HSCA Televised Hearings 1978 (Video)

[James DiEugenio]

It is rather odd that it came from her and the late Gary Mack.

[Pat Speer]

23 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

It is rather odd that it came from her and the late Gary Mack.

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

Why? Well, the answer seems obvious. He was a true believer. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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

Why? Well, the answer seems obvious. He was a true believer. 

That sums it up nicely 😃

👍

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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

Why? Well, the answer seems obvious. He was a true believer. 

Pat, a question.  I do not know if you feel like doing some more writing ?  Or/if the subject appeals to you...    I have just finished reading “Praise from a future generation” and I learned a lot from that !  I already had Meagher's book (on old worn edition), I immediatly ordered a brand new one...    How things evolved from the 1960’s into the 1970’s etc. The amazing amount of work they had put in to it, at times it blew my socks off.    So I was wondering if it would be interesting to write about what happened after that ?  I see a lot of interesting characters 😃  that have done lot’s of work, you for one !  

The thing is, in some of the posts I notice people don’t know the history (neither do I), I think you were one of those on the first row ?    And Jim and a bunch of others of course.    

Anyway, it's something that just came to me.

[Gerry Down]

2 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Pat, a question.  I do not know if you feel like doing some more writing ?  Or/if the subject appeals to you...    I have just finished reading “Praise from a future generation” and I learned a lot from that !  I already had Meagher's book (on old worn edition), I immediatly ordered a brand new one...    How things evolved from the 1960’s into the 1970’s etc. The amazing amount of work they had put in to it, at times it blew my socks off.    So I was wondering if it would be interesting to write about what happened after that ?  I see a lot of interesting characters 😃  that have done lot’s of work, you for one !  

The thing is, in some of the posts I notice people don’t know the history (neither do I), I think you were one of those on the first row ?    And Jim and a bunch of others of course.    

Anyway, it's something that just came to me.

Would love to see such a work by Pat. Fred Litwin is writing a book ATM on the history of the CTer movement in the JFK case. Not sure what time period he's doing. I'd guess it's probably all six decades but I don't actually know.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

Pat, a question.  I do not know if you feel like doing some more writing ?  Or/if the subject appeals to you...    I have just finished reading “Praise from a future generation” and I learned a lot from that !  I already had Meagher's book (on old worn edition), I immediatly ordered a brand new one...    How things evolved from the 1960’s into the 1970’s etc. The amazing amount of work they had put in to it, at times it blew my socks off.    So I was wondering if it would be interesting to write about what happened after that ?  I see a lot of interesting characters 😃  that have done lot’s of work, you for one !  

The thing is, in some of the posts I notice people don’t know the history (neither do I), I think you were one of those on the first row ?    And Jim and a bunch of others of course.    

Anyway, it's something that just came to me.

I'm a relative newbie. I had a slight interest in the case prior to Stone's movie, then gained more interest, spurred on by the purchase of Groden's The Killing of a President. I had a sales rep in the record biz, Jim McCall, who was totally into it, however. We used to talk about it at lunch. At one point I found some Cd-roms in our warehouse that were sent to us accidentally, and I put one aside for Jim. It was a Cd-rom comprising the Warren Report, Jim Marrs' Crossfire, a few of the assassination films, and Phil Willis' photos. Almost on a lark, I bought one for myself, and ended up reading the whole thing.  I then spotted Posner's Case Closed at a book store, and bought it. I found it fairly compelling, but was disturbed by its presentation of the single-bullet theory, which grossly distorted JFK's and JBC's body shapes to line things up. I then started reading online. At that time, there were a number of websites set up to debunk Posner's book, most drawing from Weisberg's Case Open, if I recall. I then decided I would just have to study the case for myself, using the original documents when available. I found Rex Bradford's History Matters website, and got hooked. What sucked me all the way down the rabbit hole was the report of the HSCA pathology panel. I couldn't just accept that 1) the autopsy doctors were so grossly incompetent that they would claim the bullet entered low on the back of JFK's head when it really entered near the top, and 2) that the so-called mystery photo originally proclaimed to represent the back of Kennedy's was actually taken from the front of his head, and showed his forehead. I smelled a rat. A big old stinking' rat. And was disgusted that the TV shows I'd seen on the case had never mentioned that the opinions of the government's hired experts were so grossly at odds with each other. This then led me to read everything I could on the medical aspect of the case: Best Evidence, High Treason, Post Mortem, etc. This was roughly 2002. The record distributor I'd helped expand had been gutted by criminals, and the company I'd worked for afterwards had dealings with some of the same criminals, so I quit my job and tried to make sense of the JFK assassination in part to make sense of life in general. I spent the next two years or so working on the case full-time, visiting the UCLA Bio-Med Library every month or so, and photo-copying 20 articles or so at a time to bring back and study and absorb before my next visit. 

By 2003, I had joined both the JFK Lancer Forum and a new forum started by British Educator John Simkin. I became active on both forums, but took a special interest in Simkin's forum due to the presence of Larry Hancock. For several years, although I was mostly interested in the medical evidence, I would read everything I could on the CIA angle to the case, and report back to Larry in emails or online what I'd discovered. This led me to get up the nerve to ask him if I could speak at the upcoming Lancer Conference, and he said yes, and fit me in in a Sunday slot (when a lot of people have already left).

