Pat Speer

My dad left home at 15 or 16, and received his GED in the Air Force. He later took college correspondence courses, etc. So, no, I don't think Oswald's not finishing high school was a problem for him. I would suspect, moreover, that those making a big deal of it are LNs anxious to paint him as a loser. LHO's IQ was measured at 118, as I recall. This means he was both way smarter and more worldly than the vast majority of people denouncing him as a loser, and claiming he had a scrambled brain or whatever.

I play JFK's corpse in Mark Sobel's The Commission. Last I heard, anyway... https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310906/

As someone who watched the record industry get murdered by file sharing, and has been to a talk by Harlan Ellison where he detailed his hunting down and killing a Russian site offering downloads of all his books for free, I am sympathetic to content creators. If this site was offering free downloads of content to which it had not obtained the rights, then I totally understand why it was taken down. I don't know if anyone else remembers google books, which went to libraries throughout the world and scanned millions of books, and offered them for free. This lasted a few months. In short time, they were sued and changed over to offering brief snippets from the books they had scanned, and links to sites (primarily Amazon) where you could buy the whole book. It's a tricky one, this copyright issue.

Was this website charging people for access to books for which they had no rights? What was the problem?

I think if you were to ask most people to describe someone they saw a few hours earlier while they were in a hurry, you would get something similar. Rather than focusing on what he got wrong (assuming it was Oswald), we should focus on what he got right. The man he saw was white... correct. Somewhere over 20 and somewhere under 40...correct. Not super skinny and not overweight...correct. With hair that was not blonde or red...correct. And wearing a light brown jacket...Okay, he was wearing a light brown long-sleeved shirt, which is close enough... The description so closely matches Oswald, in fact, that we can suspect he was describing the man he saw based upon his recollection of Oswald's appearance at the station...

I thought of a fun/sick one. Some years back, the director of the film "The Commission", Mark Sobel, asked me to come by his house. He wanted to insert color images of JFK's corpse into his film, to contrast with the black and white footage of the commissioners, and thought I would be a good match. So he faked an autopsy table and had me lay on my side for an hour or so, while he added a fake bullet wound and red marks to my back. He then took stills and footage of me laying there, zoomed in so close you couldn't tell I had my pants on or that I wasn't JFK. Now, shortly thereafter he got sidetracked by an RFK documentary, and after that we lost touch, so I don't know if he ever completed an alternate version of his film which included shots of me as the corpse. So here comes the memorabilia angle. There's a little box on my bookcase that I open up every now and then when asking "What's in here?" Only to find it contains the little fake bullet hole Mark attached to my back. If the movie ever receives its much delayed release and gains a cult following, I'm putting the "bullet wound" up on eBay. Not really. But I bet someone out there would want it.

Wrong, For all we know, there were a hundred potential patsies and Oswald drew the short straw. If, and I say if, it was decided that JFK must go they wouldn't have waited seven months to make him go. JFK was right about a lot of things, but one thing he was right about is that it was no mean trick to kill a public figure such as himself. The decision to kill JFK may not have been made until a few weeks before the assassination, and the decision to use Oswald as a patsy may not have been made until a few days before the assassination. I mean, what if Oswald got a cold, or got fired, or Frazier said no, and Oswald couldn't go to Irving on the 21st? Would the assassination have been called off? Maybe. Maybe not. It could be there were other patsies on standby. And this demonstrates that it could also be that someone else was supposed to be the patsy, and that Oswald was an alternate on standby. I mean, almost no one believes Ruby's killing Oswald was a primary part of the plot--they believe it was an emergency plan designed to silence Oswald. So why should we think Oswald's being the patsy was part of the plot as first proposed seven months before? Or even two months before? We just don't know.

Nope. There is no evidence Oswald was the only patsy considered, and that the only purpose he served was as patsy. Some who have looked into this believe Oswald was part of a mole hunt, and that whoever set Oswald up as the patsy was privy to info he/she knew would lead the CIA to sweep it all under the rug. I think Phillips alluded to something like this in his unpublished novel. Maybe he was telling the truth.

