Pat Speer

Greetings. I think that's a fair article. It presents her viewpoint. Granberry has written some articles on the case in the past, that were largely unbiased. I remember also that at one point, when I was optimistic about the press accurately presenting some JFKA evidence that had largely gone unreported, I sent out a group email to like 50 reporters. As I recall Granberry was one of maybe three to respond. He said something like "Keep me posted." Reading articles like this can be of value for a number of reasons. One should never take them at face value, IMO. But one can notice things in articles like this that spur one on to further research. In this case, I notice that Ruth says she wasn't asked about the Walker note for months after the shooting. The WR says the FBI discovered this note in a book handed over by Ruth on December 2, but a week and a half after the assassination. Is her memory faulty? Or did the FBI fail to ask her about the note for months after its discovery? Or was its "discovery" (and possible creation) actually months later than claimed in the WR? I sense an upcoming journey to the MFF website. But if someone else wants to beat me to it, that would be fab.

At a quick glance, I think this one should be put aside. 29. The jacket in evidence was only sold in California and Philadelphia—both where Oswald had not been as a civilian. My weekends as a child were spent with Marines from Camp Pendleton, where Oswald had been stationed. They wore street clothes on the weekends. This doesn't prove the jacket was Oswald's, but it does show he had access to jackets that were only sold in CA and PA. .

Henry Lee has a chapter on the JFK case in one of his books. He basically throws his hands up in the air and says the evidence is a mess. If I recall he also alluded to a paper he'd written on the case, which I was never able to find.

Let this sink in. The strap muscles are at the front of the neck. The autopsy doctors saw a divot on the back that gave no signs of entrance into the body. But they also saw a tracheotomy incision on the front, with bruising within the front of the neck, and at the top of the right lung. Questions needed to be answered. The next morning Humes called Perry and found out that the tracheotomy incision had been cut through a small wound. With no body in front of him, and no photos to double-check the feasibility of his conclusion, he took from this that the bullet creating the divot must have somehow actually passed through the body and exited the throat. But there was NO evidence for this passage. He simply conjured it up. It made sense to him. He'd read the paper and it said three shots were fired. Well, this was the only way he could think of to make things add up. But it wasn't exactly scientific. His deduction was flawed because 1) he actually had no idea how many shots were fired, and 2) he failed to consult with anatomy books--or even the photos he'd had taken--to see if this trajectory made sense. In fact, the only material available to him with which he could double-check his proposed trajectory was the autopsy face sheet, which showed a back wound inches below the throat wound, and suggested a sharply upwards trajectory through the body--the exact opposite of what he'd noticed at autopsy. At autopsy he'd thought the bullet entering the back was headed downwards but could find no passage into the underlying tissue. And at autopsy he'd noted that the contused strap muscles were behind or even slightly above the tracheotomy incision. So...1) he found no evidence a bullet passed through the body from the back to the throat AND 2) he found no evidence that whatever exited the throat came from below. But he needed the pieces to fit. So he crammed a square peg into a round hole. That ain't science. That's politics.

If I remember correctly, his partner got involved, and convinced him he could make a lot of money off the film. I do find it interesting, however, that the government never forced anyone to provide any evidence. I mean, the major networks stalled and stalled and eventually provided copies of broadcasts, but never previously unseen witness interviews. (CBS had dozens of them--some of which are still unseen.) I find that ridiculous. And no, I don't think it has anything to do with freedom of the press--it has to do with money money money. "Well, we might be able to make some money off of this--and if we give it to you we'll get nothing! WAA WAA WAA."

In addition to David's point, I think you should realize that the acoustics experts actually discovered five possible shots, and that Blakey threw one out because he thought five would be harder to sell than four. It took me years to realize it but the whole thing was nonsense from the beginning. Blakey wanted to build his case on science. Most of the scientists were bending everything the other way--to sell a single-assassin. But some on the committee (along with Blakey himself) were satisfied there was more than Oswald, due to Ruby's mob ties, etc. So the acoustics evidence was propped up when it should have probably been shelved (once they realized it was odds with the photos and films). But instead they used and abused McLain and lied about the Dorman frame in the report.

