tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79728147045098108672024-02-07T18:19:34.739-08:00The Mysteries of Dealey PlazaMartin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-72255357564358548732021-07-19T04:53:00.001-07:002021-07-19T04:54:48.873-07:00Eyes Wide Shut: Owen Gleiberman Doubles Down on Denialism<p style="text-align: justify;">When it comes to the subject of JFK's assassination, the U.S. mainstream media has a terrible track record. When the Warren Commission issued its report on September 27, 1964 stating that Lee Harvey Oswald had acted alone, it was immediately hailed as the last word on the case by the likes of the <i>New York Times</i>, the <i>Washington Post</i> and <i>CBS</i>. The very day the report was published, a New York Times editorial gushed, "The Commission analyzed every issue in exhaustive, almost archaeological detail...The facts, exhaustively gathered, independently checked and cogently set forth, destroy the basis for conspiracy theories that have grown weedlike in this country and abroad." Not mentioned in the editorial was the simple fact that none of the evidence upon which the Warren Report was ostensibly based was then available and, therefore, independent evaluation of the Commission's conclusions was impossible. Two months later, when the 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits were released, journalist Anthony Lewis assured the public that the totality of the evidence proved the Commission's conclusions to be correct. Of course, Mr Lewis could never explain how he had managed to make his way through more than 50,000 pages in a single day - clearly an impossible feat. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ultimately, one can either bow down and marvel at the unparalleled speed-reading abilities of the press or one can accept the reality that Lewis, like the rest of his media cohorts, understood that dissent was not allowed and had chosen to get with the programme. Researching the facts of the case was clearly an indigestible prospect for those who had decided it was best to go along to get along. A couple of years later, when a small band of private citizens who had taken the time to actually study the record began writing works critical of the official story, they were roundly attacked and labelled as "scavengers" by these same media assets who were either embarrassed by their own lack of courage and diligence or else in the pocket of government agencies.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Flash forward to the early 1990s and the reception afforded Oliver Stone's masterful movie, <i>JFK. </i>The sheer volume of editorials, op-eds, letters and articles which appeared, condemning the film and its director, was almost as staggering as the savagery with which some of them were written. Perhaps the most remarkable aspect of these attacks is that they began some eight months before the movie was released, and while principle photography was still taking place! On May 14, 1991, without even having seen the script for himself, <i>Dallas Morning News </i>reporter Jon Margolis wrote, "There is a point at which intellectual myopia becomes morally repugnant. Stone's new movie proves that he has passed that point." Months later, <i>New York Newsday</i> complained of "The Blurred Vision of JFK," <i>Newsweek</i> labelled the movie "propaganda" and "Twisted History," and the <i>Chicago Sun Times</i> opined, "Stone's Film Trashes Facts, Dishonors JFK." Stone himself was understandably stunned by the establishment's continued refusal to permit reasonable questions be asked about that day in Dallas.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">It would be nice to think that times have changed, that today American journalists have the courage and integrity to question the edicts of officialdom, dig into the evidence, and accept the truth in front of their eyes. Alas, reviews and commentaries on Stone's new follow-up documentary, <i>JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass</i>, tend to suggest otherwise. Case in point: the review written for <i>Variety</i> by Owen Gleiberman, which comes across (to me at least) as little more than the written equivalent of a child closing their eyes, sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "La la la! I'm not listening to you!" </p><p style="text-align: justify;">The international press, having fewer hang-ups about the assassination, is doing a slightly better job. In a piece for <i>The Independent</i>, Scottish film critic Geoffrey Macnab writes, "Even [Stone's] fiercest detractors will find it hard to dismiss the evidence he has assembled about the JFK assassination in the new documentary. Once I'd seen it and heard him hold forth, I came away thinking that only flat-earthers can possibly still believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy all on his own." Yet Gleiberman demonstrates how easy it is to dismiss the mountain of facts disproving the official fairy tale if you simply deny its importance. He writes obliquely of how Stone "holds a magnifying glass up to certain inconsistencies in the evidence that will probably never be resolved" and assures his readers that the "ultimate looking-glass scenario" is how "one sick little man like Lee Harvey Oswald" could "commit an act so horrifically monumental." If your eyes just rolled into the back of your head when reading that last bit of "wisdom," trust me, you're not alone. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Of course, one should not expect any better from someone like Gleiberman who admits that his own view of the assassination was shaped by the likes of <i>Case Closed</i> author Gerald Posner. This, of course, is the same Gerald Posner who committed perjury before a congressional committee in 1993, claiming that when he interviewed JFK's pathologists, Dr James J. Humes and Dr J. Thornton Boswell, both agreed that they had been mistaken about the location of the entrance wound in Kennedy's head. Yet, when contacted by assassination expert Dr Gary Aguilar, both pathologists vociferously denied making any such statements. In fact, Boswell denied ever having spoken to Posner at all. Dr Aguilar gave a tape recording of his conversations with Humes and Boswell to the Assassination Records Review Board and, as a result, it contacted Posner, asking him to substantiate his testimony. Obviously, Posner could not produce evidence of interviews that had never taken place to begin with so he stonewalled the board. "The Review Board's initial contact with Posner produced no results," the ARRB noted in its final report. "The Review Board never received a response to a second letter of request for the notes." If this is the calibre of "expert" on which Gleiberman chooses to rely, it is little wonder he has nothing but nonsense to offer on the subject. Garbage in, garbage out. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">In any case, Gleiberman doubles down on the Krazy Kid Oswald narrative, dismissing the question of why Oswald would have chosen to break the law and mail-order a rifle under an assumed name, instead of just popping into any one of his numerous local gun sellers and picking one up without leaving a paper trail, by stating, "...because he was a sick puppy who was mentally ill enough to want to shoot the president." The fact that no evidence that Oswald was "mentally ill enough to want to shoot the president" has ever been produced is, I'm sure, of little consequence to someone like Gleiberman. Pointing out that Oswald's Marine Corps records revealed no signs of mental abnormality, or that psychiatric evaluations conducted a few short years before the assassination concluded that he was "not dangerous to other people" and there was "no sign of psychotic phenomena," (see Sylvia Meagher, <i>Accessories After the Fact</i>, p. 244) seems almost as redundant as noting that Oswald was known to have been an admirer of President Kennedy. After all, Gleiberman can dismiss these facts easily enough with the one-size-fits-all argument of "holding up a magnifying glass to something that will probably never be resolved."</p><p style="text-align: justify;">When Gleiberman does make an attempt at countering specific items of evidence, he ends up achieving little more than highlighting his own ignorance. For example, Oliver's Stone's 1991 movie placed great emphasis on the fact that JFK's head was sent hurtling "back and to the left" in an apparent response to a shot from the grassy knoll. Gleiberman's response to "That infamous movement" is to suggest that it "was long ago dissected by ballistics experts." For what it is worth, I know of only two "ballistics experts" to have tackled the issue and they do not even agree with one another. One of these specialists, Lucien Haag, wrote a piece for the AFTE Journal - the peer-reviewed publication of The Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners - in which he relied upon the "jet effect theory" originated in the 1970s by physicist Luis Alvarez. Dr Alvarez had fired soft-nosed hunting rounds (not full metal jacketed bullets as supposedly used in the assassination) from a rifle of much greater velocity than the type Oswald was alleged to have used into melons weighing far less than a human head and claimed he had found the answer to Kennedy's "retrograde motion." Of course, he had also shot at a variety of other objects that did not fly backwards but those results were kept out of his published papers. (see Josiah Thompson, <i>Last Second in Dallas</i>, pp. 123-129)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The other ballistics expert to have confronted the problem, Larry Sturdivan, was less enamoured of Alvarez's theory. After having taken part in experiments wherein the actual rifle and ammunition Oswald is alleged to have used was fired into at least ten rehydrated human skulls filled with brain simulant, none of which flew backward, Sturdivan concluded that "The jet effect, though real, is not enough to throw the president's body into the back of the car." (Sturdivan, <i>The JFK Myths</i>, p. 164) Instead, Sturdivan offered the suggestion that the head shot had created an enormous downward rush of neurologic stimuli to all efferent nerves in Kennedy's body and, because the back muscles are stronger than the abdominals, this caused the president's body to arch dramatically backwards. But as Dr Donald Thomas wrote in his brilliant book on the JFK forensic evidence, <i>Hear No Evil</i>, "Sturdivan's postulate suffers from a patently anomalous notion of the anatomy...Neither the erector spinae, or any other muscles in the back are capable of causing a backward lunge of their body by contraction." (Thomas, <i>Hear No Evil</i>, p. 341) </p><p style="text-align: justify;">So, of the two ballistics experts to whom Gleiberman presumably refers, one relied on a physicist who had rigged his experiments and cherry-picked his results, and the other offered a theory that was anatomically impossible. Of course, there is one other explanation for "back and to the left" that does not rely on such sophistry or chicanery: a shot from the grassy knoll. And, in fact, this explanation is supported by the autopsy X-rays that show a trail of bullet fragments in the top of the skull that could not have been left behind by a full metal jacket Carcano bullet entering low down in the back of the head, as per the official story. Perhaps it is just as well that Gleiberman's article is, as he writes, "a movie review, not a forensic dossier." </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Not that Gleiberman fares any better on non-scientific issues. For example, he spectacularly fails to understand the importance of eyewitness Victoria Adams in establishing the likelihood that Oswald was not on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository at the time of the assassination. As the Warren Commission admitted, a maximum of 90 seconds after the shooting, Oswald was seen in the second floor lunchroom by police officer Marion Baker, looking cool, calm and collected. Baker had run into the depository building, believing the shots may have been fired from its roof, and was on his way up the stairs when he spotted Oswald inside the lunchrom and confronted him, demanding that he identify himself. After Oswald's boss Roy Truly confirmed his status as an employee, Baker continued his ascent. It has long been understood that Oswald had precious little time to make this encounter and, in its re-enactments, the Commission did everything it could to speed up Oswald and slow down Baker. (see Harold Weisberg, <i>Whitewash</i>, pp. 85-89) But more often overlooked is the fact that Vicki Adams and her friend Sandra Styles - who had watched the assassination from a fourth floor window and made their way down to the first floor approximately 15 to 30 seconds after the last shot was fired - were on the depository steps at the very time Oswald would have had to have run down them and neither saw nor heard any sign of him. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Gleiberman responds to this by suggesting that Oswald might have heard Adams and Styles on the stairs "and hung back for ten seconds," seemingly oblivious to the fact that hanging back for any length of time would have made it impossible for Oswald to have been in the lunchroom when Baker arrived there. Perhaps more importantly, Gleiberman has somehow missed out the third lady in the equation, Dorothy Garner. Ms Garner had left the fourth floor window with Adams and Styles but, rather than descending the stairs with her colleagues, had gone to a storage area by the stairway. She stayed there long enough to see Baker coming up the stairs after his encounter with Oswald on the second floor. What she did not see in the intervening seconds was Oswald descending from the sixth floor. And if Oswald did not walk down those stairs in between the time Adams went down and Baker came up then he could not have been on the sixth floor at the time of the assassination. So, despite Gleiberman remarking with derision that Stone's new film "treats it as a seismic revelation," that is precisely what the Adams/Styles/Garner story is. </p><p style="text-align: justify;">Ultimately, his inability to grasp the significance of the above underscores the biggest problem with having someone like Gleiberman review a documentary about the Kennedy assassination: he has no idea what he is talking about. The media has so actively avoided learning the truth about the case that it cannot possibly hope to adequately assess, let alone rebut something as illuminating and ground-breaking as <i>JFK Revisited</i>. It is little wonder, then, that the many thousands of documents released by the ARRB that form the basis for Stone's new film have yet to be looked at or reported on in any meaningful way by any establishment media outlet.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">And little wonder that Gleiberman shut his eyes, popped his fingers in his ears, and doubled down on denialism. </p>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com21tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-84517922003179496982015-06-16T12:41:00.000-07:002015-06-16T12:41:02.768-07:00Ballistics and Baloney: Lucien Haag and the JFK AssassinationMy latest essay, a detailed critique of ballistics expert Lucien Haag's recent attempted defense of the 'Magic Bullet Theory', is online here:<br />
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.ctka.net/2015/HaagCritique.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.ctka.net/2015/HaagCritique.pdf</a>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-38252571935070648962014-09-15T07:26:00.000-07:002014-09-15T07:26:20.279-07:00How Dave Reitzes Get's it Wrong Part 7
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>Cui Bono, Redux</b></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
Despite the fact that he has presented no evidence establishing
Oswald's guilt, Reitzes nonetheless feels the need to pontificate
upon his motivation. To say that he is on shaky ground here would be
a vast understatement. After all, people who knew Oswald testified
that he was an admirer of President Kennedy who bore him no malice.
No doubt fully aware of this fact, Reitzes has little choice but to
suggest that Oswald was “mentally unstable”. He writes: “The
Warren Commission heard testimony and examined psychological
evaluations from his teen years suggesting he was a greatly troubled
individual.” Indeed Oswald did have a difficult childhood, during
which a spell of truancy led to his being remanded at an institution
named Youth House for psychiatric evaluation. However, as the Warren
Commission reported, “Contrary to reports that appeared after the
assassination, the psychiatric examination did not indicate that Lee
Oswald was a potential assassin, potentially dangerous, that 'his
outlook on life had strongly paranoid overtones' or that he should be
institutionalized.” (WR379)
</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Essentially, Oswald was a lonely, withdrawn child who suffered from
neglect. As social worker, Evelyn Siegel, reported, she saw “a
rather pleasant, appealing quality about this emotionally starved,
affectionless youngster which grows as one speaks to him.” She
concluded that Lee “just felt that his mother never gave a damn for
him.” (Ibid, 380) Years later as a grown man in the Soviet Union,
following a feigned suicide attempt, Oswald spent three days in a
psychiatric ward for observation. One report concluded that he was
“not dangerous to other people” and another describes him as
being “of clear mind” with “no sign of psychotic phenomena.”
(18H464 & 468) If Oswald's troubled childhood left him “mentally
unstable” the Soviet psychiatrists did not pick up on it. Nor did
the United States Marine Corps. As legendary critic Sylvia Meagher
noted, “The Marine Corps medical records on Oswald for 1956-1959
consistently show no sign of emotional problems, mental abnormality,
or psychosis.” (Meagher, <i>Accessories After the Fact</i><span style="font-style: normal;">,
p. 244) </span></div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;">Reitzes attempts to resurrect the
notion of Oswald as a “radically leftist...Castro idolater” which
is not something most researchers take seriously today. Although
Oswald frequently told anyone that would listen that he was a
communist or a Marxist, his behaviour indicated otherwise. The fact
of the matter is that Oswald never joined any communist or Marxist
organization, even when living in the Soviet Union, and all of his
known contacts and acquaintances were right-wingers and
anti-Castroites. In the summer of 1963 when Oswald started his own
make-believe chapter of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New
Orleans—which, as previously noted, was at the same time the CIA
was running a campaign against the FPCC—it only ended up
embarrassing the organization when Oswald was publicly revealed as a
former resident of the Soviet Union. Once he had discredited the FPCC
in New Orleans by effectively linking the organization with Russian
communism, Oswald moved on. For these reasons, and many more, most
serious researchers now believe that Oswald's self-professed Marxism
was a cover and that he was, in fact, some type of intelligence
asset. A thorough discussion of this subject is beyond the scope of
this critique so interested readers are referred to the books
</span><i>Conspiracy?</i><span style="font-style: normal;"> by Anthony
Summers, </span><i>Destiny Betrayed</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
(second edition) by Jim DiEugenio, and </span><i>Oswald and the CIA</i><span style="font-style: normal;">
by John Newman.</span></div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Continuing his skewed, hackneyed portrait, Reitzes claims that Oswald
had a “history of violence”. When considering that particular
deceleration, readers should bear in mind that Reitzes is describing
a U.S. Marine who only ever got in one fight during his entire adult
life. As it happens, Oswald was considered so timid by his fellow
Marines that they nicknamed him “Ozzie Rabbit”. One Marine,
Daniel Powers, testified that in his opinion Oswald “was the meek
mild individual that a person felt if he had something, that he
wouldn't really fight to keep it. He would take the easy way out to
avoid conflict.” (8H270) Nevertheless, in support of this supposed
“history of violence”, Reitzes offers “the time he [Oswald]
threatened his sister-in-law with a knife as a teen”, and alleges
that “numerous witnesses...testified about the physical abuse he
directed at his wife.” The first of Reitzes' two examples is barely
worthy of discussion. It refers to the time a 13-year-old Oswald
flashed a pocket knife at his brother's wife. That was the extent of
it. It was silly kids stuff and no one was hurt. The second example
is more complex.
</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Contrary to the impression Reitzes attempts to convey, there was
actually only one witness who claimed to have first hand knowledge of
Oswald hitting his wife, Marina, and he never “testified” to that
fact. The witness was Alex Kleinlerer who appears to have taken an
instant dislike to Oswald and gave an uncorroborated statement
claiming that he once saw him slap Marina around the face. (11H120)
The only other person who would claim personal knowledge of such
matters was Marina herself who, to say the least, has credibility
issues. As Warren Commission lawyer Norman Redlich noted in a once
secret memo, “...Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the [Secret]
Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital
concern to the people of this country and the world.” (11HSCA126)
Indeed, Marina gave so many conflicting stories that investigators
for the HSCA prepared a report titled <i>Marina Oswald Porter's
Statements of a Contradictory Nature </i>which totalled over 30
pages.
</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Physical abuse was one of the many subjects on which Marina gave
conflicting accounts. During one of her appearances before the
Commission she said that her husband had been a “good family man”
and described only one occasion on which he had hit her after she had
written a letter to a former boyfriend saying she wished she had
married him instead. (1H32-33) Later, she changed her mind and
claimed that Lee was “not a good husband” and had “beat” her
“on many occasions.” (5H594) In all likelihood, neither of these
accounts is quite true. Although Marina attempted to paint herself as
a devoted housewife who suffered at the hands of her abusive husband,
as Norman Redlich suggested, “...there is a strong probability that
Marina Oswald is in fact a very different person—cold, calculating,
avaricious, scornful of generosity, and capable of an extreme lack of
sympathy in personal relationships.” (11HSCA126) There is testimony
that suggests Marina delighted in tormenting and embarrassing Lee in
front of others. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt remarked that when friends
were giving Marina the things that Lee could not afford, she “was
throwing it into his face.” (9H309) Mrs. DeMohrenschildt also noted
that “...she ribbed him even in front of us...if I would ever speak
to my husband that way we would not last long.” (Ibid, 311-12) “I'm
not a quiet woman myself”, Marina testified as she confessed to
provoking Lee. (5H598) More importantly, Lee Oswald was himself
observed covered in scratches inflicted by his wife (12HSCA129) who
admitted that she would hit him and throw objects at him. (5H598)
“...he is not a strong man”, Marina said, “and when I collect
all my forces and want to do something very badly I am stronger than
he is.” (5H389) It is clear that the Oswalds had a tumultuous and,
at times, violent relationship. It also seems apparent that neither
party was entirely blameless.
</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Although in her earliest interviews Marina could name no acts of
violence by her dead husband, on December 5, 1964, she threw the FBI
a bone and claimed that Lee had told her he had taken a shot at
right-wing zealot, General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963. (23H391)
Of course, Marina came out with this story during the two month
period that she was being held at the Inn of Six Flags in Arlington,
Texas, in which she was repeatedly interrogated by the Secret Service
and FBI and threatened with deportation. (see 1H79 & 410)
Nevertheless, Reitzes claims that there is “documentary evidence”
to support Marina's story. He does not detail precisely what that
“documentary evidence” is but when we check his citation—pages
688-697 of Bugliosi's book—we see that it consists of an unsigned,
undated note that does not mention General Walker and a few
photographs of Walker's house that were found in the garage of
Michael and Ruth Paine. Not exactly overwhelming stuff.
</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The truth is that in the eight months the Dallas police investigated
the attempt on Walker's life, Oswald was never considered a suspect.
The mutilated bullet that was recovered from Walker's home was
described by police as being 30.06 steel-jacketed and not 6.5 mm
copper-jacketed like the bullets fired from “Oswald's” rifle.
(<i>Dallas Morning News, </i>April 11, 1963 & 24H40)
Additionally, eyewitness Walter Kirk Coleman told police that almost
immediately after the shot was fired, he saw two men getting into two
different cars in the nearby church parking lot. One of these men
bent over the front seat of his car “as if putting something in the
back floorboard.” The other man got into a light green or blue Ford
and “took off in a hurry”. (24H41) Oswald could not drive and did
not own a car and Coleman later told the FBI that “neither man
resembled Oswald and that he had never seen anyone in or around the
Walker residence or the church before or after April 10, 1963, who
resembled Lee Harvey Oswald.” (26H438)</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Also on the subject of violence, Reitzes writes that “The
commission heard testimony that Oswald...believed that societal
change could only be brought about by violent means”. This he again
sources to Bugliosi (p. 937) who quotes from an interview Michael
Paine gave to HSCA investigators in 1978 claiming that it was
“Oswald's belief that the only way the injustices in society could
be corrected was through a violent revolution.” The first thing of
note here is that this hearsay claim was made in 1978—14 years
after the Warren Commission shut up shop. So Reitzes' claim that the
Commission heard such testimony is false. The bigger problem,
however, is that in 1964, when Paine testified to the Commission, he
specifically stated that Oswald “didn't mention advocating violence
or didn't say anything in regard to violence...” (2H411) Paine's
latter day claims can only be regarded as either faulty recollection
or a deliberate attempt to mislead. Either way, this type of
cherry-picking—ignoring earlier, sworn testimony in favour of later
claims more friendly to the author's thesis—is par for the course
with Bugliosi and Reitzes.</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Still relying on Bugliosi (p. 938-39), Reitzes tells us that Oswald
“aspired to greatness, though greatness had thus far eluded him”.
In this regard, Bugliosi quotes Marina as stating that her husband
“wanted in any way, whether good or bad, to do something that would
make him outstanding, that he would be known in history.” He also
quotes Texan lawyer Max Clark who knew Oswald very briefly and said
that it was his “general impression” that Oswald “wanted to
become famous or infamous” and “seemed to think he was destined
to go down in history someway or other.” From this I presume we are
meant to conclude that killing Kennedy was Oswald's way of getting
the recognition he so desired. But such reasoning makes little sense
in light of the fact that Oswald protested at every available
opportunity that not only was he innocent but that he was a fall guy;
a “patsy”. Are we really to believe that Oswald decided to kill
the President just so that he could achieve a place in the history
books as somebody's dupe? As just a pawn in someone else's scheme?
Why would he not want to take credit for his “great deed”?
Bugliosi struggles mightily with this question. He weakly suggests
that Oswald's “conduct after the shooting” shows that he wanted
to escape and then “disclose his identity on his own terms and at a
time and place he, not the authorities, chose, such as in Cuba or
Russia.” But Oswald's movements after the assassination suggest no
such thing. When he returned to his rooming house he did not pick up
his passport or pack a bag or do anything that suggested he was
planning on leaving the country. Not only that but, once he was in
custody, Oswald would have had to have known that he was not going to
get away and that there was going to be no opportunity to dictate his
own terms or choose his own place in which to confess. Right then and
there, with the spotlight of the world's media shining directly on
him, would have been the perfect time and place for Oswald to get
recognition if he so desired it. Instead he denied shooting Kennedy
quite literally to his dying breath.
</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-76986616743954306152014-09-04T03:59:00.000-07:002014-09-04T22:12:51.773-07:00How Dave Reitzes Gets it Wrong Part 6<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<b>The Single Bullet
Theory</b></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is hard to believe that 50 years after it was first conceived we
are still discussing something as ridiculous and ill-supported as the
Single Bullet Theory. If not for the fact that it has been endorsed
by so many socially constructive government panels it may well have
been consigned to the ash heap of history where it belongs decades
ago. But Warren Commission apologists will simply not let it die
because they know that to admit to the obvious fallacy of the SBT is
to admit to a conspiracy. As former Warren commission lawyer Norman
Redlich commented to author Edward Epstein, “To say that they
[President Kennedy and Governor Connally] were hit by separate
bullets, is synonymous with saying that there were two assassins.”
(Epstein, <i>Inquest</i></span><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, p. 38) It
is no surprise, then, that Reitzes makes a stab at defending the
theory. But make no mistake, he does so in spite of the evidence.
Because the SBT is challengeable on every level, from the
trajectories involved, to the nature of the wounds, to the condition
and provenance of the bullet itself. There is not one facet of the
SBT that holds up to scrutiny.</span> </span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-style: normal;">It has long been accepted that
Commission lawyer Arlen Specter, a man with no medical or ballistics
training, was the “father” of the SBT. But hoping to lend it some
legitimacy, Reitzes claims that it was actually JFK's pathologist Dr.
Humes “who first voiced the possibility that JFK and Governor
Connally had been struck by the same bullet.” Let's be very clear
about this: The SBT holds that a bullet (</span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">dubbed
Commission Exhibit 399) entered JFK’s back heading downwards and
leftwards. Hitting no bony structures it exited his body from an
anatomically higher position, just below the Adam’s apple, then
somehow struck Connally under his right armpit. It sailed along
Connally’s fifth rib, smashing four inches of it, before exiting
his chest below the right nipple and pulverizing the radius of his
right wrist. It then entered his left thigh just above the knee,
depositing a fragment on the femur, before miraculously popping back
out to be found in near-pristine condition on an unattended stretcher
in Parkland Hospital. That is the SBT and, despite the impression
Reitzes attempts to convey, Humes neither suggested nor endorsed it.</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">At Specter's
prompting, Humes did raise the “possibility” that one bullet had
passed through the torsos of both men. However, he considered it
“extremely unlikely” that the same bullet had also caused the
wounds to Connally's wrist and thigh. The report from Parkland
Hospital noted that “small bits of metal were encountered at
various levels throughout” Connally's wrist wound as well as in his
thigh. Looking at CE399, Humes noted, “this missile is basically
intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not
understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of
these locations.” He suggested that a separate bullet had been
responsible for these two wounds. (2H375-76) Humes' colleague, Dr.
Finck, concurred. Asked if CE399 could have “inflicted the wound on
Governor Connally's right wrist” Finck said, “No; for the reason
that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.” (Ibid,
382) Connally's wrist surgeon, Dr. Charles Gregory—<span lang="zxx">who
also did not believe the SBT—</span></span><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">testified
that the amount of debris carried into the wound suggested "that
an iregular missile had passed through the wrist". (6H98) Dr.
Gregory pointed to the two mangled fragments found on the floor of
the limousine as being likely culprits. (5H127-28)</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span></span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Nonetheless,
Reitzes assures his readers that the trajectory analysis of "an
actual rocket scientist" and "meticulous reconstructions of
the shooting...have confirmed again and again the plausibility, if
not certainty, of the single bullet theory". He finishes his
discussion of the SBT with the following quote from Vincent Bugliosi:
“‘the single-bullet </span></span></span></span><em><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">theory</span></span></span></em><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">’
is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a
theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven </span></span></span></span><em><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">fact</span></span></span></em><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
a wholly supported conclusion.” There are numerous hyperbolic
statements in Bugliosi's tedious and bloated tome but this is one of
the most ridiculous. In fact it may be one of the silliest claims
found anywhere in the JFK literature. In point of fact, the SBT
barely meets the requirements necessary to be considered a viable
theory. Why? Because it is based on a number of entirely unproven and
highly contradicted assumptions. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">Firstly, there is
the location of Kennedy's back wound. Because a bullet fired from the
sixth floor of the depository building would have been travelling at
a downward angle of apprxomiately 20 degrees, for the SBT to work,
the back wound had to have been considerably higher than the hole in
the throat. But as crazy as it seems, five decades after the
assassination, we still do not know the precise location of this
wound. In large part this is due to the faliure of the autopsy
doctors to record its position according to fixed anatomical
landmarks. The autopsy report states that the "7 x4 mm oval
wound" was "14 cm from the tip of the right acromion
process and 14 cm below the tip of the right mastoid process."
But as the HSCA pathology panel noted, the mastoid process and the
acromion "are moveable points and should not have been used."
(7HSCA17) A more precise way to record the location of the back wound
would have been with respect to the thoracic vertebrae. This was, in
fact, done but not by the autopsy doctors. </span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong>
</strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The official death
certificate prepared and signed by Kennedy's personal physician, Dr.
George Burkley—who
was present at both Parkland Hospital during the attempts to
save the President's life and at Bethesda Naval Hospital for the
autopsy—states that the wound of "the
posterior back" was situated "at about the level of the
third thoracic vertebra" which is typically 4 to 6 inches below
the shirt collar. This location is fully supported by the bullet
holes in Kennedy's shirt and jacket, which are approximately 5.5
inches below the top of the collar, (7HSCA83) and by the autopsy
descriptive sheet prepared by the autopsy surgeons. (ARRB MD1)
However, it must be admitted that Burkley's wording, "<i>about</i>
the level of", is not precise and the clothing <i>could</i> have
ridden up Kennedy's back somewhat during the shooting.</span> </span></span>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>
</strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">The Warren
Commission could and should have tried to clear this matter up but
instead it added to the confusion. The transcript of the Commission's
January 27, 1964, executive session reveals that it had the autopsy
photos at its disposal and was fully aware that Kennedy's rear wound
was below the shoulder. Nonetheless, in order to make the SBT more
palatable, the Commission wrote with deliberately misleading language
that the bullet had "entered the base of the back of his neck"
(WR2). It then kept the troublesome autopsy photos out of the report
and accompanyng volumes and instead presented another of its
deceptive drawings which showed a bullet hole <i>above </i>the
shoulder (CE386)—far above where the
Commission knew it to be.<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>
</strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">A decade and a half
later, following its review of the autopsy materials, the HSCA
forensic pathology panel suggested that the bullet had entered at the
approximate level of the first thoracic vertebra (T1). Although this
location has been generally accepted by proponents of the SBT, it is
far from proven. The HSCA panel admitted that it was not possible to
determine "the exact entrance point" from the available
evidence (7HSCA87) but largely based its conclusion on two factors:
Interstitial emphysema (a pocket of air) overlying T1, and a fracture
of the transverse process of T1. (Ibid, 93) However, the panel
explained that although the "air in the soft tissues" could
have been caused by the passage of a bullet, it was just as likely a
result of the tracheotomy performed at Parkland Hospital. (Ibid) As
for the alleged fracture of the transverve process, Dr. Baden only
said in his testimony that it <i>could </i>have been caused by a
bullet strike. "...we cannot be certain of that," he
admitted. (1HSCA305) Additionally, it seems that there is some
disagreement as to the very existence of the fracture as one of the
panel's consultant radiologists, Dr. William Seaman, told the panel
that to him, "the transverse process appears normal..."
(7HSCA99)<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong>
</strong>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">The available
evidence simply does not allow us to pinpoint exactly where the
bullet entered the President's back. When the three autopsy doctors
gave depositions for the Assassination Records Review Board, both
Humes and Finck refused to be pinned down on this issue. Dr. Boswell,
however, at least tried to be a little more helpful. "Well, it's
certainly not as low as T4", he said. "I would say at the
lowest it might be T2. I would say around T2." (Boswell
deposition, p. 155) But this again is just an estimate. It seems that
the best that can be said is that the wound was somewhere between T1
and T3.</span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong>
</strong>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
previously noted, most single bullet theorists accept the HSCA's T1
hypothesis. But even this assumed entrance location is problematic
for the SBT since it is anatomically lower than the hole in the
throat. Looking to endorse the SBT, the pathology panel suggested
that the theory was still possible but that JFK had to be leaning
significantly forward at the moment he was struck. The necessity of
the forward lean was confirmed by two of the "meticulous
reconstructions" Reitzes alluded to. One of these, utilizing
lasers, dummies, and the Presidential limousine, was undertaken in
1998 for the TV special, </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Secret KGB JFK Assassination Files</span></i></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">.