1. Let's kill Kennedy. 2. Let's kill Kennedy and make it look like the Cubans and/or Russians did it. 3. Who do we have in Chicago? Who do we have in Miami? Who do we have in any number of cities Kennedy is expected to visit in the near future, including Dallas? 4. Aha! There's a guy in Dallas who will make a perfect patsy who, get this, works in a building on the parade route. Number 4 wasn't decided at the same time as number 1. If the last 58 years of research has shown us anything it is that there were other Oswalds--other potential patsies--who could have been introduced into the plot. it could be that Randle/Paine's getting Oswald the job was just bad luck, for everyone involved.

I have roughly 150 books and magazines on the JFK assassination, and another 200 or so on related matters. I also have thousands upon thousands of pages of photocopies from articles and printouts from websites. As far as fun stuff... A friend gave me a non-functioning b and h camera--which was the same model as Abe Z's. Among my many books, moreover, there is one I think quite special. It is a copy of Specter's Passion for Truth, inscribed by Specter to the parents of his co-writer, Charles Robbins. I found it in a used bookstore in New York. I bought it for 2 bucks. I'd already had the book, but I couldn't help myself. P.S. At one point, I contacted the library where Specter's papers are stored and asked for their help in acquiring copies of his correspondence with Earl Warren. I offered them the autographed copy of his book. But received no response.

Yes, he is morally culpable. I just think we need to separate those we think "went along" with the cover-up thinking it was just Oswald, and those orchestrating a cover-up of something they thought might lead back to themselves, or the U.S. government. When I look at Johnson's actions, I see someone who didn't want the truth to come out. But when I look at Katzenbach's actions, I see someone who was anxious to calm the public. It goes back to intent. I suppose I am a bit biased by their subsequent statements. Johnson told lie after lie about what happened on the day of the shooting, while Katzenbach was frequently forthcoming. As I recall, he later expressed outrage over the CIA's failure to notify the Warren Commission about the attempted hits on Castro. He also acknowledged and discussed LBJ's obsession/phobia regarding RFK. He also went against the grain by claiming RFK had given his approval for a WC review of the autopsy evidence--something Specter had frequently cited as the reason no such review had been conducted. So I'm somewhat sympathetic to Katzenbach.

I agree and don't. Katzenbach was eager to impress his new boss, IMO. And failed to process what would happen if in their zeal to calm the public, the truth got swept under the rug. From patspeer.com Chapter 1b: Katzenbach Recap: On November 22, shortly after the assassination, Katzenbach took over as Acting Attorney General, so that Attorney General Kennedy could both grieve for his murdered brother and devote himself to his family. On November 24, after Oswald was assassinated, he met with FBI Director Hoover. The next day, he issued a memorandum to Bill Moyers, then working as the Johnson Administration's Press Secretary, encouraging Moyers to use the press to convince the public Oswald had acted alone. He later defended this action by insisting he was under pressure from the State Department to silence talk of a vast conspiracy. He then began to pressure the FBI to finish its investigation as fast as possible, and pressure President Johnson to create a Presidential Commission to confirm the FBI's findings. By early December, he cooperated with Chief Justice Warren and began pressuring the Attorney General of Texas to forego its own investigation. And then on December 9, he pressured the Warren Commission to simply sign-off on the FBI's findings! It's amazing to reflect that, in the aftermath of the assassination, Katzenbach, acting as the nation's top cop, had tried to cut-off a thorough, and one might say REAL, investigation at every opportunity, and that, when questioned about this later, he refused to take responsibility, blaming his actions on the FBI and the State Department. It was not HIS job to cater to the insecurities of FBI Director Hoover. It was Hoover's job to answer to him. It was not HIS job to assuage the concerns of the international community. It was HIS job, however, to make sure the assassination was properly and thoroughly investigated, and that those responsible were exposed and brought to justice. Even if one were to acknowledge the likelihood Oswald acted alone, one can not possibly believe that Katzenbach's actions were appropriate and reflective of a high regard for his responsibilities. Robert Kennedy may not have been a giant, but his shoes were clearly too large to be filled by Katzenbach. Robert Kennedy's approach would almost certainly have been different. On December 9, the same day that Katzenbach urged the Warren Commission to confirm the FBI's findings that Oswald had acted alone, Robert Kennedy had a private conversation with historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and made it clear that he could not agree with so simple a solution. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning epic, Robert F. Kennedy and His Times, Schlesinger wrote that Kennedy, who had deliberately removed himself from the investigation, was nevertheless keeping tabs on the developments, and was suspicious that Oswald, whose guilt he had accepted, may have been part of a larger plot, "organized by Castro or gangsters." Kennedy also told Schlesinger that CIA Director John McCone believed there was a second assassin.

