Pat Speer Chats with Francois Carlier

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The strange thing is, no one witness ever said, "As shots rang out, I exchanged glances with LHO" or anything to that effect. 

During the shooting, no one recalls seeing LHO. 

During the shooting, LHO is invisible. He also does not show up on any photos of the motorcade, or even in the aftermath of the shooting (in that pre-smartphone era). 

This leads me to believe either LHO was on the TSBD/6, or had been sequestered by ruse. That is, to make LHO the patsy you could not have him on the sidewalk taking pictures of JFK (as one would expect of LHO, since he liked cameras and politics and even liked JFK). 

If you think LHO is totally innocent, then perhaps he was lured inside the TSBD somewhere, along the lines of, "There is phone call for you, important." 

My preferred explanation is LHO was the gunman witnessed by numerous people sticking a rifle out of the window at TSBD/6. He was responsible for the Tague shot, an intentional miss.

If LHO was not the TSBD/6 gunsel, who was it and how did they leave the building w/o being observed? 

 

 

 

FWIW, I get into this in Chapter 4 on my website. From looking at all the statements regarding Jack Dougherty, I came to believe he was not in the elevator that came down while Baker and Truly ran up. So who was?

It may very well have been the shooter. 

[Pat Speer]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:05 AM, Martin Nee said:

Thank you for this Pat. I’m glad you are in good spirits. Its nice to see that good faith discussion is possible in pursuit of greater understanding. Wishing you the best in regards your health and continued work. 

Thanks, Martin. It's good to know someone could watch the video and appreciate it for what it is. 

Edited March 27 by Pat Speer

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Thanks for your thoughts, Greg.

A correction on my part: Secret Service inspector Kelley reported Oswald denied seeing the parade from an earlier interrogation on Saturday, not the final one of Sunday morning Nov 24.

While I have your attention though, I wonder if you could comment on Gil Jesus's point about a broken-down rifle after reassembly would need to be sighted-in anew, involving shooting the rifle, in order to be useful with accuracy in the assassination. Gil Jesus cited expert testimony that multiple shots would be required to accomplish that.

But Oswald did not fire target shooting in the TSBD on the morning of Nov 22--did not sight the rifle in in the TSBD that morning after a reassembly--before, according to the Warren Commission, being the shooter using that rifle to fire at and accurately hit the president using a rifle that had to have been sighted-in. 

Does it not appear that the Mannlicher-Carcano had to have been infiltrated into the TSBD intact so as to be sighted-in, i.e. not in broken-down form on the morning of Nov 22 and then reassembled in the building that morning and used without any mechanism for having it sighted-in? 

But if the rifle was infiltrated into the building intact and sighted-in, not in broken-down condition, then it was not infiltrated into the building by Oswald on the morning of Nov 22 but through some other mechanism which could even have been on an earlier day than Nov 22.  

Since you are knowledgeable of and advocate the LN view, what is the LN-view response to this? I am unable to find in Bugliosi's Reclaiming History, either from memory of prior reading or in the index just now, anywhere where Bugliosi addresses this. Do you know if Bugliosi addresses this? Do you address it on your website? 

Here is what Gil Jesus wrote on this point earlier in this discussion. Thanks in advance for your response to it.  

18 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

any rifleman will tell you that once a rifle is disassembled, the scope has to be readjusted because you lose "Zero" ( the POI or Point of Impact ). The Commission's own expert on the scope, Sgt. James Zahm, testified that in order to scope the rifle in, Oswald would have had to have fired ten rounds through the weapon.  ( 11 H 308 )

(...)

There's no way he could have fired off ten rounds without anyone knowing and scoped that rifle in once he reassembled it.

Now, I've given you chapter and verse on why Oswald was not the shooter on the sixth floor at 12:30.

 

Edited March 27 by Greg Doudna

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Is it possible Hosty heard Oswald say he went out front to see the parade, and Kelley heard Oswald say that he didn't actually see the parade (because he was too late getting out front), without actual contradiction?

