Pat Speer

Oh my. Please read some books on fingerprints before making any more guesses of this type. As admitted by Lt. Day, and as discussed in virtually every book and article I've read on the subject, it is extremely rare for prints to be found on a wooden stock. The first and perhaps only part of the rifle one would even think of wiping down, then, would be the trigger guard. That this was not done destroys the whole wipe-down theory. Just as there are CT factoids there are LN factoids. It is a LN factoid that Oswald--or anyone--wiped down the rifle.

C'mon Lance. While Brennan was presented as the "best witness" in Life Magazine, and numerous LN articles, there are heaping problems for the LN scenario within his statements and testimony. Here are a few: 1. He failed to ID Oswald when first shown Oswald, and only ID'ed Oswald after Oswald had been murdered and an FBI agent came to his house to have a talk with him. 2. The DPD and SS failed to write reports on Brennan's initial refusal to ID Oswald, after signaling he could ID the shooter if he saw him again. One can not say then if there were other eyewitnesses who said they could ID the shooter, who also passed when shown Oswald. We just don't know. 3. Brennan thought the man he viewed was standing up and not crouching down. This draws into question his ability to make out and accurately remember the face of this man. 4. Brennan's ID of Oswald was contingent on his wearing a different shirt than the one whose fibers matched the rifle. The WC ignored this and pretended both his ID of Oswald was accurate, and the shirt was the one Oswald had been wearing at the time of the shooting. (This is something I've discussed for decades now. It's an important point, and I'm glad Gil has dragged it back out.) 5. The reddish shirt Oswald said he'd been wearing was repeatedly described in the DPD and FBI records as a brown shirt. In light of the FBI and WC's use of the fibers of the other shirt--the one Oswald said he'd put on at the rooming house--as evidence against him, their mis-representation of this shirt can be seen as suspicious. 6. Brennan could only swear to hearing two shots. Well, this suggests he heard one of the shots--almost certainly one of the bangs in the bang-bang scenario described by others--as a single shot. This is at odds with the single-assassin conclusion.

Respectfully, Bill, this is just silly. The rifle was not wiped down. If it had been wiped down the trigger guard prints would have been wiped clean. And the fibers on the butt plate? The FBI... The FBI!!...said the fibers were found on top of fingerprint powder, and so offered up the possibility the fibers were just dangling there but then became wrapped around the butt plate when the DPD (namely J.C. Day) dusted the rifle. This is ludicrous, of course. It's clear to me that reasonable people can suspect Oswald killed Kennedy, and even that he acted alone. But it is not reasonable, IMO, to believe all was up and up with the evidence presented against Oswald.

We're not far apart on this, Lance. To me, the corruption of our institutions over money: the mob killed JFK--and LBJ and Hoover were reluctant to investigate due to their own connections to the mob--is just as likely as the CIA did it angle, and even more troubling. The CIA did it angle has people killing JFK over ideological differences--the bad guy is thus extremism in high places. But the mob did it angle has people killing JFK over money, and the bad guy is greed and corruption. The extremists in high places can be removed and will eventually die off. But corruption? It appears that that is here to stay--seeing as some wise scholars ruled that stuffing money into the PACs of grifting politicians is "speech.".

I think what this reveals is the hubris of those subscribing to the "deep state" model of history. "There are forces that move in directions that can only be held off by mass populist movements--and individual politicians have little to do with it." Or whatever. The problem with this is that it denies the reality that individuals can make a difference. Lincoln, Gandhi, MLK, and General Smedley Butler come to mind, not to mention the name of that Russian U-boat commander who personally held off WWIII. (I really should learn his name seeing as he quite possibly saved the world.)

The problem, Micah, is that these are the recollections of someone 34 years after an event. To be admitted into evidence--should someone have wished to admit the photos into evidence--the photos would have to be attested to by a witness that these were authentic photographs of the President taken during his autopsy. Stringer, Humes, and Boswell would have done this, no problem, with the possible exception of the brain photographs--which the prosecution would almost certainly not want on the record. There really isn't much dispute on this issue. While the defense could counter the conclusions of the prosecution's witnesses (Humes, Boswell, Stringer) with witnesses of its own, the odds of a defense attorney preventing the introduction of a piece of evidence because someone tangential to the case had their doubts about it, is practically nil. Look at the O.J. case. Dr. Henry Lee was allowed to express doubts about the blood evidence. But there is no way the blood evidence would have been held back because of his doubts. It just doesn't work that way.

