Pat Speer

I am still waiting for Ronny Jackson or some other Trump lackey to explain how this could be a "graze" wound. I was actually thinking maybe just maybe the bullet ticked the the 10 o'clock position on the ear. But there's nothing there, right? The only possible damage is within the ear. Which rules out a graze wound, right?

Much of that is gossip, or information that has been skewed to be creepy. For instance, Angleton... Not exactly a hero of mine. But the evidence strongly suggests he was told about the diary by his wife, who was friends with Meyer, who didn't want the affair with JFK to become public. As I recall, he ran into Ben Bradlee and his wife (Meyer's sister) after confiscating the diary, and offered it to them, but they told him he should destroy it, or some such thing. IOW, he did not grab the diary as an employee for the CIA, but as a husband and friend. As another example, Hunter. I seem to recall someone belatedly looked up his articles on the JFKA and they were all Oswald-did-it articles. There is no evidence he was a threat to anyone, and if he was well, geez, there are much simpler ways to kill someone than having them "accidentally" shot in a police station. I have been way deep in the weeds of the JFKA for decades now, and there are two incredibly clear facts, IMO. 1. Most of the stuff spewed in JFK books and websites is nonsense. 2. But not all of it. As stated, those interested in "suspicious deaths" should focus on the deaths of the 70's. I remember Gary Hart speaking about this and claiming he wasn't convinced there was a conspiracy to kill JFK until the witnesses he wanted to bring before the Church Committee started dying. It would be good to have a book on those deaths, IMO, that was not filled with the speculation rampant in the claims about the suspicious deaths of the 60's.

I believe Hillary wrote in a book about her experiences as First Lady that she was partially shaped by the JFK assassination and was never satisfied with the Oswald-did-it scenario. I may be remembering this incorrectly, but I remember noting this at the time and wondering if this attitude led to some of the resistance against her from the right. As for Kerry, he broke his silence in 2013 and failed to say he thought it was Castro. Of Oswald, he said "I certainly have doubts that he was motivated by himself, I mean I'm not sure if anybody else is involved- I won't go down that road with respect to the Grassy Knoll theory and all that- but I have serious questions about whether they got to the bottom of Lee Harvey Oswald's time and influence from Cuba and Russia." As for wikipedia, we've been over this before, but the late John McAdams corralled some of his supporters into taking over the review process for wikipedia on all things JFK. Someone once wrote a detailed article on my own research and the materials I received from the Weisberg library, and the wikipedia moderator or whatever told me he wouldn't allow it because he saw no reference to it in Bugliosi's book.

The vast majority of suspicious deaths, as I recall, are of people whose deaths were ruled to have been an accident, who ACTUALLY said very little to suggest a conspiracy. It is a mistake to throw them in with the murders of Rosselli and Giancana, IMO.

Greetings. I have argued with people about this for decades now. They add into the pool of "witnesses" people on the periphery who have died, but not those who did not die. If one were to expand the number of "witnesses" to include every potential witness and journalist to touch the story, the size of the pool would be many times that used. Now, I personally think the deaths of Rosselli and Giancana and others in the mid-70's is far more suspicious than the deaths of Lee Bowers, William Whalley, and James Worrell in the 60's. But it's tough to estimate the life expectancy of mob figures, and separate out the many other reasons someone might want them dead.

I noticed a trend a few years back where people attracted to Trump were comparing him to JFK. I have also seen comparisons of him to Reagan. I can't see this. So I thought it would be useful to list what I see as the differences in the men, and am hoping others can do the same without the usual vitriol. I am merely trying to understand the divide. JFK... Personally liked by both parties. Proposed policies that were helpful to people of color, to members of organized labor, and people from poor economic backgrounds. Wanted to expand personal rights. Tried to limit collateral damage from our foreign policy. Nixon... Not liked much even by his own party. Proposed policies that were helpful to a majority of Americans, and protective of the environment. Deliberately increased the amount of collateral damage from our foreign policy. Was desperate to increase presidential power. Reagan... Personally liked by both parties. Proposed policies that were helpful to the wealthy (while naively believing this wealth would trickle down), was antagonistic towards organized labor, and seemingly indifferent to personal rights. Deliberately increased the amount of collateral damage from our foreign policy (through the funding of the contras, etc). Trump... Personally disliked and feared by both his opposition party and many formerly of his own party. Proposed policies that were helpful to the wealthy and the ultra-religious. Wanted to reduce personal rights. Frequently threatened to greatly increase the collateral damage from our foreign policy. Was desperate to increase presidential power. As opposed to telling me I am wrong about any of this, I would appreciate people making their own lists.