Yes, you are correct. The identification of an object's location can be determined by the sounds it picks up. But the interpretation of the sounds from the dictabelt recording is extremely problematic, and amounts to junk science. Heck, this is one of the few things David Mantik and I agree upon. If I remember correctly, they presumed the recording equipment was running slightly fast, and their adjustment just so happened to bring the supposed shots on the tape in line with the timing of the shots proposed by the photographic panel. This then was used to support the authenticity of the acoustics evidence--that the blips were indeed shots. But you can bet the farm it was reverse-engineered, and that the adjustments were made to bring the blips into alignment with the films. I mean, think about it. if the tapes were in sync with the films, why didn't the HSCA or Thomas, or Thompson, put out a video with the tapes over-dubbed onto the films? While I don't know for sure, I suspect they knew the majority of those watching and listening would have been unconvinced. So they made an argument from authority instead--"Well, this guys an expert and he says" blah blah blah." The Ramsey Panel was unconvinced, and while they may have been biased, and may have made mistakes, the only refutations I am aware of come from Thomas and Thompson, who've built a castle upon quicksand. The films absolutely positively prove that McLain was not where he needed to be for the acoustics conclusions to be valid. He said his mic was not left open, and that he wasn't where they said he was when the shots were fired. And the films prove he was correct. So why are we still discussing this? Because dogs can't let go of a bone once they think they have one. Now, could someone come along and re-interpret the data and come to the conclusion shots were indeed recorded, but that the mic recording them was not where the acoustics experts/Thomas/Thompson claimed they were? Sure. I've been hoping for this for decades. But nope. Not gonna happen. It appears that those supporting the acoustics are reluctant to admit that their heroes could be wrong about anything. I see similar patterns throughout this case, but that's a rant for a different thread.

Zapruder made sure the Secret Service got a copy. And he cried in his first TV interview and then again in his testimony. So I don't think there's anything suspicious about him. In contrast I do know that some of those who've claimed he was part of a plot, or that he wasn't even in the plaza at the time of the shooting, but was later added onto the films--are not to be trusted.

Yes, but they just bend over backwards to say the acoustics experts were correct. They don't question them on any of their basic presumptions--such as that a certain blip must have been recorded in a certain location. It's junk science,IMO. GIGO.

In order to sell how science-y it all was, the acoustics guys specified that the Impulses only matched certain locations at certain times. Well, their supposed exact specific results disproved the committee's central claim--that the impulses were picked up by McLain's open mic. So the authors of the HSCA report--I suspect Blakey--bsed their way out of this by claiming the image of McLain in the Dorman film showed him to be exactly where he needed to be when he needed to be there. Only this wasn't true. Not even close. The films prove McLain didn't come along for several seconds after he needed to be there. I had shown this to people for years but they were seduced by Don Thomas' arguments--because he was so science-y and all. And I was really disappointed when Tink (with the backing of others) put out a book supporting the dicta-belt, without addressing the points I'd been raising for years, and that some involved were well aware of. I think that Tink was so sucked into his research into Alvarez--who'd fudged some stuff to debunk the dicta-belt evidence--that he couldn't see that the dicta-belt evidence was at odds with the photo evidence and fatally flawed from the beginning. So, in short, I'd hoped Tink or someone with an interest in the dicta-belt would move on from the same old crap and show us how it was still valid even if the mic was not in the locations proposed by the HSCA acoustics experts. But was sorely disappointed.

I met Paul once and played him in a reconstruction of the shooting. He was a pleasant guy, devoid of the bitterness you might suspect he would have after being shot in the head by an assassin, who, to Paul's mind, remained at large. RIP.

I exchanged a number of emails with Gary, and watched all his TV appearances, and online interviews. And you are right, he spent most of his airtime debunking, or attempting to debunk--sometimes in an embarrassingly shoddy manner--conspiracy theories. But he never denounced or attempted to debunk his own "pet" theories--"badgeman" and the "dictabelt'. And he let on that he still believed they were valid reasons to suspect a conspiracy...right up till the end. So that's what I meant by "true believer". Somewhere along the line I read some studies about cognitive psychology that came to a surprising conclusion--that when people come to a conclusion based on vague evidence--such as a blurry photo--they are more likely to hold onto that conclusion in the face of opposition than if the evidence was less vague. Basically, our minds look at blots and form patterns and once they form that pattern they can't unsee that pattern. In any event, that's what I meant by "true believer." Gary was, to my understanding, a true believer in "badgeman" and the "dictabelt." Now, of course, I came to reject the dictabelt, and never put much stock in badgeman. So I thought Gary's "pet" theories were pet rocks. But I remember one interview in which he defended CT's by pointing out a number of coincidences and oddities about the case that he had trouble reconciling as coincidences. So I think he leaned CT even without his "pet" theories.