To be clear, Steve, one can find the Knudsen story interesting and worthwhile without relying on O'Donnell. I think that's what Jim has done. I think we would both disagree with him on this. But is it a total waste of time to mention that, oh yeah, the family of a White House photographer said he'd told them the autopsy photos were altered, or whatever it is he supposedly told them? I don't think the problem is mentioning that they said he said this, it's that without the full context--that none of the confirmed participants in the autopsy saw him there or knew why he would even be there--it would be misleading. So it comes down to what kind of film they were trying to make. If they were trying to make a film that explored the details of the case and led to some conclusions, the inclusion of the Knudsen story without context is misleading. But if they were trying stir things up by citing a bunch of stuff that was at odds with the official story, they would be remiss not to mention the Knudsen story. Now, I received the screenplay for Christmas and it appears that Jim focused on Knudsen's recollections of the photos. That's not so bad. The problem in my opinion is that they had Horne say he thought some of the photos attributed to Stringer were taken by Knudsen, which is loopy, IMO. I feel that should not have made it to the final cut. To me, it's like someone discussing the filming of the Wizard of Oz, and then saying "Yeah, I think Margaret Hamilton actually sang "Somewhere Over the Rainbow." It goes to credibility.

Thanks. That's good to know.

The photographs of an empty cranium have been collectively called the "Mystery Photo" due to the problems some have had in determining whether the photo shows the skull from in front or behind. The doctors initially said it showed the skull from behind, but the Clark panel claimed it was taken from the front and the HSCA followed suit. It was this photo that led me down the rabbit hole. It is discussed ad nauseam on my website and is the subject of my YouTube video series, The Mysterious Death oof Number 35. (These videos are also available on my website.)

This roll was developed through the actions of the ARRB (as I recall). In any event,. Dr. Randy Robertson petitioned the archives to view these photos, and was allowed to do so. He found they supported the authenticity of the other photos, and showed the same body with the same wounds only from further back. He said they were damaged by the negatives' exposure to light but that one could still make out the images.

Jim, this is something I have read quite a bit about. Autopsy photos are sometimes withheld because they are considered too gruesome, and might prejudice a jury. If the prosecution wanted to show them to the jury, and the judge agreed, they would first have been shown to Stringer, and he would have been asked if these were the photos he'd taken. He would have said yes with the possible exception of the brain photos, which would probably not have been shown anyway. (I say possible because Stringer never said anything to disavow the brain photos prior to his 78th year.) They may have then shown them to Humes and Boswell, and asked them if these photos reflected the wounds they saw on the evening of the autopsy. They would almost certainly have said yes. There is little chance then that these photos would have been withheld, should the prosecution want them placed into evidence and the judge agree they were not too prejudicial. Once entered into evidence, of course, the defense could have countered with a few Parkland witnesses--but by no means 40 of them--as many if not most of them refused to say the photos were fake when questioned by researchers. In short, the scenario you describe in which the photos would be withheld based upon the say-so of Knudsen and the Parkland witnesses is highly unlikely. If this would have happened, moreover, it would have been a mistake, IMO, as the official photos and x-rays do not support the single-assassin solution as offered by the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, etc.

Thanks for noticing, David. The irony is that today was the most normal day I've had since before the pandemic. I went to a Tiki restaurant, visited with some friends, and went to a movie. I felt almost normal. And here I get roasted over and over... P.S. I drove by the North Hollywood Library after visiting the Tiki restaurant. This was where I met your hero, Vincent B. He was pleasant enough, and thanked me for the copy of the video I'd handed him. He was there promoting his book on Dubya, and the war crimes in Iraq. I felt then and still feel that if we'd had an hour or two alone in an office, I could have convinced him of some stuff. But it was not to be.