In order to get a trajectory through the body that pointed back to
the sixth floor, the show's participants had to bend the JFK dummy
markedly forward.</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
second of these reconstructions was conducted for the 2004 Discovery
Channel show, JFK: </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Beyond
the Magic Bullet</span></i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
The Discovery Channel shot a rifle from a crane set at the height of
the sixth floor window into specially made torsos that were placed in
normal, upright seated positions. The bullet entered the upper back
of the Kennedy torso just below the shoulder and exited through the
upper chest—</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">completely
missing the throat. Thus, these real-world experiments demonstrated
that the forward lean is absolutely integral to the SBT. The problem
is that the Zapruder film shows President Kennedy in the moments
before and immediately after he was shot and at all times he is
sitting upright.</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong>
</strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="zxx" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">SBT proponents,
therefore, must assume that Kennedy adopted the necessary pose during
the tiny 0.9 second interval that he was hidden from Zapruder's view
by the Stemmons Freeway sign. Forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht
rightly ridiculed this notion in his HSCA testimony: "I just
think it is important for the record to reflect upon the fact that
what presumably they are asking us to speculate upon is that in that
0.9 second interval, the President bent down to tie his shoelace or
fix his sock, he was then shot and then sat back up...I would suggest
that is a movement that the most skilled athlete, knowing what he is
going to do, could not perform in that period of time."
(1HSCA339)</span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong>
</strong>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On
top of assuming that the back wound was at T1, and that Kennedy was
leaning forward when shot, it must also be assumed that the throat
wound was an exit for the bullet which entered the back. This has
also never been established. As noted in part one of this critique,
all of the doctors at Parkland Hospital believed the wound looked
more like an entrance than an exit and described it as small, round
and neat. Dr. Perry told Dr. Humes that it measured only 3-5 mm and
Dr. Carrico recalled that it had "no jagged edges or stellate
lacerations." In tests performed for the Commission at Edgewood
Arsenal using the very rifle and ammunition Oswald is alleged to have
used, Dr. Alfred Olivier fired numerous rounds through blocks of
gelatin, horsemeat, and goatmeat with skin and clothing attached. At
a distance of 60 yards, which was the approximate distance from the
sixth floor window to Kennedy's back at Zapruder frame 224, typical
exit wounds were elongated and measured 10-15 mm</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
(5H77, 17H846)—<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">twice
the size or more than the wound in Kennedy's throat.</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong>
</strong>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">More
importantly, no pathway between the two wounds was observed at
autopsy. On the contrary, physical probing of the wound led the
prosectors to conclude that the back wound was shallow with no point
of exit. FBI agents James Sibert and Francis O'Neil were present for
the entire autopsy and filed a report of their observations. The
report states: "</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">During
the latter stages of the autopsy, Dr. Humes located an opening which
appeared to be a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two
inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-weight: normal;">This
opening was probed by Dr. Humes with the finger, at which time it was
determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point
had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees. Further
probing determined that the distance travelled by this missile was a
short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with
the finger." (AARB MD44) Further inspection of the wound was
carried out with the use of a surgical probe as Secret Service Agent
Roy Kellerman explained in his Warren Commission testimony: </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">“There
were three gentlemen who were performing the autopsy. A colonel
Finck—</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">during
the examination of the President, from the hole that was in his
shoulder, and with a probe, and we were standing alongside of him, he
is probing inside the shoulder with his instrument and I said,
‘Colonel, where did it go?’ He said, ‘There are no lanes for an
outlet of this entry in this man’s shoulder.’” (2H93)</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> </span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Bethesda
laboratory technician James Curtis Jenkins recalled that the back
wound was “very shallow…it didn’t enter the peritoneal (chest)
cavity.” He remembered the doctors extensively probing the wound
with a metal probe, “approximately eight inches long”, and that
it was only able to go in at a “...fairly drastic downward angle so
as not to enter the cavity.” (MD65) Jenkins also recalled in an
interview with David Lifton that the doctors continued to probe the
wound after the chest was opened and the organs removed. At that time
he could “see the probe…through the pleura [the lining of the
chest cavity]…where it was pushing the skin up…There was no entry
in the chest cavity…it would have been no way that that could have
exited in front because it was then low in the chest cavity…somewhere
around the junction of the descending aorta [the main artery carrying
blood from the heart].” (Lifton, </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Best
Evidence</span></i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 713)<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong>
</strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Jenkins'
colleague, Paul O'Connor, concurred. In an interview for the HSCA,
O'Connor said that “it did not seem” to him “that the doctors
ever considered the possibility that the bullet had exited through
the front of the neck.” (MD64) He later told author William Law:
“…another thing, we found out, while the autopsy was proceeding,
that he was shot from a high building, which meant the bullet had to
be traveling in a downward trajectory and we also realized that this
bullet—</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
hit him in the back—</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">is
what we called in the military a ‘short shot,’ which means that
the powder in the bullet was defective so it didn’t have the power
to push the projectile—</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
bullet—</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">clear
through the body. If it had been a full shot at the angle he was
shot, it would have come out through his heart and through his
sternum.” (Law, </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
the Eye of History</span></i></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 41)<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><strong>
</strong></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In
1973, pathology professor John Nichols, MD, Ph.D., suggested that a
straight-line from the back wound to the throat wound would have had
to have to passed directly through the hard bone of the spine. In
1998, radiologist Dr. David Mantik provided striking confirmation of
Nichols' conclusion using a cross-sectional CAT scan of a patient
with approximately the same upper body dimensions as President
Kennedy. Mantik added the proposed entrance and exit points to the
CAT scan and demonstrated that a straight-line from one to the other
had to intercept the spine. Any bullet taking this path through
Kennedy's torso would have been severely deformed and the spine would
have been shattered. And yet there had been no major trauma to
Kennedy's spine and CE399 is in the same near-pristine condition as
test bullets fired into water.</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"> </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">To
recap, the SBT assumes that the back wound was at T1 but there is
evidence that it was considerably lower. It assumes that President
Kennedy was leaning significantly forward when he was struck even
though the Zapruder film shows no such thing. And it assumes that the
throat wound was an exit for the bullet which entered the back when
no such thing was established at autopsy, the only physical
examination ever conducted contradicts the idea, and medical evidence
strongly suggests that such a path through the body was not possible.
The reader will notice that all of these assumptions have to do with
the wounds to President Kennedy which is just one section of CE399's
supposed journey. There are numerous other problems with the bullet's
magical voyage but to highlight them all now would be simply flogging
a dead horse. The point has been made: The SBT is not built upon
proven facts but upon a series of unproven assumptions that are not
borne out by closer examination of the evidence. The SBT, therefore,
is not even remotely close to being considered a “proven fact”
and no honest person would make or repeat such a claim.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en-US" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-41283116243163376612014-08-09T00:18:00.000-07:002014-08-09T00:18:01.629-07:00How Dave Reitzes Gets it Wrong Part 5<strong><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Assassin</span></strong><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">After
spending a few paragraphs dismissing</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">—to
his own satisfaction if nobody else's—usual suspects like the Mafia
and the CIA, Reitzes turns his attention to Lee Harvey Oswald. “How
do we navigate a path through the complex morass of claims,
speculation, rumors, and confusion...?” He asks. “We use critical
thinking tools to discern the most reliable evidence” he answers,
right before demonstrating that he has no idea what either critical
thinking or reliable evidence actually means.</span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reitzes
writes that immediately after the shooting “eyewitnesses directed
police” to the depository building and the Knoll. In point of fact,
many officers made their own way to the Knoll having either made up
their own mind about the source of the shots or having been ordered
to do so by Police Chief Jesse Curry and Sheriff Bill Decker. (see
21H390-91) Reitzes then makes a point of noting that “no one had
actually </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">seen
</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
gunman” behind the fence—again failing to mention the previously
discussed smoke consistent with a rifle discharge—and that a search
of the area turned up “no suspect, no weapon, no spent shells, and
no other evidence of a crime.” This is all undeniably true but,
once again, does not tell the full story. </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Firstly,
it is hardly surprising that officers did not encounter a man
standing with smoking gun in hand waiting to be caught. And since the
acoustics indicates that if there was a Knoll gunman he only fired a
single shot, picking up one shell and taking it with him would hardly
have been a taxing exercise. Secondly, and more importantly, officers
did encounter a still unidentified man who was brandishing fake
Secret Service credentials before he disappeared never to be seen or
heard from again. We know the ID was fake because there were no
Secret Service Agents in the area, having all accompanied the
motorcade to Parkland Hospital. (5HSCA589) Commission apologists like
Vincent Bugliosi have tried to explain this away by claiming that
Dallas policeman Joe Marshall Smith, who confronted the fake agent,
was mistaken and probably just “assumed” the man showed him
Secret Service ID. (Bugliosi, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reclaiming
History</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 865) But this ignores what Smith himself told author Anthony
Summers: “The man, this character, produces credentials from his
hip pocket which showed him to be Secret Service. </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
have seen those credentials before</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
and they satisfied me and the deputy sheriff.” [my emphasis]
(Summers, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Conspiracy</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 36-37) So the very real possibility exists that this man with the
fake ID was, if not a gunman himself, an accomplice who helped one to
escape. And the fact that, after all these years, no one has ever
come forward to identify himself and explain who he was and what he
was doing up on the Knoll with Secret Service credentials supports
that contention.</span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Although
Smith later noted that the man's appearance “didn't ring true for
the Secret Service” and came to believe that he “should have
checked that man closer”, (Ibid) on the day of the assassination
officers were unaware that no genuine agents were in the area so they
saw no reason to treat him with suspicion. It is understandable,
then, that they soon came to concentrate their efforts on the Texas
School Book Depository where a man with a rifle had indeed been
spotted. Inside the building they found an old, bolt-action,
Mannlicher Carcano rifle and three spent shells. According to Reitzes
“Documentary evidence...established that the weapon had been
purchased through the mail under an assumed name by Lee Harvey
Oswald...” This is not nearly the clear-cut issue he makes it out
to be but rather than waste time on the details here, I will instead
refer the reader to chapter 4 of Jim DiEugenio's excellent book,
</span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reclaiming
Parkland</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
For the sake of argument let us accept the premise that Oswald did
indeed mail-order the rifle found on the sixth floor of the
depository building. That in itself raises some intriguing questions.</span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Oswald
had never shown much of an interest in guns. His brother Robert
testified to the Warren Commission that he had only ever known Lee
“to own but one firearm in his life” which was a small, .22
caliber rifle that he owned briefly as a teenager before selling it
to Robert for $10. (1H397) His buddy in the Marines, Nelson Delgado,
recalled that Oswald was often getting in trouble for failing to
clean and take care of his weapon and “didn't give a darn” about
keeping up his rifle practice. (8H235) And when he was living in
Russia Oswald apparently joined a hunting club but, as his wife
Marina told the Secret Service, “he never attended any meetings.”
The only reason he had joined the club is because it entitled him to
“free transportation in an automobile which enabled him to go out
of town.” (CD344, p. 22) It is quite clear that throughout his life
guns had held no special fascination for Oswald. So why, in early
1963, would he suddenly decide to purchase a rifle from Klein's
Sporting Goods, of Chicago, and a pistol from Seaport Traders, of Los
Angeles? This mail-order purchase, made using a false name, seems all
the more bizarre in light of the fact that, at the time, he was
living in Texas where it was easy to obtain firearms over the counter
without leaving a long paper trail. </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
above oddities leave open the possibility that, if Oswald actually
did purchase those weapons, he did so at somebody else's suggestion
or request. It is known that at the very time Oswald allegedly placed
his orders, a Senate Subcommittee led by Senator Thomas Dodd was
investigating the availability of firearms through the mail and both
Klein's and Seaport had been named as companies involved in illegal
practices. (Alex Cox, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
President and the Provocateur</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 127) Whether or not there is any connection between the activities
of the Dodd Committee and Oswald's alleged decision to break the law
by mail ordering two weapons under a false name is unknown. However,
it is curious to note that Oswald also “defected” to Russia
during the period of time that the CIA was running a fake defector
program, and launched a one-man FPCC chapter that ended up
embarrassing the organization at the same time the FBI and CIA were
conducting their own anti-FPCC campaigns. Perhaps these are all
coincidences. Then again, perhaps not.</span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Regardless,
the central question is not why (or indeed if) Oswald purchased the
rifle but whether or not he had it in his hands at 12:30 pm on
November 22, 1963. Even by the official account, it was certainly not
in his possession in the two months leading up to the assassination
when it was allegedly sitting in the garage of Ruth Paine—although
nobody actually saw it there. Reitzes writes matter-of-factly and
without elaboration that “Oswald's palm print was found on the
weapon”. But Reitzes knows that this claim is hotly contested. And
with very good reason. The print was supposedly found on the
underside of the barrel by Dallas police lieutenant J.C. Day on the
evening of November 22, 1963. But when FBI fingerprint expert
Sebastian Latona carefully inspected the entire rifle a few hours
later he found “no latent prints of value” anywhere on it. (4H23)
It was not until after Oswald was dead at the hands of Jack Ruby that
the Dallas police suddenly announced they had found his print on the
rifle. Lt. Day claimed that he had “lifted” the print before
sending the rifle to the FBI but could never adequately explain why
he had failed to inform the Bureau of his discovery when he handed
the evidence over. Nor could he explain why he failed to photograph
the print before it was “lifted” in accordance with proper
procedure. To make matters worse, Day later declined “to make a
written signed statement” when the Bureau asked. (26H829)</span></span></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">An
FBI memo that was suppressed until 1978 reveals that even the Warren
Commission was dubious of Day's claims. The memo dated August 28,
1964, states: “[Warren commission general counsel J. Lee] Rankin
advised because of the circumstances that now exist there was a
serious concern in the minds of the commission as to whether or not
the palm impression that has been obtained from the Dallas Police
Department is a legitimate latent palm impression removed from the
rifle barrel or whether it was obtained from some other source and
that for this reason this matter needs to be resolved.” FBI Special
Agent Vincent Drain, who had collected the evidence from the Dallas
police on November 22, 1963, was also highly skeptical when he was
interviewed by author Henry Hurt in 1984: “'I just don't believe
there ever was a print,' said Drain. He noted that there was
increasing pressure on the Dallas police to build evidence in the
case. Asked to explain what might have happened, Agent Drain stated,
'All I can figure is that it [Oswald's print] was some sort of
cushion, because they were getting a lot of heat by Sunday night. You
could take the print off Oswald's card and put it on the rifle.
Something like that happened.'" (Hurt, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reasonable
Doubt</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 109) </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">With
the above in mind one has to ask, is this really Reitzes' idea of
“the most reliable evidence”? Quite obviously, had Oswald lived
to face trial, any defense lawyer worth his salt would surely have
argued that the palm print should be thrown out for lack of proof.
And were it actually admitted, it would most certainly have become
the focus of his appeal. But even if we choose to take Lt. Day at his
word and accept the print as genuine, it still does not place the
rifle in Oswald's hands at the time of the assassination. Why?
Because Day would only say it was an “old dry print” that “had
been on the gun several weeks or months”, (26H831; Summers, p. 54)
a detail which Reitzes and his fellow anti-conspiracy buffs never
fail to omit. </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reitzes
goes from bad to worse when he writes that in addition to the palm
print, “fingerprints lifted from the trigger housing were later
determined to be” Oswald's. Which, quite frankly, is just nonsense.
The partial prints in question were discovered by Lt. Day who could
not identify them as belonging to Oswald. As he told the Warren
Commission, “...in fingerprinting it either is or is not the man.
So I wouldn't say those were his prints...from what I had I could not
make a positive identification as being his prints.” (4H262) The
prints were then examined by the FBI's Sebastian Latona who also
judged them to be “of no value”. (4H21) Another FBI expert,
Ronald Wittmus, agreed with Latona's assessment. (7H590) 15 years
later, yet another expert examined the prints on behalf of the HSCA
and once again they were said to be “of no value for identification
purposes.” (8HSCA248) And in 2003, researcher James K. Olmstead
reported that a new analysis had been conducted using the FBI
laboratory computer software. The computer had failed to find a
match. (Thomas, p. 85) </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So
where does Reitzes get his claim that the prints were “determined
to be Oswald's”? Well, if you can believe it, from a TV show. In
1993, the producers of the PBS documentary </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Who
Was Lee Harvey Oswald?</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
asked two experts to review the fingerprint evidence. The first,
former head of the FBI's latent print section, George Bonebrake,
reached the same conclusion as every expert who came before him and
stated that the prints were “simply not clear enough to make an
identification”. The second, Vincent J. Scalice, claimed that not
only had he positively matched the prints, but he had found 18 points
of identity! At this point, the real skeptics and critical thinkers
out there might well be wondering how it was that Scalice was able to
see what no other expert could see. And they might find it all the
more bizarre to learn that one of opinions he was disagreeing with
was, in fact, his own since he was the very same expert who had told
the HSCA that the prints were “of no value for identification
purposes”. </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">So
what had changed between 1978 and 1993? Well, nothing. Scalice
claimed that he was able to reach his conclusion after carrying out
various enhancements on the photographs that Lt. Day took of the
prints on the evening of November 22, 1963. But unlike Scalice, Day
and the FBI experts were not just working with photographs, they were
working with the rifle and the actual latent prints when they
concluded that they were “insufficient” for identification. And
no amount of enhancement, no matter how sophisticated, can bring out
more detail in the photographs than was visible on the actual prints.
Scalice's claim is simply not worthy of serious consideration and not
surprisingly, neither PBS nor Scalice has ever made available a chart
displaying his alleged 18 match points so that they can be
corroborated or refuted by independent experts. It hardly needs
pointing out that by no stretch of the imagination was Reitzes using
“critical thinking tools to discern the best evidence” when he
cherry-picked Scalice's unsupported and highly contradicted
“determination” over that of all the other experts. That he
presented this malarkey to readers as if it were established fact is
blatant dishonesty.</span></span></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Having
utterly failed to put Oswald in the depository building with a rifle
in his hands, Reitzes next seeks to establish that all of the shots
were fired from the sixth floor window. “The autopsy of the
President...” he writes, “confirmed that the shots had come from
above and behind the limousine, not the grassy knoll.” This, of
course, was the rushed and incomplete autopsy</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">—</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">performed
by inexperienced and under qualified prosectors</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">—that
former president of the American Academy of Forensic Science, Dr.
Cyril Wecht, described as “a botched autopsy, a terrible piece of
medicolegal investigation.” (Wecht, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Cause
of Death</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 23) This does not worry Reitzes who claims that “Later reviews
of the autopsy photographs and X-rays by panels of forensic experts
appointed by Attorney General Ramsey Clark in 1968, the Rockefeller
Commission in 1975, and the HSCA in 1978 affirmed the conclusions of
the autopsy report.” But once again Reitzes is not telling the
whole truth.</span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
first group of experts to “review” the autopsy materials—the
“Clark Panel”—was convened by Attorney General Ramsey Clark in
1968 after he read the proofs of the not yet published book, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Six
Seconds in Dallas</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
by Josiah Thompson. In the book, Thompson used the Zapruder film, the
autopsy report, and the testimony of both the Parkland and Bethesda
physicians to make a case for two shots striking President Kennedy's
head almost simultaneously; one from the rear and one from the Knoll.
He also highlighted a seeming trajectory problem that had gone
ignored by the Warren Commission. In their report, the autopsy
doctors described an entry wound low down in the back of the skull,
“2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external
occipital protuberance.” To illustrate the trajectory the bullet
took through JFK's head, the Warren Commission published a drawing
prepared according to Humes' verbal descriptions by Naval artist
Harold Rydberg. This illustration showed Kennedy with his head tilted
significantly forward as if looking at the floor of the limousine.
The problem, as Thompson demonstrated, was that at frame 313 of the
Zaprduer film the position of Kennedy's head was nothing like that
shown in the Rydberg drawing. When the head was placed in the correct
position it became clear that the bullet, supposedly travelling
downwards from the sixth floor window at an angle approaching 16
degrees, would have had to have taken a steeply upward trajectory
through the skull. </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Maryland
Chief Medical Examiner Dr. Russell Fisher, who led the Clark Panel,
later admitted in an interview for the March, 1977, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Maryland
State Medical Journal</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
that the Attorney General was so “concerned” by what he had read
in the proofs that he created the panel “partly to refute some of
the junk that was in [Thompson's] book”. Clearly, if Fisher and his
colleagues were being told what they had to “refute”, then they
were never tasked with an honest and objective assessment of the
autopsy materials. And they never made one. They did, however,
deliver as promised and found a creative solution to the apparent
trajectory problem by moving the entry wound four inches up the
skull! Quite obviously, the Clark panel claiming the autopsy doctors
were completely wrong about where the bullet entered the skull stands
in stark contradiction to Reitzes' claim that the panel's review
“affirmed the conclusions of the autopsy report.” </span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">In
truth, as Dr. Wecht and others have pointed out, Kennedy's autopsy
doctors did make many errors. However, it strains credulity to
suggest that mistaking the top of the skull for the bottom was one of
them. Even if one wants to argue that the three doctors were so
utterly incompetent that they were unable to do what a child could
do, there were at least four independent eyewitnesses who recalled
seeing the entry wound and fully corroborated them. Secret Service
Agent Roy Kellerman, FBI Agent Francis O'Neil, Richard Lipsey (aide
to U.S. Army General Wehle), and Bethesda photographer John Stringer
all placed the wound low down in the back of the skull. Conversely,
not a single witness recalled seeing an entrance in the top of the
head where the Clark Panel claimed it was. In the years since, a
number of experts including neuroscientist Dr. Joseph Riley,
radiologist Dr. Randy Robertson, and pathologist Dr. Peter Cummings,
have independently identified the same defect on the right lateral
skull X-ray as being the entrance hole. And this defect sits to the
right and slightly above the EOP—precisely where Humes said the
entrance wound was. The Clark Panel's decision to move the wound
upwards clearly had nothing to do with what the evidence showed and
everything to do with “refuting” Josiah Thompson.</span></span></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
next socially constructive assessment of the medical evidence was
conducted on behalf of the Rockefeller Commission which had as its
Executive Director none other than former Warren Commission lawyer
David Belin. The make-up of the medical panel leaves no doubt about
its loyalties or the pre-ordained nature of its conclusions. Dr.
Werner Spitz and Dr. Richard Lindenberg were both close professional
associates of Dr. Russell Fisher, having worked under him at the
Maryland State Medical Examiner's Office. Dr. Fred Hodges worked
alongside Clark Panel radiologist Russell Morgan MD at John Hopkins
University in Baltimore. Pathologist Lt. Col. Robert R. McMeeken was
a colleague of one of Kennedy's autopsy surgeons, Dr. Pierre Finck,
at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. And Dr. Alfred Olivier
had previously served as the ballistics expert for the Warren
Commission. (Gary Aguilar, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">How
Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got it Wrong</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
Part IV) Is it any wonder that this particular group of individuals
rubber-stamped the Clark Panel's report? Not hardly. As Dr. Cyril
Wecht noted in a telephone conversation with Rockefeller Commission
Senior Counsel Robert Olsen, given their strong ties to the
government and especially to Dr. Russell Fisher, “it was wholly
unrealistic to expect that anybody on this panel would express views
different from those expressed by the Ramsey Clark Panel in 1968...”
(Olsen, memo to file, April 19, 1975) Later, in a public press
release, Dr. Wecht—alongside Professor of Criminalistics, Herbert
MacDonell, and President of the American Academy of Forensic
Sciences, Dr. Robert Joling—charged that the Commission had “set
up a panel of governmental sycophants to defend the Warren Report.”
(Aguilar, Op. cit.)</span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
trend continued with the HSCA forensic pathology panel which included
Rockefeller medical expert and close Fisher associate, Dr. Werner
Spitz, as well as Dr. Charles Petty who had spent nine years under
Fisher at the Maryland Medical Examiner's Office. (</span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Spitz
and Fisher's Medicolegal Investigation of Death</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 13) In fact, according to researcher Pat Speer, “of the nine
pathologists on the HSCA panel, six had embraced a professional
relationship with Dr. Russell Fisher...” The HSCA panel was chaired
by Dr. Michael Baden who had contributed to Spitz and Fisher's book,
</span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Medicolegal
Investigation of Death</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Baden is himself a controversial figure. He was Chief Medical
Examiner for the city of New York from 1978 until 1979 when he was
dismissed for his “inability to work within the system.” (</span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
New York Times</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
June 26, 1982) In 1995, in exchange for more than $100,000, he took
the stand in defense of O.J. Simpson, claiming that Nicole Brown
Simpson and Ron Goldman were killed by multiple assailants using
multiple weapons. (Ibid, August 11, 1995) In 2007, he testified on
behalf of the defense in the trial of legendary pop music producer,
Phil Spector. Baden's wife, Linda Kenney Baden, just happened to be
Spector's trial counsel. As Journalist Jonathan Turley noted, “...it
was fair game for the Spector prosecutors to challenge the
objectivity of forensic pathologist Michael Baden...and the
prosecution scored points on the issue, particularly after Michael
Baden said he could not define a 'conflict of interest' and
prosecutors asked if he would end up 'sleeping on the couch' if his
testimony did not favour Spector's case.” (</span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">L.A.
Times</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
September 11, 2007)</span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
his book </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Dead
Reckoning</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
Baden wrote that </span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">"Physicians
may be the worst witnesses. They are often swayed by whoever asked
them to be an expert. If that lawyer is smart enough to ask their
advice, they conclude, he must know what he is doing. That being the
case, physicians therefore adopt whatever the lawyer tells them as
the facts of the case and become, if only subconsciously, an advocate
for the lawyer rather than an independent adviser." (Baden, p.
89) This is certainly true of Baden himself. According to original
HSCA Deputy Chief Counsel Robert Tanenbaum, when the committee was
being led by dedicated truth seeker Richard Sprague, Dr. Baden was
saying that there had been a conspiracy with shots coming from the
right front. (see <a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?315655-3/kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-robert-tanenbaum-james-lesar" target="_blank">this video</a>)
But when the leadership changed so too did Baden's expert opinion. </span></span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Once
Baden had decided to back the official story, he and the rest of the
Fisher-influenced panel members went to work denigrating the autopsy
surgeons and affirming the Clark Panel Report. In spite of the
evidence to the contrary, Baden was determined to prove that the rear
entry wound was in the top of the skull where Fisher claimed it was
and not the bottom where the autopsy doctors had observed it. The
HSCA panel claimed that the autopsy photographs of the back of
Kennedy's head showed a “red spot” high in the rear and that this
was the wound of entrance. But when the panel tried to impress this
on the autopsy surgeons—the men who had inspected the actual wounds
on the body—its interpretation was firmly rejected. Referring to
the “red spot”, Dr. Humes stated, “I don’t know what that
is...I can assure you that as we reflected the scalp to get to this
point, there was no defect corresponding to this in the skull at any
point. I don’t know what that is. It could be to me clotted blood.
I don’t, I just don’t know what it is, but it certainly was not
any wound of entrance.” (7HSCA254) Rather than accept that Humes
may have had some idea what he was talking about, the HSCA pressured
him to change his testimony. </span></span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">When
it came time to illustrate the entry wound, the HSCA did not publish
the autopsy photo of the back of the head. Instead they presented a
lifelike drawing of the photo prepared by professional medical
illustrator Ida Dox. The difference between the photo and the drawing
is that in the drawing the “red spot” has been greatly
accentuated to look more like a bullet wound. At a JFK conference in
2003, Dr. Randy Robertson presented a stunning document from the
newly declassified HSCA files. It was a note from Baden to Dox that
said “Ida, you can do much better.” Attached to the note was a
picture of a typical entrance wound from </span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Spitz
and Fisher's Medicolegal Investigation of Death.</span></i></span></strong><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
In other words, Baden was actually instructing her to make the red
spot look more like an entrance wound than it really did in the
photographs. Which just goes to show the lengths Baden was willing to
go to in order to push the Clark Panel's more lone assassin friendly
revision of the head wound.</span></span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong><span style="font-family: inherit; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">There
is another extremely important point that needs to be made when
discussing these latter day reviews of the medical evidence. Even if
the HSCA pathology panel had not been stacked with Russell Fisher
acolytes and experts for hire like Dr. Baden, it would still have
been hampered by the fact that crucial autopsy materials had long
since “disappeared” from the archive. Photographs showing the
interior of the chest and skull, microscopic tissue slides,
Kodachrome slides of the interior of the chest, and even the
President's brain were all among the items that were mysteriously
missing by the time the HSCA came to inspect the evidence. Is it not
reasonable to suggest that in order to make an accurate determination
about the number and direction of bullets striking JFK it is
important to have all the relevant evidence? Dr. Cyril Wecht, the
HSCA panel's lone dissenting member, certainly believed so.</span></span></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Dr.
Wecht criticized his colleagues for engaging in “semantical
sophistry and intellectual gymnastics”, for being “slavishly
dedicated to defending the Warren Report”, and noted a
“preconceived bias and professionally injudicious attitude
vis-a-vis this case.” (7HSCA209-11) In his testimony before the
committee, Wecht was asked why he felt his colleagues had taken the
position they had. Apparently with the allegiances to Russell Fisher
in mind, he responded, “There are some things involving some
present and former professional relationships and things between some
of them, and some people who have served on previous panels.”
(1HSCA354) Years later he added that “many of these same people had
a long-standing involvement with the federal government—many had
received federal grants for research and appointments to various
influential government boards. To be highly critical of a government
action could end that friendly relationship with Uncle Sam.”
(Wecht, p. 43-44) Indeed, it is not normally considered a sensible
course of action to bite the hand that feeds. </span></span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reitzes
may pretend or even wish to believe otherwise but scientists do not
operate in a vacuum. As Don Thomas writes, “science is a social
process and...scientific conclusions are in fact, social constructs.
The consequences of the results, as much if not more than the
empirical evidence itself, will often steer the scientist to one
conclusion over the other.” (Thomas, p. 8) The reports of the
Clark, Rockefeller, and HSCA panels are the perfect example of what
happens when genuine experts allow political considerations, as well
as personal and professional biases, to cloud their judgement and
dictate their conclusions. </span></span></span></strong>
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /><span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br />
</div>
<br />Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-16642075956563143652014-07-24T00:45:00.000-07:002014-07-26T05:13:31.304-07:00How Dave Reitzes Gets it Wrong Part 4<strong>Shots in the Dark</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Dallas Police dictabelt recording, previously mentioned in part two
of this critique, is the only piece of evidence that has ever changed
the way the Kennedy assassination has been reported by officialdom;
albeit for all too brief a time. The way Reitzes chooses to cover
this particular topic is revealing to say the least. It certainly
makes a mockery of </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Skeptic's</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
claim that it promotes science and critical thinking since these two
things are notable only by their absence. For those who are new to
the subject, the dictabelt is an audio recording of Dallas police
radio transmissions made at the time of the assassination by a police
motorcycle officer who's microphone had become stuck in the 'on'
position. It was brought to the attention of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s by researchers Mary
Ferrell and Gary Mack. </span></span></strong>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
Reitzes describes it, the HSCA “endorsed the findings of a computer
science professor and his assistant, indicating that a shot had
indeed been fired from the grassy knoll.” This description of the
committee's experts is laughably inept, incomplete, and clearly
intended to downplay their expertise. Analysis of the acoustics data
was, in actual fact, undertaken by two independent teams of
scientists who were at the very top of their profession. To find
someone with the requisite qualifications to conduct an analysis of
the tape, the HSCA asked the Acoustical Society of America for a
short list of leading experts in the field. Top of the list was the
Cambridge, Massachusetts, firm of Bolt, Baranek and Newman. As the
HSCA reported, BBN “specializes in acoustical analysis and performs
such work as locating submarines by analyzing underwater sound
impulses. It pioneered the technique of using sound recordings to
determine the timing and direction of gunfire in an analysis of a
tape that was recorded during the shootings at Kent State University
in 1970.” (HSCA report, p. 67) </span></span></strong>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
second team of experts recommended by the ASA was that of Mark Weiss
and Ernest Aschkenasy of Queens College, New York. As well as being
involved in various acoustical projects such as the examination of
the Watergate tapes, (Ibid, p. 69) Weiss and Aschkenasy wrote
computer programs for processing acoustical data for military
applications. For example, a submarine navigates by bouncing sounds
of its environment and the on-board computer is able to factor in
and adjust for important elements like the vessel's speed and the
water temperature which varies with latitude. Weiss and Aschkenasy
wrote those software programs for the U.S. Navy. (Thomas, p. 594)
They were genuine, proven and trusted acoustical experts, something
one would not realise from reading Reitzes' facile characterization.</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
his typically misinformed manner, Reitzes writes that the dictabelt
“contained no audible sounds of gunfire”, which is factually
incorrect. It is not that the sounds are inaudible but that they are
mixed in with other white noises making them indiscernible to the
human ear. BBN chief scientist, Dr. James Barger, and his colleagues
discovered six impulses on the tape occurring at approximately 12:30
pm (the time of the assassination) that it was believed could be
gunfire. On-site testing was then conducted in Dealey Plaza with
microphones being placed along the parade route on Houston and Elm
Streets. Test shots were then fired from the Texas School Book
Depository and the Grassy Knoll and recorded at each of the
microphones. BBN found that five of the suspect impulses on the
dictabelt acoustically matched the echo patterns of tests shots fired
in the plaza, the fourth in sequence matching a shot fired from the
Knoll. (8HSCA101) However, at that point in time, Barger could only
attach a statistical probability rating of 50% to the matching of the
Knoll shot. (HSCA report, p. 72)</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
HSCA then turned to Weiss and Aschkenasy, asking if they could move
that 50-50 probability off center, one way or the other. The sonar
experts refined BBN's analysis using, as Dr. Weiss testified,
“fundamental things in acoustics...basic well-tested,
well-established principles” (5HSCA558) and were able to reduce
the margin of error from six one-thousandths of a second to one
one-thousandths of a second. Thus, after more than two months of
calculations, they were able to move the probability of a Grassy
Knoll gunshot from 50 to “95 percent or better”. (Ibid, 556) Dr.
