Greg Doudna

From the foundation that there was a bullet hole just above the rear hairline--to the right of the EOP--as the autopsists and other witnesses said--Pat Speer makes an excellent argument that the huge gaping head wound was not connected to that but caused by a different, tangential shot, not a through-and-through shot with a separate entrance and exit for if that had been the case comparative parallels indicate (Speer cites) that it would not have blown out as much of the skull as a tangential shot would and, in the case of JFK, did. The autopsists said the rear hairline bullet hole was an entrance wound due to beveling on the inside, but I would like to see that interpretation analyzed. I know Pat Speer accepts that it is an entrance wound with the exit in the throat. But there are several things that seem to me could weigh in favor of reversing that direction, with entrance at the throat and exit at the rear hairline. First, the impressions of nearly everyone who saw the throat bullet hole that it was an entrance. Second, the throat wound was only 3-5 mm, much smaller than the rear hairline 6 x 15 mm, and all else being equal, usually the smaller hole is the entrance, the wider hole is the exit. Third, from some gunshot articles I have been reading, beveling in skull bone is a usually decisive argument on direction but there are exceptions; in the case of tangential hits there is beveling on both sides, or rather the bullet channels in making a "trough" on one side of the exit hole, from the inside (before beveling on the outside of the exit). But that "trough" on the inside can look like beveling too, which runs counter to the idea that beveling always is on the opposite side of the direction of the bullet. The question is whether the autopsists' 6 x 15 mm bullet hole could have had a "trough" looking like beveling on the inside, with the "oval" hole representing a tangential exit rather than an entrance. I was struck in reading Speer's chapter (13) by the analysis of the Clark and HSCA panels. I have come to see that those panels did not "move" the autopsists' rear-hairline bullet hole "up" four inches higher. No. What they did was they simply disappeared or declared nonexistent the autopsists' rear-hairline bullet hole. They then found a new alleged bullet hole at the cowlick, much higher, based on an indeterminate photo and an interpretation of an indeterminate lateral x-ray, both very equivocal in interpretations as necessarily indicating a bullet hole at that location. As Speer brings out, nobody had previously noticed any bullet hole at the cowlick before the Clark and HSCA panels newly "found" one there. The Clark and HSCA panels obviously did not have access to the actual skull so were working solely from photos and x-rays. Whether or not they were correct in finding a bullet hole at that location--Speer makes a good argument they were incorrect on that, that it was dried blood in that location--has no connection to whether they were right or wrong in "disappearing" the autopsists' and other witnesses bullet hole near the rear hairline. The cowlick clearly was not what the autopsists saw and measured and reported located as a bullet hole near the rear hairline. Then Speer argues the rear-hairline bullet hole is visible in the BOH photo and in the "mystery photo" of inside the skull. Speer goes through how the panels tried to get the autopsists to say they had mistakenly located the rear-hairline bullet hole and that they had really all along seen the one the panels were saying was located at the cowlick (which is pretty ridiculous, really)--but 8 of 9 (or whatever the numbers were) of the rear-hairline bullet hole witnesses refused to agree with that. The only one who did, one time, was autopsy author Hume, after he was threatened to be ripped apart publicly in a hostile cross-examination bringing out other errors he had made in a way that would ruin him professionally, in other words coercion. Humes then said what was wanted re the cowlick location, avoiding the threatened hostile public evisceration of his reputation, but after that Humes repudiated that and returned to his former (and all the others') original location of the rear-hairline bullet hole location as they had all measured and reported. And troubling, is one of the autopsists, I forget which one, thought he remembered photos being taken of the skull showing that rear-hairline bullet wound, but none survive in the autopsy photos today, as if there may have been intentional "losing" of certain photos. But back to the entrance versus exit issue of the rear-hairline/near-EOP bullet hole. If it was an entrance (as the autopsists' thought, citing I believe almost entirely beveling on the underside as their reason or evidence for that--but was that true beveling on the underside, or was that a long-trough one-side bevel of a bullet tangentially exiting?) ... if it was an entrance then there are the questions of when was that additional shot from the rear fired, what is the explanation for the small exit hole, and what became of the bullet. The other alternative, that it was an exit but the autopsists mistakenly thought it was an entrance, in some ways intuitively seems a better fit with the evidence, if the beveling issue could survive scrutiny and analysis on that point. The very small entrance at the throat becomes the entrance wound that everyone's first impression of it was. The trajectory would work with a shot from the storm drain. A storm drain shooter would have to have fired a handgun on practical grounds for space reasons. I have read that .22's were favored by professional assassins because they were quieter and easier to silence. On the other hand there were reports that an unexplained .45 bullet was found in the north knoll grass. Perhaps a storm drain shooter fired a .45 pistol, and the .45 bullet found was from that shot exiting near JFK's rear hairline. The only timing window of opportunity for such a storm drain shot--which would be a perfect assassin's shot--would be just after the Z312-313 head shot, not before, and there is a whole literature of jiggle analysis as well as witnesses hearing shots close together at the end that support another shot after Z313, about 3/4 of a second later; perhaps this was it. At that timing and limousine location there is no windshield in the way of the shot, and JFK is leaned back and to the left lessening the discrepancy between trajectory and bullet path going up the neck and out near the rear hairline of the head. And what happened to the bullet is no longer a problem with the rear-hairline being an exit since it either is the .45 bullet possibly found, or else some other bullet that ended up outside of the limousine, but does not need to be found inside the limo. Cliff is skeptical that a T1 right transverse process could be damaged by a bullet in transit from the throat to a rear-hairline exit. I am not expert enough to know whether that is a real or illusory objection. I would be swayed if Cliff could cite convincing expert testimony on this point but am not willing to simply take Cliff's word for that on its own. As is well known there was no dissection of the neck to find where the throat bullet track "went", but I recall something about it did go "upward" in direction from the throat. And then there is mortician Robinson's testimony claiming he saw a probe inserted in the autopsists' rear-hairline bullet hole which he says he saw come out at the throat wound. If true--Robinson insisted it was--that would be decisive and end all argument on this. However that testimony of Robinson was decades later and no one else directly corroborated it to my knowledge, which seem to be major objections to considering that possible confirmation. I would be interested if someone knows of a concise, single article (or book chapter) which directly and in an informed way refutes or falsifies this line of analysis--the notion of a connection between the autopsists' near-rear-hairline bullet hole and throat wound.