While such a history would have value, I worry that it would be misleading to many in that it would no doubt focus on the questionable honesty of men like Mark Lane, and questionable mental health of men like Harrison Livingstone. Having read books from all sides, I feel quite strongly he should absolutely positively include non-flattering chapters on men like Lattimer--who was clearly loopy--and Posner--who was and is a bit of a sleaze bag. And then, of course, there's Bugliosi. One can not go after men like Garrison, or Stone, in my opinion, without pointing out that Bugliosi was just if not more self-righteous, and equally if not more likely to misrepresent evidence. I mean, a lot of people propping up VB's book as the JFKA bible would take a second look at VB if they realized he'd spent years trying to convince people that RFK was killed by more than one shooter, that the Supreme Court was out to get Clinton, that Bush stole the 2000 election, that Dubya was guilty of treason, and that God does not exist. P.S. While I would agree with Bugliosi on some of his obsessions, I think his certainty on these issues would disturb many of those convinced of his clarity of thought and purity of intention re the JFK assassination.

I'm a relative newbie. I had a slight interest in the case prior to Stone's movie, then gained more interest, spurred on by the purchase of Groden's The Killing of a President. I had a sales rep in the record biz, Jim McCall, who was totally into it, however. We used to talk about it at lunch. At one point I found some Cd-roms in our warehouse that were sent to us accidentally, and I put one aside for Jim. It was a Cd-rom comprising the Warren Report, Jim Marrs' Crossfire, a few of the assassination films, and Phil Willis' photos. Almost on a lark, I bought one for myself, and ended up reading the whole thing. I then spotted Posner's Case Closed at a book store, and bought it. I found it fairly compelling, but was disturbed by its presentation of the single-bullet theory, which grossly distorted JFK's and JBC's body shapes to line things up. I then started reading online. At that time, there were a number of websites set up to debunk Posner's book, most drawing from Weisberg's Case Open, if I recall. I then decided I would just have to study the case for myself, using the original documents when available. I found Rex Bradford's History Matters website, and got hooked. What sucked me all the way down the rabbit hole was the report of the HSCA pathology panel. I couldn't just accept that 1) the autopsy doctors were so grossly incompetent that they would claim the bullet entered low on the back of JFK's head when it really entered near the top, and 2) that the so-called mystery photo originally proclaimed to represent the back of Kennedy's was actually taken from the front of his head, and showed his forehead. I smelled a rat. A big old stinking' rat. And was disgusted that the TV shows I'd seen on the case had never mentioned that the opinions of the government's hired experts were so grossly at odds with each other. This then led me to read everything I could on the medical aspect of the case: Best Evidence, High Treason, Post Mortem, etc. This was roughly 2002. The record distributor I'd helped expand had been gutted by criminals, and the company I'd worked for afterwards had dealings with some of the same criminals, so I quit my job and tried to make sense of the JFK assassination in part to make sense of life in general. I spent the next two years or so working on the case full-time, visiting the UCLA Bio-Med Library every month or so, and photo-copying 20 articles or so at a time to bring back and study and absorb before my next visit. By 2003, I had joined both the JFK Lancer Forum and a new forum started by British Educator John Simkin. I became active on both forums, but took a special interest in Simkin's forum due to the presence of Larry Hancock. For several years, although I was mostly interested in the medical evidence, I would read everything I could on the CIA angle to the case, and report back to Larry in emails or online what I'd discovered. This led me to get up the nerve to ask him if I could speak at the upcoming Lancer Conference, and he said yes, and fit me in in a Sunday slot (when a lot of people have already left). Fortunately, however, one of those in attendance at my first presentation was Debra Conway, and she was super-nice and supportive. She told me I should persevere, and that it might take ten years for people to catch on to what I was talking about. I thought she was exaggerating but she was right as usual. One of my key take-aways from the medical evidence was thatJFK's large head wound was a tangential wound of entrance and exit, and not an exit wound from a shot entering the front or the back. I'd done extensive reading on scalp wounds, skull wounds, brain wounds, and wound ballistics in general, and it was clear to me that the nature of this wound was a scientific fact, and not just my pet theory. Well, sure enough, when appearing at the 2013 Wecht conference, both Tink Thompson and Robert Groden reversed what they had claimed previously and declared that the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. So that's how change occurs. You make your point over and over and people say "Yeah, sure" and then one day others start repeating what you've said. And then years later it becomes "accepted wisdom"

I see nothing conspiratorial here. It would have been incredibly incredibly easy for Mack to have disavowed the dictabelt publicly in one of his numerous TV appearances. This would have been extremely damaging to CT's as far as their standing in the mainstream media. And yet Mack--like most everyone involved in this case--failed to admit his error even when it became clear to many of his peers and advantageous to do so. Why? Well, the answer seems obvious. He was a true believer.