A couple of points, Jim. I wasn't aiming at you with the comments about O'Donnell. My concern is that Horne and Mantik continue to tout him as an important witness when they know full well about his credibility problems. But they support him to support Knudsen, who absolutely positively was not at the autopsy. It's a house of cards. I once received a stream of hate emails from some poor soul who felt certain Knudsen must have been at the autopsy, because his family remembered him saying as much. When I pointed out to him that Knudsen was interviewed by the HSCA, and that he told them he'd developed photos the morning after the assassination, this poor fellow kept insisting that Knudsen meant by this that he took the photos and developed them after midnight--thus, the morning after the assassination. It's nonsense. And totally unnecessary. The official story has Knudsen developing the photos. When shown the photos later, he expressed his disagreement with some of them. Why isn't that enough? Why does it have to be that everyone who failed to see him taking pictures at the autopsy is an idiot, or xxxx? You cite Stringer and his latter-day comments about the brain photos. Why did you let Horne espouse his ridiculous belief in your movie--that some of the autopsy photos in the record were taken by Knudsen? Can you not see how silly that is? I mean, think about it. This is the message sent by Horne within the context of your movie: John Stringer is a fibber who has taken credit for photos taken by another man--who was not a forensic photographer and who no one but no one remembers seeing at the autopsy. But never mind, an aged Stringer thought the brain photos he'd taken were on a different kind of paper than the ones in the record. So yeah, he's a courageous truth-teller. It's desperate and unnecessary. The whole Knudsen at the autopsy angle is a waste of time. As you know, I studied certain elements of this case to a greater degree than just about anyone. And one of the things I read a lot about was autopsy photography. And this idea pushed by Horne--that forensic photos of the President's body were taken by a White House photographer normally tasked with taking pictures of the President shaking hands and playing with his children--is beyond loopy. (Sorry, Doug. But it just is.) It would be like handing a bluegrass fiddle player a chart and expecting him to play with a string quartet at the Lincoln Center. It makes no sense and just isn't done. As far as Fred's book... I believe one of your close associates has just put out a book comprising articles from years past, including some from your website. Is that a book? Of course it is. As with Fred's book, it's quality or lack thereof rests on its arguments, and not on whether or not those arguments were previously shared online.

Heck, Litwin actually understates the problem with using Knudsen and O'Donnell. I'm fairly certain I was the first one to realize that the Joe O'Donnell at the center of a major controversy in the photographic world was the Joe O'Donnell interviewed by the ARRB, and propped up by Horne and Mantik, even to this day. Upon O'Donnell's death, articles were printed about his life as a government photographer, including that he'd taken photos of John-John at JFK's funeral. The actual photographer of that famous photo complained, and an investigation was begun. It turned out that O'Donnell had become obsessed with the Kennedy family, and had taken to telling all sorts of stories about his closeness with the family, and Knudsen. He''d sold prints of photos he had not in fact taken. If I recall there'd even been an exhibit at a gallery of his photos, which included numerous photos of the Kennedy family taken by others. I think it was The NY Times that broke this story even wider and interviewed White House photographer Cecil Stoughton, who'd worked with Knudsen, and said he'd never heard of O'Donnell. In the end, O'Donnell's wife admitted he'd been suffering from dementia for years, including the time period he was interviewed by the ARRB. Now, when I first shared this with the "community", some pushed back, and said I'd been duped by a fake story created to discredit O'Donnell. But this was flat-out stupid. I mean, it was right there in Horne's interview of O'Donnell, for anyone looking. This guy claimed he'd shown the Z-film to Jackie, and had edited out a massive amount of footage at her direction. None of those continuing to support O'Donnell's bs believe such a thing happened. He was demented, literally, and the refusal of all too many to acknowledge this is freakin' embarrassing, IMO. \

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling me, dude. I was not a member of the film actors guild. I wrote a screenplay and became a member of the WGA, Writers Guild of America, so I could register my screenplay. I met some screenwriters along the way, and have a good friend who's produced a movie and plays along with numerous music videos. And it's just a fact that people drawn to story-telling tend to be liberal just as it's just a fact that people drawn to law enforcement and the military tend to be conservative. As to your specific points... 1. I am probably no more narcissistic than average. The fact is that I've been on this forum almost since the beginning and have seen a lot of people come and go, and have spoken at a number of conferences, and have just flat out done a lot more work on this case than most everyone here. But I am a relative newbie on certain aspects of the case. So I read and learn on those threads and share what I've learned on others. Unlike some, there is no financial incentive for me to participate. This forum was not created so people could share their opinions on stuff they think they heard somewhere. It was supposed to be a place where actual witnesses, researchers, and informed people could hash things out, and maybe come to some conclusions. I would be doing the forum a disservice if I failed to share some of what I have learned. I greatly appreciate the contributions of those who've been around awhile and who've performed some actual research, even when I don't agree with them. Heck, I was defensive of David Lifton, even though we disagreed on much. So I am not the blowhard you think I am. I am a blowhard, of course, but not for the reasons you imply. As for Trask, he did a heckuva lot of work and every serious student of the case holds him in high regard. So thanks for the back-handed compliment. 2. By your own definition, Russian is not a race. To point out that Sicilians got a bad rep from so many being connected to the mafia is not racist, and it is similarly not racist to point out that the Russian mafia has done an equivalent amount of harm to the reputation of Russian immigrants in the U.S.A. U.S. citizens abroad had a bad reputation for many years and probably still do--the Ugly American and all that. It was not racist for people to find such Americans obnoxious and a bad reflection of the American character. 3. I wrote a book-length article on the 2016 election that kept growing and growing before concluding Trump was at heart a fascist. No one else was reporting this back then. He proved me right by refusing to concede in 2020, and trying to run again on a platform that elections where he loses are illegitimate. 4. I have discussed this many times on this forum. I was an independent when there were but a few independents, and when there was a disadvantage to being independent, since you couldn't vote in primaries. I was raised Republican, with Abraham Lincoln as my all-time hero. I rooted for Nixon. I watched the Watergate hearings when I was 12, however, and this, along with knowing a number of Marines who'd fought in the Vietnam War, changed me. When I registered at 18, I couldn't register as a Republican, but probably would have voted for Ford in '80 if he'd received the nomination. I just couldn't vote for Reagan, however, and voted instead for John Anderson. My vote against Reagan was not so much against his conservatism--I listened to his radio show and thought he made a lot of sense on some issues--but his behavior on two specific issues were deal-killers. I was raised in a house of women, and his switcheroo to suck up to the anti-abortion crowd was a deal-killer in my family. And I thought his talk of the Soviet Union as The Evil Empire was dangerous and idiotic. Those two issues, when combined with some of the stupid stuff he did as Governor--such as releasing thousands of mentally ill onto the streets and germinating the homeless problem we still have today--led me to not trust him. I've been independent ever since.