Greetings. I noticed something in the video that I think may be a problem for the scenario now being pushed. There is a woman behind Trump in the video who starts responding to the shooting even before Trump--within a second of the first shot as picked up through the microphone. I don't think this is likely should this have been the de facto first shot. I wonder who she is. Perhaps she had military experience and knew faster and better than anyone around her what it sounded like to have a bullet race past you. (She's the blonde in the white tank-top.) You can watch her response on the NYT Times website. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/26/us/politics/trump-shooter-bullet-trajectory-ear.html

A few points I am the same height as Trump and was at my fattest 245. Trump was significantly fatter than me and if I recall Jackson signed off on a report claiming Trump was 225. The man has no credibility. If the wound was clearly a bullet wound we would see it on Trump's ear. Now, I am taking a step back for two reasons. One is that the photo of Trump with the bloody ear right after the shots may be misleading. The darkest spot of blood appears to be at the 1 o'clock position--where yesterday's photos show NO wound. This makes me wonder if the wound was really at the 11 o'clock position, where there could very well be a minor abrasion on the ear in the photos. IF there is a minor abrasion in this location--on the outside of the ear and thus possibly in line with a shot from the sniper's position as Trump turned his head to look in that direction, it does not exonerate Jackson and Trump, however. Jackson claimed it was a 2 cm wound. That would be like a third the height of the ear. Where is this? Now it's possible some make-up was applied to Trump's ear for the Netanyahu photo-shoot. But I doubt it. It looks to me like it was just an extremely minor wound...far smaller than 2 cm.. Trump claimed a bullet pierced him and that he took a bullet for democracy. No such thing occurred. His claiming as much is offensive to those who have actually been pierced by a bullet or "taken" a bullet. Now, perhaps I should explain why I find this so offensive when I have never taken a bullet. I have been battling cancer and the side-effects of its treatment for more than three years now. I am what some would call a cancer "survivor." Now I have encountered others who act like we have something in common, because they had a mole removed from their face years ago that their doctor said might turn cancerous, or some such thing. They are not cancer "survivors." And they're making out that they are to me is offensive, IMO. In a similar vein, my best friend's son died from a heart condition when he was but six years old. It was devastating to the family and their friends. Now, amazingly, numerous acquaintances when faced with this grief tried to bond with my friend and his wife, by saying things like "Well, I know what you're going through because my dog died last year and man that was rough." My friends made a list of these people and made a joint decision to avoid them in the future. Let's put the shoe on the other foot... If the crazy kid had tried to kill Biden, and Biden had bragged about taking a bullet for democracy, when it was just a mini abrasion, FOX News would make this THE story for weeks and weeks, right? Of course, it would... So the fact it is just a minor story for a couple of days should not be upsetting to Trump supporters, IMO.

Did the bullet go through his ear, Karl? Did it graze the outside of his ear? From what I can tell the wound was near the middle of the ear, which makes a graze impossible. Can we agree on that at least? That bullets don't graze the inner part of the ear and leave no holes or tears in the cartilage?

Oh my. Newman pointed to his left temple because he had his kid in his right arm and was simply pointing out the location of the temple. He pointed to his right temple later that day and hundreds of times since so I don't think it was all that big of a deal for the film's director (probably not Lane himself) to reverse the original image for the movie. Certainly not as big of a deal as Ball and Specter convincing the doctors to move a back wound up to the base of the neck, and then start calling it a wound on the back of the neck. FWIW: I took a look at a NYT article in which the shooting is analyzed, and the reporters conclude Trump was hit by the first shot and that it was a straight shot that grazed his ear and went on to hit the bleachers. The analysis was far from precise and I immediately spotted a major problem. They didn't perform a vertical analysis of the trajectory. If they had they would have realized the supposed impact location was at the top of the bleachers...ABOVE the level of Trump's ear. Well, this proves if nothing else that the bullet was deflected...which rules out their claims it was a straight shot.

It looks like 1:00. He was hit by something there that did not pass through. IF a high-velocity bullet had hit him there it would have passed through and hit him in the head behind the ear, or at the very least tore threw the back of the ear. As no blood is trickling down his neck it seems clear this is a surface wound, exactly as Jackson said in his initial description. . It's a smoking non-bullet, IMO.

Putting our personal politics aside, Klaus... Why are you all in on this? A quick google search would have shown you that Jackson has little credibility, and that he has cashed in on his role as Trump's protector, to the extent even that he ran for congress as a Trump-like MAGA Republican, and won. By arguing about this, you seem to be saying that it is IMPORTANT for Trump to have been hit by an intact bullet that nearly hit his head, as opposed to his being hit by a piece of shrapnel or debris created by a bullet fired at his head. Why is that important?

On my. That's Trump's doctor. That's the same guy who routinely lies about Trump's weight, who cashed in on these lies for public benefit. As far as a doctor is concerned, it doesn't really matter what caused the damage.Jackson probably figures Trump wants to believe he was hit directly by a bullet...so why not tell everyone that's what happened... As far as the crime scene analysts...it makes a big difference. It could be that Trump's PR-based insistence he was hit directly by a bullet will necessitate there having been a second shooter. Or make it impossible to make the number of bullets fired match the number of impacts on the stage, etc. As stated...this is the U.S. Getting hit by a ricochet or fragment is not nearly as "cool" and "heroic" as having a bullet pass through your flesh. There is no hole in Trump's ear. No bullet passed through his ear. And high-speed bullet's don't graze the skin in the ear without shredding the cartilage. I could be proved wrong. But I'm not.

What??? The wound was described as blunt and down to the cartilage. It is NOT a hole through the ear.