Let's see if we can find some common ground. I suspect Katzenbach had no intention of covering up the truth, per se. He just thought time was of the essence and that the people should be told as soon as possible that it was Oswald acting alone. He'd looked at some of the facts, and had made up his mind. And he wanted the American public told those facts. So, no, he didn't want to lie. But he didn't want the public to be in the dark while awaiting the outcome of a thorough investigation, either. I think he thought it best to tell the public it was Oswald acting alone so everyone would calm down. I think he thought as well that if it turned out there was more to it that the American people would be told. Boy, was he naive.

Or... he sat down next to people so that someone taking a quick look--like a policeman--might think he was with that person, as opposed to sitting by himself.

STEM schools are schools that focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. These schools sprung up awhile back as a response to parents wanting public schools with higher academic standards than normal schools, and less focus on athletics and prom etc. They are for serious students only, and the students attending these schools are not required to live in the district. The local STEM high school is Santa Susana High, and many of its students come in from neighboring communities. Santa Su has a science fair every year, and I have noticed a tremendous shift in demographics over the past 10 years. While the science kids used to be mostly white males, they are now more than 50% female, with a large number of Asian and hispanic girls. So I think we are in for a seismic shift, where within 20 years formerly white male jobs like scientist and engineer will become majority female jobs, with many people of color. Now, STEAM... A few years back Santa Su added a large performing arts center to its campus. I watched them build the sucker. In any event around the same time I saw that they started calling the school a STEAM Academy--with the A standing for Arts. So now, along with the mopey science and math kids walking past my condo every day, there is a decent smattering of purple or green haired drama kids. But the funny thing is that aside from the hair they all dress the same. They all wear black. Every day.