Except in this case it's incorrect. I have read many of Litwin's articles and know where he's coming from. And, like I said, I agree with him more than probably any CT on this forum. I have roughly 200 books on this case. My buying books at full price days are over. As my website includes probably 10x the original material of Fred's book, and has been provided for free, I sometimes receive free copies from writers who've used it as a resource. If Fred wants to send me a copy, I'll check it out. And if I see it in a used book store, I'll probably pick it up.

How old are you? It seems that ideology and the internet are your new toys through which you can insult and demean others. You have repeatedly attacked me for bizarre and incorrect reasons. 1. I have engaged in thousands and thousands of online discussions of the JFK evidence, and suspect there is little new in Fred's book that would be of interest. I also suspect I would agree with many of his arguments, and that many of his arguments are arguments I have made on this forum and on my website. I have read many of his blog posts, and agree with roughly half of what he says. if you think I'm some sort of CT fanboy you are mistaken, as I am somewhat of a pariah in certain CT circles do to my acceptance of many of the facts espoused by LNs. In fact, I have probably considered the LN side of this issue more than any CT on this forum, and count Robert Wagner, a published LN, as one of my closest friends in research-land. 2. Russia is not a race. It is not racist to point out facts about certain cultures and waves of immigrants. I knew a Russian immigrant young woman who was nothing but nice and sweet, and she explained to me a decade or so ago why she and other Russians liked Putin. It was the same reason so many Americans loved Reagan. He made them feel good about themselves and their place in history. That was it. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russians developed an inferiority complex, and Putin made them feel like they were in fact superior, and that it was the enemies of the state who had made them feel bad. Does this sound familiar? This was Hitler's recipe in post WWI Germany. Trump tried the same tactic here. Make America Great Again was in fact a euphemism for Make America White Again. That he encountered resistance after "winning" an election by negative 3 million votes was not surprising, nor was it a bad thing. 3. Trump was not a conservative. He was dictator-wannabe disguised as a conservative. Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, George Will, and John McCain were conservatives. 4. I like Bernie but was not a supporter. I thought he was unrealistic on many issues. I have never registered as a Democrat but consider socialism in small doses a good thing, when compared to the pure capitalism of the Robber Baron era. This makes me a moderate, IMO.

We had a whole thread on this awhile back. "Deep State" was a left-wing term to describe the MIC, the hidden hands behind our foreign policy, and the powers-that-be (FBI, CIA, etc) that terrorized the left in the 60's. Roger Stone and others then co-opted this term to make out that the real "Deep State" was the Washington old guard, the bureaucrats and journalists who have fought and will continue to fight against Stone and the far right's desired turn towards fascism. Stone was horrified that his hero Nixon was removed by people who were not as charismatic as Nixon (LOL) and was hoping Trump would complete what Nixon tried to do--make the entire government subservient to the whims of one man.