Barger and his colleagues at BBN then reviewed the work of Weiss and
Aschkenasy, making their own independent calculations, and agreed
that “the likelihood of there having been a gun shot from the
knoll” was “about 95 percent or possibly better”. (Ibid, 674)</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
should come as no real surprise that the work of the HSCA's
scientists came under attack long before the committee had finished
its work. Dr. Barger even had to dispose of criticisms made by
private investigator, Anthony Pellicano, during his second appearance
before the committee. (5HSCA671-72) Reitzes claims that when the
findings of the acoustics experts “were subjected to peer review by
a National Academy of Sciences committee...the failings of the HSCA's
conspiracy theory were revealed.” But “peer review” does not
accurately describe a group with no intentions of approaching the
evidence fairly and objectively deliberately setting out to discredit
the work of another. </span></span></strong>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">When
the Justice Department commissioned the NAS study, it revealed
immediately that it had no interest in conducting an open-minded
analysis by offering the chairmanship to none other than Luis
Alvarez, a vocal defender of the Warren Commission who had staked his
professional reputation on there having been no shots from the Knoll.
Alvarez, who had publicly dismissed the acoustics evidence before he
even looked at it, wisely declined the position and instead
recommended his colleague, Nobel Prize-winning physicist, Norman
Ramsey. Nonetheless, Alvarez stayed on as the panel's most active
member. (Thomas, p. 618) Needless to say, the conclusions of the
“Ramsey Panel”, which did not include a single expert on
ballistics or acoustics, were preordained. When Dr. Barger met with
the panel to explain and defend his work, Alverez let him know that
it didn't actually matter what he said, they were going to shoot down
the HSCA's findings regardless. (Ibid, 619)</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Ramsey Panel spent two years going over the acoustics data with a
fine tooth comb looking for serious flaws but kept coming up empty
handed. In the end, the only significant argument in its report was
based on a discovery made not by a member of the panel but by a rock
drummer from Ohio named Steve Barber. Before discussing what Barber
found, it is important to understand that on the day of the
assassination, the Dallas police were using two radio channels. Ch-1
was for routine communications and Ch-2 was for the police escort of
the Presidential motorcade. If two police units who were tuned to
opposite channels came close to one another, and one opened a
microphone, it could capture a broadcast from one channel and
simulcast it over the other. This phenomenon, known as “cross-talk”,
occurred several times during the five and a half minute sequence
during which the motorcycle microphone that recorded the alleged
shots was stuck open. These simulcasts are a potential means of
synchronizing events between both channels.</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Steve
Barber acquired a copy of the dictabelt recording that came as a
promotional plastic insert with a girlie magazine and, after repeated
listens, heard something that nobody else had noticed</span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">—</span></span></span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
barley audible instance of cross-talk in which Dallas Sheriff Bill
Decker seems to say the words “...hold everything secure...”
These words came from a broadcast Decker made about a minute after
the assassination on Ch-2. On Ch-1, they appear only one-half second
after the impulses identified as a gunshots by the HSCA acoustics
experts. The Ramsey Panel seized Barber's discovery with both hands
and with it concluded that whatever the impulses on the tape were
they could not be the shots that killed Kennedy because they occurred
a minute after the assassination. The HSCA's conclusion of a probable
conspiracy had supposedly been “debunked”. </span></span></strong>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However,
in 2001, Dr. Donald Thomas reopened the acoustics debate with <a href="http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/Thomas.pdf" target="_blank">a paper
published in the British forensics journal, </a></span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;"><a href="http://www.jfklancer.com/pdf/Thomas.pdf" target="_blank">Science & Justice</a></span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">.
Dr. Thomas debunked the debunkers, pointing out that the Ramsey Panel
had overlooked a second instance of cross-talk, the “Bellah
broadcast”, and that using that simulcast to synchronize the
transmissions placed the impulses “at the exact instant that John
F. Kennedy was assassinated”. Several years later, Dr. Thomas noted
that none of the five instances of cross-talk on the recordings
actually synchronizes with one another, “Hence, the cross-talk
evidence does not prove that the putative gunshots are not
synchronous with the shooting.” (</span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Hear
No Evil</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 662) In his original paper, Dr. Thomas pointed out numerous errors
made by the Ramsey Panel and called special attention to facts which
the panel had been very careful to omit from its report. Namely, the
“order in the data”.</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">If
the impulses on the dictabelt are not gunshots then any matches to
the test patterns are spurious. Therefore, a match would be equally
as likely to occur at the first microphone as the last and the five
matches could fall in any one of 125 random sequences. But, as Dr.
Thomas explains:</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong>“<i><span style="font-weight: normal;">...the
matching of the five putative shots were to five microphone positions
in the correct topographic order...Moreover, not just the order but
the spacing was correct. The time lapse between the five matching
impulsive sounds was 1.7, 1.1, 4.8, and 0.7 sec on the evidence tape.
The first three impulses obtained their highest matches...at three
consecutive microphone locations...which were spaced at 6 m
increments on Houston Street. The fourth sound matched to a
microphone location on Elm Street...24 m removed </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">[from
the previous matching microphone]</span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">...and,
the last matched to a pattern recorded at the very next microphone
location...Thus the order spacing revealed by the matching procedure
is an accurate fit with the hypothesis that the sounds were gunshots
captured on a microphone of a motorcycle travelling north on Houston
Street then Westerly on Elm Street at the time of the assassination.”</span></i></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Furthermore,
the distance from the first matching microphone to the last was 143
feet and the time between the first and last suspect impulse on the
tape was 8.3 seconds. In order for the motorcycle with the stuck
microphone to cover 143 feet in 8.3 seconds it would need to be
travelling at approximately 11 mph</span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">—the
very speed </span></span></span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
the Presidential limousine was travelling on Elm Street. (see Warren
Report, p. 49) </span></span></strong>And lastly, the impulses on the
dictabelt synchronize perfectly with the images on the Zapruder film.
The most obvious reaction to a shot on the film occurs at frame 313
with the explosion of President Kennedy's head. This is preceded by
the flipping up and down of Governor Connally's white Stetson hat
between frames 225 and 230; the apparent result of a bullet passing
through his wrist. When we align the fourth shot on the dictabelt<strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">—</span></span></span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
Grassy Knoll shot</span></span></strong><strong><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">—</span></span></span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">with
frame 313, the third shot falls precisely as expected at frame 225.
Therefore, the exact same 4.8 second gap between shots is found on
both the audio and visual evidence. </span></span></strong>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
above described correlations between the dictabelt recording and all
other known data are beyond coincidence. In fact, NASA physicist G.
Paul Chambers has calculated the odds of the order in the data and
the synchronization of film and audio being random together as “only
one chance in eleven billion”. (Chambers, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Head
Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 142-143) And yet, as noted, the Ramsey Panel mentioned absolutely
none of it. The same is true of Reitzes and the authors he most
frequently relies upon such as Gerald Posner, John McAdams and
Vincent Bugliosi. In Bugliosi's case this is a particularly egregious
omission given that his critique of the acoustics evidence takes up
some 66 pages of his endnotes section. 66 pages and yet he could not
find room for what I summarized above in just a few short paragraphs?
Of course he could. But Bugliosi, Reitzes, the Ramsey Panel and their
cohorts know full well that if they disclose the order in the data to
their readers they will end up convincing them of the validity of the
acoustics evidence. </span></span></strong>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
order in the data leaves us with only two possible conclusions.
Either the Dallas police dictabelt genuinely captured the sounds of
the shots that killed President Kennedy, or, as Dr. Thomas remarks,
“...within moments of President Kennedy being assassinated a burst
of static (perhaps cosmic particles from some supernova, or an
eruption of the sun, or a thunderclap in the distance) had occurred,
and...these static clusters [gave] rise to seperate patterns that
just happened to mimic the echo patterns of three gunshots from the
Texas School Book Depository, one gunshot from nearby, and one from
the grassy knoll, if recorded over a microphone travelling north on
Houston Street then west on Elm Street at 11 mph when the air
temperature was 65 degrees F.” (Thomas, p. 625) </span></span></strong>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
believe most reasonable-minded people will agree that the latter is a
notion much too ridiculous to take seriously.</span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<br />Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-9864798863829430072014-07-15T06:03:00.001-07:002014-07-15T06:03:24.851-07:00How Dave Reitzes Gets it Wrong Part 3<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-family: inherit;">“<span style="font-style: normal;"><b>Back
and to the Left”: The Zapruder Film</b></span></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
most striking moment of the Zapruder film arrives at frame 313 when
President Kennedy's head explodes and his entire upper body is
slammed violently backwards and leftwards. Although I don't believe
it's accurate to say, as Reitzes does, that the “head snap” has
been held up by critics as “irrefutable </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">proof
</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">of
conspiracy”, there is no doubt that to the majority of us laymen it
certainly gives the immediate impression that the fatal shot came
from the right front. In fact, after Zapruder's home movie was shown
on television for the first time in 1975, public outrage was so great
that it ultimately resulted in the formation of the House Select
Committee on Assassinations. </span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></span></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
as Reitzes is quick to point out, numerous medical experts convened
by government panels have consistently reassured the American public
that “back and to the left” doesn't prove anything. He quotes
experts for the Rockefeller Commission in 1975 who were “unanimous
in finding that the violent backward and leftward motion of the
President's upper body following the head shot was not caused by the
impact of a bullet coming from the right front.” One of these
specialists, Dr. Alfred Olivier</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;">—</span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">who
had previously worked as the chief ballistics expert for the Warren
Commission</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;">—</span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">claimed,
unsurprisingly, that the President's movement “could not possibly”
be the result of a frontal shot and “attributed the popular
misconception to the dramatic effects employed in” movies and
television. </span></span></strong></span></span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></span></span></strong></div>
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></strong><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></span></span></strong><br />
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">However, the government's experts failed to provide evidence to support their assertions.
Even in the 1970s, films showing victims of rifle shots to the head
were readily available. I myself have seen old black and white
wartime films of kneeling prisoners being shot in the back of the
head with bolt action rifles. In each case, the victims did not lurch
drastically back towards the shooter but fell forwards onto their
faces. Regardless, the Rockefeller experts chose not to provide
documented examples to buttress their position and instead offered
two theories, the “neuromuscular reaction” and the “jet
effect”, neither of which has withstood scrutiny. </span></span></strong><strong>
</strong></span></span></span></strong></div>
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong>
</strong>
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
“jet effect” suggests, that in a similar fashion to the thrust
developed in a rocket or jet engine in response to its exhaust, the
explosive exiting of blood and brain matter from the right side of
Kennedy's head created a corresponding propulsive momentum in the
opposite direction. The theory was the brainchild of Nobel
Prize-winning physicist and stern Warren Commission supporter, Dr.
Luis Alvarez, who</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;">—</span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">though
he kept the fact to himself</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;">—</span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">was
paid by the government to conduct his study. (David Wrone, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK's </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Assassination,
p. 103) Alvarez demonstrated the effect by shooting a high powered
rifle at melons resting on fence posts which caused the melons to
recoil back towards the shooter. But as scientist Dr. Donald Thomas
explained in his fine book, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Hear
No Evil: Social Constructivism & the Forensic Evidence in the
Kennedy Assassination</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
Alverez had rigged the tests.</span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Firstly,
the melon is not, as Dr. Alvarez claimed, a “reasonable facsimile
of a human head.” In fact, as Dr. Thomas writes, “a melon differs
from a human head in precisely those characteristics that make the
jet effect implausible in the latter, but possible in the former.”
(Thomas, p. 359) A melon weighs approximately half as much as a human
head and so requires less energy to set in motion. It also lacks a
bone which means that it offers little resistance to a bullet so that
there is little deposition of momentum and, consequently, very little
force to overcome. “By minimizing the deposition of momentum, using
a target with little resistance,” Dr. Thomas writes, “Alvarez was
free to work on the other end of the equation, by jacking up the
velocity.” Dr. Alvarez used a high-powered 30.06 rifle instead of
the lower velocity Mannlicher Carcano and hot-loaded his cartridges
to 3000 feet per second. (Ibid) When another Warren Commission
defender, Dr. John Lattimer, attempted to duplicate Alvarez's tests
using an actual Mannlicher Carcano and factory ammunition, he did not
achieve the jet effect. His melons simply fell off the pedestal;
sometimes backwards and sometimes forwards. (Ibid, p. 362) </span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>
</em>
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Dr.
Thomas also makes the point that in order for the jet effect to be a
viable explanation for the backward motion, the exit wound, or the
“vent”, would have to have been in the very front of the skull.
But the massive wound to Kennedy's skull involved most of the right
side, from the temple back to the occiput. And if the vent was on the
right side, “then the jet effect would have driven the head to the
left (the side opposite the vent) not backwards.” (Ibid, p. 358) As
Dr. Thomas summarizes, “...the President did not have an exit wound
in a position that would have caused his head to move rearward if
there was a jet effect.” (Ibid, p. 370)</span></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
it's explanation for the backwards motion, the HSCA favoured the
neuromuscular reaction</span></span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;">—</span></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">a
theory that was put to the committee by ballistics expert, Larry
Sturdivan, who had worked at Edgewood Arsenal under Dr. Alfred
Oliver. Sturdivan put his hypothesis in the simplest possible terms
for last year's </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Cold
Case: JFK</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
television special: </span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><br /></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong>“</strong><em><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
tissue inside the skull was being moved around. It caused a massive
amount of nerve stimulation to go down his spine. Every nerve in his
body was stimulated. Now, since the back muscles are stronger than
the abdominal muscles, that meant that Kennedy arched dramatically
backwards."</span></em></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>
</em>
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></em></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">But
as Dr. Thomas explains, "Sturdivan's postulate suffers from a
patently anomalous notion of the anatomy. In any normal person the
antagonistic muscles of the limbs are balanced, and regardless of the
relative size of the muscles, the musculature is arranged to move the
limbs upward, outward, and forward. Backward extension of the limbs
is unnatural and awkward; certainly not reflexive. Likewise, the
largest muscle in the back, the 'erector spinae', functions exactly
as its name implies, keeping the spinal column straight and upright.
Neither the erector spinae, or any other muscles in the back are
capable of causing a backward lunge of the body by their
contraction." (Thomas, p. 341) Additionally, the type of
reaction Sturdivan posits is simply not in keeping with what we see
on the Zapruder film. Kennedy's movement did not begin with an
arching of the back. As </span></span></em><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
ITEK corporation noted following extensive slow motion study of the
Zapruder film, his head snapped backwards first, “then his whole
body followed the backward movement.” (<a href="http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=60448&relPageId=68" target="_blank">ITEK report, p. 64</a>)</span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>
</em>
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reitzes
writes that immediately before the backward motion appears on the
Zapruder film, Kennedy's head moves forward by 2.3 inches. This, he
suggests, is the “instant of impact” of a bullet entering the
back of the head. This alleged forward motion was first reported by
Josiah Thompson in his book, </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Six
Seconds in Dallas, </span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">but
Thompson has since changed his mind about its very existence. </span></span></strong><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">In
his online article, </span></span></span></strong><strong><span lang="zxx"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Bedrock
Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination</span></i></span></strong><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
Thompson writes: “In the years since those measurements were made,
I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a clear frame while Z313 is smeared
along a horizontal axis by the movement of Zapruder's camera. The
white streak of curb against which Kennedy's head was measured is
also smeared horizontally and this gives rise to an illusory movement
of the head. Art Snyder of the Stanford Linear Accelerator staff
persuaded me several years ago that I had measured not the movement
of Kennedy's head but the smear in frame 313. The two-inch forward
movement was just not there.”</span></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>
</em>
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">On
the other hand court certified Crime Scene Investigator, Sherry
Fiester, believes Thompson's initial observations were correct. She
characterizes the alleged forward motion as a "movement into the
force" of a shot from the front. Citing a number of ballistics
studies, Fiester explains, "Once a bullet enters the skull...the
bullet immediately loses velocity. The loss of velocity results in a
transfer of kinetic energy...This initial transfer of energy causes
the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the
line of fire." (Fiester, </span></span></span></strong><strong><span lang="zxx"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Enemy
of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination</span></i></span></strong><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 245)</span></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em>
</em>
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The
reader will have to do their own research and decide for themselves
whether Thompson or Fiester is correct but there is something else
that needs to be considered. That is, the motions of the other
occupants of the Presidential limousine who, the Zapruder film shows,
all moved forward at the time of the head shot and continued their
forward motion after Kennedy's body was sent hurtling backwards. This
is clearly demonstrated in the these two animations from researcher
David Wimp:</span></span></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323R3NS.gif" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323R3NS.gif</span></a></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323C_zps027390e1.gif" target="_blank">http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323C_zps027390e1.gif</a></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
stands to reason that these people, who all made the same motion,
were all affected by the same force. That force would appear to have
been the deceleration of the limousine. If Dr. Alvarez's calculations
are correct, then it appears that the President's car began to slow
down a little under one second before the head shot at approximately
Zapruder frame 300. (Thomas, p. 340) This was apparently the result
of Secret Service driver Willaim Greer touching the brakes</span></span></span></strong><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;">—</span></span></strong><strong><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">an
inexplicable act that caused many bystanders to believe that the
limousine came to a virtual standstill during the assassination. </span></span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<em>
</em>
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So,
if Greer tapping the brake caused the other limo passengers to lurch
forward, then it quite probably was responsible for any forward
motion on the President's part. There is, then, no compelling reason
to accept Reitzes' hypothesis that Zapruder frames 312 to 313
captured the “instant of impact” of a shot from the rear.</span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
</strong><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-46189827942084950902014-07-06T08:30:00.000-07:002014-07-06T10:02:50.702-07:00How Dave Reitzes Gets it Wrong Part 2<br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-family: inherit;">The Parkland Hospital
Professionals</span></strong></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">The
observations of the trauma room doctors and nurses who attempted to
save President Kennedy's life have long been a thorn in the side of
Warren Commission followers and lone gunman theorists. This is
because, as Reitzes admits, “many of these medical professionals
made observations indicative—some strongly so—of shots from the
President’s front rather than the rear.” For example, Professor
and Director of Neurological Surgery at Parkland, Dr. Kemp Clark,
swore in his Commission testimony that he had seen a wound “in the
back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the
right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being
damaged and exposed." (6H20) Similarly, Dr. Robert McClelland
noted that “the right posterior portion of the skull had been
extremely blasted. It had been shattered...so that the parietal bone
was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost
along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone
being fractured in its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones
that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into
the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at
least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the
cerebellar tissue had been blasted out...." (Ibid, 33) </span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Despite
Reitzes' erroneous and unsupported claim that “the testimony of the
Parkland doctors and nurses is highly contradictory and confused”,
the above descriptions of a defect in the right rear of the skull
were supported by the statements and/or testimony of every other
trauma room participant. The only exceptions were Dr. Kenneth
Salyer—who stood on JFK's left and did not get a good look at the
wound (Ibid, 81)—and Dr. Aldoph Giesecke who, for some reason, got
his left and right confused but nonetheless recalled that the wound
extended into the occiput. (Ibid, 74) As should be obvious, the
appearance of a gaping wound in the right rear of the skull is very
much suggestive of a shot from the front.</span></span></strong></span></strong></div>
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></strong><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then
there's the wound in the throat which, from all descriptions,
appeared more like an entrance than an exit. Dr. Malcolm Perry told
autopsy surgeon Dr. James Humes that the hole was a mere 3-5 mm in
diameter. (17H29) He further explained in his Commission testimony
that "It's edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out,
but rather clean cut." (3H372) Dr. Charles Carrico recalled that
the wound measured “4-7 mm...It was, as I recall, rather round and
there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations." (6H3) And
Dr. Ronald Jones described it simply as a “very small, smooth
wound.” (Ibid, 54) It goes without saying that a neat, round wound
measuring between 3 and 7 mm is not what one would expect from an
exiting 6.5 mm rifle bullet. In fact, tests performed for the
Commission at Edgewood Arsenal demonstrated that such wounds
typically measure up to 15 mm. (17H846)</span></strong></span></span></strong></div>
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></strong><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></strong></div>
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">None
of this matters in the least to Reitzes. He dismisses it all with the
wave of a hand and states matter-of-factly that “they [the Parkland
staff] were wrong”. He offers no explanation, elaboration,
or—heaven forbid!—discussion of the evidence. Instead he cites a
“A study published in 1993 in the </span></strong><em><span style="font-weight: normal;">Journal
of the American Medical Association...</span></em><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">comparing
the post-mortem findings of a board-certified forensic pathologist to
the previous assessments made by trauma specialists”. According to
Reitzes, “the study found that the trauma specialists made errors
about the nature of bullet wounds (such as the number of bullets
involved and in distinguishing between entrance and exit wounds) in
52 percent of the cases.” Whilst this is an intriguing statistic,
Reitzes never explains how it relates to the observations of the
Parkland staff, let alone how it supports his contention that they
were wrong.</span></span></em></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></em></div>
<span style="font-weight: normal;"><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
Reitzes tells it, the </span></span></em><em><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">JAMA
</span></i></em><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">study
addresses the </span></span></em><em><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">assessment</span></i></em><em><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
of wounds, i.e. the question of entrance versus exit. But this has
nothing to do with the location and size of the wounds observed by
the Parkland trauma room staff. </span></span></em><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">It
in no way suggests that a Professor of Neurosurgery, as was Dr.
Clark, would be unable to tell the back from the front of the head.
Nor that qualified physicians like Dr. Perry and Dr. Carrico would be
unable to tell smooth from ragged or 3 mm from 15 mm. </span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">So
what exactly does Reitzes think the Parkland doctors were wrong
about? He cannot be saying that the autopsy showed they were wrong
about the damage to the right rear of the skull because the autopsy
report confirms that “the large irregular defect of the scalp and
skull on the right” extended into the “occipital” region (in
fact, the X-rays show extensive damage to the upper right rear of the
skull). And Reitzes cannot be saying that they were proven wrong
about the size and appearance of the wound in the throat because that
would be absurd. As chief pathologist Dr. Humes explained in his
Commission testimony, he had been unaware of the wound in the throat
when he performed the autopsy because a tracheotomy had been
performed on top of it at Parkland Hospital. It wasn't until the
following day, when he no longer had access to the President's body,
that Humes spoke to Dr. Perry and learned of its existence. (2H362)
But by then it was too late to ascertain the true nature of the
wound. </span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-style: normal;"><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
can only assume that what Reitzes means to say is that critics are
wrong to infer from the testimony of the Parkland physicians that
shots were fired from the front. But the </span></span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">JAMA
</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">study
he cites fails to support that proposition. A study which suggests
“the odds that a trauma specialist will correctly interpret certain
fatal gunshot wounds are no better than the flip of a coin” does
not change the fact that the wounds were where they were and looked
how they looked. The hole in the throat was still a “very small,
smooth wound”. And the damage to the head as seen at Parkland was
still in “the right posterior portion of the skull”. </span></span></strong></span></div>
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><strong>
</strong></span><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Nothing
that Reitzes has to offer in any way demonstrates that the Parkland
professionals were wrong in their key observations.</span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<strong><b>Blow-Ups</b></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Reitzes
spends a few paragraphs discussing Mary Moorman's famous Polaroid
photograph which shows, in rather fuzzy detail, the Grassy Knoll
approximately 1/5 of a second after the fatal head shot. Picking an
easy target, he largely concentrates on describing how researcher
David Lifton saw various assassins in the photograph that were, in
actual fact, all as imaginary as his ridiculous body alteration
theory. Reitzes also dedicates a paragraph to Gary Mack's “Badge
Man” image which gathered some interest when it first appeared on
television in 1988 but few critics take seriously nowadays.
Unsurprisingly, the most intriguing find—made by author Josiah
Thompson in 1967—barley gets a mention. </span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<span style="font-family: inherit;">
<strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">As
Thompson explained in his classic book, </span></strong><strong><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Six
Seconds in Dallas</span></i></strong><strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
to see if “the hypothesis of a shot from the stockade fence”
could be “validated by the Moorman picture”, he compared it to
another photograph taken from her position some time later. What he
discovered was that an “anomalous shape” appeared along the fence
line in Moorman's photograph that was not present in the comparison
picture. He then took eyewitness S.M. Holland “to the assassination
site and asked him to stand in the position where he found the
curious footprints and saw the smoke”. Thompson took himself back
to Moorman's position and saw that, remarkably, Holland's head
“appeared in the exact position defined by the shape” in the
Polaroid. (Thompson, p. 127)</span></span></strong></span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;"><br /></span></span></span></strong></div>
<span style="font-style: normal;"><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<strong><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Whilst
the above might be dismissed as a simple coincidence, it becomes all
the more interesting in light of evidence first made public by the
House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1978. The HSCA was
presented with a Dallas Police dictabelt recording made at the time
of the assassination that, according to analysis by the top acoustics
experts in the United States, contained an impulse with the acoustic
fingerprint of a shot fired from the Grassy Knoll. When the
Committee's experts were asked to pin down the location of the
alleged Grassy Knoll gunman, their analysis pointed to the very same
spot behind the fence—approximately 8 feet left of the corner—in
which Holland stood and in which the anomalous shape appears in
Moorman's picture. (8HSCA29) As Thompson </span><a href="http://www.c-span.org/video/?183565-1/warren-report-lone-assassin-theory-part-1" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: inherit;">later noted</span></a><span style="font-family: inherit;">, this means that
there is a “remarkable convergence of evidence”, eyewitness,
photographic and acoustic, “concerning not just a shot from the
Knoll from some shadowy corner, but the exact location of a shot from
the Knoll...The evidence doesn't lead to various locations and to
various battles over which location is correct. Rather, it leads to
one, single, unambiguous location.”</span></span></span></strong></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br />
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
</span><div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
</strong><br />
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western">
<br /></div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-62393506344815089762014-06-24T08:49:00.001-07:002014-06-26T06:06:18.747-07:00Omission, Misrepresentation & Oversimplification: How Dave Reitzes Gets it Wrong Part 1<div style="text-align: justify;">
Last year, the clearly misnamed <em>Skeptic </em>magazine published an article titled "<a href="http://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/jfk-conspiracy-theories-at-50-how-the-skeptics-got-it-wrong-and-why-it-matters/#References" target="_blank">JFK CONSPIRACY THEORIES AT 50: How the Skeptics Got It Wrong and Why It Matters</a>". The article was written by Dave Reitzes, himself a conspiracy theorist until he "saw the light" a few years ago. Having read the piece, it is abundantly clear to me that its purpose was not, as was claimed, to remind us "that the job of a skeptic is to use critical thinking to properly assess the evidence", but was simply to lump all of those who don't believe the official story of the Kennedy assassination together for ridicule and marginalisation. Being one of those who firmly believes that there was a conspiracy behind the assassination, some might expect me to begin this response by attacking and belittling Reitzes himself. But as I believe the man who pops up on JFK forums every now and then solely to patronize and provoke—or "troll" to use the popular vernacular—would only enjoy it, I have no intention of giving him the satisfaction. Instead I shall concentrate on his most important arguments (such as they are) regarding the evidence. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>The Grassy Knoll Witnesses</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong><br /></strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Since virtually day one, critics have suspected, based on eyewitness accounts, that a shot or shots were fired at President Kennedy by a gunman stationed behind the fence on top of the now infamous "Grassy Knoll". So it's really no surprise to see Reitzes begin his anti-conspiracy rant here. It has been estimated that there were up to 700 witnesses in Dealey Plaza that day and, as Reitzes admits, their opinions as to the source of shots were very much divided. Long-time researcher, Stewart Galanor, compiled a <a href="http://www.history-matters.com/analysis/witness/Sort216Witness.htm" target="_blank">survey of 216 known witness accounts</a> and reported that, of those with an opinion as to the source of gunfire, 48 believed the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository whereas 52 thought they came from the Knoll. Many would argue that this suggests shots were fired from both directions but, for obvious reasons, Warren Commission apologists and anti-conspiracy buffs like Reitzes choose to explain things differently.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reitzes makes reference to the "confusion, shock, and pandemonium at the scene of the crime" and "the fragile nature of eyewitness testimony—particularly during moments of highly elevated stress". He also notes that a "bioacoustics expert conducting experiments in Dealey Plaza for the House Select Committee reinvestigating the crime in 1978" noted that there were “strong reverberations and echoes”. And he provides a quote from the "authoritative textbook" <em>Firearms Investigation Identification and Evidence </em>which states, “It is extremely difficult to tell the direction [from which a shot was fired] by the sound of discharge of a firearm.” Reitzes adds, "The authors go on to note that 'little credence' should be placed in such testimony." </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
That last part is, for me, the most immediately interesting because it reveals a lot about Reitzes' methodology and intellectual dishonesty. Despite the impression he tries to convey in the main text of his article, Reitzes has not read what he nonetheless assures is "the authoritative textbook", <em>Firearms Investigation Identification and Evidence</em>. His footnote reveals that the quotes he provided from that book actually came to him second-hand via Vincent Bugliosi's awful lone nut screed, <em>Reclaiming History</em>. But Reitzes unsurprisingly chose not to use the complete second quotation which reads, "little credence...should be put in what anyone says about a shot <em>or even the number of shots</em>. These things coming upon him suddenly are generally extremely inaccurately recorded in his memory." [my emphasis] (Bugliosi, p. 848) Reitzes was careful to eliminate the highlighted part about the number of shots. Why? Because he wants to have his cake and eat it.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Because it falls in line with the Warren Commission findings, Reitzes makes a big song and dance about the fact that "81 percent of the witnesses who expressed an opinion believed there had been precisely three shots". So, whilst doing his best to convince readers that eyewitness testimony about the sound of gunshots is inherently unreliable and, therefore, the number of witnesses who thought they heard shots from the Knoll is essentially meaningless, Reitzes nonetheless implies that the fact that a large number of witnesses thought they heard three shots is still to be considered significant. Obviously, quoting his chosen experts on that particular point would not have helped his case. So he carefully excised the inconvenient parts of the quotation. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Given the "strong reverberations and echoes" that Reitzes mentioned, the large number of people reporting hearing three shots is actually more odd than it is compelling. Last year, NOVA's <em>Cold Case: JFK</em> special featured acoustics expert, Professor Michael Hargather. He explained to viewers that "Multiples buildings, multiple locations that the shockwaves reverberate off of can give us multiple sound signatures...In a complicated geometry like Dealey Plaza in Dallas, you could get multiple shock reflections in that geometry. And so someone could hear multiple sounds from a single shot." That being the case, it is reasonable to suggest that, if they were working from their own uninfluenced memories, a good percentage of the Dealey Plaza witnesses should have reported hearing more shots than they did. So why did so many recall hearing three? As it turns out, the Warren Commission provided the most reasonable explanation: "Soon after the three empty cartridges were found, officials at the scene decided that three shots were fired, and that conclusion was widely circulated by the press. The eyewitness testimony may be subconsciously colored by the extensive publicity given the conclusion that three shots were fired." (Warren Report, p. 100-111)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reitzes also fails to tell the whole story when discussing the "bioacoustics expert" who informed the House Select Committee on Assassinations of the aforementioned "strong reverberations and echoes" observed during test shots fired in Dealey Plaza. In actual fact, there was not one but three psychoacoustic experts present for the on-site tests; Dr. D.M. Green, Dr. Dennis McFadden and Professor Frederick Wightman. Whilst three sequences of test shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository or the Grassy Knoll, the experts placed themselves at various locations in the plaza and recorded their impressions as to the origin of the sounds. The results were unambiguous. Shots fired from the TSBD sounded like they came from the TSBD and shots from the Knoll sounded like shots from the Knoll. (see HSCA Hearings & Appendix Vol. 8, p. 144) It is difficult to say precisely what relevance this has to a study of the assassination witnesses since, as the experts noted, "The emotional condition of our observers during the test and the emotional condition of the people during the assassination were undoubtedly quite different." (Ibid, p. 146) But there can be little doubt that it undermines Reitzes' attempt to dismiss all reports of shots from the Knoll as simply echoes or reverberations. And this is especially true in light of the visual observations Reitzes was careful to make no mention of. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Several witnesses, including S.M. Holland, Richard Dodd, James Simmons and Thomas Murphy, reported seeing puffs of smoke coming from behind the picket fence atop the Knoll during the shooting. When called to testify by the Warren Commission, Holland recalled hearing "four shots", the third or fourth of which was accompanied by "a puff of smoke" coming "right out from under those trees". (6H244) Simmons, who was not called to testify, told author Mark Lane in a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmxzB3AYNh0" target="_blank">filmed interview</a> that he had heard a sound like a "loud firecracker or a gunshot" coming from behind the wooden fence "and there was a puff of smoke that came underneath the trees on the embankment". Almost immediately after the shooting stopped, both Holland and Simmons ran to the area behind the wooden fence, apparently to see if they could find the shooter, but it took them a minimum of two minutes to reach the area and, as Holland noted, "They could have easily have gotten away before I got there". (Mark Lane, <em>Rush to Judgment</em>, p. 35) Consequently all they found, according to Simmons, was "footprints in the mud around the fence, and...on the wooden two-by-four railing on the fence" as well as "on a car bumper there, as if someone had stood up there looking over the fence". (Ibid, p. 34) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Lone nut authors like Gerald Posner and Vincent Bugliosi—both of whom are cited by Reitzes—have claimed that what witnesses like Holland and Simmons saw could not have been smoke from a rifle because modern ammunition is "smokeless" and, in Posner's words, "seldom creates even a wisp of smoke". (Posner, <em>Case Closed</em>, p. 256) This is not so, however, according to firearms expert Monty Lutz who told the HSCA that it would indeed have been "possible for witnesses to have seen smoke if a gun had been fired from that area". Lutz explained that "both 'smokeless' and smoke producing ammunition may leave a trace of smoke that would be visible to the eye in sunlight. That is because even with smokeless ammunition, when the weapon is fired, nitrocellulose bases in the powder which are impregnated with nitroglycerin may give off smoke, albeit less smoke than black or smoke-producing ammunition. In addition, residue remaining in the weapon from previous firings, as well as cleaning solution which might have been used on the weapon, could cause even more smoke to be discharged in subsequent firings of the weapon."(HSCA Vol. 12, p. 24-25) Thanks to the internet, we don't need to rely on dishonest authors like Posner and Bugliosi, or even experts like Lutz. It is a simple matter to find videos like <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oK72g7mfvA&feature=related" target="_blank">this one</a> showing a single rifle shot creating a considerable amount of smoke.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Reitzes ends his "discussion" of the Grassy Knoll witnesses by pointing out that "of the dozens of witnesses who described the sound of the shots, very few (you could count them on one hand) said that they came from more than one direction", which is very true. But although Reitzes obviously hopes to leave the impression that this somehow supports the official story, in light of the "confusion, shock, and pandemonium at the scene of the crime" to which he alluded—and the results of the HSCA's psychoacoustic tests which he ignored—it is difficult to know precisely how much significance to attach to it. It is certainly reasonable to suggest that, for many of the witnesses, their impression as to the source of the shots was informed by only one of the shots they heard and they naturally assumed that the other sounds were coming from the same direction.</div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-34047022936710754792014-06-20T05:55:00.000-07:002014-06-20T05:57:38.915-07:00The Watchman Waketh but in Vain: Howard Willens Responds<br />
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">Back in March of this year, former Warren Commission lawyer Howard
Willens added to his blog an ill-advised and thoroughly inadequate
response to my review of his misnamed book, <i>History Will Prove Us
Right</i><span style="font-style: normal;">. In my review I pointed
out a number of glaring omissions by the author and provided several
examples of blatant dishonesty on his part. I summed up Willens's
stance as one of obvious denial, advising that he needed to wake up
and admit the world was round, and ultimately concluded his book was
simply not worth reading. I showed, using in many instances the
official evidence, that the Commission began with dishonest
intentions and operated with a pre-ordained outcome in mind. Not
surprisingly, Willens, who has taken over the indefatigable David
Belin's role as principle defender of the Commission, was none too
pleased with my fact-based appraisal. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-style: normal;"></span><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">Willens first takes issue with my use of the now infamous Katzenbach
memo which, he says, I use to support my “proposition that the
Commission's investigation was a total fraud on the American people.”