I have read that .22 bullets, for example, can move around all sorts of ways inside a body after entrance. I have read differing explanations of air in the x-rays, and referred damage to locations not caused by direct bullet impact. Can you prove that a throat to rear hairline path (whichever direction it was) can NOT have caused what you cite? You KNOW that, do you?

Where did that bullet go (if it is interpreted as an entrance)? Did it exit?

But Cliff, what do you do with the bullet hole just above the rear hairline? Deny its existence? On what grounds?

But Cliff, the argument that there was a 5 x 16 mm bullet hole (whether it was entrance or exit is a separate issue) at the rear hairline, as attested by the three autopsists and other witnesses and shown with devastating force in Pat Speer's chapter 13, one of the strongest and most significant chapters in Pat Speer, is extremely compelling (https://www.patspeer.com/chapter13solvingthegreatheadwoundmyster). It is true the Warren Report tried to connect that to a head wound exit but that is impossible, and that interpretation of that bullet track was simply in error. But that does not change the empirical existence of that rear hairline bullet hole at the rear hairline. There is no other possible connection to that rear hairline bullet hole than the throat wound. The only issue is which was the entrance and which was the exit at either of those two ends (and associated questions, the caliber of bullet and from where the origin of the shot). But what cannot be in question is that those two wounds are connected, a bullet entering/exiting at those two ends, the one bullet hole being the exit for the other's entrance. Because once the rear hairline bullet hole is acknowledged to be fact, then there is no other possibility. That still leaves the back entrance wound unexplained. But the back wound cannot connect to the throat wound (as in the single-bullet theory) because the throat wound is connected to the rear hairline wound. So far as I can tell I believe this logic is airtight, even if it is not widely recognized.

With thanks to Greg Parker for the information, Dorothy Kilgallen reported on the Shirley Martin interview of Acquilla Clemons, giving it wider currency. It was not a previously-unknown interview of Acquilla Clemons conducted by Dorothy Kilgallen personally (https://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg12239.html). Sara Jordan-Heintz's new book, The Incredible Life & Mysterious Death of Dorothy Kilgallen (2023). I have just received this book, have not read most of the book but what I have seen is interesting. Naturally she focuses some attention on Ron Pataky--who died in 2022--the man who entered her life and with whom Dorothy was enamored at the time of her death. According to Jordan-Heintz, Pataky actively worked with Dorothy on her JFK assassination research, a book. As part of that Pataky said he met with two leading figures in the JFK assassination case, evidently on his own complementary to but not at the behest of Dorothy: Mark Lane and Jim Garrison. Jordan-Heintz says Pataky went to Guatemala in 1954 at the time the CIA sponsored the coup overthrowing the Arbenz government, and Jordan-Heintz sees an intelligence agency connection to Pataky: "[Quoting Pataky] 'I did go to Guatemala when in a small military thing. There was a communist uprising in Guatemala. I did go, but nothing to do with assassins for God's sake ... I was in the military then, and they sent a detachment of us down there because of this communist uprising. They sent many, not just me" ... Pataky was never formally in the U.S. military, but as was previously mentioned in this book, he did attend Stanford for a while on a Navy ROTC scholarship, but was kicked out ... 'Several hundred of us went. We were highly trained'... "The U.S. officially had no military troops in Guatemala during the timeframe in which Pataky admitted to being there ... Though he [Pataky] had denied ever attending a CIA run assassin's school in Panama, he later contradicted himself. Larry Jordan recalls, 'Pataky told me, in one of our last conversations, "I always denied it, but I really was there."' At the very least we know Ron Pataky was in Guatemala in 1954 when the CIA staged a coup d'etat and got President Jacobo Arbenz removed from office. The covert operation to overthrow Arbenz was code-named Operation PBSuccess ... The CIA armed, funded and trained a force of at least 490 men who invaded Guatemala on June 18, 1954, backed by a heavy campaign of psychological warfare. The democratically elected Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz was deposed on June 27 in order to protect the profits of the United Fruit Company, which had vast land holdings there, and shipped a lot of bananas. What ensued was decades of brutal U.S.-backed regimes that committed widespread torture and genocide... "The invasion force of which Ron Pataky was apparently a part, was called a 'liberation army' and headquartered at Copan, Honduras, about four miles from the Guatemalan border ... According to the Central Intelligence Agency's own in-house historian, Gerald Haines, the agency compiled lists of individuals in Arbenz's government 'to eliminate immediately in event of [a] successful anti-Communist coup.' Planning for assassination included budgeting, training programs, creation of hit teams, drafting of target lists of persons and transfer of armaments. ... Vans of CIA-trained thugs would kidnap people on the hit list, and in some cases their mutilated bodies would be thrown out of a helicopter in front of a stadium during a sporting event to terrorize the local populace. "Since Ron Pataky finally confessed that he had, indeed, attended a Panamanian assassin school (after acknowledging he had denied it for years), one can only conclude the role he assumed in Guatemala fell within the scope of some of the CIA's most egregious terrorist activities... The coup was widely denounced internationally, dealt a death blow to democracy in Guatemala, and engendered long-lasting anti-U.S. sentiment across Latin America which continues to this day... "Given Ron Pataky's experience in Guatemala as a paid participant in a paramilitary operation, it is not unreasonable to suspect that he further lent himself to other CIA-sponsored activities in the years ahead. Could one of those have been to befriend Dorothy Kilgallen, keep tabs on her progress in investigating the assassination of John Kennedy, and then eliminate her by methods he had learned from the CIA at Stanford? [reference to earlier discussion of CIA MK-ULTRA drug- and poisoning research carried out at Stanford starting in 1953 at the time Pataky was there]" Steve Rossi, a famous entertainer (comedian), friend of Dorothy: "To this day, the files are open in the New York police department on how she died. They never solved the case. They alleged that she died from an overdose of barbiturates, but I know for a fact that she wasn't taking anything at the time. She felt like she was being poisoned. And I think that's what happened. Once she started writing the book on the Kennedy assassination, I think somebody came in there and poisoned her. She was turning yellow, you know. I saw her two weeks before she died. She looked really bad. And she thought she was being poisoned, but they couldn't detect it." Ron Pataky was a poet. One of his poems: "While I'm spilling my guts/ She is driving me nuts/ Please fetch us two drinks/ On the run/ Just skip all the noise'n/ Make one of 'em poison/ And don't even tell me/ Which one!"

