they said. But when I backed away from my obsession I realized that these letters would have to be minuscule. So I then went to theory number two--that they were artifacts of some type. Any ideas?

Oh my. My statement about Tink was that he was widely respected not that he was always right. Your response was essentially a non-sequitur. You pointed out that you disagreed with something he said and did and made out that therefore I was wrong and that he wasn't really respected. This makes no sense. I have been a part of the research community as it is for roughly 20 years now. You are not a member of that community. And you don't know Tink. So you are in no position to claim how much or how little respect there is for him within the community, and you haven't demonstrated the knowledge of the history of the case to comment on how respected he is outside the community. In fact, you demonstrated that Tink, unique to the JFK research community, has a public relationship with a prominent award-winning film-maker who isn't named Oliver Stone. So you actually suggested the exact opposite of what you were claiming. It would be like me claiming who you know to be the most respected fiddle player in Ireland is actually not respected, because I heard one song by him and thought it sucked. FYI, Tink wrote Six Seconds in Dallas, perhaps the most important book written on the JFK assassination. He was working for Life magazine--the most circulated and influential magazine in America--and helped push Life to call for a new investigation. He then went out on his own and wrote his book, which was nothing less than a bombshell. It was featured on the cover of prominent magazines, and pressured the Johnson Administration to create a secret panel to shut down the "junk" in his book. This led to one of the major twists in the history of the medical evidence. Years later, after a distinguished career as a philosophy professor, private eye, and author, he returned to the case, both online, at this and other forums, where he successfully dismantled many of the then popular arguments for Z-film alteration, and at conferences, where he updated his ideas about the case. As stated, he is one of the most respected men to write on the case, and appear at conferences. Most every researcher--from Wecht to Aguilar on down to people like myself and Matt Douthitt--thinks the world of the guy. He has discovered tons of stuff and his analysis is usually spot on. Like I said, it doesn't mean he is right about everything. But anyone who dismisses something he wrote without even reading it is probably making a mistake.

Well, the video you cite is proof of what I said. Of all the long-time conspiracy theorists, Thompson has by far the most credibility with the mainstream media, and documentary film-maker types like Errol Morris. He is also widely respected and appreciated by the vast majority of the research community--people in email chains who go to conventions, etc. Only the fringey Fetzer types dislike or distrust Tink. As we approached the 50th, Fetzer guaranteed this Forum that Tink would show his "true colors" and do a newspaper or TV interview admitting he'd been wrong all along, and that it was really just Oswald. But he was wrong, terribly wrong. Tink, of course, instead doubled-down and put out a follow-up to his ground-breaking Six Seconds in Dallas.

As I recall, all the claims in circulation at the time of Tink's paper were addressed in his paper. I'm going purely off memory here, but I think he was hired by the insurance company of someone with offices in the building who believed it had been a controlled demolition, and spent months looking into this, and ended up writing a report presenting photos from rarely-seen angles showing the building to have been hollowed out by the debris from the collapse of the towers. As I recall, the truthers on this forum had no real response. I take from your response, moreover, that you have never read Tink's paper and never will. So...

Ok. I've seen it several times now. People claiming that the WTC 7 building collapse was obviously a controlled demolition. But I haven't seen one of them mention Josiah Thompson's research into this. Thompson--perhaps the most widely respected JFK researcher ever--and almost certainly the most respected researcher to ever spend time on this forum--shared with us a paper he wrote on this subject as part of a lawsuit that got into all the details regarding how the building collapsed when the building looked intact in photos taken from certain angles, etc. It was quite a bit of research that left the truthers on this forum without answers, at the time. If his paper has been subsequently debunked, I would find that of interest. But, as we've seen with JFK, people will repeat long-debunked arguments for decades and decades. So I'm wondering if any of those feeling certain WTC 7 collapsed as part of a conspiracy have read his paper (I am calling it a paper but I think it was over 100 pages long) or if any of the sources they are citing have responded to this paper. And if not, why not? While Tink is not infallible, and could be wrong about this and other things, his research is always worth a look, and, if rejected, demands a response. Has anyone here prepared such a response, or even read his paper?