Actually, I used much more than just that memo to demonstrate my
point. I showed how, the day after the assassination, President
Johnson was shocked by information he received from the CIA
implicating Oswald in a plot orchestrated by Castro. I showed how
Johnson used that information to twist Earl Warren's arm into
chairing the Commission, impressing upon him the importance of
avoiding war with the Soviets. And I quoted from a memo of Warren's
first meeting with the Commission's staff in which he passed the
message on, emphasising that “this was an occasion on which actual
conditions had to override general principles.” But, just like in
his book, Willens doesn't want to talk about any of this. He limits
the discussion to the Katzenbach memo which, quite ridiculously, he
still cannot bring himself to quote from or put into context.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-style: normal;">
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
Let's do that now.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
Only hours after Lee Harvey Oswald was gunned down by Jack Ruby,
Deputy Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach wrote the following: “The
public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did
not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence
was such that he would have been convicted at trial...Speculation
about Oswald’s motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have
some basis for rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy
or (as the Iron Curtain press is saying) a right–wing conspiracy to
blame it on the Communists.” </span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
It is absolutely clear from the above that long before any such thing
had been proven, Katzenbach was flatly suggesting the American people
needed telling that the evidence established there had been no
conspiracy and Oswald was the lone assassin. But as I noted in my
review, at that point in time there was not a single eyewitness
against Oswald and his prints had not been found on the alleged
murder weapon. In fact, only the previous morning, FBI Director J.
Edgar Hoover had stated in a phone conversation with LBJ that “The
evidence that they have at the present time is not very very strong.”
A few minutes later, Hoover candidly admitted, “The case as it
stands now isn't strong enough to be able to get a conviction.”
Between the time of that phone call and the time Katzenbach sat down
to write his memo, the only thing of substance that had changed was
that the accused assassin was now dead and would not have to face
trial. </span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><strong>
</strong>Contrary to what Katzenbach advised the public be told, on the
evening of November 24, 1963, not only was the evidence not “such
that he [Oswald] would have been convicted at trial”, but everyone
in government had plenty of reason to suspect a conspiracy. In fact,
at that time, the CIA was still feeding the White House disturbing
reports of Oswald's alleged activities in Mexico City shortly before
the assassination. As I wrote in my review:</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><i>On Saturday,
November 23, LBJ met twice with CIA director John McCone who briefed
him about Oswald's alleged visit to Mexico City two months earlier.
Based on information sent to headquarters by the CIA's Mexico City
station, McCone reported that Oswald had been in contact with Soviet
consular Valery Kostikov, whom it was alleged was an expert in
assassinations. Shaking Johnson up some more, the CIA followed this
up on Monday, November 25, with a cablegram from Mexico City Station
Chief Winston Scott, who claimed to have uncovered evidence that
Castro, with Soviet support, had paid Oswald to kill Kennedy. </i></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Katzenbach later
admitted in his testimony before the House Select Committee on
Assassinations that he had been fully aware of the reports coming out
of Mexico City. So he had to have known that there were many credible
leads still to be followed regarding a possible conspiracy (assuming
one considers the CIA credible), just as he had to have known—as
Hoover did—that there was no evidence proving Oswald guilty of
pulling the trigger. Put into this context, the Katzenbach memo can
only be viewed as a blatant instigation of a whitewash. There is
quite simply no other reasonable point of view so it is no surprise
that even his “rebuttal” Willens cannot bring himself to divulge
or face these facts.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">According
to Willens, it is “sheer foolishness” to suggest that Johnson,
Katzenbach, or anyone else influenced the Commission or its staff.
“When I was asked to assist the Commission,” he writes, “neither
Katzenbach nor anyone else gave me directions as to what I should
do...” Whilst in all honesty I doubt Willens is telling the truth,
I obviously cannot prove it. But what I can say is that his colleague
on the Commission staff, Wesley Liebeler, apparently had a different
story to tell when he took a very important witness named Silvia Odio
to dinner after taking her first testimony. According to Odio's
interview with Church Committee investigators, Liebeler had stated
that evening, </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">"Well,
you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we
have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up."
Asked if Liebeler had really said that, Odio replied, “Yes, sir, I
could swear on that.” (</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>Probe</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
Vol. 3 No. 6)</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;">In his continued attempt to
bolster the integrity of his colleagues, Willens repeats the old
canard that “most of the staff lawyers were eager to prove that the
FBI's initial report was incorrect in some important respects and to
find that a conspiracy existed.” All I can really say in response
is that if you believe this nonsense, then I have a bridge to sell
you. I mean, really, was Joseph Ball looking to prove the FBI wrong
when he blatantly led Helen Markham into identifying Oswald as the
killer of Dallas Police officer J.D. Tippit? Was Wesley Liebeler
looking for a conspiracy when he failed to ask Patrolman Joseph Smith
for a description of the fake Secret Service Agent on the Grassy
Knoll? What about Arlen Specter when he warned Dallas Doctor Ronald
Jones that he didn't want him talking about shots from the front?
(see <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuZCxT88cMo" target="_blank">Parkland Trauma Room One Reunion video</a> at approx. 29:10) Or
David Belin when he suborned perjury from Texas School Book
Depository employee Charles Givens? As the old saying goes, actions
speak louder than words. And the actions of the Commission's staff
clearly demonstrate that finding a conspiracy was the last thing on
their minds.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
In my review, I pointed out that when Willens was given the job of
staffing the Commission, he did not look for experienced, independent
investigators and instead hired a bunch of Ivy league lawyers.
Willens responded by pointing out that the “FBI, CIA, Secret
Service, and other federal agencies” had been investigating the
assassination for six weeks before the Commission began its work.
Which of course is part of the problem. Those agencies, who misled
and withheld important information from the Commission, should have
been suspects and not the principle investigators. Ah! But, Willens
claims, the Commission did not rely on the FBI to supply the
evidence. Oh no. It “based its conclusions” on “the sworn
testimony from 550 witnesses”. Which is about as weak and
misleading a response as I can imagine. Who was it that went out and
found the vast majority of those witnesses and told the Commission
who it needed to speak to? Oh, that's right, the FBI and “other
federal agencies”. And in numerous cases they worked hard to ensure
those witnesses would testify in a “favourable” manner.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
<span style="font-weight: normal;">A
perfect example would be the case of friend and aide to President
Kennedy, Kenny O'Donnell, who was riding in the Secret Service car
behind the Presidential limousine when the shots rang out. As
O'Donnell later revealed to House Speaker Tip O'Neil, “I told the
FBI what I had heard [two shots from behind the grassy knoll fence],
but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must
have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to.
I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the
family.” (O'Neil, </span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Man
of the House</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 178) Riding in the follow-up car with O'Donnell was Dave Powers
who corroborated O'Donnell's account in an interview with authors
Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann, saying he was pressured to change
his testimony “for the good of the country”. (</span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Ultimate
Sacrifice</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 106) </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Then
there is the case of Dallas physician Dr. Malcolm Perry who, on the
afternoon of November 22, told the press that JFK had an entrance
wound in his throat only to seemingly change his mind when he
appeared before the Commission months later. As the Church Committee
discovered in 1975, Dr. Perry's change of heart was a direct result
of pressure applied by Secret Service Agent Elmer Moore who went on
to play a curious role as somebody's mole on the Commission. (Jim
DiEugenio, </span></span><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">Reclaiming
Parkland</span></i><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">,
p. 143-144)</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">As
we can see from the examples above, in important instances testimony
taken by Commission lawyers was tainted by the fact that the federal
agents who acted as its investigators had gotten to the witnesses
first. And that's the witnesses the FBI wanted to deal with. There
were many more whom the Bureau simply ignored or, if they could not,
worked hard to discredit. And the Commission played along. On top of
this is the fact that, despite Willens's protestations, the
Commission did rely almost exclusively upon the FBI for the
collection and analysis of all crucial physical and forensic
evidence. The only time the Commission sought “outside” expertise
was when the FBI reported that the bullets removed from Officer
Tippit could not be traced to Oswald's revolver. In that instance the
Commission went out of its way to find itself an expert who was
willing to say the opposite. So much for the “determined
independent lawyers” eager to “find a conspiracy”! A decade and
a half later, presumably using advanced techniques, the firearms
panel for the HSCA determined that the FBI had been right all along
and the Tippit bullets “could not be exclusively identified” as
having been fired from Oswald's pistol. (7HSCA377) Clearly the
Commission had rejected the best evidence in favour of that which
suited its agenda.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">Willens
finally attempts to dismiss the remaining 4000+ words of my review
with the following: </span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
“The rest of Hay’s review is a very familiar mishmash of
allegations claiming that the CIA immediately after the assassination
began a 'campaign to lay the blame for the assassination at Castro’s
feet' through an anti-Castro exile group that he claimed was funded
by the CIA and had some contact with Oswald during the summer of
1963.” As anybody who has read it can attest, there is far more to
the rest of my review than the story of Oswald and the DRE. I will go
into detail about what else Willens ignored below. But first, let's
set the record straight.</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
It is not simply an “allegation” that Oswald had contact with the
anti-Castro Student Revolutionary Directorate<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">—or
the DRE, as it was known—it is a fact. Perhaps Willens needs to go
back to his copy of the Warren report (p. 407) to read about how
Oswald was arrested in a street scuffle with DRE Delegate Carlos
Bringuier during the summer of 1963 and how the pair later appeared
together in a radio debate. Nor is it an “allegation” that the
DRE was funded by the CIA. As <a href="http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=500495" target="_blank">this CIA document</a> clearly states, the group was “conceived, created, and funded by
the CIA”. The DRE was overseen by a career Agency officer named
George Joannides who, in a brazenly obfuscatory move, was later
pulled out of retirement to act as liaison between the CIA and the
HSCA in the committee's requests for information about anti-Castro
groups. Needless to say, Joannides did not tell the HSCA about the
Agency's creation and control of the DRE nor was the Committee
informed of Joannides's role. Honestly, you couldn't make this stuff
up! And finally, that the CIA-funded DRE moved to link Oswald's name
to the Castro regime in the national press within hours of his arrest
is not an “allegation”, it's just what happened. (see 10HSCA85)</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">The
final point of substance in my review that Willens elects to comment
on has to do with the dubious appointment of former CIA Director
Allen Dulles to the Commission. Willens writes, “I have often
wondered myself as to why he was named...I have no first-hand
information about this appointment...” Hold the phone there, Howie.
You conveyed no such hesitance or ignorance in your book when you
wrote matter-of-factly that President Johnson “had asked Robert
Kennedy to suggest possible commission members from the private
sector. Kennedy proposed Allen Dulles...” (</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i>History
Will Prove Us Right</i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;">,
p. 26) Given that in my review I showed quite clearly that the
contemporary record entirely contradicted any such claim, I'm not
surprised Willens is backing off this nonsense now. I just wish he
had the courage and integrity to admit his error.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Willens
ends his response by chastising my “total absence of any
recognition that the critical findings of the Warren Commission have
been examined on several occasions since 1964 and found, without
exception, to be correct.” He goes on to say that I “fail to
acknowledge” the conclusions of the HSCA; namely that JFK was
struck by only two shots fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. Willens is
correct, I did not discuss the HSCA conclusions in my review. Nor
will I do so in detail here. I did not and do not have the time,
space, or inclination to do so then or now. I will simply note that
those conclusions are a sad reflection of the fact that, just like
the Warren Commission, the HSCA ended up being a political exercise
and not an honest investigation. Sure, the Committee started out
promisingly under Chief Counsel Richard Sprague. But when Sprague was
ousted for daring to challenge the CIA, and for making it clear that
he was determined to discover the full truth, the HSCA went straight
down the toilet. Sprague's replacement Robert Blakey was, in the
words of former HSCA staff investigator Gaeton Fonzi, “an
experienced Capitol Hill man” who “knew exactly what the
priorities of his job were by Washington standards, even before he
stepped in.” [for those who want to understand where and how the
HSCA went wrong, Fonzi's brilliant book </span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><i><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
Last Investigation</span></i></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
is the ideal starting point.]</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Now
let's get to some of the most important information in my review that
Willens did not even acknowledge let alone attempt to rebut. He could
not acknowledge it because it reveals his own dishonesty. And he
cannot not rebut it because it is the truth. In section V of my
review, I discussed the Commission's mishandling of the medical
evidence and Willens's attempted defense of it. I will not attempt to
include all of the details here—instead referring readers to my
original review—but essentially I showed how the Commission dealt
with three important issues: </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span><span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">1.
The throat wound was described by all professional medical personal
at Parkland Hospital as having all the characteristics of a typical
entrance wound.</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">2.
The back wound was probed at autopsy and found to be shallow with no
point of exit. </span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span><div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">3.
The autopsy photos showed the back wound to be lower than the hole in
the throat.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">I
used the transcript of the Commission's own executive session to show
that it was fully aware of what the autopsy photos revealed. I
explained how it chose not to publish the report of FBI Agents Sibert
and O'Neil, who were present at the autopsy, and avoided calling them
to testify in order to keep the shallow probing of the back wound out
of the record. And I noted how the Dallas doctors were pressured into
changing their opinions about the nature of the wound in the throat.
But Willens, as I explained, takes a different approach in his book.
He ignores the location of the back wound altogether so as to avoid
the trajectory problems with the Single Bullet Theory. But more
importantly he tries to make the controversy about the nature of the
two non-fatal wounds disappear by confusing events and attributing a
false mistake to the FBI. As I wrote in my review:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-GB"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><em>Willens...</em></span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><em>writes
that the FBI was mistaken about JFK's back wound because it “relied
in part on the initial, but inaccurate, information from Parkland
Hospital that the first bullet that hit Kennedy had not exited from
his body.” That's right, he conflates two separate events so that
he can effectively make the controversy about the throat wound vanish
whilst simultaneously making it appear as if the shallow probing of
the back wound at autopsy was nothing more than a mistaken
observation made by emergency room staff! This is one of the most
disgustingly dishonest things I have ever read in any book dealing
with the assassination of President Kennedy. It says a lot about
Willens's integrity</em>—</span></span></span><em><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">and
the desperation of the lone nut crowd in general-</span></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">that
he has to stoop so low. </span></span></span></em></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">What
can we say about Willens's integrity now, knowing that he read the
above passage and chose not to comment? I have exposed what I can
only characterize as a deliberate falsehood by the author intended to
deceive readers about the true facts of the Kennedy assassination and
Willens has nothing at all to say? Can Willens not see that this is
precisely why so many people will never accept the official story;
because defending it requires telling lies or ignoring inconvenient
truths? </span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Ultimately
I must ask, is Willens's massively deficient response to my review
really the best defense this guardian of the Warren Commission's
reputation can come up with? Does he really believe his shallow and
misleading reproof really has any hope of improving the Commission's
standing? Because he utterly failed in his stated intention of
exposing my “mistakes”. He failed because he ignored key facts
and omitted relevant details. He failed because he could not bring
himself to confront the evidence under discussion. He failed because
he could not even bring himself to admit his own gross errors and
deceptions. </span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><br /></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="font-style: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="en-US"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Truly
the watchman waketh in vain.</span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span><div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span><div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
</span></span></span></span></span><div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<br />
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: "Trebuchet MS", sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="LEFT" class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-57217839947035206762013-11-26T11:04:00.000-08:002013-11-29T03:55:44.316-08:00NOVA Cold Case JFK: A Case Study in Cherry-Picking and Misrepresentation<div style="text-align: justify;">
Thanks to the wonders of youtube, I finally got around to seeing the recent PBS/NOVA TV special,<em> Cold Case JFK, </em>which wasn't shown on UK terrestrial television. Although the website claims that the purpose of the show was to see if "modern forensic science" can "uncover new clues" about the assassination, it is obvious to anyone with more than two working brain cells that looking for "new clues" couldn't have been further from the minds of its producers and participants. Its true purpose was to rehabilitate the findings of the long-discredited Warren Commission by "proving" the Single Bullet Theory, and to dispel notions of a second shooter and, therefore, a conspiracy. In so doing, the producers of the show and its two ballistic experts, the father-and-son team of Luke and Mike Haag, cherry-picked and misrepresented the actual evidence in the case and shamelessly misled millions of viewers. A review of the facts fudged or ignored in <em>Cold Case JFK </em>demonstrates that the SBT is as impossible now as it was in 1964 when it was first proposed by Commission lawyer, Arlen Specter. And that the evidence of a second shooter remains as strong as ever.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Back in Time</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first and most obvious deception in the show is the elevating of JFK's back wound into his neck. This, of course, is what the Warren Commission did nearly 50 years ago in order to facilitate the SBT. They were able to get away with it then, for a short time at least, because they didn't publish the autopsy photos and instead published this deceptive drawing prepared at the direction of pathologist James, J. Humes:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Rydberg2_zps598335ad.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Rydberg2_zps598335ad.png" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For their computer animation simulating the path they claim the bullet took through President Kennedy, NOVA turned back the clock to when we were kept largely in the dark on the medical evidence, and adopted the Commission's entrance location:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/SBT1_zps51c6aacd.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="125" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/SBT1_zps51c6aacd.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
But as the makers of the show know full well, because they say so themselves, JFK's rear entry wound was not in his neck as the Warren Commission claimed, it was lower down on his back. In fact, according to the nine-member forensic pathology panel for the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), it was below the shoulders and below the wound in the throat. (7HSCA92)</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Back1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Back1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So what would happen if a bullet entered at this point in the back and followed a straight-line trajectory out the front of President Kennedy? The Discovery Channel knows the answer to this question. Because when they attempted to simulate the SBT in the real world, shooting at specially made torsos from a crane set at the height of the sixth floor window of the Texas School Book Depository, this happened:</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/SBTfail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/SBTfail.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div align="justify">
That's right, precisely as common sense would dictate, the bullet, travelling on a downward trajectory of 20 degrees, exited through the chest! This simple fact is, by itself, enough to invalidate the SBT. The makers of <em>Cold Case JFK </em>obviously knew this and so they moved the back wound inches above where it actually was in order to make an impossibility appear plausible. Thus their blatant dishonesty and their desire to validate the SBT at all costs was immediately revealed.</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div align="justify">
<strong>CE399: The "Mashed" Bullet?</strong></div>
<div align="justify">
Of the many objections raised to the SBT over the years, critics have had a hard time accepting that the bullet itself, dubbed Commission Exhibit 399, could have pierced seven layers of skin and flesh and smashed two bones only to appear in virtually pristine condition on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital. And it hasn't just been Joe public who has found the notion difficult to swallow. For example, famous pathologists Dr. Milton Helpern and Dr. Cyril Wecht both strongly objected to the Warren Commission's premise. In his 1979 testimony before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, Dr. Wecht remarked that he had repeatedly urged his colleagues in forensic pathology to come up with one bullet that had done what it was alleged CE399 had done and remained in such remarkable condition. "...at no time", he said, "did any of my colleagues ever bring in a bullet from a documented case...and say here is a bullet...it broke two bones in some human being, and look at it, its condition, it is pristine." (1HSCA337) More than 30 years after Dr. Wecht's testimony, we are still waiting for a similar example to be produced by defenders of the SBT.</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div align="justify">
For <em>Cold Case JFK</em>, Luke and Mike Haag pretended to address this issue by firing a Carcano bullet into pine boards. What they found is exactly what the late Dr. John Nichols reported decades ago; Carcano rounds are capable of penetrating three feet of pine whilst remaining in a near-pristine state. Which is all very interesting. But it doesn't address the real issue: What happens to Carcano bullets that penetrate flesh and bone? Thankfully, tests performed for the Warren Commission at Edgewood Arsenal have already answered this question for us. </div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/TestBullets_zps1bd93eee.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="231" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/TestBullets_zps1bd93eee.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
Seen in the picture above, CE853 represents a bullet fired through the rib of a goat. It is severely flattened with its lead core extruding from its base. CE856 is a bullet fired through the wrist of a human cadaver and it exhibits the "mushrooming" effect typical of a bullet that has struck bone. Each of these bullets has broken only one of the two bones attributed to CE399 which, as you can see, looks virginal by comparison. None of this was mentioned by NOVA. Instead, one of the show's talking heads, the objectionable John McAdams, tried to assure viewers that CE399 is more damaged than they've been led to believe. "If you look at it end on", he claims, "it's mashed very considerably". Mashed very considerably? This bullet?:</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="174" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
Who's he trying to kid? <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For his 1985 book, <em>Reasonable Doubt, </em>author Henry Hurt performed his own tests. As he wrote, "Firing these bullets into water consistently produced nearly pristine slugs, strikingly similar to the Magic Bullet." (Hurt, p. 385) In actual fact, the test bullet pictured in Hurt's book looks almost exactly like CE399, slightly flattened base-end and all. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/HurtBullet_zps1c8be1f7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="197" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/HurtBullet_zps1c8be1f7.png" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<strong>Yaw(n)</strong><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So how the hell could CE399 do all that damage and emerge looking just like a bullet that had been fired into water? This is an important question that supporters of the official fairy tale have struggled for decades to adequately address. But according to the Haag team, the answer lies in the supposed fact that the bullet was "yawing" or "tumbling" when it struck Governor Connally. This is actually not an original claim, it's as old as the SBT itself. And just like the SBT, it's based on little more than the desire of its proponents to believe it's true. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
To demonstrate their point, the Haag team fired Carcano rounds through blocks of ballistic soap and gelatin, presumably meant to simulate JFK's neck. Leaving a gap of three feet—which they claim is the distance from JFK's throat to Connally's back—they placed a "witness panel" made of sheet rock at the exit end of each block. According to the show's narrator, "The witness panel records the bullet's orientation after exiting Kennedy's neck." A close-up of the mark left on the panel by one of the test bullets shows a complete profile, demonstrating that the bullet was flying sideways when it struck. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Profile1_zpsac1b03a6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Profile1_zpsac1b03a6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Haag then informed viewers that "Connally's coat has this kind of a hole in it". "And", the narrator added, "so does Connally's back, according to his surgeon." This is pretty much what I expected they would say and yet somehow I was still disappointed by the dishonesty. The average viewer would take it for granted that what NOVA was telling them was accurate. But it wasn't. It was a blatant misrepresentation.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Let's take a look at the image that accompanied that claim:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Eliptical1_zps2a9f20f6.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Eliptical1_zps2a9f20f6.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The reader will notice the words "small" and "roughly elliptical" which were lifted from the testimony of Connally's thoracic surgeon, Dr. Robert Shaw. Just how small is small? Let's check Dr. Shaw's testimony and find out:</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
SPECTER: Will you describe Governor Connally's condition, Dr. Shaw, directing your attention first to the wound on his back?<br />
SHAW: When Governor Connally was examined, it was found that there was a small wound of entrance, roughly elliptical in shape, and approximately a cm. and a half in its longest diameter, in the right posterior shoulder, which is medial to the fold of the axilla. (6H85)</div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So, according to Dr. Shaw, the entrance wound was only 1.5 cm long, which is half the length of the bullet and half the length of the mark left on the witness panel. The holes in the Governor's coat and shirt were approximately the same length, measuring 1.7 and 1.3 cm respectively. (7HSCA138-41) Clearly, then, the bullet was not flying sideways when it struck Governor Connally. I'm sure that the Haag team would still argue that the roughly elliptical nature of the wound was still evidence of a tumbling bullet. But then they're going to have to explain why the entrance wound in the back of President Kennedy's head also measured 1.5 cm (ARRB MD3). Was that also tumbling? If so, why? Their own tests demonstrated how stable Carcano rounds were before striking a surface. So what had that bullet struck before it reached JFK 's head that caused it to yaw? In truth, we don't need the Haag's to answer these questions. Because, as Dr. Shaw explained in his testimony, an entrance wound is often elliptical when it "enters at a right angle or at a tangent. If it enters at a tangent there will be some length to the wound of entrance." (6H95) So, whatever the Haag team or any other Warren Commission apologist wants you to believe, there is no good reason to conclude that the bullet was tumbling when it hit Connally.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But NOVA dropped in another fact that they wanted viewers to believe supports their contention that the Connally bullet had already struck Kennedy: the lack of "bullet wipe" around the entrance hole in Connally's jacket. As Haag described it, "bullet wipe" is the "smudgy material on the surface of a bullet that literally wipes off as it pushes through the first surface it encounters." By bringing up the lack of bullet wipe on Connally's jacket, Nova makes the implication that it couldn't have been the first surface the bullet touched. Honestly, even after they moved the back wound up into the neck, I still couldn't believe that NOVA tried to get away with this one. The truth is that whether JFK and Connally were struck by the same bullet or not, no bullet wipe would have been found on the Governor's jacket. Why? Because before it went to the FBI for examination, Connally's wife sent his clothing to the cleaners! In fact, FBI Agent Robert Frazier testified that because of the cleaning, he couldn't even state for certain that the hole was made by a bullet. (5H63) It is my belief that if NOVA knew enough to know that there was no bullet wipe on the jacket, then they had to know that it had been cleaned before examination took place. So once again they deliberately tried to hoodwink their viewers.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And it wasn't just the already established facts that NOVA and the Haag's misrepresented to make their case, but also the results of their own experiments. "In test after test", the narrator opined, the Carcano bullet moves straight through tissue simulant, but tumbles when it re-enters the air." Luke Haag added, "That was a real surprise. I can't explain it..." The impression they tried to create was that the bullets stayed straight and true until, in Haag's words, they were "back out into the atmosphere". The reason he can't explain it, is because it's not true. Just a few minutes before making those claims, NOVA showed the path a bullet took through a block of soap. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Soap2_zps17907a3c.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Soap2_zps17907a3c.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
As is obvious, the bullet moves straight for the first few inches, creating a straight and even channel through the block. But as it gets near the exit, "the wound path gets wider". This, Haag explains, is because it is "just starting to yaw". That's right, it starts to yaw <em>before </em>it gets "back out into the atmosphere". And, in fact, one of their tests through gelatin shows this just as clearly because the bullet is flying almost vertically as it exits:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/YawOnExit_zpsde8252ca.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/YawOnExit_zpsde8252ca.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So why the lie? </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The answer is JFK's throat wound. Parkland Hospital's Dr. Malcolm Perry described this wound as being approximately 3-5 mm in diameter (17H29) and having all the appearances of an entrance wound. As he explained in his Warren Commission testimony, "It's edges were neither ragged nor were they punched out, but rather clean cut." (3H372) Dr. Charles Carrico concurred describing the wound as "4 -7 mm...It was, as I recall, rather round and there were no jagged edges or stellate lacerations." (6H3) Dr. Ronald Jones summed it up as a "very small, smooth wound." (Ibid, 54) It is perfectly clear that if indeed a bullet did exit JFK's throat, it was <em>not </em>tumbling. Just compare the above descriptions to this picture of the exit hole created by a bullet "starting to yaw" its way out of the block of soap:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Soap1_zps1efdc768.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="171" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Soap1_zps1efdc768.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Obviously this looks nothing like the wound described by the Dallas doctors so NOVA knew they couldn't get away with saying that the bullet was tumbling as it left JFK's throat. Instead they pretended that the bullets in their tests didn't start tumbling until they re-entered the air even though they had already demonstrated otherwise!</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Amazing the lengths these people will go to defend the indefensible, isn't it?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Head Games</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Having demonstrated to Luke Haag's satisfaction that "the Single Bullet Theory as proposed by Arlen Specter is the correct one" (yawn, what a surprise), NOVA turned its attention to President Kennedy's head wound. Everybody knows that the Zapruder film shows JFK being slammed backwards and leftwards by the shot that exploded his skull. And most people agree that this is consistent with a shot fired from the right front, i.e. the area of the Grassy Knoll. This is, of course, supported by the fact that dozens of Dealey Plaza witnesses believed a shot or shots were coming from that very area. But NOVA cannot allow this to stand because it doesn't fit their lone gunman scenario. So they presented Professor Michael Hargather to propound on the difficulty of locating the source of gunshot sounds in urban environments. "Multiples buildings, multiple locations that the shockwaves reverberate off of", he said, "Can give us multiple sound signatures." NOVA claimed that with each gunshot, "an observer can hear two sounds; the crack of the bullet passing, followed by the blast of the gun that fired it." So, as Hargather summed it up, "In a complicated geometry like Dealey Plaza in Dallas, you could get multiple shock reflections in that geometry. And so someone could hear multiple sounds from a single shot." Intriguing stuff. But how does that explain why so many witnesses pointed to two fairly specific locations, the book depository and the knoll, as the source of shots? And if what they were hearing was multiple sounds from each shot reflecting off of buildings, shouldn't the witnesses have reported hearing many more shots than they did?<br />