Y'know, David, your complaints about Lane--which are not totally invalid--would carry a lot more weight if you would admit that Bugliosi pulled a lot of the same shenanigans, as far as twisting witness statements to fit his favored scenario. I would disagree, however, if you are somehow claiming Mark Lane twisted the statements of the railroad men into something they are not. From patspeer.com, chapter 3: Extinguishing Smoke Before It Starts a Fire On 3-23-64, we see the following report: "On March 14, 1964, James L. Simmons telephonically advised SA Robert Butler that he is one of ten witnesses who, while standing on the Commerce Street viaduct, observed the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. Simmons advised that he furnished his name as did the other people on the viaduct to a man he thought to be a reporter. He stated that none of the ten persons in the group has been interviewed concerning the assassination, to his knowledge. Simmons stated that he and his friends are all employees of the Union Terminal Company...with the exception of a Dallas Police officer who was standing with his group at the viaduct. He stated that he and his friends have not come forward since they were on duty at the time of the assassination and had not been authorized to leave their jobs to observe the parade. Simmons requested that his name not be mentioned to the other witnesses or to his employer in connection with this call. Following is the list of names as furnished by Simmons: Luke Winborn--switchman; (FNU) Potter--Hostler Helper; (FNU) Bishop--Hostler; Richard Dodd--Track Maintenance Foreman; (FNU) Murphy--Mail Foreman at Terminal Annex; (FNU) Holland--Signal Department Foreman; C.E. Johnson--Machinist; Euel (phonetic) Cowsart--Switchman; (FNU) Foster--Patrolman, Dallas Police Department." (3-23-64 FBI report, FBI file 62-109060, p124) Well, hell, we wonder why Simmons is so gol-darned anxious to get the recollections of these men on the record. We look back to see if anyone standing on the overpass gave statements to the Dallas Police or Sheriff's Dept. in the days after the assassination. We see that three of them did, and that they had something in common. 1. S.M Holland was on Simmons' list and worked for the Union Terminal Company. (11-22-63 statement to Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 24H212) “the President’s car was coming down Elm Street and when they got just about to the Arcade I heard what I thought for the moment was a fire cracker and he slumped over and I looked over toward the arcade and trees and saw a puff of smoke come over from the trees and I heard three more shots after the first one but that was the only puff of smoke I saw…” 2. Austin Miller was not on Simmons' list and worked for the Texas-Louisiana freight Bureau. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 24H217) “I saw a convertable automobile turn west on Elm off Houston Street. It had proceeded about halfway from Houston Street to the underpass when I heard what sounded like a shot a short second two more sharp reports. A man in the back seat slumped over and a woman in a bright colored dress (Orange or Yellow) grabbed the man and yelled. One shot apparently hit the street past the car. I saw something which I thought was smoke or steam coming from a group of trees north of Elm off the railroad tracks.” 3. Royce Skelton was not on Simmons' list and worked for the Texas-Louisiana Freight Bureau. (11-22-63 statement to the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department, 16H496) “We saw the motorcade come around the corner and I heard something which I thought was fireworks. I saw something hit the pavement at the left rear of the car, then the car got in the right hand lane and I heard two more shots. I heard a woman say “Oh, no” or something and grab a man inside the car. I then heard another shot and saw the bullet hit the pavement. The concrete was knocked to the south away from the car. It hit the pavement in the left or middle lane.” (Note that Skelton would later testify he thought the shots were dumbballs--a kind of firecracker that is thrown at the cement--because "I could see the smoke coming up off the cement.") We then look to see if any additional witnesses from the overpass had been interviewed by the FBI. We find one. 4. Frank Reilly was not on Simmons' list but was a co-worker of his at the Union Terminal Company. (12-19-63 FBI report based upon a 12-18-63 interview, by SA William Brookhart, CD205 p.29) “He saw two cars turn on Elm toward the underpass and at this time heard three shots which he thought came from the trees west of the Texas School Book Depository.” (Note that Reilly would later testify that he was standing with S.M. Holland--who said from day one that he saw smoke come out from the trees--and that "It seemed to me like they come out of the trees…on the North side of Elm Street at the corner up there...it’s at that park where all the shrubs is up there—it’s to the north of Elm Street—up the slope.” Well, this is a really strong indication that Reilly saw smoke as well.) Oh, no. These guys are gonna be a problem. Holland and Skelton thought they heard four shots. Miller and Skelton thought they saw a bullet strike the pavement (which doesn't fit the FBI's three-shots-three hits scenario). And Holland and Miller thought they saw a puff of smoke float over from the trees on the knoll... And that's not even to mention Reilly, who, even through the filter of an FBI agent, managed to make it clear he thought shots came from the knoll (and would later suggest he saw smoke). Well, what did the others have to say? Now that depends...on who you wanna believe... First, the witnesses interviewed by the FBI at this time...that were never re-interviewed. 5. George Davis (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H837) “Shortly after the motorcycle escort and Presidential car came into view and was at a point just east of the viaduct, Mr. Davis heard a sound which he described as similar to firecrackers exploding. All shots were very close together and he stated it was impossible for him to determine the number of shots." 