The only point with which I would disagree is that you seem to believe Blakey decided to go with the SBT before Guinn became involved. I deduced it was the other way around. Blakey wanted the FPP to be based on science. Nichols, and Weisberg, and as I recall, Wecht, had claimed the key was neutron activation analysis of the bullet fragments. This was performed by Guinn before Baden and his panel studied reports on the medical evidence, or viewed the medical evidence for themselves. Guinn gave his report to Blakey and voila! a few days later Baden and the boys go to the archives. I deduced that it was the receipt of Guinn's report that led Blakey to announce they were going with the SBT. But I could be wrong. If I recall, I asked Lopez about this at the 2014 Bethesda conference but he couldn't recall the exact date. I also spoke to Blakey at that conference and he said he'd rather communicate through email where he could check his notes etc and be more thorough. I then emailed him at the address he provided, while sharing some of the info I'd gathered about Guinn, which proved Guinn's testimony supporting the SBT was nonsense. Blakey didn't respond. I wrote him two more times, as I recall, asking him some simple questions to increase the chances of a response. But I did not receive a response. So, in short, I deduced that Blakey took his lead from Guinn. And tried to make everything fit. But if there's something I'm missing--such as proof Blakey decided to go with the SBT before Guinn performed his analysis, or issued his report--I will revise.

Forensic Pathology Panel. Baden was appointed by Tanenbaum, and asked to put together a panel to re-investigate the medical evidence. According to Tanenbaum, he insisted Baden include Wecht, so that the panel would be sure to have a conspiracy viewpoint onboard. Baden then split the panel into two parts: 6 members who had never studied the evidence, and 3 who had. He put Wecht on the panel with 2 who had, and had publicly confirmed the findings of the WC--that there was evidence for but one shooter. This served to minimize Wecht's influence over the 6 newbies. I told Wecht that this was by design and he said he knew that, but had never confronted Baden over this because it would probably end their friendship. In any event, the panel began operation believing the SBT had been confirmed by Guinn, and twisted everything to fit that conclusion. Much to Wecht's chagrin. Then, when Blakey came back to Baden and told him they were gonna go with conspiracy, because of the circumstantial evidence and the dictabelt, he asked for Baden's help finding something anything in the medical evidence that would help sell conspiracy...and Baden told him no dice. So Blakey was stuck with an ugly mutation...a conspiracy where all the wounds were caused by Oswald, and the SBT was valid. The late John Hunt looked into this in detail and rescued a number of important documents from the archives, and I built upon this a bit. And it's 100% clear IMO that the HSCA FPP was a hoax, a charade, and that Dr, Michael Baden is a lying sack of something. With apologies to the sack of something...

It's a bit more complicated than that, IMO. The facts they'd unsurfaced regarding Ruby and his ties to organized crime made the HSCA as a whole suspect a conspiracy. But the scientists hired by Blakey to get at the truth spun spun spun the evidence to support Oswald acting alone. So Blakey needed to find some evidence that supported a conspiracy. He found that with the dictabelt evidence, and clung to it like a dog with a bone. What he failed to see, of course, was that the FPP among others was lying through its teeth, and that he wouldn't have needed the dictabelt if he'd had the huevos to confront the FPP on their obvious bs.

This was by design. Blakey didn't want any he said/she said and basically ignored all witnesses, perhaps under the assumption the WC went as far as one can go with the witnesses statements. No, he thought he could use science to break the case. He failed to realize, of course, how subjective it is, and ended up with "scientists" claiming the exact opposite of each other, or even the exact opposite of what they'd written in their professional papers. It's a disgrace that the scientific community still refuses to deal with. The lone exception, of course, is the NAA, which Guinn and Blakey used to support the SBT. It has now been pretty much debunked within the scientific community. But even this shows how gutless they are. The scientific community now says NAA is unreliable, and that Guinn misused it to support the SBT. But they won't say the gol darned truth--that his tests strongly suggested the opposite of what he said they did--and that they actually suggested Oswald's innocence. That's still a red line that honorable men of science refuse to cross... And it's a damned shame because it allows prevaricators like Posner to claim the scientific consensus is circling towards Oswald acting alone--when this is total bs. .