<br />
Regardless, NOVA had once again fooled its viewers. This time into believing that all there was to it was some confusion among witnesses about what they heard. Not once did NOVA mention that a good number of witnesses—including S.M. Holland, Austin Miller, and Thomas Murphy—actually reported seeing puffs of smoke coming from behind the picket fence atop the knoll during the shooting. It has been claimed by Warren Commission apologists that modern ammunition is "smokeless" and therefore, whatever these witnesses saw, it couldn't have been gunsmoke from a Grassy Knoll assassin. But this is not true according to the firearms experts for the HSCA who said that "it would be possible for witnesses to have seen smoke if a gun had been fired from that area" because "both 'smokeless' and smoke producing ammunition may leave a trace of smoke that would be visible to the eye in sunlight. That is because even with smokeless ammunition, when the weapon is fired, nitrocellulose bases in the powder which are impregnated with nitroglycerin may give off smoke, albeit less smoke than black or smoke-producing ammunition. In addition, residue remaining in the weapon from previous firings, as well as cleaning solution which might have been used on the weapon, could cause even more smoke to be discharged in subsequent firings of the weapon."(12HSCA24-5) But you don't need to take these experts at their word, you can watch for yourself videos like <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oK72g7mfvA&feature=related" target="_blank">this one</a> on youtube showing considerable amounts of smoke from a single rifle shot.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ignoring all this and making a pretence of objectivity, NOVA used some fancy computer graphics to show that "a trajectory from the Grassy Knoll to Kennedy is possible" (as if we needed a 3D animation to understand that). Then they went out of their way to convince viewers that the medical evidence doesn't support a frontal shot. NOVA made much of the opinions of its pathology expert, Peter Cummings, that fracture patterns on the President's post-mortem X-rays indicate a bullet had entered the back of the skull. But there is very little dispute about this anyway. The rear entrance wound was observed and recorded at autopsy and is easily visible in the right lateral skull X-ray: <br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Picture3_zpsd8a2e361.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="190" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Picture3_zpsd8a2e361.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Equally observable on this X-ray is a track of "missile dust" through the skull that Cummings and NOVA made only passing reference to. We shall return to this point shortly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It was pointed out by author Josiah Thompson decades ago that that the rear entrance wound is much lower on the skull than the proposed exit site on the right side. This, of course, makes a straight-line trajectory through the skull impossible. The Warren Commission got around this by utilising another one of its deceptive diagrams, this time showing JFK's head leaning markedly forward as the bullet passed through:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/CE388_zps7f0888c2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/CE388_zps7f0888c2.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But as Thompson demonstrated in his book, <em>Six Seconds in Dallas</em>, the Zapruder film shows the position of Kennedy's head at frame 312, only 1/18th of a second before the bullet struck, was nothing like the above. And that placing the head in the correct position created a severe upward trajectory, close to this:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/ThompsonTrajectory_zps591f941a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="159" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/ThompsonTrajectory_zps591f941a.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
NOVA dealt with this seeming discrepancy by asserting simply that the bullet did not follow a straight-line trajectory. The show featured wounds ballistics expert, Larry Sturdivan, who explained to viewers that the skull bone "is hard enough and strong enough and dense enough to deform the bullet. When it destabilises it begins to yaw. As soon as it begins to yaw it develops a lift force, like an aeroplane wing, and it will inevitably take a curved path." In simpler terms, the bullet was deflected. In support of this contention, NOVA claimed that when Carcano rounds were fired through skulls at the "Bio-physics laboratory" they "did not follow a straight path inside the skull". They offered no proof of this claim but I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt since bullet deflection is hardly their invention. In any case, this brings us onto an important point about how NOVA used data selectively to support one scenario whilst ignoring that same data to discount another. Because, having admitted that bullets are easily deflected upon striking the skull, NOVA dismisses the possibility of a shot from the right front by stating that "a shot from the Grassy Knoll would have exited through the left side of Kennedy's brain, but that is largely undamaged."</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/KnollTrajectory_zps682c8085.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="174" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/KnollTrajectory_zps682c8085.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Of course, based on the information NOVA itself supplied, there is no reason to believe this conclusion. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now let's go back to the evidence that NOVA glossed over; the bullet fragments seen on the skull X-rays. NOVA reported that "The bullet that hit Kennedy's head fragmented, leaving pieces in the brain and in the car." This was their one and only comment on this crucial forensic evidence. They did not expand on it nor did they take a few seconds to show viewers where and how these fragments were distributed through the head. There's a good reason for this. And that is that the path of metallic debris is wholly inconsistent with the a Carcano round entering the back of the skull and is strong evidence of a second shot to the head, fired from the right front. The dozens of tiny particles in JFK's brain, known to experts as a "lead snowstorm", are evidence that the bullet essentially disintegrated after it struck the skull. This is itself evidence of the use of a different type of ammunition to the full metal jacket (FMJ) Carcano rounds Oswald is alleged to have used. The forensic literature is clear that the presence of a lead snowstorm is indicative of a soft-lead, hunting or "frangible" type of bullet since FMJ rounds are designed to stay largely in one piece without leaving a trail of lead fragments in their wake. In fact, the aforementioned Edgewood Arsenal tests showed that, even when they deform and break up, Carcano bullets do not disintegrate in this manner. At most, they leave a few larger fragments near the exit. (see Howard Roffman, <em>Presumed Guilty</em>, photo section) </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
But more important than any of this is the location of the fragments on JFK's X-rays.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/AnnXray4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="287" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/AnnXray4.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The red lines added to the above X-ray show the approximate axis of metallic debris. What should be immediately obvious to those paying attention is that the path laid out by these fragments is in no way related to the entrance wound in the back of the skull. As Dr. Joseph N. Riley has pointed out, the fragments in the brain and the damage to the cerebral cortex cannot be due to the shot described by the autopsy surgeons because the wounds are discontinuous. Dr. Riley, who has a Ph.D in neuroscience and specializes in neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology, says that the damage to the brain could only be the result of two separate bullet strikes. (<a href="http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf" target="_blank">see here</a>) That this second shot to the head (more likely the first to actually strike) was travelling from front to back is indicated by the distribution of the fragments. When a bullet disintergrates on striking a skull, the smaller, dust-like fragments are found closer to the entry point and the larger particles are found closer to the exit. This is because the larger fragments, having greater mass, have greater momentum and are carried further away from the point of entry. This is precisely what is seen in the X-ray above, with the smaller particles located at the right temple and the larger ones towards the top back part of the skull. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Little wonder, then, that NOVA chose not to go into detail about these bullet "pieces in the brain".</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Finally we come to NOVA's attempt at explaining away President Kennedy's dramatic backward motion. For this they relied again on Larry Sturdivan who offered viewers the same theory he gave to the HSCA in 1979: The neuromuscular reaction. According to Sturdivan: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>"The tissue inside the skull was being moved around. It caused a massive amount of nerve stimulation to go down his spine. Every nerve in his body was stimulated. Now, since the back muscles are stronger than the abdominal muscles, that meant that Kennedy arched dramatically backwards."</em></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em></em> </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Sound plausible? It shouldn't. As Dr. Donald Thomas explains: </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>"Sturdivan's postulate suffers from a patently anomalous notion of the anatomy. In any normal person the antagonistic muscles of the limbs are balanced, and regardless of the relative size of the muscles, the musculature is arranged to move the limbs upward, outward, and forward. Backward extension of the limbs is unnatural and awkward; certainly not reflexive. Likewise, the largest muscle in the back, the 'erector spinae', functions exactly as its name implies, keeping the spinal column straight and upright. Neither the erector spinae, or any other muscles in the back are capable of causing a backward lunge of the body by their contraction." </em>(Thomas, <em>Hear No Evil</em>, p. 341)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
And with that, the last of NOVA's bold claims is revealed for the sophistry it is.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Thank God It's Over</strong></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
This wasn't a fun piece to write. It was relatively easy, because there was really nothing new in the show, but it wasn't fun. Having to wade through this type of crap, all these half-truths and misrepresentations, as well as the god-awful pseudoscience, is more than a little tiring. Frankly, it's depressing. Over the last five decades, we have learned a lot about the assassination of JFK. Concerned citizens have dedicated good portions of their lives to studying the evidence provided by the Warren Commission and ultimately found themselves disproving the Commission's conclusions. To find NOVA trying to undo all of that in an hour-long TV special is somewhat exasperating. Especially when one considers the fact that, with the money and resources at their disposal, NOVA could have easily contributed something meaningful to our understanding of the case. That they chose instead to perpetuate the cover-up is shameful. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
We are all judged by our deeds, and when the truth about the assassination is finally accepted, history will judge NOVA, the Haag's and Sturdivan accordingly.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<strong>Addendum: More NOVA Nonsense</strong><br />
One point I neglected to address before was NOVA's claim that "Kennedy's shirt collar and tie show a bullet exited his throat". Hmmm. Do they really? Is the evidence as clear-cut here as NOVA makes it out to be? Let's see what FBI agent Robert Frazier had to say when he testified to the Warren Commission: "The hole in the front of the shirt <em>does not have the round characteristic shape caused by a round bullet entering cloth</em>. It is an irregular slit. It could have been caused by a round bullet, however, since the cloth could have torn in a long slitlike way as the bullet passed through it. But that is <em>not specifically characteristic of a bullethole</em> to the extent that you could say it was to the exclusion of being a piece of bone or some other type of projectile." (5H61) [my emphasis] And what about the tie? According to Frazier, the damage to the tie consists of a "nick on the left side...elongated horizontally, indicating a possible horizontal direction but it does not indicate that the projectile which caused it was exiting or entering at that point." (Ibid 62) Seems the evidence is a little more ambiguous than NOVA let on.<br />
<br />
So did a bullet exit through the shirt and tie? Well, in his Commission testimony, Dr. Charles Carrico appeared to indicate that the actual wound was above the level of the collar and tie:<br />
<br />
DULLES: Where did it enter?<br />
CARRICO: It entered?</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
DULLES: Yes.<br />
CARRICO: At the time we did not know.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
DULLES: I see.<br />
CARRICO: The entrance. All we knew this was a small wound here.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
DULLES: I see. And you put your hand right <em>above where your tie is</em>?<br />
CARRICO: Yes, sir; just where the tie--</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
DULLES: A little bit to the left.<br />
CARRICO: To the right. (3H361-362) [my emphasis]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Now Dulles's remark, "right above where your tie is", is somewhat ambiguous. So when Harold Weisberg interviewed Dr. Carrico a few years later, he asked him to clarify for the record where the wound was located. As Weisberg reported, Carrico told him it was "above the shirt collar. Carrico was definite on this...when I asked if he saw any bullet holes in the shirt or tie, he was definite in saying 'No'." (<em>Post Mortem</em>, p. 375-376) So, if not an exiting bullet, what else could have caused the slits? Weisberg postulated that they were made by the nurses who cut off the clothing with scalpels. Dr. David Mantik, who has been to the National Archives and inspected the autopsy materials himself several times, confirms this possibility: "The shirt does not exhibit any missing material, but such missing material would be expected for a real bullet. And the lacerations in the shirt do look like the work of a scalpel." (see <a href="http://www.ctka.net/2013/nova.html" target="_blank">here</a>) </div>
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg"><br />
<br />
</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg"> </a></div>
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg">
</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg"> </a></div>
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/MashedLOL_zpsa362b2ec.jpg">
</a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">
</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-75414057090480979912013-11-21T10:02:00.000-08:002013-11-21T10:02:20.803-08:00Send In the Clowns: Fetzer and Lifton Embarrass Themselves, Again!<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dr. Cyril Wecht is a courageous and highly intelligent man. There are few "famous faces" in JFK assassination research for whom I have equal respect. He is a world-renowned forensic pathologist and a former President of both the American Academy of Forensic Science and the American College of Legal Medicine. For the better part of 50 years he has been a vociferous critic of the Warren Commission's investigation, most especially the linchpin of its case against Lee Harvey Oswald, the Single Bullet Theory. And he was the one member of the House Select Committee on Assassinations forensic pathology panel who had the courage to say the king was nude and offered a spirited dissent to the panel's findings.</span></div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Jim Fetzer on the other hand is a someone for whom I have little respect. For someone who claims to have taught "critical thinking" for decades he is ridiculously gullible. From Zapruder film alteration to the claims of Judyth Baker, there are few wacky claims and crackpot ideas he doesn't endorse. But beware, if you should dare to publicly disagree with any one of his many, many paranoid beliefs, he'll remind you of his credentials and how much smarter he is than you. And if you still disagree then, well, you're obviously a CIA asset or some kind of government shill.</span></div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">David Lifton is worse. He's not gullible, he's a fabricator of insane and entirely baseless theories that do nothing but obscure the truth about the assassination and make it easy for Establishment defenders to lump the rest of us in with UFO spotters and other tin foil hat wearing kooks. It has been suggested that Lifton is not and never was a real critic of the official story and is in fact a deliberate disinformationist and it would not surprise me in the slightest if this were true. On top of this, he's a horrible human being. Anyone who has attempted to conduct a civil debate with him online can attest to what an arrogant, condescending, and thoroughly unlikeable soul he is. Earlier this year, I quit the Education forum when two people I respect were unfairly ejected without cause by forum owner, John Simkin. I very much enjoyed being a member and didn't really want to leave but felt I had to out of principle because what he was doing was simply not right. Ultimately, I was standing up for two people who did not deserve to be treated that way. Hours after I did so, Lifton felt the need to send me a message titled "Your X-tra large size self image" which said in total, "You are so totally self involved, over-inflated and mis-informed." That was the whole message. He didn't explain why he felt that way and I didn't ask. I just did what everybody else in JFK research should have been doing for the last 50 years and ignored him.</span></div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now these two clowns are, quite ridiculously, gunning for Dr. Wecht and embarrassing themselves in the process. In a recent online piece, </span><a href="http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/08/the-jfk-war-the-two-cyril-wechts-the-magic-bullet-and-the-hsca/" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The JFK War: The two Cyril Wechts, the "magic bullet", and the HSCA</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">, Fetzer and Lifton seem to suggest that Dr. Wecht has made some kind of about-turn, and imply that he is now endorsing a three-shot scenario and a "version of the 'magic' bullet theory". In so doing, they completely misrepresent what Dr. Wecht actually said in </span><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtUL-BpZAu8" target="_blank"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">the interview</span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> they have gotten themselves so worked up about. Nowhere in the interview does Dr. Wecht claim that only three shots were fired. Nowhere. What actually happened was that the interviewer asked, "So, how many times was the President shot?" and Dr. Wecht responded "The President was shot three times". This was a specific answer to a specific question. It's doesn't account for the shot to Governor Connally or any shots that missed because Dr. Wecht wasn't asked about them nor was he at any point asked how many shots were fired in total. It is beyond me to believe that Fetzer and Lifton have such poor comprehension skills that they didn't really understand this fact. Which leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that they are being deliberately disingenuous. </span></div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And they continue to do so when they falsely claim that Dr. Wecht "maintains...that <em>none of the</em> <em>doctors at Parkland observed the wound to his </em>[JFK's] <em>throat.</em>" [their emphasis] This is absolutely nothing like what Dr. Wecht said and they have to know it. What he actually said was that the throat wound was "completely missed by the <em>doctors who did the autopsy</em> that night. They never knew there was a gunshot wound of any kind in the front of the neck because the doctors at Parkland had done a tracheostomy..." [my emphasis] Completely contradicting Fetzer and Lifton's bullshit claim, Dr. Wecht then follows this up by pointing out that Dr. Malcom Perry had stated in 1986 that "there was no question in his mind...that the wound was a wound of entrance"! So not only was Dr. Wecht <em>correctly </em>pointing out that the throat wound was missed at the autopsy in Bethesda but he goes out of his way to point out that at least one of the doctors at Parkland saw the wound and insisted it was an entrance. So what the hell are Fetzer and Lifton harping on about? Why are they attacking Dr. Wecht for things he never said? What's this all about?</span></div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I think the answer to these questions lies within their article. Dr. Wecht's interview was, of course, conducted at his 50th anniversary conference in Pittsburgh. It was a pretty prestigious affair with talks from top drawer writers and researchers like Mark Lane, Jim DiEugenio, Oliver Stone, Jim Lesar, and Josiah Thompson. As Dr. Wecht noted, "...we have been fortunate, to be able to bring together, all of the top critic researchers, who have been working on this case—some going back 40, 45 years; others, more recently. But we have essentially all of them." Apparently, Fetzer and Lifton weren't happy with this remark. "...that is obviously false", they write. "He did not invite David S. Lifton, the author of Best Evidence (1980). He did not invite Jim Fetzer, the editor of Assassination Science (1998), of Murder In Dealey Plaza (2000), and of The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003)... He knows who we are and that we are not at his conference. So how can he (with a straight face) make such a blatantly false claim?" </span></div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span> </div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And there it is, what this is all about: Jealousy and slighted egos. Poor little Jim and Dave, the other kids just don't want to play with them. How childish. How utterly pathetic. What an embarrassment to themselves these clowns really are.</span></div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Times;"> </span></div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Times;"></span> </div>
<div align="center">
</div>
<div align="center">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-29799645332348100172013-06-13T07:42:00.000-07:002013-06-13T08:24:26.359-07:00The Head Wounds Revisited<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"></span></span></span><br />
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Back in August 2010, I
detailed on this blog my belief that author Dr. Donald B. Thomas was
most likely correct in asserting that President Kennedy was struck in
the head by only one bullet, fired from the grassy knoll. Having
revisited the works of radiologist Dr. Randy Robertson and
neuroscientist Dr. Joseph N. Riley, I have realized that Dr. Thomas
(and I) must be wrong and that, in fact, JFK's skull was hit by two
separate bullets<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx">one
from the right front and one from the rear. More than this, the
evidence shows that the rear entrance wound was precisely where
autopsy doctors Humes, Boswell, and Finck said it was in their
report: "2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the
external occiptal protuberance [EOP]”. </span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">
</span></span></span><br />
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFNCzLo4BF-VzohDCugOCcez1h3SN61_5nOL6IBsVmuR9HIxhwM6GM4RFYSSP4p3X-FTb93pHGa1feA72n8Zc8gHOxVoa_z_Q4EHkcS1EEy-8NjZHkkStHH7yE_9cUcFZxOttburEotIZ1/s1600/imagesCARIGKA8.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiFNCzLo4BF-VzohDCugOCcez1h3SN61_5nOL6IBsVmuR9HIxhwM6GM4RFYSSP4p3X-FTb93pHGa1feA72n8Zc8gHOxVoa_z_Q4EHkcS1EEy-8NjZHkkStHH7yE_9cUcFZxOttburEotIZ1/s1600/imagesCARIGKA8.jpg" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Much
of my own personal confusion about the rear entry wound was caused by
the contradictory official accounts; most especially the fact that
official U.S. government panels had moved the wound 10 cm up the
skull from where it was located by the autopsy surgeons. On top of
this, there appeared to be disagreement among the autopsy doctors
themselves about the very nature of this alleged entry hole, with Dr.
James J. Humes claiming that it was a "through-and-through"
hole in an otherwise intact plate of bone, Dr J. Thornton Boswell
saying it was a semi-circular notch on the margin of a larger defect,
and Dr. Pierre Finck appearing to give both versions at different
times. Add to this the fact that the Assassination Records Review
Board asked three independent experts to review the autopsy
materials, and none of them could locate an entry hole anywhere on
the skull, and it seemed obvious that the whole story was built on a
lie. The whole reason they couldn't get their stories about the
alleged rear entrance hole straight, I thought, was that no such hole
ever existed. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">I thought wrong.</span>
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong>Reason to Reconsider </strong></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">It
was reading Walt Brown's unique book The Warren Omission that sent me
back to the head wounds. Brown highlighted a passage from the
testimony of Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman that, although I had
read his testimony at least twice before, I had somehow managed to
forget. Asked by the Commission to describe what he saw at the
Bethesda autopsy, Kellerman described a large exit wound,
approximately 5 inches in diameter, in the right rear of the head. He
continued:</span></span></div>
<div align="justify">
<br />
KELLERMAN: Entry into this man's head was right
below that wound, right here.</div>
<div align="justify">
SPECTER: Indicating the <strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">bottom
of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower
third of the ear</span></strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">?</span></div>
<div align="justify">
KELLERMAN: <strong><span style="font-weight: normal;">Right.</span></strong>
But it was in the hairline, sir.</div>
<div align="justify">
SPECTER: In his hairline?</div>
<div align="justify">
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.</div>
<div align="justify">
SPECTER: Near the end of his hairline?</div>
<div align="justify">
KELLERMAN: Yes, sir.</div>
<div align="justify">
SPECTER: What was the size of that aperture?</div>
<div align="justify">
KELLERMAN: The little finger.</div>
<div align="justify">
SPECTER: Indicating the diameter of the little
finger.</div>
<div align="justify">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">KELLERMAN:
Right. (2H81)</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Despite
Arlen Specter's somewhat ambiguous interjection, "to the right
of the ear", it is clear that by describing an entry that was at
the "lower third of the ear" Kellerman provided independent
corroboration of an entrance wound low down on the back of the skull;
just as described in the autopsy report. And, in fact, Kellerman clarified this in a sketch he prepared for the HSCA:</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY2zOL4QkgHbbtoxRE8qux8ows-8vPlkvApnmdIC1gfIwSl7Ir1GADFcNiA-hGJJh6XaVLqPrdByxDnA75mwDofO8hgsyYfLuq5T__RE_I85is8XHXOw_kGDgRFvHtrVor3IMSjl5LKteO/s1600/Kellerman1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY2zOL4QkgHbbtoxRE8qux8ows-8vPlkvApnmdIC1gfIwSl7Ir1GADFcNiA-hGJJh6XaVLqPrdByxDnA75mwDofO8hgsyYfLuq5T__RE_I85is8XHXOw_kGDgRFvHtrVor3IMSjl5LKteO/s1600/Kellerman1.jpg" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">For
me, this was extremely compelling because I could see no reason for
Kellerman to have lied. With this is mind, I decided to go back to
the statements and testimonies of the various individuals present at
the autopsy. It occured to me that in my previous readings I had
always been looking for recollections of the exit wound. This time I
wanted to see who else, if anyone, remembered the entrance wound.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx">Re-reading
the statements reaffirmed my recollection that the majority of those
who saw the President's body only recalled the large 17 cm wound on
the right side of the head described in the autopsy report as an
exit. This is probably not surprising given how shocking this massive
wound must have been for many of them. However, there were a few
witnesses who gave evidence of an entrance wound in the rear. There
was Richard Lipsey, </span></span></span>aide to U.S. Army General
Wehle, <span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx">who
told Andy Purdy of the HSCA that there was an "entrance in the
lower head...just inside the hairline." [1] There was
FBI Agent Francis O'neill who told Purdy that "The autopsy
doctors felt that the bullet that entered the head struck the centre,
low portion of the head" [2] and prepared a sketch
showing this low entry wound. </span></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"></span></span></span> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWE8_vczE2xMEEzdPCq-uw2T7iohlMaIh1NYQVpcukjh1CEMyS8xwRTYpT95ZixvIYBpTQJ19JdMgVeNjUXO5QnbktxEPNwSgroWXX6MfU6EGexwHwYEV6lWTDU2eq4FWIAm8YQPD46277/s1600/ONEIL+AND+LIPSEY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiWE8_vczE2xMEEzdPCq-uw2T7iohlMaIh1NYQVpcukjh1CEMyS8xwRTYpT95ZixvIYBpTQJ19JdMgVeNjUXO5QnbktxEPNwSgroWXX6MfU6EGexwHwYEV6lWTDU2eq4FWIAm8YQPD46277/s320/ONEIL+AND+LIPSEY.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"></span></span></span> </div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"></span></span></span> </div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"></span></span></span>
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx">And
there was Bethesda photographer John Stringer whose ARRB testimony
includes this exchange:</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Q.
Now let me point out to you a circle, which is on the back of the
skull<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">¾</span></span>that's a small,
self-contained circle<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">¾</span></span>which
Dr. Boswell identified as being the entrance wound, or what he
believed to be the entrance wound. Does that small circle seem to be,
to you, accurate in terms of showing where the hole was in the --</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A.
I though it was over here.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Q.
When you say "over here", you're pointing more towards the
external occipital protuberance?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A.
Yes. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Q.
Is that right?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">A.
Yes. (pgs. 87-88)</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Alongside
Kellerman, these witnesses provided independent corroboration for an
entrance wound not simply in the rear, but lower down on the back of
the skull near the EOP<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">¾</span></span>precisely
where Humes and Boswell said it was. Conversely, I could not find a
single witness who saw an entrance wound higher up, in the "cowlick"
area, where most modern lone nutters wish to believe it was. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong>The "Tell Tale Trajectory Lines</strong></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Roughly
two decades ago, Dr. Randy Robertson and Dr. Joseph N. Riley
independently studied the X-rays and identified the same defect in
the skull as being the wound of entrance. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhtFB3WR8jIpLMRLvbafW3brXaSeWKxQadMvJSLtEIvRDLa27xQs3vdh0JdVt_8j66KFDlHMrfILUNV4y7RrSaoi6IY6fjCquvSFrJCffBRHR4XpvBqvh9xKNHAGjyms3x0JypTxfoIezD/s1600/AnnXray2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhtFB3WR8jIpLMRLvbafW3brXaSeWKxQadMvJSLtEIvRDLa27xQs3vdh0JdVt_8j66KFDlHMrfILUNV4y7RrSaoi6IY6fjCquvSFrJCffBRHR4XpvBqvh9xKNHAGjyms3x0JypTxfoIezD/s400/AnnXray2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">To his credit, researcher
Pat Speer (who understands as much about the medical evidence as any
of us laymen could be expected to) has trumpeted this finding for a
good number of years. And with good reason since this defect is
located precisely where the autopsy doctors said the entrance wound
was. Yet for some time I remained unconvinced, at least partly
because the independent experts contracted by the ARRB had not
identified it as an entry hole. In the end, it was Dr. Robertson's
compelling article, "The Tell Tale Trajectory Lines", that
caused me to reconsider my position.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">As
Dr. Robertson explains, there are two converging (or diverging)
pencil lines on the right lateral skull X-ray that were drawn by Dr.
John Ebersole, the radiologist present at Kennedy's autopsy. In a
November 1, 1966, inventory of the autopsy materials, the autopsy
doctors described these as "angle lines" but did not
elaborate further. [3] When the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel
(FPP) studied the X-rays over a decade later, Dr. James Weston raised
the possibility that these might actually represent trajectory lines
and so Ebersole was called upon to explain their presence. According
to Robertson, "Dr. Ebersole was not a willing participant and
would have preferred not to have come to Washington to testify"
but was persuaded to do so in a phone conversation with the head of
the FPP, Dr. Michael Baden. "In an interview to his hometown
Lancaster, Pennsylvania, newspaper, Dr. Ebersole said that the most
important reason for his consenting to go to Washington was to clear
up a matter about pencil lines present on the X-rays."
[4] Apparently, Dr. Baden had convinced him that it was important they
get the "right" explanation on record.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In
his testimony before the FPP, Ebersole claimed that "sometime
within a month of the assassination" he recieved a call from Dr.
James Young of the White House medical staff. "Dr. Young asked
me if I could review the skull X-rays for the purpose of getting some
measurements for a sculpture." [5] In so doing he made
the two pencil lines on the X-ray; a horizontal line from the nasion
to the occiput, and a vertical line from the high point of the
forehead back to the occiput. According to Dr. Ebersole, these
represented anatomical landmarks that would be recognized by an
artist. He also claimed that the whole thing was conducted in such
secrecy that he had to give his measurements in verbal code over the
telephone. But as Dr. Robertson points out, none of this makes any
sense. If a sculpture of President Kennedy really was to be made, why
would poor quality X-rays of his decimated, post-mortem skull be used
when good quality pre-mortem skull X-rays were available? Why was
there any need for secrecy if the measurements were being made for a
sculpture that would presumably be on public display? And what
special experience and qualifications did Dr. Ebersole possess that
other radiologists did not?</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"></span></span></span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx">It
is quite obvious that Dr. Ebersole's story was designed to cover-up
the fact that the two pencil lines on the X-ray both lead to the
entrance hole at the EOP; an entrance hole the FPP was determined to
deny the existence of. Why? Because, as Dr. Joseph N. Riley observed,
"</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;">If the
rear entrance wound is located where Humes et al. described it, it
proves a second shot to the head.</span> The fragments distributed in
and the damage to the cerebral cortex cannot be due to the shot
described by Humes et al.” because “the wounds are
discontinuous.” [6] Indeed, the trail of metallic debris ends more than
10 centimetres above the entrance in the EOP which is quite obviously
one of the reasons why it was deemed necessary to move the entry hole
up the skull. As I noted in my previous post about the head shot from the knoll, the dispersion of the fragments reveals the direction in which the missile passed through the head. When a bullet disintegrates on striking a skull, the smaller, dust-like fragments are found closer to the entry point and the larger particles are found closer to the exit. This is because the larger fragments, having greater mass, have greater momentum and are carried further away from the point of entry. And what we see on the autopsy X-rays is that the smaller particles are located at the right temple and the larger ones towards the top back part of the skull; revealing a front to rear trajectory.</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">
<br />
So why did Dr. Ebersole draw those trajectory lines? Dr. Robertson explains:</span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">We
can now go back to the time when Dr. Ebersole first drew these angle
lines and ask ourselves what artist might have been interested in
these specific lines which do not conform to any known "
anthropomorphic" measurements. We should have a high degree of
suspicion, as did one member of the FPP, that these were indeed
trajectory lines. Given that they were drawn on the lateral skull
x-ray of a homicide victim who suffered a gunshot wound to the head
with one line being on the horizontal and the other corresponding to
the points of entry and exit described in the autopsy report, this
seems a very likely possibility. Dr. Ebersole's story about the
purpose of these lines did have some elements of truth in it except
their true purpose. In fact there was an artist who might have been
very interested in this trajectory in the first few months after the
assassination. That artist was Harold Rydberg who was preparing CE
388. By an amazing coincidence the pencil lines drawn on the lateral
skull x-ray match almost to the degree </span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">the
trajectory lines present on CE 388.</span></span></span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>
</b></span></span></em><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"><em>They
both measure very close to 32 degrees. </em>[see graphic below with pencil lines highlighted in red] <em>It is beyond my imagination to
believe that these matching trajectory lines were drawn on CE 388
without the direct or indirect use of the measurements off the
lateral skull x-ray. Interestingly the perspective of CE 388 is in
the same straight side view of the head just as the lateral x-rays.