6. Curtis Bishop (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H834): (He said that) “when President Kennedy’s car came into view he started down Elm Street past the Texas School Book Depository Building. He heard three shots ring out. He then saw President Kennedy slump over as if he had been hit.” 7. Ewell Cowsert (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H836) “just as President Kennedy’s car passed the Texas School Book Depository he heard two or three shots ring out and saw President Kennedy slump forward in his seat….he has no idea where the shots came from.” 8. Nolan Potter (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 2H834) “when the President’s car…had driven past the Texas School Book Depository Building, he heard three loud reports which sounded like firecrackers. He then saw President Kennedy slump over in his car…Potter said he recalls seeing smoke in front of the Texas School Book Depository rising above the trees.” Well, that's not very interesting. They pretty much said they saw nothing of importance. But look again. Potter said he saw smoke, but apparently thought this smoke was in the trees by the depository. And that's interesting...because from his viewpoint the trees by the depository were obscured behind the trees by the knoll. Well, this suggests then that maybe just maybe the FBI agent interviewing Potter had inserted his own interpretation...and had moved the smoke back towards the sniper's nest window because...y'know...he knew by now not to submit reports suggesting shots came from anywhere else. Now, let's look at the railroad witnesses who were eventually re-interviewed, and look into the future a bit. 9. Walter Winborn (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H833) “As the motorcycle escort and the vehicle carrying the president approached the viaduct, Mr. Winborn heard three distinct shots ring out...his attention remained on President Kennedy. He stated, however, that the shots sounded as if they all came from the same area.” Now here's what Winborn told Barbara Bridges on 3-17-65: "there was a lot of smoke...from out of the trees, to the left." And here's what he told Stewart Galanor on 5-5-66: “I just saw some smoke coming out in a—a motorcycle patrolman leaped off his machine and go up towards that smoke that come out from under the trees on the right hand side of the motorcade…There was a wooden fence there.” (When then asked if he'd told the FBI about the smoke) “Oh yes. Oh yes.” 10. Thomas Murphy (3-20-64 FBI report by SA Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H835) “Murphy said they watched President Kennedy’s limousine turn down Elm Street past the Texas School Book Depository and start towards them. He stated he then heard what sounded like two shots and he saw President Kennedy and Governor Connally slump in their seats. Murphy said in his opinion that these shots came from just west of the Texas School Book Depository.” Now here's what Murphy told Stewart Galanor on 5-6-66: (When asked how many shots he heard) “More than three.” (When asked where the shots came from) “they come from a tree to the left, of my left, which is to the immediate right of the site of the assassination…on the hill up there. There are two or three hackberry and elm trees. And I say it come from there.” (When asked if he saw smoke) “Yeah, smoke...in that tree.” 11. Richard Dodd (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H835) “when the motorcycle escort and the automobile carrying President Kennedy approached the area where he was standing his attention was directed on President Kennedy…he saw president Kennedy slump forward and simultaneously heard shots ring out. He stated he did not know how many shots were fired, but that the sounds were very close together.” Double head shot. Now here's what Dodd told Mark Lane in an interview filmed 3-24-66: “We all, three or four of us, seen about the same thing, the shot, the smoke came from behind the hedge on the north side of the Plaza. And a motorcycle policeman dropped his motorcycle in the street with a gun in his hand and run up the embankment to the hedge.” 12. James Simmons (3-19-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H833) "he recalled that a motorcycle policeman drove up the grassy slope toward the Texas School Book Depository Building, jumped off his motorcycle and then ran up the hill toward the Memorial Arches. Simmons said he thought he saw exhaust fumes of smoke near the embankment in front of the Texas School Book Depository Building.” Now here's what Simmons told Mark Lane in an interview filmed 3-28-66: “As the presidential limousine was rounding the curve on Elm Street, there was a loud explosion…it sounded like a loud firecracker or a gunshot, and it sounded like it came from the left and in front of us toward the wooden fence. And there was a puff of smoke that came underneath the trees on the embankment. It was right directly in front of the wooden fence.” 13. Clemon Johnson (3-18-64 FBI report by SA's Thomas Trettis and E.J. Robertson based upon a 3-17-64 interview, 22H836) “Mr. Johnson stated at that time he did not know that it was shots and he could not state how many shots he heard. His attention remained on the vehicle carrying President Kennedy and he observed this car until it sped away. Mr. Johnson stated that white smoke was observed near the pavilion but he felt that this smoke came from a motorcycle abandoned near this spot by a Dallas policeman.” Now, Clemon Johnson was not re-interviewed for many years afterward. But here's what he told Larry Sneed, for Sneed's book, No More Silence, published 1998. "I didn’t have any idea where the shots came from, not even a guess…I did see smoke, lots of puffs of smoke, but I was of the opinion that the smoke was coming out of those motorcycles. The smoke was coming up off the ground out where the motorcycles were, not on the grassy knoll." Now, how about that? James Simmons came forward on 3-14-64. He told the FBI they should talk to some of his co-workers--railroad workers who'd witnessed the shooting from the triple underpass. The FBI then did as much. SA's Trettis and Robertson interviewed Simmons along with eight of his co-workers on 3-17-64. But here's the thing. While the reports on two of these men reflect the interviewee saw smoke on 11-22-63, and one reflects the interviewee thought shots had been fired from west of the building, only one of these reports reflects that the interviewee saw smoke come out from the trees--and it makes out that it was the trees down by the depository! So that's zero of nine saying they saw smoke come from the trees by the knoll. And yet a closer look proves that three of the four railroad workers to make statements or be interviewed before Simmons came forward, and four of the five (not previously making a statement) to be interviewed over the years afterwards, made statements indicating or suggesting they saw smoke come out from the trees. So that's seven of nine who suggested they saw smoke come out from the trees when writing a statement or being interviewed by someone other than Trettis and Robertson, and zero of nine who suggested they saw smoke come out from the trees when interviewed by Trettis and Robertson. And, let's not forget--the other two also said they saw smoke--but thought it was down on the street! So that's nine of nine who suggested they saw smoke when writing a statement or being interviewed by someone other than Trettis and Robertson, and but two of nine who suggested they saw smoke when interviewed by Trettis and Robertson. Well, it follows then that Trettis and Robertson (and almost certainly their superiors within the FBI) were blowing smoke...about the smoke...or, rather, the lack of smoke. The reports written by Trettis and Robertson were designed to conceal, and not reveal...