You have it backwards. It seems pretty clear the kid was off and was willing to kill most anyone. So he's no martyr. The point is that Trump and his minions are claiming he took a bullet for democracy, when he is rabidly against democracy and wasn't actually shot. So. it is from an effort to debunk the "talking points" that some, including it now appears the FBI director, have started telling the truth about the assassination attempt--that Trump was not shot in the ear. Now...fragment wound...bullet wound...does it really matter? Not much. But to Trump's people it is a huge deal and he has probably raked in 50 million or so based upon his being shot that he would not have received for simply being injured by a fragment. It's sad but true. If a family member gets killed in combat a family will create a shrine in their honor and their community will put up a plaque with their name on it....but if a family member dies in a car crash while serving overseas...or dies from a flu contracted while serving overseas...there will be no memorial and no plaque and the family will be almost embarrassed by it. In the MAGA-verse REAL men get shot, while wimps get wounded by debris. It's a mind-set.

Thanks, Matt. That makes sense. It was a debris wound, not a bullet wound. AR-15 bullets are notoriously weak for full-metal jacketed bullets. If a bullet missed near Trump and hit the stage it would be likely to break into pieces and splatter those around him.

There is this thing called science, Gerry. And bullets traveling close to 3,000 fps don't "graze" the skin of the ear. They tear it. The descriptions of Trump's wound rule out his being struck by an actual bullet. And it's good to see the FBI acknowledge this likelihood.

IF the CIA played a role in killing JFK, do you actually believe anyone currently working at the agency knows about ir? Harold Weisberg was fond of pointing out that the FBI admitted to him numerous times that he knew more about the assassination than anyone at the bureau. I would think that this was even more true today...with people like Jim D and Larry Hancock and John Newman combined knowing more about the case than all the current employees of the FBI and CIA combined.

I am fairly certain that wasn't his decision. The decision from on high (LBJ and his advisers) was that no one should bear any blame beyond Oswald. Heck, Hoover decided that Hosty should be punished, but failed to act until after the Warren Report was issued. It was all about the PR.

Nothing tore through the cartilage. There was no hole. According to the AP, Trump's doctor said the bullet track “produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear. There was initially significant bleeding, followed by marked swelling of the entire upper ear.” “Given the broad and blunt nature of the wound itself, no sutures were required.”

I am hoping a thorough investigation will be performed. This will show, I suspect, that Trump was not in fact struck by an intact bullet, but by a fragment or piece of something struck by a bullet. Trump's doctor said no sutures were needed...IOW...that there was no hole or tear on the ear. That is not the wound one obtains from the impact of a high-velocity bullet.

I don't know if this has been discussed. But I have been skeptical since day one that Trump was hit by a bullet. I have just read a letter written by Trump's "doctor." According to the AP, It says the bullet track “produced a 2 cm wide wound that extended down to the cartilaginous surface of the ear. There was initially significant bleeding, followed by marked swelling of the entire upper ear.” “Given the broad and blunt nature of the wound itself, no sutures were required.” Well, HELLO. That is not a bullet track, and is especially not the bullet track of an AR-15 bullet. It seems clear then that we do have a conspiracy, folks...a conspiracy to pretend Trump was "shot" as opposed to being struck by debris or a ricochet. Heck, He's even taken to claiming he "took" a bullet for democracy! It's clear he took no bullet and should admit as much.

Sorry, Sandy, but your "proof" is not a proof. There is no scientific or historical basis for selecting statements and then claiming these statements "prove" what you claim to be true. A scientist or an historian might take from this that these statements suggest a certain scenario, but there is no such thing as "proof." Consider the Innocence Project. They have re-investigated hundreds of cases where 12 people agreed on something, and have demonstrated that in many cases all 12 were wrong. Now, these people were studying a collection of evidence and testimony, before coming to their incorrect conclusions. That is a different form of analysis than simple observation. But here is the key. Cognitive psychologists will tell you that reasoned thought, as flawed as it can be, is equally if not more reliable than simple observation. Consider the penny. Americans handle pennies all day long. And yet when asked to draw a penny people routinely depict Lincoln facing the wrong way. Why is that? Because we are not observation machines.

Bundy was the National Security Advisor. His job was not to ascertain WHO killed Kennedy, but to ascertain if Kennedy was killed as an act of war by another nation. He needed to come to a quick conclusion on this and tell his new President how he should respond asap. His assertion it was Oswald, then, was not the conclusion of a criminal investigator, nor the announcement of a formal policy, but the conclusion of a man tasked with deciding which turn to make when the road comes to a T intersection. He decided that in light of Oswald's arrest and reputation as a nut he most probably acted alone, and that Johnson should act accordingly. I am sure similar decisions were made within hours of the recent shooting. People paid to make decisions make decisions, based upon impressions. Bundy came to the correct decision, IMO. The government SHOULD have assumed Oswald was a nut and then perform a thorough investigation to see if this was true. The PROBLEM then is not how Bundy and Johnson responded in the first few days, but how the FBI, SS, and the WC responded over the next ten months, and years. Now I fully believe Johnson was responsible for their failure to honestly investigate the crime. But we have no reason to believe Bundy was responsible for that, IMO.

Thanks. Very interesting.