There are strong implications that the x-rays were used as a template
for CE 388 which made no attempt to take into account the tilted
attitude of the President's head towards the left at the moment the
fatal head wounds struck. When CE 388 and the lateral skull x-ray are
compared side by side you see that they both intersect the skull at
the same level _slightly above the EOP. The clue that they point to
is the transverse fracture of the right occipital bone which was
created as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano bullet entered the back of the
skull at this lower level. </em>[7]</span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></span></i> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8VwMrRxGV_HCa6OQ8ZbkmVSZ6Hl6FzVx1eD2xbfOty4PAolU9k1E8L9Zp8Poy88NyMB4gKnutwRA0B5wt-397Q7Cu6Hp8NdUFVRGnFtGcXcr8jwBtYrUoMBHw0SgS6HQ3Nj4VgLO330Ir/s1600/RydbergXray.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="143" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg8VwMrRxGV_HCa6OQ8ZbkmVSZ6Hl6FzVx1eD2xbfOty4PAolU9k1E8L9Zp8Poy88NyMB4gKnutwRA0B5wt-397Q7Cu6Hp8NdUFVRGnFtGcXcr8jwBtYrUoMBHw0SgS6HQ3Nj4VgLO330Ir/s320/RydbergXray.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<i><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"></span></span></span></i> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Reading the above
was a revelation for me. In his HSCA FPP testimony, Dr. Ebersole was
asked a number of times where he thought the bullet entered the skull
but he never gave a meaningful answer, saying at one point, “...I
would say on the basis of those X-rays...one might say one would have
to estimate there that the wound of entrance was somewhere to the
side or to the posterior quadrant.” [8] But I believe Dr.
Robertson's analysis shows that Ebersole knew damn well where that
entrance wound was. And as a qualified diagnostic radiologist he also
knew damn well what it meant: JFK was struck in the head by two
different bullets from two different directions.</span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong>Sequencing the Head Shots</strong></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">In his classic 1967
book, Six Seconds in Dallas, Josiah Thompson was the first author to
posit that JFK was shot from three different directions. He was also
the first to realise that there were two shots to the head; one from
the Texas School Book Depository and one from the Grassy Knoll. And
because he discovered by taking measurements from the Zapruder film
that Kennedy's head moves forward approximately 2.5 inches in 1/18 of
a second, right before it is driven violently backwards, Thompson
reasoned that the rear entering shot came first. But whilst Thompson
was correct about the big picture, he was wrong about the details.
Anyone who has visited this blog before probably knows that I am a
firm believer in the validity of the acoustics evidence. It is my
belief that the acoustics provides us with hard scientific evidence
of the number and sequence of shots and that this hard evidence is of
far greater weight than subjective interpretations of the Zapruder
film alone. And what the proper synchronization of the dictabelt and
the Zapruder film tells us is that the shot from the depository came
approximately 0.7 seconds after the shot from the knoll. </span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
first of the two head shots came from the Grassy Knoll and struck at
Zapruder frame 313 causing the head to explode in what Dr. Donald
Thomas has labelled a typical “Kronlein Schuss” (named for the
German ballistics expert who first demonstrated the effect with
clay-filled skulls). The energy deposited as the bullet passed
through the brain imparted a momentum so great that a temporary
cavity was formed. Consequently, a violent wave of hydraulic pressure
was applied to the cranium causing it to burst open. The effect was
worsened by fractures radiating from the point of entrance giving way
under pressure from the brain fluid and macerated tissue, which then
burst out through the upper right side of the skull. As forensic
pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht told me, the bullet that did the damage
was “</span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">most
likely was some kind of 'soft lead' (i.e., frangible) ammunition
rather than the kind of bullet that is the 'hero' of the SBT” which
was “military type ammunition that would have produced a different
pattern of fragmentation and overall craniocerebral damage. According
to Dr. Wecht, “A FMJ [full metal jacket] bullet should not produce”
the “lead snowstorm within the brain” that is seen on the autopsy
X-rays. [9] This “soft lead” bullet came in at a high, almost 60°
angle and struck tangentially at the right temple near the hairline.
Breaking up as it penetrated, it took, as objects in motion tend to
do, the path of least resistance so that it was deflected upwards and
leftwards; exiting high in the posterior near the midline.</span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh2kKfK94Fv1Yqw_913ukCA9D12BdUqhh-duhvCyIYcKBVLIgOGFXQZjcKUwZZEfxQyLW_xmeWrL71UZSl55e57_y2ObVEi8cEnqbg4wG6vk7cfvfK5vN4TeEF5AFlmu6fdCUGUGDnaNmr/s1600/Vectors1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="138" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjh2kKfK94Fv1Yqw_913ukCA9D12BdUqhh-duhvCyIYcKBVLIgOGFXQZjcKUwZZEfxQyLW_xmeWrL71UZSl55e57_y2ObVEi8cEnqbg4wG6vk7cfvfK5vN4TeEF5AFlmu6fdCUGUGDnaNmr/s400/Vectors1.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The
second shot, coming from the depository building at approximately
Z327, entered the back of the skull slightly above the EOP and exited
near the supra-orbital ridge. This bullet</span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">¾</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">likely
a 6.5 mm Mannlicher Carcano round </span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">behaved
as would be expected and</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">
</span></span></span></span></span></span><span style="color: black;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"><span style="font-style: normal;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">did
not disintergrate and leave a trail of missile dust in its wake. And
because the "pressure vessell" of the skull had already
been compromised, it did not create an "explosion" of bone,
flesh and fluid as did the shot from the right front. It did,
however, create the considerable damage to the subcortex, part of
which was described in the Supplemental Autopsy Report as "a
longitudal laceration of the right hemisphere which is para-sagittal
in position approximately 2.5 cm to the right of the midline which
extends from the tip of the occipital lobe posteriorly to the tip of
the frontal lobe anteriorly." [10] According to Dr.
Joseph N. Riley, who has a Ph.D in neuroscience and specializes in
neuroanatomy and experimental neuropathology, the subcortical damage
is itself proof that the bullet did not enter 10 cm higher in the
skull as the Clark and HSCA panels claimed. "If a bullet entered
where the panel places the entrance wound", he writes, "it
is anatomically impossible to produce the subcortical wounds." [11]</span></span></span></span></span></span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong>Conclusion</strong></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">It is now my conviction that I was wrong to believe there was only one shot to President Kennedy's head. The medical evidence shows damage to the skull and brain, as well as bullet fragmentation, that cannot be accounted for by a single bullet. Together with the eyewitness accounts, the post mortem X-rays establish that there was indeed an entrance wound in the back of the skull at the level of the EOP; just as Humes, Boswell, and Finck claimed all along.</span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Postscript: A Word About the Forward Motion</span></strong></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">As I noted above, I believe that the hard evidence of the dictabelt recording is of far greater validity than subjective interpretations of the images on the Zapruder film, and this evidence establishes that the Knoll shot came first. But I know that there are no shortage of students and theorists who doggedly cling to the belief that the alleged 2.5 inch forward movement of Kennedy's skull between Z-312 and Z-313 can only be due to a shot from the rear. These folks may be interested to learn that the man responsible for introducing that theory, Josiah Thompson, has since abandoned it altogether.
</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"></span> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">In his online article
“Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination”, Thompson writes, “In the years since
those measurements were made, I've learned I was wrong. Z312 is a
clear frame while Z313 is smeared along a horizontal axis by the
movement of Zapruder's camera. The white streak of curb against which
Kennedy's head was measured is also smeared horizontally and this
gives rise to an illusory movement of the head. Art Snyder of the
Stanford Linear Accelerator staff persuaded me several years ago that
I had measured not the movement of Kennedy's head but the smear in
frame 313. The two-inch forward movement was just not there.”</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Whether or not Thompson is
correct that the alleged forward motion is an optical illusion is a
matter of intense debate. What is beyond dispute is what Thompson
didn't notice which is the
simple fact that the Zapruder film shows all of the occupants of the
limosuine move dramatically forward at almost the same instant as
Kennedy and continue to do so after he is hurled backwards by the
shot that exploded the right side of his head. This fact is clearly
demonstrated in the following two gifs from researcher David Wimp:</span></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="separator" lang="zxx" style="clear: both; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323R3NS.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="135" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323R3NS.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323C_zps027390e1.gif" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/Z308-323C_zps027390e1.gif" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">It stands to reason that
the same force which caused the other limo occupants to lurch forward
also affected the President. The question is, what was that force?
Well Physicist Luis Alverez may have inadvertently provided the
answer when he used the Zapruder film to calculate the velocity of
the limousine on Elm Street. Alverez found that the limo began to
decelerate a little under one second before the head shot at
approximately frame 300:</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/deceleration_zps67013271.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="320" src="http://i1205.photobucket.com/albums/bb421/mnhay27/deceleration_zps67013271.jpg" width="278" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
<span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;">Based on this, it appears
likely that, for whatever reason, Secret Service driver William Greer
had touched the brakes and that this is what caused the limo
occupants to lurch forwards<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Symbol;">¾</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span lang="zxx"></span></span></span></span>all except JFK who was quickly thrown
backwards by the first head shot. With the above in mind, the reader can
hopefully see that claims the forward
motion must have occurred as the result of a bullet impact from the rear have little to no basis
in fact.</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
<span style="font-family: Times;"></span> </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
<span style="font-family: Times;">NOTES</span></div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
<span style="font-family: Times;"></span> </div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
1. Assassination
Records Review Board (ARRB) Medical Document 87, page 9.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
2. ARRB Medical
Document 47, page 5.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
3. ARRB Medical
Document 12, page 1.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
4.
<a href="http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf">http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
5. ARRB Medical
Document 60, page 5.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
6.
<a href="http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/riley.html">http://home.comcast.net/~ceoverfield/riley.html</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
7.
<a href="http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf">http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Robertson%20Randolph%20H%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
8. ARRB Medical
Document 60, page 28.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
9. January 12, 2012,
private email from Cyril Wecht.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
10. ARRB Medical
Document 4, page 1.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
11.
<a href="http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf">http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/R%20Disk/Riley%20Joe/Item%2004.pdf</a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div align="JUSTIFY" class="western" lang="en">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
<strong></strong> </div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
</div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="western" lang="zxx" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjiLHkNfFfXKo_FsMFkkLHeab73WV8HguJCtyfnnYXRQvKZ1CvafDz0d3ZQZ8m6wz_PA7PH__MHNBxiG2fNR6aaqgZcAlexyY6gyTtrcqqzqtQ-5R2bSdfeGhcMh-kjdtdWF5JBVBs9VKK0/s1600/Kellerman1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"></a><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
<div align="justify">
</div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-37531198755063006572012-09-08T05:51:00.000-07:002012-09-08T05:51:17.717-07:00Some Great New Stuff to Check Out @ CTKA<strong>Evaluating the Case against Lyndon Johnson</strong> by Vasilios Vazakas with Seamus Coogan and Phil Dragoo:<strong> </strong><a href="http://www.ctka.net/2012/Evaluating_the_Case_against_Lyndon_Johnson.html">http://www.ctka.net/2012/Evaluating_the_Case_against_Lyndon_Johnson.html</a><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<em>[A superb deconstuction of a silliy theory that has grown in popularity over recent years despite the total lack of supporting evidence.]</em><br />
<em></em><br />
<strong>From an Office Building with a High-Powered Rifle: One FBI Agent's View of the JFK Assassination by Don Adams</strong> reviewed by Seamus Coogan <a href="http://ctka.net/reviews/Adams_From_An_Office.html">http://ctka.net/reviews/Adams_From_An_Office.html</a> <br />
<br />
<em>[My old pal Seamus provides an illuminating summary and analysis of this recent book by the former FBI agent who investigated the Joseph Milteer angle of the Kennedy assassination.]</em>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-84875347502381823222011-09-16T02:19:00.000-07:002011-09-16T02:19:46.899-07:00JFK and the Majestic Papers: The History of a Hoax by Seamus Coogan<strong>First a Warning</strong><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">If someone would like to take a good no nonsense look at the history of the MJ-12 documents I advise reading this overview from Phil Coppens. Bar his comments concerning the ‘real MJ-12’ being behind the false documents, it provides another important backdrop for what you shall read herein.</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">I’d like to point out before we go on that: no, CTKA is not turning into some Fortean organisation. I’m just going to speak a few home truths to some of the more imaginative types out there concerning something very sacred to ufologists. How, since 1947 the CIA rather than starving you from accessing them, have actually force fed you with it. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">Like the vast majority of JFK researchers, I am not an ufologist. I don’t pretend to speak for anyone in this area either. Nevertheless, I don’t believe a fake UFO invasion will be used to unite the world under a one-world government. That fake invasion (that the likes of Alex Jones and other conspiracy magnets bleat on about) and that one world corporation have already happened. Because if the mainstream media is prepared to present balanced discussions about UFOs and whether God exists, then surely a balanced discussion covering cosmically irrelevant issues like the potential for a planned murder of a head of state, and a few others aspiring to benefit all humanity, wouldn’t even be a trifle, or even an afterthought at that. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">I believe we went to the moon and I’m a believer in the Drake equation, not to mention an admirer of the likes of Greg Bishop, Mark Pilkington, Larry Hancock, Bill Kelly, Robert Hastings (despite his disagreements with Bishop) and (with particular regards to this essay) Phil Coppens. His work, though poorly referenced, does bear up to scrutiny and has been an excellent resource. This is why I’m puzzled that the terminally appalling Nexus Magazine never picked up on him, nor seemed to have learned anything from him, instead being mates with David Hatcher Childress. Thanks to the efforts of those above, I find myself in a comfortable place of 90 percent sceptic and 10 percent ‘open to anything’ as far as UFOs go… okay, maybe 12. I blame this on my discovery of Bob Hastings. Without Hastings’ work in outing the liars involved with the MJ-12 hoax some years ago this field would be all the poorer. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">I also admire the above individuals for not falling for the perpetrators of the JFK-MJ-12 documents and their work in outing them. It appears that the Dulles cabal in the CIA created a powerful myth with UFOs that they have since used as a diversion both internally and externally for myriad purposes, not just the obfuscation of secret weapons and aircraft, but have nurtured a powerful social phenomenon. Both the Kennedy assassination and UFOs are massive cultural happenings that pervade practically everything in Western Civilisation. However, for all of this, the Kennedy assassination and UFOs are and will always be two different areas of study, bar sharing some of the same progenitors of UFO disinformation. Sadly, many people have made the mistake of conjoining the two in some mega plot utilising the MJ-12/Torbitt Document/Gemstone Files inspired nonsense. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>The Layout of the Essay</strong></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Students of the JFK case, like my self have largely ignored the comings and goings on of those inhabiting Zeta Reticuli, and dare I say most of the time, with very good reason. But with regards to this ongoing JFK-MJ-12 mess we really shouldn’t have. This foreword serves to provide something of a backdrop to the madness herein. It’ll give a series of brief and not so brief looks into the current explosion of JFK-MJ-12 hype, the leaches that have fed off it, the origins of said documents, and a clarification of where I stand on the issue of UFOs. More specifically, I shall adress this topic in the following sections: </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Preambles I and II</strong> seek to provide a backdrop to Scientist Leon Davidson, who made a number of alarming accusations against the CIA’s whipping up UFO mania. In turn, he created a powerful cultural phenomena--picked up by other agencies who know a good thing when they see it--that is to hide, subvert and confuse all manner of issues within and outside of the government. I would like to point out that I am well aware that there is much conjecture on the topics I bring up. I have tried as best I could to provide some antecedent or give a relevant example to any points made. I hope that the reader will appreciate my honesty in this regard as far too many individuals covering this ground mistake their own fantasies and musings for reality (I hope Richard Dolan and Joseph Farrell read this). All I aspire to is that in putting this out there to provide a template to work from or to debate. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Part I</strong> <strong>- Majestic Documents & Marilyn</strong> deals with how the current craze has started and who has cashed in on it. But primarily it deals with the Wood’s family’s Majestic Documents group, their use of the bogus documentation surrounding Marilyn Monroe, and their attempts to link her death to Kennedy and UFOs and vice versa. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Part II - Kennedy Killed Over UFOs</strong> (and Other Lies) deals with the recent assault on the senses concerning dubious evidence concerning Kennedy’s murder being enacted for sticking his nose in and around the UFO issue. In so doing, I rationally (a key word here) discuss what Kennedy’s interests in the phenomena likely was. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Part III</strong> <strong>- Lunacy, Loyalty and Failed Lie Detectors</strong> returns to the Woods, focussing on denials of Tim Cooper’s wrongdoing in the face of strong evidence to the contrary. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Part IV</strong> <strong>- Tweedle Dee Rob Meets Tweedle Dee Linda</strong> discusses Wood Sr. and his lack of knowledge concerning the basics of Cold War intelligence initiatives, with resident UFO/JFK ‘expert’ Linda Moulton Howe. What’s important about this section is that aside from giving the abdominal muscles a good work out from reading this clueless duo is that (depending on one’s prerogative) it also expands upon some issues pertaining to the MJ-12 stuff mentioned in parts II & III. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><em>(Parts V and VI of this essay embark from a more solid and factual basis established in Parts I to IV, becoming more speculative due to the dodgy nature of the subject and the people involved.)</em> </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Part V</strong> <strong>- A Very Sad Attempt At Making a Rabbit Hole</strong> in effect discusses how people unprepared to confront the fact that just because someone is a ‘con’ and has a history of being one, doesn’t mean they aren’t intelligence agency material. In fact it often makes them prime candidates for being so and they are thus particularly effective in disinformation campaigns. There seems to be a total and utter failure in UFO circles to acknowledge that counter intelligence is in itself designed to mislead and misrepresent. Once one realizes that intelligence agencies like to ‘cut it both ways’ then looking over scraps from them loses its lustre. It's not a rabbit hole after all, the hole doesn’t even exist, but well you fell into it anyhow. Nevertheless, it discusses the extremely dubious company the originator of the documents has kept. Not too, mention how one well-known figure in the MJ-12 drama has absurdly escaped a great deal of scrutiny. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Part VI - Gus Russo, Phone Home!</strong> is effectively a continuation of Part V and discusses how outcasts from the JFK scene like Gus Russo have made homes for themselves in a field all to willing to be taken in by the ‘next bright thing’. In many ways it’s also the most important chapter of this study as it examines why the JFK community ignored the MJ-12 palaver, but more importantly it explores why ‘truth seekers’ and ‘crank busters’ like Russo and others avoided the JFK-MJ-12 issue altogether and gives an outline of one of the potential targets of this disinformation. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><strong>Part VII - The Conclusion</strong> is a summary of all that has been covered, in the essay and essentially the bookend to this foreword. </div><br />
<em>Read the rest here: <a href="http://www.ctka.net/2011/MJ%2012%20intro_Alien%20Dulles.html">http://www.ctka.net/2011/MJ%2012%20intro_Alien%20Dulles.html</a></em>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-54918151510695349032011-01-13T03:01:00.000-08:002011-01-13T03:01:48.745-08:00The Ten Worst Books on the JFK Assassination (Chronological)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKv0-nh0I0nAzTz_W7DYb0KLRMhcLPjEN9peHZ6T6AW52i6clYJn6-d3aNJ__8D3x8VlUz0Hv2b0RgJYHRbfHcfU-TNsAM5_8P0CZZmphyeZqU77fNRUeRyqAJzYno67QgXOPuosqvhqeB/s1600/WarrenReport.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhKv0-nh0I0nAzTz_W7DYb0KLRMhcLPjEN9peHZ6T6AW52i6clYJn6-d3aNJ__8D3x8VlUz0Hv2b0RgJYHRbfHcfU-TNsAM5_8P0CZZmphyeZqU77fNRUeRyqAJzYno67QgXOPuosqvhqeB/s200/WarrenReport.jpg" width="137" /></a></div><br />
<strong>1. <em>The Warren Report</em> (1964).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">The first official whitewash, the Warren Report represents the U.S. government's first attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people. On the weekend of the assassination the new President, Lyndon Johnson, had recieved reports from the CIA's Mexico City station claiming that Lee Harvey Oswald had been seen conspiring with communist agents two months previously. Johnson, fearfull of a nuclear war with the Soviets, ordered Earl Warren to chair the Commission and "prevent the deaths of 40 million Americans." In other words: make sure the buck stops with Oswald.</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRLwlXT5k57wF9533KOmHktfw76aZez49KHSLmH2eUwNlE3OZ_WglIir7vI9G_-9PbmZ3jdtJGUfvIkcgF7tVAHhkKMjgfwNJoDQt0FnkYhsozBf_6giPHQYrPpNq_qYKZJBNSmhI7sjFO/s1600/Marina%2526Lee.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRLwlXT5k57wF9533KOmHktfw76aZez49KHSLmH2eUwNlE3OZ_WglIir7vI9G_-9PbmZ3jdtJGUfvIkcgF7tVAHhkKMjgfwNJoDQt0FnkYhsozBf_6giPHQYrPpNq_qYKZJBNSmhI7sjFO/s200/Marina%2526Lee.jpg" width="120" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>2. <em>Marina and Lee</em> by Priscilla Johnson McMillan (1977).</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Lee Oswald's murdered body barely had time to cool before Priscilla Johnson McMillan jumped on the scene to "befriend" his widow, Marina, and begin work on her official biography. As the only American jounalist to whom Lee Oswald granted an interview shortly after his "defection" to the Soviet Union, McMillan had a curious ability to be in the right place at the right time. Curious, that is, until the release of official documents revealed that the CIA considered her a "witting collaborator". The result was a book that even Marina would later dismiss as "full of lies."</div><div align="justify" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8vX1i8XeMqz-j7PUOU6FC-gGt3cb1Pfv6l8XZP69dzWeZjf-7DbeHnEdNV2LrZsLF38aJ-UYKuHh1k46OevbdUjVs_H3PabYR0ZChF68CFbaQE7WRksixPQkS9nBhokOj8XY-LPQ1opgd/s1600/CaseClosed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8vX1i8XeMqz-j7PUOU6FC-gGt3cb1Pfv6l8XZP69dzWeZjf-7DbeHnEdNV2LrZsLF38aJ-UYKuHh1k46OevbdUjVs_H3PabYR0ZChF68CFbaQE7WRksixPQkS9nBhokOj8XY-LPQ1opgd/s200/CaseClosed.jpg" width="130" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>3. <em>Case Closed</em> by Gerald Posner (1993). </strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Oliver Stone's 1991 movie <em>JFK </em>sparked renewed and massive debate about the assassination and gave many people their first insight into the lies of the Warren Commission and the implausibility of the lone gunman theory. And then along came former Wall Street lawer Gerald Posner to save the day! The fact that <em>Case Closed</em> was brimming over with factual inaccuracies and misrepresentations did not stop the mainstream media from heaping unprecedented praise on the book and lauding Posner for "exposing" the critics. But as Flava Flav warned us, don't believe the hype.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3s9no3U__RHuWfC4yrRfHzU9NTGEpgej8dQYrHSx5mG2TPEbK3XZW1TbVvac30B5QI3pb2O84qzg5q5Vh9pqNBwSoIATVIhduq_bl3SyVjP0KWgumyMQJEbN96uMUqROCZJ9ryVBfrC9I/s1600/KennedyContract.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3s9no3U__RHuWfC4yrRfHzU9NTGEpgej8dQYrHSx5mG2TPEbK3XZW1TbVvac30B5QI3pb2O84qzg5q5Vh9pqNBwSoIATVIhduq_bl3SyVjP0KWgumyMQJEbN96uMUqROCZJ9ryVBfrC9I/s200/KennedyContract.jpg" width="124" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>4. <em>The Kennedy Contract </em>by John H. Davis (1993). </strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Behind Lee Oswald and Fidel Castro, the Mafia has long been the third most popular scapegoat in the murder of John Kennedy. In fact, the theory seems quite unbelievably to have gained in popularity over recent years despite the fact that there is absolutely zero evidence that Oswald had any connections to organized crime. Conversely, as former U.S. Senator Richard Schweiker said, Oswald did have the "fingerprints of intelligence" all over him. Sadly, this matters little to John H. Davis who appears to be intent on absolving the U.S. government of any complicity in the assassination.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif0-hmf5LsG0tl6Bo2emg585AFIbV4NB__n4koYQlh61MsiAblur-0E-0RCTgizjmtRYNO1s2L4G3pyva4V1r0pGENUvtTk0-td-ZU-2VklwMYQJYNO7viniq26rASBtCMxNbpfFOUT-PH/s1600/KillingTheTruth.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEif0-hmf5LsG0tl6Bo2emg585AFIbV4NB__n4koYQlh61MsiAblur-0E-0RCTgizjmtRYNO1s2L4G3pyva4V1r0pGENUvtTk0-td-ZU-2VklwMYQJYNO7viniq26rASBtCMxNbpfFOUT-PH/s200/KillingTheTruth.jpg" width="133" /></a></div><br />
<strong>5. <em>Killing the Truth</em> by Harrison Edward Livingstone (1993). </strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">One of the most over-the-top, paranoid conspiracy theorists out there (and I do mean "out there"), Livingstone's third JFK book is a long-winded, badly written attack on those in the critical community he claims are "killing the truth" about the assassination. And by "killing the truth" he means not buying into his wacky nonsense. Those to whom Livingstone directs his delusionary ranting include Harold Weisberg, Oliver Stone, Mark Lane and Robert Groden. Hell, even the legendary Mary Ferrell is not spared Livingstone's misplaced wrath. A pathetic waste of time, effort and paper.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-K0NlcepWmwzkEkjqPU5NEKQzeghWAUS4Qq1NySEG9Yfb2BSvMNqyzKL1rpF5qAIcsI2O6A4rhEEWIjxyNWrBEZj8xQVXuZlOmBr_slTkcTro7nYeZdBUSYpxqnFmlm7VW5UVPizf4Ad_/s1600/OswaldsTale.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg-K0NlcepWmwzkEkjqPU5NEKQzeghWAUS4Qq1NySEG9Yfb2BSvMNqyzKL1rpF5qAIcsI2O6A4rhEEWIjxyNWrBEZj8xQVXuZlOmBr_slTkcTro7nYeZdBUSYpxqnFmlm7VW5UVPizf4Ad_/s200/OswaldsTale.jpg" width="130" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><strong>6. <em>Oswald's Tale</em> by Norman Mailer (1995). </strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Norman Mailer claimed that he began writing his biography of Oswald with no fixed opinion about his guilt but to anyone with even half a brain cell this is obvious bullshit. Not only does he rely heavily on three anti-Oswald sources—the <em>Warren Report</em>, <em>Case Closed</em> and <em>Marina & Lee</em>—but he consistently interprets Oswald's actions in ways that conform to the official portrait and makes no attempt to deal with Oswald's obvious intelligence connections. As Harold Weisberg once said, this is not so much Oswald's tale as it is Mailer's.</div><div align="justify" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL41R7UMlHsuZAaX4U7erLM4eNlVh7Css0zZuZLvMYKpppVQ5R9UHbk6akhd3jtU_cfXc0E9vbvwrLMtoMntiw5SDBYiBRmJtOwEY5iUE_21tof82r6pZrcoJbCtwfo37hw1AkEsdaWH1Y/s1600/FalseWitness.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgL41R7UMlHsuZAaX4U7erLM4eNlVh7Css0zZuZLvMYKpppVQ5R9UHbk6akhd3jtU_cfXc0E9vbvwrLMtoMntiw5SDBYiBRmJtOwEY5iUE_21tof82r6pZrcoJbCtwfo37hw1AkEsdaWH1Y/s200/FalseWitness.jpg" width="200" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><strong>7. <em>False Witness</em> by Patrica Lambert (1998). </strong></div><div align="justify" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">This one-sided, broadside attack on Jim Garrison is truly one of the worst pieces of garbage I've ever had the misfortune to read. Patricia Lambert cobbles together every bad thing ever said about Garrison with no regard for its veracity and in true tabloid fashion she even accuses him of being child molester and compares him to cult leader, David Koresh. This is not only one of the worst ever books dealing with events related to the Kennedy case it's probably one of the worst books ever written. </div><div align="justify" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIPr0prB_z32Td-CNKGpvwR7VxDHVcccoZLOIQHKz_bDmTWjrvP0Ho8XYF85SaXjZcWPoN6E82KQI2JJ5oFsug0ezkapooBmjOt8vryNTxTLZuJTdidH4Y0p5PX7ZuD-4SQXBMBlDzyOoK/s1600/the-great-zapruder-film-hoax-deceit-and-deception-in-the-death-of-jfk-13296188.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhIPr0prB_z32Td-CNKGpvwR7VxDHVcccoZLOIQHKz_bDmTWjrvP0Ho8XYF85SaXjZcWPoN6E82KQI2JJ5oFsug0ezkapooBmjOt8vryNTxTLZuJTdidH4Y0p5PX7ZuD-4SQXBMBlDzyOoK/s200/the-great-zapruder-film-hoax-deceit-and-deception-in-the-death-of-jfk-13296188.jpg" width="132" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>8. <em>The Great Zapruder Film Hoax </em>edited by Jim Fetzer (2003).</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">The authors of this silliness actually believe that the Zapruder film is a complete Mary Poppins-style fabrication! What more really needs to be said? It is this type of paranoid nonsense that makes it easy for Warren supporters to lump us critics in with UFO spotters and moon hoaxers. There can be no doubt that books like this do nothing but muddy the record, add to confusion about the case and hinder any progress we might otherwise be making.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi7VBFaKeXxqMk-b5r9szeoAcoCJPFKGRWwKMcPJNNq_OjQOfiGLMXDziQeNMTwmCZUhSTokmxeH-7gn8oJCvKfpbG-J1zacwSJb0Wu4eu2vOI1X60a9OjgsMTI4L6rffu8YXeNYq6VoyI/s1600/JFKbakerbook.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgi7VBFaKeXxqMk-b5r9szeoAcoCJPFKGRWwKMcPJNNq_OjQOfiGLMXDziQeNMTwmCZUhSTokmxeH-7gn8oJCvKfpbG-J1zacwSJb0Wu4eu2vOI1X60a9OjgsMTI4L6rffu8YXeNYq6VoyI/s200/JFKbakerbook.jpg" width="135" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><strong>9. <em>Blood, Money & Power </em>by Barr McClellan (2003).</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Disbarred Texan lawyer, Barr McClellan, must have been in serious need of cash to write this dreadful piece of obvious fiction. The most sensational claim in <em>Blood, Money & Power </em>was that the fingerprint of convicted murderer and friend of Lyndon Johnson, Mac Wallace, was found on a book carton on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. But, as it turned out, this wasn't true.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqQETU9kbzzOW-rxG53PMTAkpvXSWYqabW0dsbLNWr8OiCr2CEy7W0tmstrh4ZRoZYZ5Mi6TWaenkBeWCEhy4nIq_siaresSMz9q_dUiKuijHO2V7Fyz_j9Lzspu4Woa_jtIhEVaOCeQcX/s1600/ReclaimingHistory.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgqQETU9kbzzOW-rxG53PMTAkpvXSWYqabW0dsbLNWr8OiCr2CEy7W0tmstrh4ZRoZYZ5Mi6TWaenkBeWCEhy4nIq_siaresSMz9q_dUiKuijHO2V7Fyz_j9Lzspu4Woa_jtIhEVaOCeQcX/s200/ReclaimingHistory.jpg" width="138" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><strong>10. <em>Reclaiming History</em> by Vincent Bugliosi (2007).</strong></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Vincent Bugliosi's massive ego would never let him admit it, but Reclaiming History spectacularly fails to live up to its intention of settling the controversy. It fails because, despite Bugliosi's assurances that his only master and mistress "are the facts and objectivity," he commits the exact same sins of which he accuses the conspiracy theorists and adds a few more. He consistently fills his narrative with hypothetical instances in place of actual evidence and expects the reader to take his word for it. His book is practically brimming over with phrases such as "must have," "reason to believe," "most likely" and "probably." This over-use of the hypothetical may be standard practice in a court room, but it is not how history should be written. Far from sticking to the facts, Reclaiming History is far and away the most factually inept, theory driven and speculative book ever written on the Kennedy assassination.</div>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-49449348203099550832011-01-09T08:17:00.000-08:002013-06-02T06:41:12.816-07:00Let There Be Sound!: The Acoustics Evidence in the JFK Assassination<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyfKPCC4p_kaJywoU1SyhXgKhb6quPSKzZkpLsRbn7u8sS7nrmLBH-F52jLRIGFjvEHjemDJSP11H-gA1rQOH_NG5FD7uIDurMmWMO_hBFRfcbY25rf1NNbcSrtAIEQyZOgUxXhJ9htT1I/s1600/Acoustics3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="155" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiyfKPCC4p_kaJywoU1SyhXgKhb6quPSKzZkpLsRbn7u8sS7nrmLBH-F52jLRIGFjvEHjemDJSP11H-gA1rQOH_NG5FD7uIDurMmWMO_hBFRfcbY25rf1NNbcSrtAIEQyZOgUxXhJ9htT1I/s320/Acoustics3.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