(DVP NOTE --- I don't know why, but Greg has now removed the above comment from his previous post. But I was able to save it before he deleted it. And I think it's a very good question/observation too, so I can't figure out why Greg wanted to dispose of it in his prior post. But, anyway, since I think it's a good question, I'll just answer it anyway, despite its deletion by Mr. Doudna....)

------------------------

Hi Greg,

Regarding James Hosty's "parade" note and Thomas Kelley's report being compatible and not contradictory....

Yes, I think that certainly is possible, based mainly on my belief (which I talked about earlier today in this thread via a replay of my 2019 comments) that Hosty's "Presidential Parade" note is almost certainly (IMO) referring to the "Out Front With Shelley" timeline that also appears in another FBI document---James Bookhout's solo 11/22/63 report.

When comparing the Hosty note with Bookhout's solo report, we can see that the chronology of the following three things perfectly blend together and match each other, indicating that Hosty's "parade" reference is, indeed, referring to a time that was AFTER the shooting had taken place and not DURING the assassination or BEFORE the shooting:

1. Oswald going to the 2nd floor to get a Coke (which we know, via the extra details revealed in the solo Bookhout report, occurred AFTER the shooting and at the same time Oswald encountered Officer Baker in the lunchroom).

2. Oswald then going to the 1st floor to eat lunch.

3. Oswald then going outside.

I created the photo below so that a direct comparison between the two documents in question can easily be done....and, in my opinion, the words "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" are meant to convey the same meaning as "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley". I think this conclusion becomes an obvious one to make after taking a look at the chronology in Bookhout's 11/22 solo report.




There's also this excerpt below from another FBI report, which totally negates the idea that Lee Oswald was standing outside on the front steps of the Book Depository Building when the assassination of JFK was occurring:

 

Edited March 27 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I wonder if you could comment on Gil Jesus's point about a broken-down rifle after reassembly would need to be sighted-in anew, involving shooting the rifle, in order to be useful with accuracy in the assassination.

Whether or not the rifle's scope had to be "sighted in" after being reassembled is something that I don't think has been proven one way or the other. And it's largely a moot point when we consider that Oswald might very well have utilized the rifle's iron sights instead of using the scope on November 22nd.

We can never know which method he used, but the iron sights are certainly an option that cannot be ignored.

I myself am of the opinion that Oswald very likely did try to utilize the 4-power telescope on his rifle for the first shot he fired at the President, but when that shot went wild and missed the entire limousine and everyone in it, he then quickly switched to using the gun's iron sights for his second and third (successful) shots.

It's possible, IMO, that Oswald abandoned the scope upon realizing (after his first missed shot) that the cheap four-power telescope did, indeed, require some readjusting after the rifle had been broken down and then reassembled.

But, as I said, we'll never know for sure which method of sighting Oswald used in Dealey Plaza. It will forever remain one of the several "unknowables" in the JFK case.

As an addendum to the "Assembled vs. Disassembled" topic, allow me to offer up these remarks from a few years back (taken from a lengthy discussion I had with David Lifton concerning the rifle and curtain rods and, of all things, fishing poles).
 

Edited March 27 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

23 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

And I doubt Postal Inspector Holmes was the wilful li-ar in his Warren Commission testimony under oath that it is common in some circles to routlnely assume.

 

Of course Postal Inspector Holmes lied for the WC. The government conducted a coverup, and people lie and deceive in coverups. I don't know why some researchers can't accept that.

 

23 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Perjury is a serious thing and can land one in prison.

 

Not when it's a government sanctioned coverup, and those who lie are doing it for national security reasons, at the (indirect) request of President LBJ. It was their patriotic duty to help prevent WW3.