I went to school in L.A. Unified at a time when it had voluntary busing. I went to Patrick Henry Junior High, in Granada Hills, in the north San Fernando Valley, a suburb of Los Angeles. The community at that time was probably 85% white, 12% hispanic and 2% asian. There was maybe 5 black kids from the area in a school of 1400 locals. But there were another 100 or so black kids who chose to ride a bus an hour from South Central, to receive a superior education. It was a bit awkward. I remember thinking how hard it must have been for these kids to complete their homework, and get a good night's sleep, seeing as they had to leave an hour earlier than the local kids, and got home an hour later. But there were 100 kids willing to do just that. Many years later, after I'd found a home in the record industry, I was talking with the rapper/actor ice Cube. I asked him about growing up in Compton, a notorious black area near L.A. He told me he'd actually gone to school in the Valley, at Taft High, if I recall. He was one of those kids, who'd been willing to lose 2 hours a day to get a better education. Well, this explained a lot. Ice Cube's raps were always better-written than those of his competition. And this was because he'd had more than street knowledge. The dude had stuck it out in school and had even went to Arizona State for awhile before his rap career took off. In any event, these kids had gone to elementary school in their community, and had learned from this that if they wanted to get ahead they would have to go to high school outside their community, and mingle with the suburban kids, and be taught by suburban teachers. So I don't see the harm in helping kids like that get into college, even if it's at the expense of kids who have a higher GPA, or higher SAT. The question is how to do this without using race as a factor. I don't know. I do know that I was raised by a single mom supporting four kids on a nurse's income and that this allowed me to get a small grant when I went to CSUN. So maybe that's it. Instead of using race as a factor in college admissions, perhaps they should use hardship as a factor. And this hardship factor could give bonus points for kids who were bused, or who were raised by a single parent, etc. I mean, my son goes to a middle school which tracks to a STEAM high school. The students from his school get first crack. It's not based on ability. It's first crack. Period. They could have a waiting list of 500 kids who want into the STEAM high school, and it wouldn't matter. Kids who go to his middle school are guaranteed a spot at the STEAM high school. So...maybe the universities wishing to improve their diversity could start relationships with schools from bad areas, whereby any kid graduating from these schools with a certain GPA and a certain SAT score is guaranteed a spot at their college, if he/she chooses to go to college. This would get rid of the racial component while simultaneously improving diversity.