Fortunately, however, one of those in attendance at my first presentation was Debra Conway, and she was super-nice and supportive. She told me I should persevere, and that it might take ten years for people to catch on to what I was talking about. I thought she was exaggerating but she was right as usual. One of my key take-aways from the medical evidence was thatJFK's large head wound was a tangential wound of entrance and exit, and not an exit wound from a shot entering the front or the back. I'd done extensive reading on scalp wounds, skull wounds, brain wounds, and wound ballistics in general, and it was clear to me that the nature of this wound was a scientific fact, and not just my pet theory. Well, sure enough, when appearing at the 2013 Wecht conference, both Tink Thompson and Robert Groden reversed what they had claimed previously and declared that the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. 

So that's how change occurs. You make your point over and over and people say "Yeah, sure" and then one day others start repeating what you've said. And then years later it becomes "accepted wisdom" 

 

[Pat Speer]

7 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Would love to see such a work by Pat. Fred Litwin is writing a book ATM on the history of the CTer movement in the JFK case. Not sure what time period he's doing. I'd guess it's probably all six decades but I don't actually know.

While such a history would have value, I worry that it would be misleading to many in that it would no doubt focus on the questionable honesty of men like Mark Lane, and questionable mental health of men like Harrison Livingstone. Having read books from all sides, I feel quite strongly he should absolutely positively include non-flattering chapters on men like Lattimer--who was clearly loopy--and Posner--who was and is a bit of a sleaze bag. 

And then, of course, there's Bugliosi. One can not go after men like Garrison, or Stone, in my opinion, without pointing out that Bugliosi was just if not more self-righteous, and equally if not more likely to misrepresent evidence. I mean, a lot of people propping up VB's book as the JFKA bible would take a second look at VB if they realized he'd spent years trying to convince people that RFK was killed by more than one shooter, that the Supreme Court was out to get Clinton, that Bush stole the 2000 election, that Dubya was guilty of treason, and that God does not exist. 

P.S. While I would agree with Bugliosi on some of his obsessions, I think his certainty on these issues would disturb many of those convinced of his clarity of thought and purity of intention re the JFK assassination. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Would love to see such a work by Pat. Fred Litwin is writing a book ATM on the history of the CTer movement in the JFK case. Not sure what time period he's doing. I'd guess it's probably all six decades but I don't actually know.

Interesting. Where did he mention that?

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

I have to say I was kinda shocked when I read "The Vince Bugliosi Story"...

Edited November 14, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

Reading books from all sides is a must IMO, and pretty much the only way if you want to build a strong case on something controversial.   

Edited November 14, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

 

 

Hey !

The above already contains a bunch of things I had no idea of, thanks ! 

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Gerry Down]

29 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

Interesting. Where did he mention that?

He said it in one of his online interviews this year. Can't remember which ATM.

[James DiEugenio]

Pat:

Aren't you overlooking something?

The acoustics evidence was supposed to prove at least five shots, but Blakey cut it down to four.  Because he said that is all he could sell to the committee.

Yet, I once called Ferrell asking her for some materials on the HSCA.  She said what are you working on and I said a book on how the HSCA was steered wrong in it conclusions of Oswald as the lone assassin.  She said, "Oh, you think it was a conspriacy."

As per Gary Mack, Pat, did you forget Inside the Target Car and The Ruby Connection?

Before he passed on, I do not know anyone else who appeared as often as Mack on TV to bolster the officieal story.

So I beg your pardon, but "true believer" about Gary Mack?  Please.

[James DiEugenio]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

One last point: Pat has done as much as anyone to show the acoustics evidence is not what it was supposed to be. In fact, he has worked overtime on that angle.

 

Edited November 14, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat:

Aren't you overlooking something?

The acoustics evidence was supposed to prove at least five shots, but Blakey cut it down to four.  Because he said that is all he could sell to the committee.

Yet, I once called Ferrell asking her for some materials on the HSCA.  She said what are you working on and I said a book on how the HSCA was steered wrong in it conclusions of Oswald as the lone assassin.  She said, "Oh, you think it was a conspriacy."

As per Gary Mack, Pat, did you forget Inside the Target Car and The Ruby Connection?

Before he passed on, I do not know anyone else who appeared as often as Mack on TV to bolster the officieal story.

So I beg your pardon, but "true believer" about Gary Mack?  Please.

I exchanged a number of emails with Gary, and watched all his TV appearances, and online interviews. And you are right, he spent most of his airtime debunking, or attempting to debunk--sometimes in an embarrassingly shoddy manner--conspiracy theories. 

But he never denounced or attempted to debunk his own "pet" theories--"badgeman" and the "dictabelt'. And he let on that he still believed they were valid reasons to suspect a conspiracy...right up till the end. 

So that's what I meant by "true believer". Somewhere along the line I read some studies about cognitive psychology that came to a surprising conclusion--that when people come to a conclusion based on vague evidence--such as a blurry photo--they are more likely to hold onto that conclusion in the face of opposition than if the evidence was less vague. Basically, our minds look at blots and form patterns and once they form that pattern they can't unsee that pattern. 

In any event, that's what I meant by "true believer." Gary was, to my understanding, a true believer in "badgeman" and the "dictabelt." 

Now, of course, I came to reject the dictabelt, and never put much stock in badgeman. So I thought Gary's "pet" theories were pet rocks. But I remember one interview in which he defended CT's by pointing out a number of coincidences and oddities about the case that he had trouble reconciling as coincidences. So I think he leaned CT even without his "pet" theories. 

Edited November 14, 2022 by Pat Speer