 

23 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

On the eating lunch after getting the coke after the assassination thing which makes no sense, that is a distortion or misunderstanding of what Oswald would have and surely did say. Oswald would have spoken of going up to the second floor to get a coke with his lunch before the assassination, the logical time to go up to get a coke. Then after the assassination he went up to the second floor a second time, this time not to get a coke but to make his way to the rear of the building and down the stairs and out a rear door unobtrusively, but he reversed direction when seeing and encountering Baker. At least that is a possible reconstruction (with credit to Andrej Stancak for the proposal)

 

Had the second floor Oswald/Baker encounter happened, Baker would have made a note of it on his first-day statement.

There is too much evidence against the second floor encounter to take it seriously. (Victoria Adams is just the beginning of that.)

It was obviously created in order to place Oswald sufficiently away from his alibied location so that he conceivably could have been on the sixth floor during the shooting.

 

[Cory Santos]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of course Postal Inspector Holmes lied for the WC. The government conducted a coverup, and people lie and deceive in coverups. I don't know why some researchers can't accept that.

 

 

Not when it's a government sanctioned coverup, and those who lie are doing it for national security reasons, at the (indirect) request of President LBJ. It was their patriotic duty to help prevent WW3.

 

 

Had the second floor Oswald/Baker encounter happened, Baker would have made a note of it on his first-day statement.

There is too much evidence against the second floor encounter to take it seriously. (Victoria Adams is just the beginning of that.)

It was obviously created in order to place Oswald sufficiently away from his alibied location so that he conceivably could have been on the sixth floor during the shooting.

 

But then by your logic why did they not lie and say he was coming down from the sixth floor?   I mean in golf if you’re going to lie when you’re in the rough you don’t just tap the ball a little.  

[Sandy Larsen]

6 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

During the shooting, no one recalls seeing LHO. 

 

Correction: Nobody SAID that they recalled seeing LHO during the shooting. (At least not openly.)

It was a freaking government coverup! Do you really think that the government would have allowed a witness to Oswald's whereabouts testify that they saw Oswald watching the P. Parade during the shooting? Or that he was on the first floor during the shooting? (The former being Oswald's alibi, the latter being the government's cover story for Oswald's alibi.)

Of course the government wouldn't allow that to get out! And they didn't.

It has been proven that the government recruited Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady to lie about WHEN they saw Victoria Adams exit the first-floor stairwell, in order to discredit her story. (Because her story proved that the second floor encounter as told by the WC didn't occur.) It is my belief that the reason those two in particular were recruited to lie is because they were the ones who saw Oswald watching the P. Parade.

The government HAD to make Lovelady and Shelley lie about seeing Oswald out watching the P. Parade. So they figured they might as well have them lie about Victoria Adams too. That is what I believe.

 

[Marjan Rynkiewicz]

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

(DVP NOTE --- I don't know why, but Greg has now removed the above comment from his previous post. But I was able to save it before he deleted it. And I think it's a very good question/observation too, so I can't figure out why Greg wanted to dispose of it in his prior post. But, anyway, since I think it's a good question, I'll just answer it anyway, despite its deletion by Mr. Doudna....)

------------------------

Hi Greg,

Regarding James Hosty's "parade" note and Thomas Kelley's report being compatible and not contradictory....

Yes, I think that certainly is possible, based mainly on my belief (which I talked about earlier today in this thread via a replay of my 2019 comments) that Hosty's "Presidential Parade" note is almost certainly (IMO) referring to the "Out Front With Shelley" timeline that also appears in another FBI document---James Bookhout's solo 11/22/63 report.

When comparing the Hosty note with Bookhout's solo report, we can see that the chronology of the following three things perfectly blend together and match each other, indicating that Hosty's "parade" reference is, indeed, referring to a time that was AFTER the shooting had taken place and not DURING the assassination or BEFORE the shooting:

1. Oswald going to the 2nd floor to get a Coke (which we know, via the extra details revealed in the solo Bookhout report, occurred AFTER the shooting and at the same time Oswald encountered Officer Baker in the lunchroom).