On Robert Morrow’s claim that Lansdale killed JFK: so far as I can see the only claimed evidence is argument that he was in Dealey Plaza, and motive. Is that it? That’s insubstantial, not evidence of killing Kennedy, a wild leap. Thousands of civil servants had motive in the sense of passed over for promotion or fired from a job or disagreed on policies, motive is not proof of anything. Did Prouty have anything more than the Dealey Plaza photo claim? So what if that was Lansdale? How go from that to he killed JFK? Why not rephrase that to that’s enough to put Lansdale on a short list of maybe only 5000 or 10,000 possible suspects, at least the vast vast majority of whom are assuredly completely innocent. Would that not be more accurate reasoning?

The link does say Dorothy Kilgallen in 1964 reported an interview with Acquilla Clemons, true enough. I wonder if Kilgallen’s original column would clarify whether that was Mark Lane’s interview (in which case nothing new), or an interview of her own. I have never heard of a Kilgallen Clemons interview transcript.

Are you sure of that? What is the evidence Dorothy Kilgallen interviewed Acquilla Clemons?

The following unverified claim (below) appears on page 107 of John Davis, The Kennedy Contract (1993). Never mind the issue of Karen Carlin being alive or dead, the question is whether Gary Shaw ever said Karen Carlin told him what is reported here. Davis cites no footnote or documentation, and I can find nothing to confirm that Gary Shaw or anyone else claiming to have been in contact with Karen Carlin said that Karen Carlin said what Davis claims. Davis: "[I]n October 1992, Karen Carlin came back from the dead. She contacted Gary Shaw, director of the JFK Assassination Information Center in Dallas, after almost thirty years living under an assumed identity, and told him she knew of a conspiracy to kill Lee Harvey Oswald, that Ruby told her to phone him Sunday morning and that an hour later he would telegraph her $25, just before shooting Oswald, to establish an alibi to justify his shooting of Oswald as an impulsive act of revenge. And who was ultimately behind the conspiracy to kill Oswald? Kar[e]n Carlin mentioned two names to Gary Shaw, Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, Jr." Here is a newspaper interview I found of Gary Shaw's own account of his contacts with Karen Carlin of 1992-1993, which does not back up John Davis's claim: https://www.cleburnetimesreview.com/news/local_news/this-just-in-little-lynn-still-dead/article_8fcf8e54-cfad-5fd2-b0b7-f5bfbfd2678b.html. Does anyone know if there is any verification or source stating Gary Shaw said Karen Carlin actually told him this, or is this urban legend and/or misinformation retailed by John Davis?

OK David I think you’re right on the coincidence. Brennan already had his 6th floor shooter at 165-175 lbs, first-day written statement, or 160-170, WC testimony, thinks the height was about 5’10”, WC testimony, and the description given by Sawyer juxtaposed with Brennan’s makes Brennan pretty clearly Sawyer’s source. Therefore the agreement with the preexisting Oswald height and weight does look like coincidence, a “false positive” so to speak. That is coincidence, but it still seems a bit much to me that Baker also has the exact same 165 lbs applied to his non-165 lbs Oswald, not because Baker did not run into Oswald (as Oswald was about to exit the second floor to go down the NW stairwell to exit out the back as I understand it), but because Baker must have picked up the 165 lb estimate overheard from somewhere, and having no clearer idea of Oswald’s weight just used the 165, though Baker’s height estimate (5’9”) and clothing description would be original to him.

Thanks for the answer David. I don’t agree with Robert M that Baker and Brennan were involved in trying to frame Oswald or that anyone put either of them up to lying that weekend. I suppose unanswered questions are is it certain Brennan was Sawyer’s source, and did Brennan confirm he gave a 5’10” height estimate specifically. Did Sawyer’s source claim to have seen the shooter leave the building with a rifle (which was other than a Mannlicher-Carcano)? That sounds like what the source told Sawyer, but is that what Brennan told Sawyer? I’m a little puzzled why Sawyer could not identify who told him that original height and weight estimate, never directly confirmed it was Brennan. But Brennan—wasn’t he wearing a hardhat or something, difficult not to remember? An important piece of information for Sawyer and to have no name record or memory of physical description of the source? A little odd. It’s not an impossible coincidence (the coincidence explanation), just a little odd is all.