[NOTE: This article is essentially an almagamation of material culled from my two recent CTKA book reviews, with minor changes and additions, compiled here as much as anything else for my own easy reference.]</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
On November 22, 1963, the day of President Kennedy's assassination, the microphone on a police motorcycle travelling in the Presidential motorcade had become stuck in the “on” position and the sounds had been recorded on a dictabelt machine at Dallas police headquarters. When the dictabelt was brought to the attention of the HSCA in 1978, it asked the top acoustics experts in the country to analyze the recording to see if it had captured the sounds of the assassination gunfire. James Barger and his colleagues at Bolt, Baranek & Newman (BBN) discovered six suspect impulses on the tape that occurred at approximately 12:30 p.m.—the time of the assassination—and reported that on-site testing needed to be conducted at Dealey Plaza. There, microphones were placed along the parade route on Houston and Elm Streets and test shots were fired from the two locations witnesses had reported hearing shots; the Texas School Book Depository and the grassy knoll. BBN found that five of the impulses on the dictabelt were found to acoustically match the echo patterns of test shots fired in Dealey Plaza. (8HSCA101) One of these, the fourth in sequence, matched to a shot fired from the grassy knoll. (8HSCA10) The fact that the suspect sounds had matched to some of the 423 test patterns is not, by itself, amazingly significant. However, the order and spacing of the matching microphone positions followed the same order as the sounds on the police tape. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRX7d7Q4DkK09yJm9J8k6YfZITYXdvU2SL-fbpLbxJu7Kv0fVjDuZI9stOAWVPZdQ6HFymwCaTSx_7zxDVMrafi_fu8iXIHnAqhqzCCrJit6S6m_-nA-vSw-yTiUD1pL_McIle0ErPhaOo/s1600/Acoustics1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="308" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRX7d7Q4DkK09yJm9J8k6YfZITYXdvU2SL-fbpLbxJu7Kv0fVjDuZI9stOAWVPZdQ6HFymwCaTSx_7zxDVMrafi_fu8iXIHnAqhqzCCrJit6S6m_-nA-vSw-yTiUD1pL_McIle0ErPhaOo/s320/Acoustics1.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
If the sounds on the dictabelt were not truly the sounds of the assassination gunfire and instead represented some type of random static, a match would be as likely to occur at at the first microphone as the last and would most likely fall in some random order—there being, of course, 125 different ways to sequence five events. But far from being random, the matches fell in the exact same 1-2-3-4-5 topographic order as the impulses appear on the dictabelt recording. </div>
<ul>
<li><div align="justify" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The first impulse matched to a test shot recorded on a microphone on Houston Street near the intersection with Elm. </div>
</li>
<li><div align="justify" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The second to a microphone 18 ft north on Houston. </div>
</li>
<li><div align="justify" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The third to a microphone at the intersection.</div>
</li>
<li><div align="justify" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The fourth to a microphone on Elm.</div>
</li>
<li><div align="justify" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And the fifth to the next microphone to the west. </div>
</li>
</ul>
<div align="justify" style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Additionally, the distance from the first matching microphone to the last was 143 feet and the time between the first and last suspect impulse on the tape was 8.3 seconds. In order for the motorcycle with the stuck microphone to cover 143 feet in 8.3 seconds it would need to be travelling at a speed of approximately 11.7 mph which fits almost perfectly with the FBI's conclusion that the Presidential limousine was averaging 11.3 mph on Elm Street. (Warren Report, p. 49)</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; text-align: justify;">
Finally, the gunshots on the dictabelt synchronize perfectly with the visual evidence of the other all-important record of the shooting, the Zapruder film. There are two visible reactions to gunshots on the Zapruder film. One of these occurs at Z-frame 313 with the blatantly obvious explosion of President Kennedy's head. The other occurs between frames 225 and 230 when the Stetson hat in Connally's hand flips up and down, most likely as a result of the missile passing through his wrist. When the fourth shot on the dictabelt, the grassy knoll shot, is aligned with Z-frame 313, the third shot falls at —yes, you guessed it—frame Z-225. This means that the exact same 4.8 second gap between shots is found on both the audio and visual evidence. These perfect correlations between the acoustics and all other known data provide the most convincing reasons to believe that the dictabelt is a genuine recording of the assassination gunfire. Unfortunately, this remarkable concordance was hidden from the public when HSCA chief counsel, Robert Blakey, in a “socially constructive” move, convinced the experts to label the third shot as a “false alarm.”</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; text-align: justify;">
To understand Blakey's decision it is necessary to understand Blakey. Former HSCA staff investigator, Gaeton Fonzi, wrote in his brilliant book <em>The Last Investigation</em>, that, “Chief Counsel Blakey was an experienced Capitol Hill man. He had worked not only at Justice but on previous Congressional committees as well. So he knew exactly what the priorities of his job were by Washington standards, even before he stepped in.” (<em>Fonzi</em>, p. 8) Blakey, who later admitted that before he took the job he had found the idea of a conspiracy in the JFK case “highly unlikely,” (ibid. p. 259) was destined not to stray too far from the Warren Commission's conclusion that only three shots were fired and all were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald. As such, the acoustics evidence presented him with a big problem. As Dr. Donald Thomas puts it, “The acoustical evidence simply did not mesh well with the Warren Report...Blakey's problem was not just that a total of five putative gunshots were detected by BBN's test procedures, but that these shots came too close together.” (<em>Hear No Evil</em>, p. 584) In 1964, the FBI established that “Oswald's” rifle required 2.3 seconds between shots and, as Special Agent Robert Frazier testified, this was “firing [the] weapon as fast as the bolt could be operated.” (3H407) But the first three shots on the dictabelt had all come from the general vicinity of the book depository and came only 1.65 and 1.1 seconds apart. To “solve” the problem, Blakey acquired a Mannlicher Carcano similar to the one found on the sixth floor and, together with a group of Washington police officers, practised firing the rifle as fast as possible. Apparently, by “point aiming” - which means not really aiming at all - Blakey and HSCA counsel Gary Cornwell were able to squeeze off two rounds in 1.5 and 1.2 seconds respectively. (8HSCA185) This farcical display was enough to satisfy Blakey about the “probability” that Oswald fired the first two shots on the tape. He then told the acoustics experts that the third shot, coming only 1.1 seconds after the second, could not be what their analysis told them it was. And in another socially constructive move, the scientists played along.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; text-align: justify;">
The truth is that all three matches were as valid as each other and what the acoustics evidence actually showed was that there may have been a second rearward assassin and a triangulation of crossfire—just as critics like Josiah Thompson had been saying since 1967. But a Washington man like Blakey was not about to admit that the “buffs” had been right all along. In a conversation with Thomas in 1999, “Blakey confided that he knew he would take a lot of heat for the grassy knoll shot and he didn't want to dilute his case with the weak evidence for a fifth shot.” (<em>Thomas</em>, p. 590) By putting political considerations before the evidence, Robert Blakey did history a huge disservice and helped obscure the truth about the assassination. By cutting out the crucial third shot, he had essentially hidden the perfect synchronization between the dictabelt and the Zapruder film and it was for this very reason that many JFK researchers rejected the validity of the acoustics evidence. One can only wonder what reception the Dallas police dictabelt would have received had Blakey had the courage to stand up for the truth.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; text-align: justify;">
Predictably, the conclusions of the HSCA scientists have been attacked by numerous individuals and organizations seeking to uphold the conclusions of the Warren Report; usually on non-ballistic acoustic grounds. For example, a National Research Council panel commissioned by the Justice Department claimed that an instance of “cross-talk” on the dictabelt recording placed the suspect impulses a full minute after the assassination. What the panel chose not to report is that there are five instances of cross-talk on the dictabelt, none of which even synchronize with one another. Therefore, it is not possible using cross-talk alone to prove that the gunshots on the tape are not synchronous with the assassination. A more recent challenge came from Dale Myers (the Walt Disney of JFK research) who claimed that his analysis of the available assassination films and photographs “proved” that police officer H.B. McClain's motorcycle was not where it needed to be. This despite the fact that there is no film or photograph currently known to exist that shows the acoustically required position at the time the shots were fired.</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; text-align: justify;">
In his recent book, <i>Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination</i>, Dr. G. Paul Chambers, an experimental physicist for the US Navy and a contractor with the NASA Goddard Optics Branch, has calculated the odds against the impulses on the dictabelt being caused by random static. As mentioned above, the order in the data is by itself hugely compelling. The last in the sequence of test shot matches occurred at a microphone 143 feet from the first, and the time between the first and last suspected shots on the dictabelt was 8.3 seconds. In order for the Police motorcycle officer whose stuck microphone was suspected of recording the gunfire to travel 143 feet in 8.3 seconds he would need to be traveling at approximately 11 mph—almost the exact speed at which the FBI estimated the Presidential limousine was moving on Elm street. As Chambers asks, “What are the odds of that happening randomly?...One could certainly insert a big number for the total number of possibilities, leaving a very small probability that this would happen randomly. But it isn't necessary.” (<i>Chambers</i>, p. 142) On top of this, we have the fact that the timing of the shots fits so perfectly with the reactions seen on the Zapruder film. “Syncing the final head shot from the grassy knoll to frame 312...” Chambers explains, “the probability of finding the shot that hit Connally to within five frames...is about one in a hundred...Matching up the first shot to the frames before Kennedy reaches the Stemmons Freeway sign and the second shot to a strike of Kennedy behind the sign is another one chance in a hundred times one chance in a hundred for a one-in-ten-thousand chance for an accidental match.” Multiplying all this by the probability of all shot origins falling in the correct order is another one chance in sixteen, “yielding a one-in-sixteen-million chance that the acoustic analysis could match up the timing and shot sequence in the Zapruder film by chance.” Multiplying the probability of both the order in the data and the synchronization of the audio film being random together, “it is readily established that there is only one chance in eleven billion that both correlations could occur as the result of random noise.” (ibid pgs. 142-143) </div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-bottom: 0.5cm; text-align: justify;">
Is Chambers math correct? I'll leave that to those better qualified than me to test. What I do know is that Dr. Don Thomas, who is a widely published expert statistician, has calculated the odds of a random impulse having the acoustic fingerprint of a rifle shot from the grassy knoll as 100,000 to one against. (Thomas, p. 632) And anyone with an even vaguely scientific mind can see that this calculation alone is enough to establish the validity of the acoustics evidence beyond any real reasonable doubt. </div>
Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-86565856631851088442011-01-02T11:03:00.000-08:002012-08-01T06:46:49.663-07:00The Top 10 Books on the JFK Assassination (In chronological order)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlx9k4mq87v7OpKtJFzZ9UNxskyyCGFCQWFLYAvMjM9-JheM2YVYTZcI_yfeMGPUleVc0DK_pxkQYYo8Jy0Niz79vegsM4smOmEFcygZHTLZJ19fDH_UlJxPz0atBNy2lfks2O70LOx5-/s1600/RTJ1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLlx9k4mq87v7OpKtJFzZ9UNxskyyCGFCQWFLYAvMjM9-JheM2YVYTZcI_yfeMGPUleVc0DK_pxkQYYo8Jy0Niz79vegsM4smOmEFcygZHTLZJ19fDH_UlJxPz0atBNy2lfks2O70LOx5-/s200/RTJ1.jpg" width="132" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>1. <em>Rush to Judgement </em>by Mark Lane (1966).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
New York lawyer Mark Lane was asked by Lee Harvey Oswald's mother to represent him before the Warren Commission but the Commission denied the request. Instead, Lane wrote what is essentially a defense brief for Oswald based largely on the evidence published in the Commission's 26 volumes of hearings and exhibits. Of all the early critiques of the Warren report, <em>Rush to Judgement </em>is far and away the most readable and accessible and Lane himself remains the critic that Warren apologists love to hate. Gerald Posner, Jim Moore and Vincent Bugliosi have all dedicated large sections of their respective books to shooting Lane down but in their rantings and ravings none have managed to point out any factual errors in his work. Which speaks volumes really.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVfMptwJzq5O1gKBuF_odLE_SOyFcwmcD9Rj0Mjk5Gf_i5n5ZoAIGH67T4TDn6tp8U_GMkxc_MTvLGi24k8R4IC6hGYYJvJoNh-1Hd4ir9vRxEjB7sa4D-eUPTJ1S7y_B6hbR6vLPWXCu2/s1600/sixseconds.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVfMptwJzq5O1gKBuF_odLE_SOyFcwmcD9Rj0Mjk5Gf_i5n5ZoAIGH67T4TDn6tp8U_GMkxc_MTvLGi24k8R4IC6hGYYJvJoNh-1Hd4ir9vRxEjB7sa4D-eUPTJ1S7y_B6hbR6vLPWXCu2/s200/sixseconds.jpg" width="136" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<strong>2. <em>Six Seconds in Dallas</em> by Josiah Thompson (1967).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Described as "A micro-study of the assassination"<em> Six Seconds in Dallas </em>was the first book to postulate that President Kennedy was felled by a triangulation of gunfire. A graduate of Yale and, at the time, a professor of philosophy, Josiah Thompson was given unique and unprecedented access to the Zapruder film that the <em>Time-Life </em>Corporation had thus far kept safely locked away from public view. The result was a brilliant, meticulously documented book that exposed the fallacies and contradictions in the Warren Com-mission's reconstruction of the crime and introduced readers to the likelihood that the fatal head shot came from the direction of the grassy knoll.</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8DuxLxSso5jEThNrLzKSq-0aL9MFafKyqq2HeV-pltJkyT0TMvldKjs-B2Eb-kdGXn069NVMLfSdVgjByxoWjFW-NfiyNyXY6MZWqOf1yy3dqenAmxgOrPuEF2N-lTPZwKpHnuP2TYqHs/s1600/Summers1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8DuxLxSso5jEThNrLzKSq-0aL9MFafKyqq2HeV-pltJkyT0TMvldKjs-B2Eb-kdGXn069NVMLfSdVgjByxoWjFW-NfiyNyXY6MZWqOf1yy3dqenAmxgOrPuEF2N-lTPZwKpHnuP2TYqHs/s200/Summers1.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>3. <em>Conspiracy</em> (retitled <em>Not in Your Lifetime</em>) by Anthony Summers (1980).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
British journalist Anthony Summers' book came hot on the heels of the House Select Committee on Assassinations' verdict of a "probable" conspiracy in the murder of JFK but did a much better job of fingering the likely forces behind it. Surprisingly objective and always informative,<em> Conspiracy</em> adds many valuable pieces to a complex puzzle.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIlcPrkOXmYe44San44W-_3gXakz5Np6UGFKK1qkMbj8ARxp-O0-n6xlSI2Q2g9L7k-lLC87sOfrPaeQ0bOM07Se2OLZNiHjWzzDanuQN38UXvNZSshQjQiHjsxD2fIjuSRJpXXvUXNIgd/s1600/TLI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIlcPrkOXmYe44San44W-_3gXakz5Np6UGFKK1qkMbj8ARxp-O0-n6xlSI2Q2g9L7k-lLC87sOfrPaeQ0bOM07Se2OLZNiHjWzzDanuQN38UXvNZSshQjQiHjsxD2fIjuSRJpXXvUXNIgd/s200/TLI.jpg" width="134" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>4. <em>The Last Investigation</em> by Gaeton Fonzi (1993).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Award-winning journalist Gaeton Fonzi tells the story of his time as staff investigator for the HSCA with the responsibility of following leads that pointed to the involvement of anti-Casto Cuban exiles and their CIA handlers. <em>The Last Investigation</em> presents a remarkable first-hand account of the inner-workings of the HSCA, explores numerous links between Lee Oswald and US intelligence, and exposes the Cuban exile/CIA/mafia figures that may have had a hand in the assassination.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDC4uk9aaa4E_h1SVUk8SwembsQT4l_dwHf6hlB0-aE23T7gIUPmEPXvKLO-WH0_Dx3kUnVzLhBvZXaeWzvvdWp8xucq6ETho_WLu5ukFLP9Sd7H1HQSFiOQxziKq5awgHeobP8rhKngtn/s1600/LJBD1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiDC4uk9aaa4E_h1SVUk8SwembsQT4l_dwHf6hlB0-aE23T7gIUPmEPXvKLO-WH0_Dx3kUnVzLhBvZXaeWzvvdWp8xucq6ETho_WLu5ukFLP9Sd7H1HQSFiOQxziKq5awgHeobP8rhKngtn/s200/LJBD1.jpg" width="127" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>5. <em>Let Justice Be Done</em> by William Davy (1999).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Far and away the best book dealing with Jim Garrison's investigation and failed prosecution of Clay Shaw, <em>Let Justice Be Done </em>is a remarkable account of how the government purposely obstructed justice in the Kennedy case. Utilizing thousands of newly declassified documents, Bill Davy lays out the proof that the very minute his probe hit the headlines, Garrison entered into battle with a federal government determined to uphold the conclusions of the Warren Commission by any means necessary.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Ke78yafD-GNHj3kLtR1Sl89nS2v3FM1ADbV0XMVYJP6lMdm8VVU5DTgQDRENDhdjlyHFfT2RWZWAeQd9mPb7qVf4JZBsDMfTTargbBDERjwXgpiT0Mzu9ML79xE4pDx9lu4u_MgZfTa8/s1600/BOT1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh_Ke78yafD-GNHj3kLtR1Sl89nS2v3FM1ADbV0XMVYJP6lMdm8VVU5DTgQDRENDhdjlyHFfT2RWZWAeQd9mPb7qVf4JZBsDMfTTargbBDERjwXgpiT0Mzu9ML79xE4pDx9lu4u_MgZfTa8/s200/BOT1.jpg" width="139" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>6. <em>Breach of Trust</em> by Gerald D. McKnight (2005).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Subtitled "How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why" this book does exactly what it says on the tin. It explores the inner-workings and motivations of the Commission and explains why it arrived at the conclusions it did. Gerald McKnight uses his skills as professor of history to place the assassination and its cover-up in its proper historical context and in the process crafts the most authoritative Commission critique to date. </div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgq_BQ45vpuaDeQCY1Hz79FUexgA1bvfUTpZo9qPGwIkkx7wpEs49P85llNn1hvHBaSLQx7vd8Vy7vrx7Hi-jaFRuz-nMzn5ih50AcKyDXKPP21X6J-HGXGfgEPLfkoGCx2rj_Tnt8JRZV/s1600/PFAFG.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgq_BQ45vpuaDeQCY1Hz79FUexgA1bvfUTpZo9qPGwIkkx7wpEs49P85llNn1hvHBaSLQx7vd8Vy7vrx7Hi-jaFRuz-nMzn5ih50AcKyDXKPP21X6J-HGXGfgEPLfkoGCx2rj_Tnt8JRZV/s200/PFAFG.jpg" width="135" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>7. <em>Prasie from a Future Generation</em> by John Kelin (2007).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
John Kelin tells the fascinating and almost-forgotten tale of a how a small handfull of private citizens managed to cut through the bullshit and bring the facts of the assassination to the attention of the world. A poultry farmer, a housewife and the publisher of a small Midlothian newspaper were among the first-generation critics to whom we all owe a debt of gratitude. </div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFrCSETlBtGKAYB-w1-ZE88_cCBkWVDlYNyJMYfyqvfNWaPi8eRQ1EJyShV_rHIiFFWk6oa7upcuFeW6G3pQbPdlZV7H5CLmvxbEEJtia9azoc7u9PQkDHCnvCLkuRINJcwQbfjsy5Eari/s1600/Bros1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjFrCSETlBtGKAYB-w1-ZE88_cCBkWVDlYNyJMYfyqvfNWaPi8eRQ1EJyShV_rHIiFFWk6oa7upcuFeW6G3pQbPdlZV7H5CLmvxbEEJtia9azoc7u9PQkDHCnvCLkuRINJcwQbfjsy5Eari/s200/Bros1.jpg" width="133" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>8. <em>Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy</em> Years by David Talbot (2007).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A pioneer of online journalism, David Talbot shows us President Kennedy's assassination through the eyes of his brother, Robert. He shows that not only did the Attorney General immediately suspect conspiracy, he knew in which direction to look. <em>Brothers </em>is the tale of how Robert Kennedy's commitment to solving his brother's assassination would ultimately end with his own shocking murder.</div>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_rskUmAh_HdcL6G6_oEjtrNxu4Qg_NFaS6unR1et3ryREe3MSd3W1QIKO1yPlFysnHTP13ljhInFni32OgIeVBw4-a_NMaodDvOSmJiL8ZAV0SlhNHXMEn_AIT4jRZ01iev8XI7dVBsJh/s1600/JFKandunspeakable.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_rskUmAh_HdcL6G6_oEjtrNxu4Qg_NFaS6unR1et3ryREe3MSd3W1QIKO1yPlFysnHTP13ljhInFni32OgIeVBw4-a_NMaodDvOSmJiL8ZAV0SlhNHXMEn_AIT4jRZ01iev8XI7dVBsJh/s200/JFKandunspeakable.jpg" width="143" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>9. <em>JFK and the Unspeakable</em> by James W. Douglass (2008).</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
A masterpiece; <em>JFK and the unspeakable</em> tells us why John Kennedy died and why it matters. Kennedy was killed because he learned from the mistakes of the Bay of Pigs and the Cuban missile crisis and became a threat to the cold war establishment. He came to see that the inevitable loss of innocent life that would follow a nuclear war was unacceptable and that despite the differences between the American and Russian ways of life, they all must breathe the same air. Kennedy had negotiated a nuclear test ban treaty and began to look at the possibility of total disarmament. He had organised secret back channels for communication with both Castro and Khrushchev because he wanted to end the cold war. And, just as Oliver Stone claimed, President Kennedy was pulling American military advisors out of Vietnam. Kennedy was becoming a man for peace and to the CIA and the Pentagon, whose very livelihood was dependant on prolonging the cold war, this was wholly unacceptable. </div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfeziVnhbNrUh8Dc1GIomEWQ527ZdBzx6T0XJwMrstHc0yzEK7IkZE_0YJdja4afiRs3IP2j_Uw0PYPCvvlpo8zpLKob3U5r8B_CgenphdfF5EYvOwT9nKFaOPc2WAmxl80c0IoOJCqgfY/s1600/Hearnoe.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfeziVnhbNrUh8Dc1GIomEWQ527ZdBzx6T0XJwMrstHc0yzEK7IkZE_0YJdja4afiRs3IP2j_Uw0PYPCvvlpo8zpLKob3U5r8B_CgenphdfF5EYvOwT9nKFaOPc2WAmxl80c0IoOJCqgfY/s200/Hearnoe.jpg" width="141" /></a></div>
<br />
<strong>10.<em> Hear No Evil</em> by Donald Byron Thomas (2010)</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<em>Six Seconds in Dallas</em> author Josiah Thompson said recently, "In my opinion, Don Thomas has produced the <em>best book on the Kennedy assassination published within the last thirty years.</em> Unfailingly fair-minded, Thomas lays out with devastating clarity the way science has bent itself to support an unsupportable official truth. More than this, his discussion of the evidence is a model of sober clarity. In a field crowded with sensation mongers and conspiracy wackos, Thomas’ voice is that of the sober scholar-scientist. His book sets the table for all future discussions of what happened in Dealey Plaza." </div>
<br />
'Nuff said.Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-82273209641381649232010-12-21T07:30:00.000-08:002010-12-21T07:34:07.459-08:00Head Shot ReviewMy somewhat less than enthusiastic review of G. Paul Chambers' recent book <em>Head shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination </em>is now on the CTKA website:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.ctka.net/reviews/hay_headshot.html">http://www.ctka.net/reviews/hay_headshot.html</a>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-2938719433727577772010-12-19T02:00:00.000-08:002010-12-21T07:42:39.531-08:00The Single Bullet Theory Pt. 1<div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">As much as the Warren Commission tried to hide the fact, the “Single Bullet Theory (SBT)”<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>usually referred to by its critics as the “Magic Bullet Theory”<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>is the keystone of its central conclusion that Oswald acted alone. As Commission lawyer Norman Redlich candidly admitted to author Edward Epstein, “To say that they [President Kennedy and Governor Connally] were hit by separate bullets, is synonymous with saying that there were two assassins.” (<em>Inquest</em>, p. 38) Indeed, as critics and researchers have maintained ever since the publication of the Warren Report, without the SBT there could not have been a single gunman whether it was Oswald or anybody else. In order to fully understand and appreciate this concept, it is important to explore the origins of the commission’s most controversial conclusion.</span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">When it began its work the Commission believed that, as far as the facts of the shooting were concerned, the FBI had handed it a simple case. The Bureau’s report, Commission Document [CD] 1, concluded with little elaboration that there had been one shooter (Oswald), three bullets and three hits; Kennedy had been struck by the first and third bullets fired and Connally by the second. The Commission members proceeded under this assumption until June of 1964 when they had originally hoped to wrap up their investigation. But when the Bureau’s director J. Edgar Hoover elected to leak the contents of CD 1 to the press he unintentionally forced the Commission to confront the evidence of a missed shot in Dealey Plaza. </span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSni2Tu8xS6CNqUiOC339sJSxiaagRVapdncTbZRSxNqZ_aKhMYepWkmN3Xqz9diHi2Dtp-ewvfnzLG_5_uumRY1UvS9Y_3PXH7AODAfScOCwTWZrK-wFOF83gQqWIg2YpUia7wPJUJyk4/s1600/curb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="229" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSni2Tu8xS6CNqUiOC339sJSxiaagRVapdncTbZRSxNqZ_aKhMYepWkmN3Xqz9diHi2Dtp-ewvfnzLG_5_uumRY1UvS9Y_3PXH7AODAfScOCwTWZrK-wFOF83gQqWIg2YpUia7wPJUJyk4/s320/curb.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">Soon after the details of the FBI’s report appeared in the papers, United States attorney for northern Texas Harold Barefoot Sanders contacted the Commission to inform them of facts he had learned from <i>Dallas Morning News </i>photographer, Tom Dillard. Dillard had publicly confronted Sanders with information that proved the Bureau’s conclusions were wrong<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>or at least incomplete. He explained that on the day of the assassination Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers had directed his attention to a spot on the south side of Main Street where a bullet had apparently struck the curb and wounded bystander James Tague. Dillard had taken a photograph of the chip in the concrete that had appeared in the following day’s edition of the newspaper with the caption “Concrete Scar.” Walthers filed a report with the Sheriff’s Department and told Tague that he should report his minor injury to the Homicide Branch of the Dallas Police Department. But despite his experience being common knowledge, the FBI did not contact Tague and did not bother to interview him until December 14, 1963, after he contacted their Dallas office. Even then the Bureau did not see fit to examine the curbstone until July 1964 when it was directed to do so by the Commission. Apparently still preferring to pretend that the Tague shot did not exist, and attempting to hoodwink the Commission, the Dallas field office quickly reported back that “The area on the curb…was carefully checked and it was ascertained that there was no nick in the curb in the checked area, nor was any mark observed.” (21H474) It concluded its report with the implausible claim that “since this mark was observed on November 23, 1963, there have been numerous rains, which could have possibly washed away such a mark and also that the area is cleaned by a street cleaning machine about once a week, which would also wash away any such mark.” (Ibid) In the end, FBI Supervisor Lyndal Shaneyfelt was dispatched to Dallas to locate the damaged area of curbstone which was promptly dug up and transported back to Washington for spectrographic analysis. According to the FBI this analysis “disclosed metal smears” which were “spectrographically determined to be essentially lead with a trace of antimony.” (R116) </span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">In truth, even before Sanders had his assistant write the Commission, it was already fully aware that a shot had likely missed the Presidential limousine and its occupants<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>it had been quietly noted in a December 23, 1963 report from the FBI’s Dallas field office and the Commission itself had taken testimony from witnesses like Virginia Baker who remembered seeing “a shot or something hit the pavement.” (7H508) Nonetheless, for as long as they were able, the Commission fully intended to ignore the Tague shot and stick with a three-shot, three-hit scenario. However, with a United States attorney and a newspaper reporter publicly drawing attention to the evidence, the Commission could no longer play dumb. Accepting that a shot had missed placed the Commission in quite a quandary. The time constraints imposed by the Zapruder film and the mechanical firing time of Oswald’s rifle left little possibility for a fourth shot without necessitating a second gunman. This, of course, was unacceptable because it would prove a conspiracy the Commission was not looking to find. It was now forced to rely upon an already controversial theory being proposed by Commission lawyer and future senator Arlen Specter.</span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyOSIsXsLXAfFTh7eWXc1Vphe_bDQqpsq_bn0TY8UNNPgMRhIX0M3197IFq1uapRXdUROnsP4MvYGZDcPEQEzngvM4DC5j6GKNIhRQw3ra6wAxAV3hdJmLJXptJUewRAQCyodyR-Q10NHV/s1600/WH_Vol18_0051a.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="131" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyOSIsXsLXAfFTh7eWXc1Vphe_bDQqpsq_bn0TY8UNNPgMRhIX0M3197IFq1uapRXdUROnsP4MvYGZDcPEQEzngvM4DC5j6GKNIhRQw3ra6wAxAV3hdJmLJXptJUewRAQCyodyR-Q10NHV/s320/WH_Vol18_0051a.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">It had been established in early 1964 through frame-by-frame analysis of the Zapruder film and physical re-enactments conducted by the FBI and Secret Service in Dealey Plaza that the shots had all been fired in less than six seconds. The FBI re-enactment disclosed that an assassin on the sixth floor of the TSBD would have had his view blocked by the foliage of an oak tree between frames 166 and 210 of the Zapruder film. (R98) In a rare display of logic, the Commission concluded that the first shot was probably not fired before frame 210 “since it is unlikely that the assassin would deliberately have shot at him [the President] with a view obstructed by the oak tree when he was about to have a clear opportunity.” (Ibid) The final shot<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>the shot which exploded President Kennedy’s head<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>struck at Zapruder frame 312. Since the film was found to run at 18.3 frames per second (Ibid 97) this established a time frame for the shooting of 5.6 seconds. FBI examination of Oswald’s rifle found that the time required to fire a shot, work the bolt, and squeeze off another round was a minimum of 2.3 seconds or the equivalent of 42 Zapruder frames. (3H407) As the lawyer responsible for “the basic facts of the assassination” this was a cause of serious concern for Arlen Specter because the Zapruder film showed Kennedy and Connally reacting to being hit at different times but well within the 42 frames necessary for a lone gunman. </span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3T7xt3Tmi4CQZuZ7kXVvgCEzUxlHKLNWa8DYO-qlXO6VO1a_huF8yjqiD75xyWUqGLKci2T4q5Hu9ciSq0Q_7gbWx_k80raLaEhmskNYK4xnp7HRorseORaO1FpxcAOHHYAG3fUYruerx/s1600/z224.