2. Oswald then going to the 1st floor to eat lunch.

3. Oswald then going outside.

I created the photo below so that a direct comparison between the two documents in question can easily be done....and, in my opinion, the words "Then went outside to watch P. Parade" are meant to convey the same meaning as "He thereafter went outside and stood around for five or ten minutes with foreman Bill Shelley". I think this conclusion becomes an obvious one to make after taking a look at the chronology in Bookhout's 11/22 solo report.




There's also this excerpt below from another FBI report, which totally negates the idea that Lee Oswald was standing outside on the front steps of the Book Depository Building when the assassination of JFK was occurring:

 

We need to rule out that there were 2 cokes involved, or even 3 cokes.

[Benjamin Cole]

24 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Correction: Nobody SAID that they recalled seeing LHO during the shooting. (At least not openly.)

It was a freaking government coverup! Do you really think that the government would have allowed a witness to Oswald's whereabouts testify that they saw Oswald watching the P. Parade during the shooting? Or that he was on the first floor during the shooting? (The former being Oswald's alibi, the latter being the government's cover story for Oswald's alibi.)

Of course the government wouldn't allow that to get out! And they didn't.

It has been proven that the government recruited Bill Shelley and Billy Lovelady to lie about WHEN they saw Victoria Adams exit the first-floor stairwell, in order to discredit her story. (Because her story proved that the second floor encounter as told by the WC didn't occur.) It is my belief that the reason those two in particular were recruited to lie is because they were the ones who saw Oswald watching the P. Parade.

The government HAD to make Lovelady and Shelley lie about seeing Oswald out watching the P. Parade. So they figured they might as well have them lie about Victoria Adams too. That is what I believe.

 

I guess we are in different pages on this one, and that is fine, that is what the EF-JFKA is for, to see different viewpoints. 

I will say, in the intervening years, many witnesses have corrected what they said were incorrect affidavits and so on.

AKAIK, no one has said, "Actually, I did see LHO when gunshots rang out, and he was on the steps. The FBI did not let me say that before." 

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. We just have different takes on this one. 

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

FWIW, I get into this in Chapter 4 on my website. From looking at all the statements regarding Jack Dougherty, I came to believe he was not in the elevator that came down while Baker and Truly ran up. So who was?

It may very well have been the shooter. 

Maybe so. I will review Chap 4 of your formidable website. Is there something about Jack Dougherty we should know? 

[Sandy Larsen]

55 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Of course Postal Inspector Holmes lied for the WC. The government conducted a coverup, and people lie and deceive in coverups. I don't know why some researchers can't accept that.

55 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

But then by your logic why did they not lie and say he was coming down from the sixth floor?   I mean in golf if you’re going to lie when you’re in the rough you don’t just tap the ball a little.

 

If you seriously consider those times the coverup artists fabricated stories when stitching together the official narrative, you come to realize that they tried as much as possible to keep their stories to match real testimony, and even what can be seen on films and photographs.

It is because of that that researchers for a long time believed a lot of these fake stories. Some, like Greg Doudna and Pat Speer, still do.

Here is what the coverup artists did to fabricate the second-floor Baker/Oswald encounter:

The Darnell film shows Officer Baker running to the entrance of the TSBD. Baker's first day statement says that he went up the stairs with Truly, and up a couple of floors they come across a guy and Baker stops him. Truly told Baker that the guy worked there, so Baker let him go. From Oswald they got the story that he went to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke.

Those are all true facts, and the FBI/WC used them to fabricate the false second floor encounter. Which, again, was designed to place Oswald closer to the 6th floor sniper's nest.

Researchers believed the second-floor encounter occurred because film and statements seem to support it. But a decade or so ago, the film and statements came under scrutiny and the whole second floor encounter ultimately fell apart.

Analysis of the Darnell film showed that Officer Baker ran right past the TSBD entrance, not into it.