Thanks David for that discussion of the topic. I don’t see that it clears up the question I asked though. I agree Baker saw Oswald, and Baker reported Oswald (the real Oswald) as 165 lbs. But the issue is not whether someone could mistake 140 lb Oswald for 165 lbs—that is not the question—but the specificity of the DPD radio broadcast error being 165 and not 160 or 170, combined also with the specificity of the error in Oswald’s height being 5’10” and not some other inch. Referring to that 12:44 police radio broadcast. Without questioning that Baker saw Oswald, I have wondered if Baker somehow heard or got the 165 pounds number from somewhere and wrote it, or maybe not. If he truly had no knowledge of a 165 number from any other source by the time he wrote his report of his encounter with Oswald, if his 165 pounds for Oswald truly was uninfluenced and his own, then that is coincidence and irrelevant here. So forget Baker, and forget your point correctly shown that a weight estimate of someone of Oswald’s weight by a witness can be mistaken by 20 or 30 pounds, that’s not the issue here. The question is how is it the DPD 12:44 broadcast EXACTLY matches to the inch and the pound the preexisting inaccurate written record on BOTH Oswald’s height and weight before his name was known as a suspect. What is your answer to that question Coincidence? I assume that is your answer—but would you confirm that?

But Michael, how can you deny (or Selverstone if so) that JFK was “looking to pull out while not losing at the same time”, when in your next breath you refer to NSAM 263 as “a withdrawal”? Was JFK intent on a conditional withdrawal or not? You seem to be arguing both ways simultaneously. Also you say McBundy’s draft of NSAM 273 represented JFK’s thinking but you did not answer whether in your understanding 273 did or did not end the earlier stated 1965 timetable for a conditional intended withdrawal? In other words, was the 1965 planned (conditional) withdrawal of NSAM 263 for real as JFK intent, or not, and when exactly did that real intent (if so) get formally cancelled in top-level war planning by the US? And by whom exactly?

David von Pein, could you give a LN response to Robert Morrow’s point above (and references in his blog post linked there) concerning the 5’10”, 165 lbs., mistaken physical description of Oswald stemming from Marguerite’s mistaken information to FBI Fain in 1960 … a mistaken Oswald physical description as early as 12:44 pm on Dallas Police Radio, before Oswald was a suspect? It cannot stem from a real description of Oswald from a witness because if so there would not be the exact agreement to the pound and to the inch with the mistaken Oswald physical description. And it cannot stem from Oswald being suspected and then obtaining a written physical description of Oswald because this was before Oswald was a suspect. It looks like catching a plagiarist or someone cheating on a test at school because they copied a telltale mistake that was in the source. Does that look like someone planned to incriminate Oswald prior to the shots being fired? Is there a mundane, innocent explanation for the exact height and weight match to the mistaken Oswald physical description for the suspect, before Oswald was a suspect?

Michael G., is it consensus historians’ view that JFK would have signed NSAM 273 without any editing as it stands (as LBJ did sign it)? The earlier NSAM had the written 1965 objective of near-withdrawal (understood most read that as with conditions, nevertheless that stated policy and planning objective)—is it consensus historians’ view that that element was now being dropped or abandoned or repudiated in NSAM 273–and that JFK would have been OK with that dropping, abandonment, or repudiation of the stated 1965 timetable planning? It just looks like JFK by Nov 1963 was seeing Vietnam as a morass and looking for an acceptable wind-down or disengagement while not “losing” at the same time, whereas a majority of joint chiefs etc had no such intent or interest or belief in a feasible possibility of a 1965 near-end to engagement. And that these differences in wordings reflect internal battles over framing policy at staff/Joint Chiefs level? Did JFK usually sign such prepared draft NSAM’s unaltered or did he frequently have them revised or reworded, in practice? I.e. how certain do you feel that JFK if he had returned to Washington instead of being assassinated, would have knowingly signed an abandonment of a policy commitment to plan for disengagement/withdrawal (mostly) by 1965?

Interesting Paula. Without knowing any better, it just sounds like from her high-level Party or intelligence English-tutoring clients she may have heard about Oswald (natural topic for conversation, how could it not come up, right?). They probably like Mary on a personal level, she tells them she hasn't met him but if she does she will let them know. But she really does not want anything to do with it so discourages Ernst's offer to introduce them. You ask why she was not more proactively enlisted to befriend Oswald and see if he would open up to her... maybe because it would look too transparent to Oswald and if he was a spy he would be unlikely to open up like that? And they had him heavily surveilled already. Ernst Titovets, who knew Oswald closely, just like two others who knew Oswald closely, George de Mohrenschildt and Buell Wesley Frazier ... each of these, against the grain of common thinking, and suffering negative consequences as a result, but simply saying so because it is what they think to be true, say the Oswald they knew was no killer, and would not have killed President Kennedy. Each of these said this and stuck to this after having seen and heard all the major and familiar points of evidence of the case. In rereading the preface to the third edition (2020), the one I have, of Oswald: Russian Episode, I see your name and am struck anew at how accidental and unlikely some book publications are, juxtaposed to the unforeseen and unknowable effect some books have, not necessarily immediately, that do see the light of day, so difficult to foresee in advance. Titovets writes: "My first literary agent, A***** L***** [name is published in Titovets] of the A***** L***** Literary Agency Ltd in London, demonstrated high interest in my book. After he had received the script, he kept it for a long time without any discernible progress. When I finally saw him at his office in London, he, without any explanations, said that the book had better be rewritten by a ghostwriter. I said, 'No way.' We parted. "M****** A***** [name is published in Titovets] of Johnson and A***** Ltd. in London was equally enthusiastic to get the script. Again, there followed a period of an unaccounted-for procrastination. Finally, he informed me of the opinion of an anonymous reviewer, who found nothing new in my book. [!--gd] There came a suggestion to include some material from the then-recently declassified JFK files. I saw no point in inflating my book with information peripheral to my first-hand account. That meant the end of our cooperation. To sum it up, the two literary agents delayed publication of Oswald: Russian Episode by at least ten years. "Eventually, Oswald: Russian Episode, edited by Paula Botan, was published by MonLitera in Belarus. "In 2013, as the book's author and as a person who closely knew Oswald in Russia, I was invited to serve as a keynote speaker at an annual conference held in Dallas in November by the Coalition on Political Assassinations (COPA). The event was focused on the 50th Anniversary of JFK assassination. "However, there arose a problem in obtaining my U.S. visa at the American Consulate in Minsk. Carrying COPA's official invitation and a copy of Oswald: Russian Episode, I went to the consulate, while thinking that approval to visit for my forthcoming speech would be a mere formality. Unexpectedly, the interview turned out to be a psychological assault by the consulate officer that bordered on outright provocation. "She made it so stressful for me that I can only think to describe it with the American expression, 'Keep your shirt on,' which is reputed to stem from the frontier days when a man's removal of his shirt meant that he was ready to fight (but not willing to damage clothing valued in that era). By the end of her act, the officer suddenly became calm and all business. She collected my papers and announced that I had to wait for a decision. Still furious inside, I left the consulate pondering the meaning of the show that she had staged with me. "I waited to hear anything from the U.S. consulate for over a month. With the time of my scheduled departure fast approaching, I decided to act. I appealed to the Americans involved with the conference for polite letters of support to be sent to the consulate in my behalf by those who expected my visit. (. . .) This and perhaps other circumstances worked. Before long, I obtained my U.S. visa. (. . .) "This book gives a straightforward, firsthand account of Oswald and his everyday life in Russia. That includes his work and leisure, love and disappointments, interests and ambitions, his socio-political views, and his writings. "I often ask myself why such a book would be hindered and so little known, especially in the United States when there is so much interest in the life and death of the popular president. The reviewers who took the trouble to write are unanimous in stating that Oswald: Russian Episode presents the real Oswald and humanizes this much-dehumanized man. "The real Oswald would not pull the trigger at JFK. This view, based on my observations and professional evaluation of Oswald, is in opposition to the U.S. official view on Oswald's role in the JFK tragedy. This makes Oswald: Russian Episode an undesirable nuisance except for those [who] know or who care to understand the facts. "Ernst Titovets, M.D., Ph.D., Minsk, Belarus, September 2020."