I will probably never read Fred's book, Tracy. But I'm curious to know if he acknowledges that many of the arguments against what was in the film started with other CTs, and that the so-called CT community is not of one mind when it comes to many of the issues raised in the film. I, for one, destroyed the Knudsen nonsense a long time ago. To be clear, I have been in the trenches for two decades now. And I've lost respect for anyone who thinks one side is wrong about everything and the other side of the conspiracy/no conspiracy divide is right about everything. It's the same in in politics. While the truth is not always in the middle, it is rarely far to one side. In my case, I've come to conclude that at least 50% of what most CTs believe is garbage. But that still leaves a lot of reasons to doubt the official story. I rarely see such flexibility from the other side. There's a need for certainty among many LNs that is not as widespread among the CTs I've known. Instead of thinking Oswald may have done it, they say they know he did it--and that the truth of this is obvious. They then cite a bunch of nebulous stuff. I recall now that I discussed this on my website. I made the analogy that the evidence for Oswald's guilt is a 1 1/2 out of 2 and the evidence he acted alone is a 1 1/2 out of 2. LNs see this and round up, so that 2 + 2 = 4. While CTs see these same facts and say 1 1/2 + 1 1/2 = 3, and 3 is not 4, so something is wrong. So who is correct, here? Those who routinely round up--and think the problems with the official investigations and story can be summarily dismissed? Or those who focus on the shortcomings of that investigation, and refuse to complete the equation in the manner the school board requires and move on with their lives? I am curious as well, if Lance is reading, if he finds a similarity to religion. There are those who look at the evidence for God's existence who are fully versed in reasons to doubt his/her existence, who nevertheless round up and choose to believe. And there are others who look at these same facts and can't believe. It's a peculiar thing.

I drove through Roswell once on the way to a convention in Dallas. I would agree that the sensationalism and opportunism of those hawking their wares in stores in Roswell, and at Dealey Plaza, is similar. I was fairly certain most of those selling this stuff (outside Bob Groden in Dallas) actually knew little about what they were selling. It was a way to make some quick cash off some dumb tourists. American capitalism at work.

Thanks for sharing. I think we are alike in that we both take pride in being reasonable but have experienced events that have made us question certain aspects of everyday life. When I was near death in the hospital almost two years ago now I was visited by ghosts. My rational brain says I was probably hallucinating but I can't declare that with total conviction--it felt pretty real at the time.

I, too, would be curious as to your opinion on UFOs, Lance. My mom lived in Arizona. I spent many a night under the stars in the desert. And a lot of people living there will tell you they've seen things. Have you seen things?

As stated, I met Shermer after a talk he gave at a local community center. In his talks and his books he acknowledges his past--that he used to jump from trend to trend--I believe he was even drawn to pyramid power at one point. My hope was that we could exchange ideas re the Kennedy assassination without either of us representing a "side". He quickly fell back upon arguments from authority--"Well, Bugliosi says this, etc" When I then tried to engage him in an actual discussion of the evidence, he essentially said detailed studies were worthless and reflect bias and that one must accept the big picture stuff provided by the experts and authorities, and go from there. My conclusion was that he isn't the real deal, and that "skepticism" for him was just a newfangled version of astrology. I am an agnostic in that I feel quite sure one can not truly know whether or not there is a God. But a friend of mine--who was traumatized by his religious upbringing--asked me to come along to Atheists United meetings, and I went for six months or so. It was a strange experience. Most of them were not just desperate for company with their fellow atheists, but anxious to share their ideas with believers, and make them see the error of their ways. They were essentially atheistic ministers, who had replaced what I saw as true atheism--we can not know and should not pretend to know--with a zeal to "convert" as many believers to their atheistic orthodoxy. They even had books listing hundreds of reasons to doubt the existence of God, and discussed the writers of these books as if they were leaders of their cult or something. It kinda creeped me out.

The point is that there was not a five second gap between shots two and three. I've studied a thousand or more statements from more than 200 witnesses, and that pause--which has become accepted as a fact by those desperately clinging to the single-assassin solution--never happened. Perhaps it should also be pointed out that numerous studies have been performed on eyewitness recollections of time, and these all confirm that perceived time slows down dramatically during stressful events. A 10 second event can be expected to be remembered as 15 seconds and so on. That so many recall the shots as rapid fire (with shots two and three bang-bang)--and that so many of these witnesses were distant witnesses, including a number of Dallas Deputy Sheriffs--is lethal to the single-assassin solution as currently pushed in the LN literature and on TV. It did not happen that way. And that is in concrete.

Wow. Shermer is a piece of work, a total tool. I met him at a local talk, and we exchanged emails after agreeing to have a serious discussion of the Kennedy assassination. After I sent him some stuff demonstrating problems with the single-bullet theory, he cut me off, and said if you looked at the details of the shooting, you would get lost in the minutiae, and that the only way to understand what happened was to look at the big picture, and not question the details. Now he praises Litwin for his hard work and attention to detail. What a hypocrite! It's like people who praised Bugliosi's book saying it answered all the questions who never read the book, and would never read a comparably-sized book (such as my website) or Harold Weisberg's books. "It's got a lotta words and footnotes and tells me what I want to hear so it's gotta be smurt!"