Baker's first day statement regarding his encounter with some guy on the third or fourth floor is far different from the WC narrative of the Oswald/Baker encounter on the second floor.

And Oswald's story of going to the second floor lunchroom for a coke is far different than the WC's narrative, which has Oswald eating lunch AFTER his encounter with Oswald.

The second-floor Baker/Oswald encounter never occurred.

 

[David Von Pein]

14 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The Darnell film shows Officer Baker running to the entrance of the TSBD. Baker's first day statement says that he went up the stairs with Truly, and up a couple of floors they come across a guy and Baker stops him. Truly told Baker that the guy worked there, so Baker let him go. From Oswald they got the story that he went to the second floor lunchroom to get a coke.

Those are all true facts, and the FBI/WC used them to fabricate the false second floor encounter. Which, again, was designed to place Oswald closer to the 6th floor sniper's nest.

Researchers believed the second-floor encounter occurred because film and statements seem to support it. But a decade or so ago, the film and statements came under scrutiny and the whole second floor encounter ultimately fell apart.

Analysis of the Darnell film showed that Officer Baker ran right past the TSBD entrance, not into it.

Baker's first day statement regarding his encounter with some guy on the third or fourth floor is far different from the WC narrative of the Oswald/Baker encounter on the second floor.

And Oswald's story of going to the second floor lunchroom for a coke is far different than the WC's narrative, which has Oswald eating lunch AFTER his encounter with [Baker].

The second-floor Baker/Oswald encounter never occurred.

"And all of that subterfuge and lying was done just so they could—what was it now?—oh, yes....just so they could falsely place Oswald on the SECOND FLOOR instead of the FIRST FLOOR (which is where most CTers say he was in the first place).

Hardly seems worth it, does it? Because the SECOND FLOOR isn't the SIXTH FLOOR, is it?

You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten liars, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors. Such a fabricated tale would have been infinitely better for the "Let's Frame Oswald" team of plotters. But no! They only wanted to say they saw him on the SECOND floor. As if THAT story somehow nails the resident "patsy" to the cross more efficiently. (Hilarious!)

Please explain for me why the plotters and patsy-framers didn't make up a better lie regarding WHERE Baker and Truly saw Oswald. After all, most Internet CTers think BOTH of those men (Marrion Baker and Roy Truly) were evil rotten liars anyway. So why not have them say they saw Oswald either ON the sixth floor or coming down the stairs nearer to the sixth floor?

The fact that the "Lunchroom Encounter" makes ZERO sense if it were, in fact, just made up from whole cloth is one of the reasons to know that it really did happen the way Officer Baker and Roy S. Truly always said it happened." -- DVP; December 2017

 

Edited March 27 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

50 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I guess we are in different pages on this one, and that is fine, that is what the EF-JFKA is for, to see different viewpoints. 

I will say, in the intervening years, many witnesses have corrected what they said were incorrect affidavits and so on.

AKAIK, no one has said, "Actually, I did see LHO when gunshots rang out, and he was on the steps. The FBI did not let me say that before." 

I am not saying I am right and you are wrong. We just have different takes on this one. 

 

The reason you disagree with what has been proven, is because it is inconsistent with you pet theory.

Well, guess what...

Oswald had no gunshot residue on his cheeks. Which proves that he didn't fire a rifle that day.

Your theory, therefore, is kaput.

But you will disagree because -- despite all your calls for everyone to keep an open mind -- you've got one of the most closed minds of anyone on the forum.

But so it goes.

Keep an open mind.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You'd think the crafters of this Baker/Oswald ruse would have had Baker and Truly (both rotten liars, according to CTers) say they saw Oswald dashing down the stairs between the SIXTH and FIFTH floors.

 

Yes, that is what the coverup artists would have done had there been a witness saying that they saw a guy running down from the sixth floor right after the shooting. But there was no such witness.

As I said, the coverup artists tried to keep their narratives as close as possible to what the witnesses and films showed.