That’s an interesting point Robert Morrow—on Kilduff remembering LBJ’s first thought at ca 1:00 or 1:15 pm Fri Nov 22 being “Communists did it” (in agreement with the DRE/Miami-station attempts to falsely implicate Castro via an Oswald connection as a casus bellus for retaking Cuba), and not as more expected and feared in Dallas, from right wing hatred or fanatics. But before running too far with it, does Kilduff’s statement on that have independent support or verification? This is Kilduff in 1991 saying that. Is that claim (of LBJ’s earliest reaction going to communist conspiracy, prior to the arrest of Oswald) attested earlier than 1991? Still, Kilduff’s account even standing alone in 1991 has some force, in that Kilduff is credible, and raises the question whether the always-wily LBJ was purposely planting to Kilduff, the acting press secretary whose words minutes later would be echoed and reported nationwide shaping news coverage to follow, the idea of a Castro or Russian role. As if without directly telling Kilduff so, LBJ was giving something for Kilduff to tell if it came up. Which raises another question. It is well known that LBJ and Hoover cooperated in killing the Castro conspiracy idea very quickly that weekend, against what looked like a serious attempt of some agency actors to have made that the narrative. Accepting that change (from communist conspiracy to LN Oswald narrative) as fact, which nobody now disputes, the question is why. The accepted narrative reason why, is LBJ et al did not want a risk of World War III. That is the benign coverup explanation. But is it excluded a different explanation—that somehow, awareness that an intended false flag was not going to work on strictly pragmatic or operational grounds, a cover blown or something, whatever (maybe even the unknown wild card of how much Oswald might have talked or could talk?), and it was that pragmatic knowledge that caused that LBJ/Hoover decision from the top to abandon a false flag narrative accusation and go LN focus? If LBJ’s first planted reaction with the acting press secretary that the assassination was a Communist conspiracy is true, before there had been any arrest or known focus on Oswald as suspect, it seems that could add weight to the idea of LBJ foreknowledge.

Good question. Only thing I can think of was she somehow learned Lee was under special scrutiny or surveilled, or conceivably she herself had been asked if she would inform on him and had not wished to do so or declined. If she believed any contact would be followed by a visit from the friendly local neighborhood KGB equivalent (whatever its name was) seeking to debrief her re Oswald, she might try to steer clear of that by not willingly meeting with him to begin with. I don’t know, just guessing.

I just looked up all the Mary Mintz references in Titovet’s book, and see where Mary Mintz had obviously heard about Oswald (though he had never met her), and did not want to meet him when Ernst offered. My interpretation: she is a fully assimilated happy settled emigrant in Minsk since the 1930’s, has her family and life there. She has heard of Oswald, the American rumored to be a little strange as in possible suspected spy, she does not want unwelcome attention from the authorities on her if she were to become friendly with him. That is my interpretation of her out-of-character standoffishness. Not that she has any actual knowledge he is a spy, just the rumor that the authorities could suspect it would be enough for her not to wish to bring unnecessary possible trouble on herself and her family by an association.