I remember reading that one of the early researchers--a housewife from Beverly Hills, if I recall--made charts presenting various WC drawings and images in comparison to other images. I did pretty much the same thing--running up a huge photocopy bil in the process--until my then-girlfriend convinced me I needed to learn how to use Powerpoint.

Absolutely. The Mary Ferrell Foundation resurrected a number of out-of-print JFK books a few years back. And the rights to those books remained with the authors and/or the authors' families. I believe the initial copyright is good for 75 years or the life of the creator--whichever is longer. I remember that Irving Berlin outlived his original copyright to White Christmas, but that it was extended. I believe as well that Disney has received a number of extensions on Mickey Mouse. I remember also reading that Babe Ruth's daughters retained ownership of his likeness for decades after his death. So some retain control for much much longer than others.

Vinyl made a comeback 10 years ago or so, to the point even where some stores carry vinyl but not CDs. I was a record buyer for a large wholesaler who saw the whole thing implode. Record stores were a big part of the culture and then they just disappeared. My wife carried on however by getting a job at iTunes, which morphed into Apple Music. She joined a vinyl club 6-7 years ago whereby she receives a classic album every month or so, which has been remastered, with full artwork. While we never listen to these records, we envision a time when we'll have a music room where we can put on a record and relax. As for now, it's pretty much "Hey, Siri, play me" some Beatles, or some jazz, etc. It's just too freakin' convenient. As far as books, there are some sites that offer free downloads of rare or out-of-print books. I don't have a problem with that. Collectibles are weird in that way. People want to own the item more than they want to read the book or listen to the record. At one point I sold off a large chunk of my gigantic CD collection. The hit records--the records people actually liked listening to--sold for very little, seeing as so many were available. The cult records--records that had gained popularity since their first release--sold for around as much as a new CD. But obscure records--such as one-off rap records that did not sell, but whose lead rapper went on to a successful solo career--sold for a bundle, sometimes hundreds. And limited edition records--such as an Elvis reissue gold disc that was limited to 1000 copies--sold for 500 bucks or so. Now, the point is that many of these same CDs were available on cassette, or for free on YouTube, and the collectors weren't interested. They wanted to own THE item, not just listen to it or read it. Now, sadly, that's changing. My understanding is that twenty-somethings are increasingly embracing lifestyles where they have few possessions, and where all their entertainment/popular culture comes through their phones or laptops. They don't have books or CDs or vinyl or even a TV. I guess it was bound to happen, but I worry that a lot of history and culture will be lost as a result.

I agree. His recollections are almost certainly of interest. But his impressions of Oswald are not to be relied upon, IMO.

I don't think you'll find it. Mark finished the movie back in 04 if I recall. He then previewed it at a Lancer Conference. People were impressed. It featured top actors like Martin Sheen, Sam Waterston, Edward Asner and Martin Landau in key roles, with Corbin Bernsen pretty much stealing the show as Gerald Ford. He then interviewed a number of people including myself, for a planned extra DVD for when it came out on DVD. He wanted it to be shown in theaters, however. He took it to some film festivals but couldn't get any buyers. He then got interested in the RFK killing and spent a few years working on a documentary about that killing. It was while he was working on that that he called me and asked me to play JFK's corpse. He thought The Commission's being all black and white was a turn-off to distributors, and thought having a few sequences and shots in color would liven it up. I talked to him off and on for maybe another 5 years after that. He was always on the verge of finding a distributor. He had offers from cable, and DVD distributors, if I recall. But he was determined it should be shown in a theater and reviewed by film critics. When that didn't happen I think he just moved on to other things. I still think it will come out, however. I mean, he corralled some of the best actors in Hollywood to re-enact a number of key transcripts from the Warren Commission's executive sessions. The public interest in it will probably grow, and Hollywood's interest in it will almost certainly grow. So...we'll see...

The sad fact is that people's opinions on people they know (or knew) are always biased. As a result, I don't see Gregory's opinions regarding Oswald as having much merit. I mean, Marina and DeMohrenschildt knew Oswald much better than Gregory, and they ultimately believed he didn't kill JFK. It should be noted, moreover, that those knowing Oswald who assumed he was guilty (such as Gregory and Ruth Paine) had a thing for Marina. Coincidence? I think not.