A brief anecdote, FWIW. I have a close female friend who is a bit of a world traveller. 25 years ago or so, she got it in her head to travel the world by bicycle. Her first stop was Vietnam. She rode a bicycle from one end to the other, and met an Israeli guy along the way. The two of them then traveled through India, Pakistan, Italy and France. She then moved with him to Israel. I'm probably skipping a few places. In any event, she said that Vietnam was by far the friendliest of all the nations she visited. She said it was beautiful and that the people were very welcoming to Americans. She said as well that they had to cut their trip to Pakistan short, due to the dirty looks they received, and that Italian men were by far the rudest, always whistling and saying sexist crap. But that's beside the point. The point is that her takeaway from all this was that Vietnam was the nicest and friendliest country she visited. Go figure.

Look at the slide. The wing of bone indisputably drapes down past the ear, within a small margin of the back of the head. This is exactly what is shown on the x-rays.

While I would agree that affirmative action policies should be re-written so they are not based on skin color, I suspect/know the underlying effort is not about this one issue. There is an underbelly of laissez-faire capitalism within this case, and within the MAGA movement as well. The feeling is that everyone should be forced to pull their weight and that no one should be given special treatment. Well, we've seen where this leads.

The facts are... When it comes to education in America, kids of Asian ancestry dominate. They are not de facto minorities, no far from it. Say there's a step provided so short kids can reach a doorbell. Then a tall kid with short arms comes along and says I'd like to use that step as well, and it's not fair that only short kids can use that step. So he petitions the providers of the step to take away the step. Net result: short kids no longer have a step to help them reach the doorbell. Now, I would like to see programs designed to help short kids that don't discriminate purely on height. I think that's been the trend for some time. But this idea that Asians as a whole have been wronged by Affirmative Action is just bs. If you go to any major University in the country you'll see that people of Asian ancestry are over-represented compared to their numbers in the general population, by a ratio of 5-1, 10-1, or more. Heck, the last time I visited Berkeley more than half the kids walking down Durant looking for hot Dogs, pizza, and yogurt, were Asian. I spent a lot of time in the hospital last year, in an area that's mostly white and hispanic, and less than 5% Asian. And yet roughly half my nurses and doctors were Asian. Remembering the status of nursing a few decades ago, when a large percentage of nurses were brought in from the Philippines, I assumed many of these nurses were not born here or raised here. But in talking to the fifty or so Asian nurses I had in my stay, I found that virtually all of them were born here or raised here. One nurse seemed particularly bright. I said I bet you got straight A's in school. She laughed and said "Well, yeah, but that doesn't mean I'm smart. It means I'm Asian in America." Exactly. It's a cultural thing. Much like Jews becoming accountants, dentists and lawyers is a cultural thing.

Go back and look at the slide. The wing of bone stretches past the ear and ends before it reaches the far back of the head. Well, where is the white patch? In this exact same location. As far as your disagreement with the exact verbiage used, there's no problem The temporal-parietal is the side of the head--not high on the front (that would be frontal)--and not low on the far back (that would be occipital).

Not at all. While it seems probable Oswald was picked out as a patsy, he was not picked out as a patsy if and only if he continued working in that building. Are you really saying that if Truly fired Oswald there would have been no shooting? It's clear to me they would have found a way for Oswald to cross paths with Kennedy elsewhere in Dallas, and have changed the location of the shooting. I don't see why people are drawn to believing it was planned out in every detail. I mean, think about it. You have a neighborhood bully. He tripped you last Halloween. You want revenge. So you pick out a disguise and follow him around for awhile. And then you see him approaching a kid you don't like who've you've seen him bully. So you race up behind a bush and throw a rock at him just after he passes that kid, knowing he will turn around and attack that kid. You had a plan. You watched. You waited. You succeeded. Did the plan revolve around that other kid? No. You had a list in your mind of ten other kids you could use in such a manner. But he was there--right there when you needed him. Poor kid. Poor Oswald.

The depository was not a necessary part of the plot. Never was. If the motorcade went somewhere else, they would have found a way to put Oswald on the parade route. Or, at the airport... Or, at the Trade Mart... There's just too many intangibles. Anyone who thinks these kinds of ops are planned down to a tee well beforehand and that everything has to go precisely as planned to succeed has watched too many movies, or TV. In reality, the planners have a master plan. In this case: kill Kennedy. And that's it until a few weeks before the killing. They then plan how this can be done. Well, we have this perfect patsy--Oswald--and he works on the parade route. So let's make sure he's NOT outside during the shooting, and let's make sure we use a weapon that can be tied to him. And if that fails--like he goes outside or something--we have a back-up plan. Gerry Hemming used to blather on about a car bomb placed on the parade route as a back-up. While he was just making that up, a detailed plan would probably have such a contingency in place. If not, well, there's always the next motorcade. P.S. When I described Sandy's reasoning as circular I meant that it started with a faulty premise--that the building was a necessary part of the plot--and that this led him to suspect a lot of people of mischief. It was my assumption that his suspicions about these people in turn fueled his belief the building was a necessary part of the plot. If I'm wrong, however, he should come out and admit that since his belief the building was a necessary part of the plot is not supported by anything real, then there is in fact no reason to be suspicious of these people.

Doctors like to play God. The members of the Clark Panel and HSCA FPP had little to no experience with military rifle wounds. But that didn't stop them from interpreting a military rifle wound. The HSCA brought Sturdivan on as their wound ballistics consultant but the FPP mostly ignored him. Instead, Baden called Dr. Marshall to ask him about FMJ bullets. Not on the record, of course. Real professional. As far as Bloody Sunday... My lord, first you downplay My Lai, and now you downplay the shooting of an unarmed man in the head as he went to help a downed man while waving a white handkerchief.