So that’s not urban legend, but actually was LBJ quoted April 24, 1963, in Dallas, in print in the Dallas Times Herald, “at least wait until next November before you shoot him down”, referring to the president, JFK. Who were LBJ’s remarks—overtly a call for support for JFK pending the next election—directed against… who did he have in mind, who were characterized by “hate” and who were saying the US govt led by Kennedy was “disloyal” to America and that Kennedy had to go? His audience, Democrats of Dallas, are reported as cheering his remarks (condemning those who hated JFK). I can’t read it other than that he was talking of the Walker types, Bircher types, southern racist wing of the Democrats types … but above all squarely Walker. Overtly he is urging Democrats (? Or does he mean the whole country including Republican critics of JFK?) to be united in support of the president through the four-year term to which he had been elected. If the ones to whom he is referring are dead set on thinking JFK was a bad “pilot” of the plane which was America, in the analogy, wait until the next election cycle to nominate and/or elect someone different … constitutional process. But it is a very eery double-entendre in retrospect, the kind that brings a gasp reading the words in light of Nov 22, 1963 Dallas. It also is reported that LBJ’s prepared remarks for the next stop after Dallas if the assassination had not intervened—I think Austin (?)—had LBJ congratulating JFK for having gotten that far in his Texas trip without being shot dead, or words to that effect, alluding to sentiment in Texas critical of the Kennedy administration. Big laugh line—what a card LBJ was. Remarks that of course were not delivered because JFK was shot dead … in Dallas, “next November” from LBJ’s April 1963 Dallas words. Said by the #1 figure with motive. But lacking, on his own, means, but not lacking alignments inside the ruling circles of the country which regarded JFK as having crossed invisible lines, who did have ability—means—to have something done operationally. Accidental words?… Freudian slips?… or…?

It is generally really no concern to me what the flat earthers do with their arguments, and I suffer from no illusions about my ability to influence their views. What I really care about is the marketplace of ideas, and the availability of sound and valid information about those ideas for those assessing the merits of competing ideas and the supporting evidence for those ideas. Jeffersonian Democratic Theory, influenced by the ideals of the enlightenment, on which it was intended that the American system of governance should be based, held that full knowledge leads to right action, and that without full knowledge, right action is impossible. Propaganda and sophistry are incompatible with right action, and with an effective presentation of valid and sound evidence, the full knowledge necessary to discredit propaganda and sophistry may be acquired, thus allowing that right action may prevail over the darkness of inequity and injustice. Therefore, in my view, and the views of many others, flat earthers and the enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) are incompatible with a free and equitable society, and conscientious citizens should consider it a duty to vigorously oppose their influence upon the marketplace of ideas. You may as well have written: As I understand it the heated controversies over the [question of whether the earth is flat or not due to] apparent conflicts in data and different attempts to resolve and interpret those. Personally, I don't concern myself so much with ideas that can be feasibly argued one way or the other, my concern is with facts and the evidence that supports those facts. I have found that flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations (and associated obstruction of justice) by necessity must misrepresent and distort the supporting evidence for the unsound and invalid beliefs that they advocate, and consistent with my belief that all conscientious citizens have an ethical duty to challenge and refute such distortions and misrepresentations, I conduct myself accordingly. You may as well have written: As I understand it Pat's present position is not that [the earth is as flat as a pancake]. But that [it is flat with mountainous terrain and valleys that make for the illusion that the earth is a sphere] when in fact [the earth is generally flat only with peaks and valleys that the governments of the world are misrepresenting as being spherical]. As set forth above, I am not concerned about the existence of the baseless and irrational arguments of the flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. My standard for distinguishing truth from falsehoods is based on whether I could convince a jury of my peers of the facts in question, and I operate as if those engaging in the marketplace of ideas are part of that jury of my peers. You may as well have written: That was [the testimony of Greek philosopher Pythagoras, who lived in the 6th century BC, that the earth is a flat, disk-like shape]. Do you seek to make it illegitimate for anyone on this forum to argue in favor of some form of [the explanations of Pythagorus and more contemporary flat-earthers that the earth is flat]? Yes? No? No, I do not aim to make it "illegitimate" for the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. You may as well have written: I realize you do not accept that explanation and you give your reasons and have your views, I understand that. Virtually everyone understands at this point that that there are [huge discrepancies in the evidence that the earth is flat, such as sunrises, sunsets, eclipses and footage of a spherical earth allegedly made by satellites and the like], all of which is disputed and argued. Yes, you are, it appears to me, describing the marketplace of ideas, and the manner in which fraudulent and invalid evidence is discredited within that framework. You may as well have written: The question is whether you are trying to make illegitimate any place for discussion and/or argument in favor of e.g. [the flat earthers own explanations that the earth is flat]. No, as set forth above, I am not attempting "to make [it] illegitimate" for flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons to advocate their beliefs. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. You may as well have written: Are you trying to shut down [the flat earthers]? No, I am not "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons. I am fully confident that the majority of participants in the marketplace of ideas have the capacity to assess and evaluate the credibility and weight of competing evidence, and to arrive at sound and valid conclusions. What matters to me is the accessibility of competing reliable facts and evidence in the marketplace of ideas. It is important to me to fulfill my duty to vigorously oppose their impact upon others who do not suffer from the same pathology, or delusions, or whatever it may be, of those who seek to lead them away from trustworthy knowledge. You may as well have written: This is looking like a vendetta, of trying to shut down [the flat earthers and their] arguments. If that is not correct could you clarify? No, there is a distinction between holding a "vendetta" and "trying to shut down" flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, or other varieties of irrational persons, and being committed to discrediting their baseless and unsound ideas and supporting evidence in the marketplace of ideas. You may as well have written: Do you seriously believe [the flat earthers are] being knowingly wilfully evil and dishonest? (That notion is truly absurd.) As opposed to simply (in your view) wrong and bullheaded? In my experience, it is exceedingly difficult to ascertain the actual motives and intentions of flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other varieties of irrational persons. I strongly suspect that there are often pathological, or concealed/covert operational explanations for what you describe below as "bullheadedness." When covert operational activities are involved, and they often are when the subject matter involves questions like the flat earth and the true culprits and accessories of political assassinations, I would characterize that as indeed being "willfully evil and dishonest." In such cases, the operatives are unlikely to ever reveal the details of their assignments. Yes, I am indeed familiar with cases in which scholars have become deeply entrenched in their published work and are dedicated to protecting their territory. What you are describing is associated with the phenomenon referred to as "paradigm shifts" by Professor Thomas Kuhn in his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). However, I would like to differentiate that from situations involving flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals. It does happen, as evidenced by the example of Professor Cass Sunstein, who authored the book Conspiracy Theories in 2008 and was subsequently appointed by President Obama as his propaganda czar, providing intelligence agencies with a blueprint for conducting counterintelligence operations against researchers working to expose the crimes of those intelligence agencies. However, when conspiracy researchers -- of the type I label as "honest brokers" -- later confronted Sunstein about his counterintelligence activities, Sunstein attempted to deny and distance himself from such operations in an attempt to preserve his integrity as an academic. In my view, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are seldom professionals with credentials. While there are indeed many credentialed professionals who are covert intelligence assets, these professionals are generally too concerned about safeguarding their credentials and reputations to engage in high-profile intelligence activities such as internet counterintelligence operations. On the contrary, flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals are more frequently individuals involved in counterintelligence activities due to a lack of professional credentials and esteemed academic positions, attempting to compensate for these inadequacies. You may as well have written: All I can say is if your wish is to see [the flat earther's] work silenced, and you were to succeed in that, it would be a loss, and many more good minds than just [those of the flat earthers] would be lost to this forum. And if that is not your purpose I hope you would clarify that. I completely disagree with your assessment of the value of the distortions and propaganda of the flat earthers, enablers of political assassinations, and other irrational individuals, but I would fiercely defend and uphold your right to hold and express that opinion, even though I strongly oppose it. Keven, I agree with all of your condemnation of flat earthers and enablers of political assassinations. That, however, is not the issue. The issue is Pat Speer's research on the JFK assassination. Your hypnotic repetition-mantra substitution of "...enablers of political assassinations" for the topic at issue, Pat Speer's expression of his research, is absolutely shameful smear rhetoric. Your lengthy hypnotic-like mantra only has force if your unexpressed premise is accepted that Pat Speer is analogous to flat-earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations". Are you saying that? In fact, pursuant to a moderator's stated policy, in which any forum member can request that posts which violate forum rules be taken down: You have attempted to publicly shame a fellow researcher. And you have misrepresented me (your "you might as well have said" hypnotic rephrasings of what I was saying). Both of these counts violate forum rules. I request you remove the above post. Pat Speer does not deserve this. He's either right, stupid, or smart but mistaken (and bullheaded), on any specific argument, as the case may be, as are we all. But he is not analogous to flat earth argument or "enablers of political assassinations". You are really out of line. To the moderators, I strongly protest this rhetoric used of one of the most productive and sensible researchers on this forum (present issue of the autopsy interpretation issues to one side).

There has been a strange story that the Mary Ferrell Foundation gave Lifton $165,000 in interest-free loans in 2001-2006, never repaid, that were considered advances on his book that never appeared, and just now Paula Botan, who knew him in years immediately following that time frame, says she doubts any manuscript existed--and no evidence so far in the year 2024 has come forth of a draft manuscript's existence, even though it has always been assumed there must have been something in progress all these years. Does anyone know the background to how that decision was made and whether there was ever any attempt to require timely showing of evidence of progress on the book or, if not, request for repayment of the $165,000 "loans"? (Source: https://jfkresearch.wordpress.com/2015/07/30/lifton-loans-redux/)

Interesting Paula, and thank you for your behind-the-scenes assistance to Titovets in helping his good book see the light of day.

Timing reconstruction: Oswald enters theater as paid-ticket patron (ticket bought from Julia Postal, handed to general manager Callahan at the door), ca. 1:15 pm, ground level seating. Then Oswald does his odd seating in the seat directly next to Jack Davis during what Jack Davis says was the opening credits of the film, then getting up and sitting next to someone else ... before finally seating on his own toward the rear of the middle section. 1:35 pm the killer of Tippit, misidentified as Oswald by Brewer, goes past Brewer's store and up into the balcony when Julia Postal's attention is otherwise distracted. (I half suspect that killer of Tippit actually had a legitimately earlier purchased ticket in his pocket ready to show if he had been confronted.) Brewer (well in keeping with behavior of neighborhood merchants and store managers in my experience), suspicious and following, goes to Julia Postal and into the theater to find the unidentified ticket-crasher who went into the balcony. Brewer and Burroughs look in the darkness into the balcony but see no one. Police are called of someone suspicious and hiding from police (everyone has the JFK assassination in mind as context, and for police, they had been through two false leads in hot pursuit of an armed and dangerous Tippit killer--the library, and the antique store next to Dean's Dairy--so they believe there is a killer at large in the vicinity, explaining the strong and rapid Dallas Police response and of anyone else listening to police radio). Immediately police (and deputy sheriffs and a couple of FBI and a reporter or two) arrive and converge. Courson arrived no differently than the earliest of the other arriving police, for he says he learned of the Texas Theatre location from police radio. (Courson claims in his Sneed interview, in this his only account ever of his movements that day, that he was at Tenth and Patton and overheard the police radio call from the radio in Tippit's patrol car.) Police were entering both the front and the alley rear entrance simultaneously as rapidly as they could get there and go inside. Entering the front there were two choices: remain on the ground floor and proceed to the main seating area, or go up a stairway into the balcony. From early written reports and later interviews in Sneed, officers who went up the stairs to check in the balcony include Courson, Cunningham, Toney, either Buck or Taylor, Paul Bentley, Gerald Hill, and I think Buddy Walthers all said they went into the balcony. (Gerald Hill's written report to Curry says Bentley was with him in the balcony.) Cunningham and Toney each tell of interviewing the same man described by Courson coming out of that balcony, coming from exactly where the killer of Tippit was last known to have gone minutes earlier. What is known of that particular young white man: one thing, he was a smoker. (For what it is worth, Oswald was not a smoker. Craford was a smoker.) And he had on a "a kind of plaid or checkered shirt" (color not stated) and no jacket (Courson), and he must have looked similar enough to Oswald in physical description that he was capable of being mistakenly remembered as Oswald by Courson. Officer Cunningham, the lead officer of Toney, Buck and Taylor, asked the man's name and the man told him. Cunningham wrote it down. But Cunningham said he did not remember whether he turned that name in and said it did not matter because none of those witnesses had anything important to say anyway, so it did not matter that their names were not preserved. (Cunningham in Sneed, 266: "I just talked to them and took their names down. In fact, I don't recall whether I turned the list of names in or not. In any case, there was nothing there in light of useful information.") Cunningham also self-identified in that Sneed interview as "I knew Jack Ruby probably as well as any officer in Dallas". Officer Toney who helped collect the list of written names of patrons believed the names had been turned in (Sneed, 309). But the names either were not turned in or were disappeared after having been turned in. The Warren Commission wondered what those names were because no one was producing them and asked Capt. Westbrook, officer in command at the Theatre. Westbrook confirmed he had ordered the names of patrons to be taken and preserved. But Westbrook, though he had ordered the names taken, answered that he had no idea what was done with the names, said ask Cunningham. Here Cunningham says he "do[es]n't recall whether I turned the list of names in or not", which is other language for Cunningham saying "I tossed them". Why would Cunningham do a thing like that? I have wondered if Cunningham's "I knew Jack Ruby probably as well as any officer in Dallas" had anything to do with Cunningham tossing those written names, such that the name given by the man in the balcony where the killer of Tippit had last been known to have been minutes earlier, is unknown today. According to Toney's report to Curry, the officers checked with general manager Callahan on the ground area below concerning the man in the balcony, and Callahan told them that man was OK, because he had purchased a ticket at "12:05". That time, 12:05, does not make sense since supposedly tickets did not start being sold until 12:45. The possibility exists that 12:05 was an error for 12:45--general manager Callahan vouching for remembering that man had bought a ticket at 12:45--or was 12:05 no mistake and he bought a ticket at 12:05?--before that man perhaps slipped away with the assistance of a driver in a vehicle, murdered Tippit, then returned on foot to the Texas Theatre with intent, as reconstructed, to kill Oswald there. The theater was sealed upon police arrival just before Oswald's arrest, and then after Oswald's arrest all the patrons' names and contact information were taken--this was the written information that Cunningham decided against orders was of no value for him to turn in--and then the patrons were released, which would have included the man from the balcony. He did not walk out the doors on his own before this, but rather was sealed inside with the other patrons until names were taken and preliminary questioning, etc., and then that man left the theater along with all the other patrons when they were all cleared to leave, and nobody to the present day knows who he was. He was probably only the killer of Tippit, but apart from that, as Cunningham assured everyone, there was nothing of interest to anyone in knowing the identity of that man. I collected testimonies related to that man in the balcony and the officers' encounters with him at pp. 1-20 here, https://www.scrollery.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/T-Jackets-112.pdf. Incidentally, in that paper I noted a reference to a pickup truck near the rear entrance of the Texas Theatre with its engine running and no driver, seen by police at the time of arrival. I wondered if that was a getaway vehicle ready for a killer of Oswald if Oswald had been killed following the Tippit killer running into the balcony. I don't know that that is excluded, but I may have found a possible reference to that pickup truck. Dallas Morning News reporter Jim Ewall, in Sneed, speaking of Oswald's arrest: "Oswald then took my place in the backseat of the same car that I arrived in. So when they left with him, I stood there, stranded. I then hitchhiked a ride with a man in a pickup truck." Whether it was that pickup truck or some other vehicle, according to my reconstruction there should have been a getaway vehicle of some kind. The other possibility could be the red car seen in the El Chico parking lot on N. Beckley, bearing on that day someone else's license plates on it, reported by mechanic White of Pate's auto garage. That red car may have belonged to Igor Vaganov, the same Vaganov who spent time in the days just before the assassination in the very building of the Carousel Club where lived suspected Tippit killer, Ruby employee and self-professed hitman Curtis Craford, several times known to have been mistakenly identified as Oswald by sincere witnesses. But Vaganov, if he was the driver seated inside the red car of mechanic White's sighting, could look like Oswald's face in agreement with mechanic White's sighting. If Oswald had been set up he would have been targeted for death before being taken into police custody, therefore at the theater if it was known he was there. I have previously suggested that a memo in a little notebook of Curtis Craford that Craford carried around on his person all the time may allude to the details of a planned meeting of Oswald in the Texas Theatre, "Mr. Miller Friday 15 people Collins Radio Co.", no phone number or calendar date given (i.e. Friday Nov 22, 15 o'clock or 3 pm, someone of Collins Radio Co. [Carl Mather?]). What I have since learned is this: immediately following that entry in Craford's notebook is this: "Cody--City Hall." That is believed to be a reference to Dallas Police officer Joe Cody. The juxtaposition of those two entries--the only two entries on that page in Craford's notebook (the bottom half of which page is torn off and missing)--suggests the possibility that Cody could have been the source of the information of the entry immediately above, the Friday Collins Radio Co. "15 persons" reference. Well wonder of wonders, a phone number written by Oswald twice in his address book--not once but twice on two distinct pages--without any name or other identifying information--is the home phone number of Dallas Police officer Joe Cody. Up until now that has been explained as Oswald wrote that number down--twice, with no other notes--because he saw that number listed for Joe Cody's uncle who was renting apartments in Oak Cliff. But Joe Cody's uncle and Joe Cody lived at the same place and shared the same home phone. And Joe Cody was very close to Ruby, as told in Joe Cody's account in Sneed. Oswald has his home phone number. Signal or static? I don't know.