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg3T7xt3Tmi4CQZuZ7kXVvgCEzUxlHKLNWa8DYO-qlXO6VO1a_huF8yjqiD75xyWUqGLKci2T4q5Hu9ciSq0Q_7gbWx_k80raLaEhmskNYK4xnp7HRorseORaO1FpxcAOHHYAG3fUYruerx/s1600/z224.jpg" /></a></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">When Kennedy reappears from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign at frame 224 he is already reacting to the impact of a shot fired somewhere between frames 210 and 223 but Connally is showing no sign of being hit at all. The precise moment of impact on the Governor is unclear but Connally’s doctors testified that he was probably struck around frame 236 (5H114, 128) and it was decided that he was no longer in a position to receive a shot from the “sniper’s nest” after frame 240. (5H170) The Zapruder film, therefore, established that Connally was hit after Kennedy but within 30 frames, which was much too soon for Oswald to have recycled the bolt on his antique Mannlicher Carcano rifle. With this major discrepancy in mind, a lawyer working on an honest, “let the chips fall where they may” investigation would have likely conceded the probability of a second gun. But for Specter, who was committed to maintaining the Commission’s preordained conclusion that Oswald acted alone, this was simply not an option, regardless of what the evidence showed. Luckily for the Commission, the cunning and resourceful Specter found a way to shoehorn the evidence into a hypothesis that facilitated the inevitable outcome of its inquiry. Specter proposed that if there was not enough time for Oswald to have fired two shots then Kennedy and Connally must have been hit by the same bullet. Connally, he claimed, had simply suffered a “delayed reaction.” The seven members of the Warren Commission were not in unanimous agreement about the validity of Specter’s theory but they had to accept it. Because if one bullet had missed the limousine and one had shattered the President’s skull, without admitting to a second assassin, they only had one round left to account for the seven non-fatal wounds. </span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">The SBT as advanced by the Warren Commission has a bullet, dubbed Commission Exhibit (CE) 399, enter the back of JFK’s neck heading downwards and leftwards. Hitting no bony structures it exits his throat just below the Adam’s apple and strikes Connally in the back of his right armpit. The bullet sails along Connally’s fifth rib, smashing four inches of it before exiting his chest below the right nipple, and then pulverises the radius of his right wrist<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>one of the densest bones in the human body. It then enters his left thigh just above the knee, depositing a fragment on the femur, before miraculously popping back out to be found in near-pristine condition on an unattended stretcher in Parkland Hospital. The problems with the SBT are myriad and they start near the very beginning of CE399’s alleged journey. </span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">No bullet, CE399 or any other, could have entered the back of Kennedy’s neck and ranged downward out of his throat<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>because there was no bullet wound anywhere in the back of his neck. The President’s rearward entrance wound was in the upper back, below the shoulders and, most importantly, below the wound in the throat. In its desperation to legitimize the SBT the Commission simply moved the wound up to the neck! And in an attempt to ensure they got away with it, the Commissioners suppressed the autopsy photos and published an inaccurate drawing prepared by a navy artist who did not have access to the pictures. (CE385) In his mammoth re-writing of the Warren Report, anti-conspiracy buff Vincent Bugliosi tried to explain away the Commission’s dishonesty by claiming it was all a “mistake” made because the Commission “did not have access to the autopsy photos and X-rays.” (<em>Reclaiming History</em>, p. 425) Bugliosi’s assertion is pure, unadulterated nonsense as this passage from the Commission’s January 27, 1964, executive session clearly shows:</span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;">RANKIN: Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck...We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, the angle, it seems quite apparent now, <em><strong>since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade, to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front</strong></em>, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn’t strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. So how it could turn--</span></div><div align="justify" lang="en-US" style="margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span style="font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;">BOGGS: I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger’s length.</span></div><span style="font-family: "Courier New", Courier, monospace;">RANKIN: That is what they first said. [Author‘s emphasis] </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0g24zlLvf4gHIbekJTmEdCxrkd9j_WqWKNx44F8trLuDJphTlBAcMbuyopte-DhNFEM0udoirlaY6hR90hOB5TAakL4A5QJTExKyDa30VrsZPrXlL_wfvlXySNkh044hWkPZbpAMc5svf/s1600/BE5_HI.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="318" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0g24zlLvf4gHIbekJTmEdCxrkd9j_WqWKNx44F8trLuDJphTlBAcMbuyopte-DhNFEM0udoirlaY6hR90hOB5TAakL4A5QJTExKyDa30VrsZPrXlL_wfvlXySNkh044hWkPZbpAMc5svf/s320/BE5_HI.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">It is a fact to be lamented that the official autopsy report failed to record the precise location of Kennedy’s back wound according to the fixed anatomical landmarks routinely used in forensic pathology. As a result, there remains to this day considerable confusion about its exact location. The President’s death certificate signed by his personal physician, Admiral George Burkley, on November 23, 1963, places the bullet hole at “the level of the third thoracic vertebra” which is several inches below the neck. This original placement is supported by the bullet holes in the jacket and shirt worn by the President at the time of his assassination<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>both found approximately 5 and ¾ inches below the top of the collar (7HSCA81-3)<span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span lang="zxx">¾</span></span>and by the autopsy face sheet prepared by Dr. Boswell at the autopsy. (CE397) The Warren Commission, or course, moved this wound up to “the base of the back of President Kennedy’s neck.” (R87) This location has absolutely no evidentiary support whatsoever. A third location was proposed by the Forensic Pathology Panel (FPP) for the House Select Committee On Assassinations (HSCA) in 1979. The nine-member FPP, made up of some of the United States’ most distinguished medical experts, made careful measurements from the autopsy photos and X-rays and placed the back wound at the level of the first thoracic vertebra (7HSCA175), approximately 5 cm below the shoulder (Ibid 85), and roughly 1 cm below the wound in the throat (Ibid 92). Because they did not have access to the actual body, the conclusions of the HSCA cannot be considered definitive. Therefore, the best that can be said is that President Kennedy’s back wound was somewhere between the first and third thoracic vertebra. What we can say with a certainty, what is obvious from even a cursory glance at the autopsy photos, is that the back wound was below the throat wound.</span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;">So, what does this mean for the SBT? The FBI re-enactment established that the angle from the sixth floor of the TSBD to the President’s back between frames 210 and 225 of the Zapruder film was 20-21 degrees below the horizontal plane. (18H89-90) Any bullet hitting Kennedy at the level of the first thoracic vertebra (or lower) and continuing on a 20 degree downward trajectory would have exited his chest and could not possibly have exited his throat just below the Adam’s apple. It is possible that a bullet could have entered the back heading downward, been deflected, and ranged upward out of the neck. However, after leaving the throat headed on an upward trajectory it could not have then changed direction in midair to course back down into Connally’s right armpit. </span></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1vchPLFQ5pWJfQIG-bAE7kWl1EXKfYlSc8r9VxoE5XlWP8Sk917vtYiHq_QexkNwxO-ALef0beLIBi8HDmZrUezk8rvrwiuE-adep7EQEUG5VhzTfXErxHTyGya1hoGw3Lfk0khdi_yZc/s1600/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="206" n4="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj1vchPLFQ5pWJfQIG-bAE7kWl1EXKfYlSc8r9VxoE5XlWP8Sk917vtYiHq_QexkNwxO-ALef0beLIBi8HDmZrUezk8rvrwiuE-adep7EQEUG5VhzTfXErxHTyGya1hoGw3Lfk0khdi_yZc/s320/HSCA_Vol7_0055b.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">The FPP concluded that the SBT was possible providing Kennedy was leaning forward far enough to raise the back wound several inches above the one in the throat, and the HSCA published a diagram to illustrate the amount of forward lean necessary. (7HSCA100) But what the FPP ignored is that all available films and photos, the Zapruder film especially, show that the President was sitting perfectly upright when he was struck. Nothing like the amount of lean portrayed in the panel’s illustration is seen in the Zapruder film. When Dr. Cyril Wecht, the only member of the FPP to dissent from its findings, raised this issue with his colleagues he was told, “ah, but we cannot know what happened when they were behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.” (1HSCA339) As Dr. Wecht dryly opined, “what presumably they are asking us to speculate upon is that in that 0.9 second interval, the President bent down to tie his shoelace or fix his sock, he was then shot and then sat back up.” (Ibid) Of course, such a supposition is absurd. There is no getting around the evidence as the HSCA tried to do; the back wound was below the throat wound and Kennedy was sitting upright when first struck. These simple facts essentially destroy the SBT all by themselves</span>.</span></span><span style="font-size: small;"></span> </div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"></div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><span style="font-family: Times, "Times New Roman", serif; font-size: small;">But we’re not done with the back wound yet.</span></div>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-44607114022830826672010-08-15T08:18:00.000-07:002010-08-15T08:36:02.047-07:00The Truth About JFK's Head Wound<div style="text-align: justify;">Upon viewing the Zapruder film, the majority of people are struck by the apparent disparity between the official pronouncement that all shots were fired from behind and the obvious fact that the President was propelled backwards and leftwards by the impact of the projectile that struck him in the head. But over the last four and a half decades, we have been assured by numerous experts working on behalf of the US government that the medical evidence supports only the official fairytale. The President's reaction, they told us, was meaningless. But in actual fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The official autopsy X-rays completely contradict the “lone nut solution” and demonstrate that the fatal shot was most likely delivered by a gunman on the infamous “grassy knoll.” </div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk8BnYSfKRVb3VKWjAjMvGgG4qpxiRrZEmVPcW944XqkQAwmqSqYkDKQvgVT60YY_CoYVifEGGaHJafLKX-k_776J48LOnJ0vNf8hM_rrk1IE7tjuyiETu6DYprqtcdh50kGUad7-I5aM-/s1600/autopclr4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="200" mx="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjk8BnYSfKRVb3VKWjAjMvGgG4qpxiRrZEmVPcW944XqkQAwmqSqYkDKQvgVT60YY_CoYVifEGGaHJafLKX-k_776J48LOnJ0vNf8hM_rrk1IE7tjuyiETu6DYprqtcdh50kGUad7-I5aM-/s200/autopclr4.jpg" width="145" /></a></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; clear: both; text-align: left;"><strong>Dr. Humes' Big Lie...</strong></div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none;"><br />
</div><div style="border-bottom: medium none; border-left: medium none; border-right: medium none; border-top: medium none; text-align: justify;">JFK's chief autopsy surgeon, Dr. James J. Humes, claimed that upon examining the President's head the doctors found a defect in the scalp (see picture above) “2.5 centimeters to the right, and slightly above the external occiptal protuberance” (the small, boney bump on the back of the skull). He further claimed that upon reflecting the scalp they found a “through-and-through” hole in the skull corresponding with the scalp defect. (2H351-352) Thus, the autopsy surgeons reported that the bullet entered through this small hole and exited through a large 13 cm defect on the right side of the head. To illustrate the head wound, the Warren Commission decided not to publish the autopsy photos and X-rays and instead Dr. Humes had a Navy artist make drawings based entirely on his verbal descriptions. </div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVojOi7yj4aykL4q8UzX9axNHbK1PzASYYFCsf81ML6_QUbPq8dEfqcLanDUr4gd5DNC6jb6KZy6-DfdAUnllS6A7J9SX53Xn5HzKuRevOoaTuxKIbUMFqXO_GyykxAKcZYwmem7DRHsfU/s1600/CE386-88.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" mx="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhVojOi7yj4aykL4q8UzX9axNHbK1PzASYYFCsf81ML6_QUbPq8dEfqcLanDUr4gd5DNC6jb6KZy6-DfdAUnllS6A7J9SX53Xn5HzKuRevOoaTuxKIbUMFqXO_GyykxAKcZYwmem7DRHsfU/s320/CE386-88.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Humes further claimed that the "through-and-through" hole exhibited external "beveling" and, in an interview with the <em>Journal of the American Medical Association</em>, claimed that this was absolute "proof<em>"</em> that the bullet passed from back to front: “It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy...This is a law of physics and it is foolproof – absolutely, unequivocally, and without question.” (JAMA, May 27, 1992) Finally, Dr. Humes claimed that the bullet that passed through the head left a track of "multiple minute metallic fragments along a line" beginning at the alleged small hole and extending to the large defect on the right side. (CE387)</div><br />
<em>Note: "Beveling" of skull bone is essentially the same as what occurs when a BB hits a pane of glass - a small hole on the impact side and a larger, cone-shaped defect on the other side.</em><br />
<br />
<strong>...Revealed!</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">When the Clark panel and the HSCA pathology panel reviewed the autopsy materials - in 1968 and 1978 respectively - they found that there was no small entry hole where Humes claimed there was one. Still determined to uphold the official story, both panels moved the wound four inches up the head (!) to the approximate location of a large round fragment that it was later claimed was a cross-section of the bullet that had shaved off on impact. But both panels were blowing smoke out of their asses. During its tenure between 1992 and 1998, the Assassinations Records Review Board asked three independent forensic specialists to review the photographs and X-rays and all three were in unanimous agreement that the skull X-rays show no entry hole of any kind at any point on the back of the head. (Doug Horne, <em>Inside the ARRB</em>, pgs. 584-586) And, in fact, both of Hume's colleagues at the autopsy had already admitted as much. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">In 1978, Dr. J. Thornton Boswell admitted to the HSCA pathology panel that what they had actually discovered after reflecting the scalp was not a through-and-through hole but a semicircular, beveled notch on the margin of the large defect, (7HSCA246, 260) a fact confirmed by Dr. Pierre Finck in his appearance before the Warren Commission when he explained that a “portion of [a] crater” had been used to identify the point of entrance. (2H379) So the conclusion that a bullet had entered the back of the head at this point was based on an inference and not on observation as Humes had claimed. And the alleged beveling of this notch was not the "foolproof" indicator he claimed it was. When a through-and-through hole is present, beveling is usually a valid indicator. But even then, as Dr. Donald Thomas writes in his brilliant book, <em>Hear No Evil</em>:</div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;"><em>“There are important exceptions...even through-and-through perforations, are not infrequently beveled on the impact side...collateral information (evidence from the scalp wound, bone chips, fracture patterns, angle of trajectory, bullet fragments) must all be taken into consideration rather than reliance on external beveling alone...a common exception to the beveling rule are tangential entrance wounds, which may be beveled on either or both sides. The fact is, however, <strong>when dealing with fragments or margins of bone, and not through-and-through holes, all bets are off</strong>. [emphasis mine] This is because the laminate nature of the cranial bone lends itself to chipping that can easily be confused with beveling.” (pgs. 272-273)</em></div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">One cannot help thinking that Dr. Humes was fully cognizant of the problems with relying solely on beveling which is why he lied and said that he had found a through-and-through hole. The fact is, as observers of the autopsy have confirmed, the autopsy doctors were confused by the evidence in front of them and, in reaching their conclusions, relied on reports coming in from Dallas that a lone assassin had fired on the President from above and behind.</div><br />
<strong>So What's the Truth?</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">The true path of the bullet is established by the track of "missile dust" thorugh the brain - as seen on the autopsy X-ray. Although Humes claimed in his report that this fragment trail began at the entry hole he located in the back of the head, it actually begins at the right temple and extends to a point in the back of the head far above both his proposed entrance and the "revised" location offered by the Clark and HSCA panels.</div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgohwLj2ZfH5IL3MEyM4G2AgNXIgyCnQrlUh0pmr7M5tZji00jDZ4phfGI8an1Q6YS_LgQZjHYX-0oYNxGZSQxciqIB2xm2WCTgOse-mcN7wKir1eT0owD-OLXdsxIBG86kr1H5Iq6kMW3b/s1600/AnnXray2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="257" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgohwLj2ZfH5IL3MEyM4G2AgNXIgyCnQrlUh0pmr7M5tZji00jDZ4phfGI8an1Q6YS_LgQZjHYX-0oYNxGZSQxciqIB2xm2WCTgOse-mcN7wKir1eT0owD-OLXdsxIBG86kr1H5Iq6kMW3b/s400/AnnXray2.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">When a bullet disintergrates on striking a skull, the smaller, dust-like fragments are found closer to the entry point and the larger particles are found closer to the exit. This is because the larger fragments, having greater mass, have greater momentum and are carried further away from the point of entry. This is precisely what is seen in the X-ray above, with the smaller particles located at the right temple and the larger ones towards the top back part of the skull. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikLsDEfwB9Uy_vEBEJULAoZR_NEPGXEKXzPkjlm2wDszfxbcANSXcG_cKjxbs5AJssydfeWdwqYCn53zKk56GrrY6AqjgUoHd1VAqhiwRvPPg3_1rWMiSk3z8u9xUZNsJJRDBTBqdgfzn_/s1600/JFKSkull01.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="254" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEikLsDEfwB9Uy_vEBEJULAoZR_NEPGXEKXzPkjlm2wDszfxbcANSXcG_cKjxbs5AJssydfeWdwqYCn53zKk56GrrY6AqjgUoHd1VAqhiwRvPPg3_1rWMiSk3z8u9xUZNsJJRDBTBqdgfzn_/s320/JFKSkull01.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">The bullet dust aligns with semi-circular notch in the right temple seen in the above photo (showing the front of the skull with the scalp reflected over the eyes) and the lesion in the hairline seen in the photo below. </div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw2EPKRDEvAnnxNJT0oy1YBHSCLU_ZaiJdnt3elK4oYnU0H_3AEcZBour2vwpvvTHVQfDEjdbKoO84VMY85osp8EyX-KyfadOymf79XdLz94MsgdRFWc5o-FT8LAx5h-G_QY4hfdrzMoM2/s1600/jfk_autopsy_02c.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgw2EPKRDEvAnnxNJT0oy1YBHSCLU_ZaiJdnt3elK4oYnU0H_3AEcZBour2vwpvvTHVQfDEjdbKoO84VMY85osp8EyX-KyfadOymf79XdLz94MsgdRFWc5o-FT8LAx5h-G_QY4hfdrzMoM2/s320/jfk_autopsy_02c.JPG" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">These pictures are consistent and show the true entrance of the bullet in the right temple. </div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">Lone-nut-believers and Warren apologists with no understanding of terminal ballistics usually argue that a rifle bullet entering the right temple would have to exit the left side of the head. This is pure, unadulterated, ignorant nonsense. A bullet will follow a straight-line trajectory up until the point it intercepts a hard suface at which point it will usually deflect, taking the path of least resistance. As Warren Commission Exhibit 844 shows, even bullets fired into soft ballistic gelatin can easily deflect.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix3hQdyts29PNG0SgAZnVBCG4tyI1-_8eQ8lqvgpH5basMcJukxCFpTP6ZnO3yMCe-q4y9sctnHT-odVgbye_g5jUlcAZxgKs4LDtHbrscRKd5-BzozcD80M6iO7b6cXb4z380HMzJ5t8f/s1600/CE844.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEix3hQdyts29PNG0SgAZnVBCG4tyI1-_8eQ8lqvgpH5basMcJukxCFpTP6ZnO3yMCe-q4y9sctnHT-odVgbye_g5jUlcAZxgKs4LDtHbrscRKd5-BzozcD80M6iO7b6cXb4z380HMzJ5t8f/s320/CE844.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In the JFK case, we have a tangential strike from the grassy knoll deflecting upwards and leftwards - perfectly consistent with the expected effects of momentum, penetration and yaw on deflection. (for more on this, see the aforementioned book by Dr. Thomas)</div><br />
<strong>But What About the Wound in the Scalp?</strong><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">The autopsy doctors described the "ragged, slanting" defect in the back of the scalp as "a laceration and tunnel, with the actual penetration of the skin obscured by the top of the tunnel." (ARRB MD14) The HSCA panel noted an "abrasion collar" in the "inferior margin" (7HSCA104) which is indicative of an upward trajectory. Obviously, then, the missile that caused this wound came from below and not above. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The anterior X-ray shows a large round fragment attached to the outer table of the back of the skull, aligning with the scalp laceration. </div><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0f6oJO4fcgRv_oJ8NEsJzG7kdspR0wJcdHrIqDfcDNz-F3sEtfZXx1wf9AzJUabvDQ6xUPfZqslVvuWinF8s5ZmtWmyTcj1qRPEhECBqTjutcVXylbnZlGneYwdZTS6rl7OGV8pDozZQP/s1600/apxray.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" ox="true" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj0f6oJO4fcgRv_oJ8NEsJzG7kdspR0wJcdHrIqDfcDNz-F3sEtfZXx1wf9AzJUabvDQ6xUPfZqslVvuWinF8s5ZmtWmyTcj1qRPEhECBqTjutcVXylbnZlGneYwdZTS6rl7OGV8pDozZQP/s320/apxray.jpg" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: justify;">The official explanation is that this fragment represents a cross-section from the center of the bullet that attached itself to the back of the skull whilst the nose and tail carried on out the right side of the head. This is a physical impossibility with no support in the forensic literature and has been rightly dismissed by forensic and ballistics experts. Dr. Russell Fisher, who headed the Clark Panel's review, confided to ballistics expert, Howard Donahue, that the panel had come to the conclusion that it must have been "a ricochet fragment" from the shot that hit the street behind the Presidential limousine. (Bonar Menninger, <em>Mortal Error</em>, p. 65) Despite this being the most reasonable explanation for the presence of this large round fragment on the back of the skull, the Clark panel did not include this information in its report. Why? Because it would have been plainly obvious that it was this ricochet fragment that created the upward tunneling wound in the scalp. And once we realize that the only wound in the scalp was caused by shrapnel from the shot that struck the pavement, all evidence of a rear-entering shot flies right out the window.</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;"><br />
</div>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-14740500205528878172010-08-09T08:03:00.000-07:002010-08-15T08:26:21.535-07:00Who Are the Paines?<div style="text-align: justify;">JFK researchers have long been suspicious of Michael and Ruth Paine. They were, after all, guardians of much of the evidence responsible for convicting Lee Harvey Oswald in the eyes of the public. Perhaps most importantly, Ruth Paine was responsible for finding Oswald the job at the Texas School Book Depository that would put him in the perfect place to assassinate President Kennedy — or to take the fall. The Warren Report claimed that on October 14, 1963, “at the suggestion of a neighbour, Mrs Paine phoned the Texas School Book Depository and was told that there was a job opening. She informed Oswald who was interviewed the following day...and started to work there on October 16, 1963.” (R14-15) What the commission did not see fit to report was that the neighbour whom Mrs Paine claimed had informed her of the job opening, Linnie May Randle, flatly contradicted her testimony. Randle swore before the commission, “I didn't know there was a job opening over there.” (2H247) Just as suspiciously, as the commission also knew, Mrs Paine had withheld from Oswald information that may have led to a better, higher paid job. </div><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">The day before Oswald began working at the TSBD, Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission had phoned the Paine home to give Oswald a referral for permanent employment as a cargo handler at Trans Texas Airways for $310 per month — $100 per month more than he would earn at the depository. As Adams told the commission, he “learned from the person who answered the phone that Oswald was not there.” Adams left a message and said that Oswald should contact him at the Commission. Receiving no call from Oswald, Adams phoned the Paine residence again the following morning and was informed by Ruth Paine (9H389-90) that Oswald had obtained employment elsewhere. As Adams told the Warren Commission, he did not believe that Oswald was ever informed of the job referral. (11H481) When Mrs Paine was questioned about this matter by the commission, she first denied any knowledge of the job possibility, then vaguely recalled it. Finally she lied and said that Oswald had gone “into town with some hopes raised by the employment agency...but then reported that the job had been filled and was not available to him.” (9H390)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Another suspicious event involving the Paines occurred on the day of the assassination. At 1:00 pm on November 22. 1963, Michael Paine placed a collect call to his wife to discuss Oswald's involvement in the assassination. While the telephone operator remained on the line, Michael Paine told his wife that he “Felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but was not responsible.” Rather ominously he added, “We both know who is responsible.” (FBI report of Robert C. Lish, November 26, 1963, JFK Document No. 105-82555-1437) The most extraordinary thing about this call is that it took place one hour before Oswald's arrest. For obvious reasons, the Warren Commission wanted to sweep this little problem under the rug as swiftly as possible. During Michael Paine's testimony, the ever resourceful commission attorney Wesley Liebeler changed the date of the call to the following day: </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">LIEBELER: Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">PAINE: I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there.</div><div style="text-align: justify;">LIEBELER: Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?</div><div style="text-align: justify;">PAINE: And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no. So I did not. (2H428)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">As researcher John Armstrong pointed out, “Liebeler had phone company records and an FBI report in hand which showed the collect call was placed on November 22 and not on November 23. By intentionally asking Michael Paine about a non-existent telephone call Liebeler was obstructing justice and colluding with a witness to falsify testimony.” (Armstrong, <em>Harvey and Lee</em>, p. 832)</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The above oddities, and many more besides, demonstrate that there is much more to the Paine family than meets the eye. At the time of the assassination, Michael Paine was working as a research engineer with defence contractor, Bell Helicopter. He admitted in his Warren Commission testimony that his job carried a security clearance but claimed, somewhat unbelievably, not to know what the classification of that clearance was. (2H385) What Michael Paine did not reveal, and what it took researchers 30 years to find out, was that his stepfather, Arthur Young, was the inventor of the Bell Helicopter. As Jim Douglass noted, “By heritage, Michael Paine was well connected in the military-industrial complex.” (Douglass, <em>JFK and the Unspeakable</em>, p. 169) His mother was connected to none other than Warren Commissioner, Allen Dulles through her lifelong friendship with Mary Bancroft who, according to Douglass, “worked side by side with Allen Dulles as a World War II spy in Switzerland and became his mistress.” (Ibid) </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Ruth Paine's family was directly connected to the CIA. Researcher Steve Jones uncovered documented evidence that the CIA had approached her father, William Avery Hyde, in 1957, “to run an educational co-operative alliance in Vietnam.” (Jones, <em>New Evidence Regarding Ruth and Michael Paine</em>, Kennedy Assassination Chronicles Vol. 4 issue 4) A few months after the release of the Warren Report, Hyde received a three year government contract from AID (Agency for International Development) — an organisation said to have “extensive” ties to the CIA. Indeed, as Jones discovered, Hyde's AID field reports had been routed through the Agency. (Ibid) Former Governor of Ohio and later AID director John Giligan admitted, “At one time, many AID field offices were infiltrated from top to bottom with CIA people. It was pretty well known in the agency who they were and what they were up to.” (Douglass, p. 170) According to Jones, Ruth Paine admitted to a close friend that her father had worked for the CIA as an “executive agent.” What she did not tell her friend was that her sister, Sylvia Hyde Hoke, was also employed by the CIA. Steve Jones found documented evidence that Sylvia had worked for the Agency as a staff Psychologist in 1961. When New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison called Ruth Paine before a grand jury in 1968, he asked her if her sister had done any work for the U.S. government. Amusingly, she admitted that Sylvia had a “government job” but claimed not to know what agency she worked for. (Ibid, p. 171) </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Most researchers are aware that Marina Oswald was cut off from Ruth Paine within days of the assassination. What the majority are unaware of is the reason why. Apparently, she was advised by the Secret Service to stay away from Ruth Paine because “she was sympathizing with the CIA.” As Marina swore under oath before the new Orleans grand jury, “Seems like she had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out a connection between me and Ruth and CIA.” (Ibid p. 173) Bad for Marina or bad for the official story?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">With the above in mind, there is one question that must be asked: Is there any evidence that Ruth and Michael Paine were involved in any significant intelligence activities in 1963? Well, there is certainly nothing concrete. Much information about the Paine family remains classified. However, buried in volume 19 of the Warren Commission hearings and exhibits is a tantalizing and often overlooked clue. According to a report written by Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers on the day of the assassination, upon searching the Paine's garage, officers found “a set of metal file cabinets that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban Sympathizers.” (19H520) These metal file cabinets did not make it onto the Dallas Police inventory sheets and were never entered into evidence alongside Lee Harvey Oswald's belongings. And if they did not belong to Oswald, then they must have belonged to the Paines. And if Ruth and Michael Paine had a “set of metal file cabinets” containing “the names and activities of Cuban sympathizers” then they were most certainly involved in the same intelligence activities that most researchers believe Oswald was involved in during the summer of 1963. Needless to say, the whereabouts of these filing cabinets is currently unknown.</div>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7972814704509810867.post-61410652129163729092010-08-08T11:08:00.000-07:002010-08-15T08:27:12.424-07:00Lee Harvey Oswald: Patsy.<div align="justify">As far as mainstream historians and media outlets are concerned, the Warren Commission reached the right conclusion in 1964: Lee Harvey Oswald, alone and unaided, was a deranged lunatic who ended the life of America's 35th President simply for attention. That the evidence never did allow such a definitive conclusion does not seem to bother them one bit. Take for example the Commission's claim that Oswald sneaked his cheap, mail-ordered Mannlicher-Carcano rifle into the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of the assassination inside a brown paper bag. </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">On the evening of Nov 21, Oswald rode with fellow depository employee Buell Wesley Frazier to Irving to visit his estranged wife Marina, who was living with a friend, Ruth Paine. Frazier lived a block away from Ruth Paine with his sister Linnie Mae Randle. Since Oswald would usually visit Marina on weekends, Frazier asked why he was doing so on a weekday. Oswald replied that he was going to pick up some curtain rods to use in his rooming house. The following morning Linnie Mae and Frazier both saw Oswald carrying a package in a brown paper bag. When Frazier asked what it was, Oswald replied, “curtain rods”. The commission claimed that Oswald had fabricated the curtain rod story and that the package contained the sixth floor rifle. The evidence indicates otherwise. </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Firstly, the conclusion that Oswald lied about going to Irving to pick up Curtain rods may actually be correct but the Commission always new the real reason he went there that Thursday and it had nothing to do with picking up curtain rods or the rifle. On Sunday, November 17, Marina attempted to call Oswald at his North Beckley rooming house and was told that there was no one named Lee Oswald living there. The next day, according to the Warren report, "Oswald telephoned his wife. When she indicated that she had been upset by the fact that there had been no Lee Oswald at the number which she had asked Mrs. Paine to call Oswald became angry; he said that he was using a fictitious name and that she should not have called the Beckley Avenue number. He did not telephone on the following day, which was unusual." (R740) When Oswald turned up at the Paine home unannounced on Thursday evening it was obvious to Ruth and Marina "that he had come to Irving because he felt badly about arguing with his wife about the use of the fictitious name. He said that he was lonely, because he had not come the preceding weekend, and told Marina that he 'wanted to make his peace' with her." (Ibid) Oswald was a very quiet, private man and it is highly unlikely that he would have wanted to share his marital difficulties with Frazier. This the most likely reason that he invented the curtain rod excuse.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Frazier and Randle were the only two witnesses who saw Oswald carrying the package the following morning and both repeatedly stated that it was about 27-28 inches long. On December 1, 1963, Frazier was asked by FBI agents to mark the point on the back seat of his car that the bag had reached when Oswald had put it there with one end against the door. The FBI “determined that this spot was 27 inches from the inside of the right rear door” (24H408-9). Frazier was also certain that Oswald had carried the package with one end cupped in his hand and the other tucked under his arm. Even broken down the rifle was 34.8 inches long (R133) and would have been impossible for Oswald or anyone else to carry in this manner.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Linnie Mae Randle was looking out of her kitchen window when she saw Oswald cross the street, carrying the “heavy brown bag.” The FBI presented Randle with a “replica” brown paper bag and it was folded over until it reached “the proper length of the sack as seen by her on November 22, 1963.” Her estimate was measured at 27 inches long, exactly the same as that of her brother. (24H407-8) On March 11, 1964, when Randle appeared before the commission, she was asked to fold the bag again. Validating her earlier estimate, the resultant length was 28 ½ inches. (2H248-50) Perhaps most importantly, she testifed that Oswald carried the package with his hand at the top "and it almost touched the ground as he carried it." (2H248) If Oswald had been carrying a package of nearly 3 feet long with his hand at the top, unless he had the world's shortest arms, it would have been dragging on the ground! In fact, it would have extended beyond it.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">The only witness to see Oswald enter the Texas School Book Depository on the morning of November 22 was employee Jack Dougherty. As the Warren report notes, “one employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to work, but he does not believe that Oswald had anything in his hands as he entered the door.” (R133) As it was harmful to the case against Oswald, the commission simply chose to ignore Dougherty’s testimony. However, he was certain in his recollection:</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL: Do you recall him having anything in his hand? </div><div align="justify">Mr. DOUGHERTY: Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.</div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL. Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?</div><div align="justify">Mr. DOUGHERTY: Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time. </div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL: In other words, your memory is definite on that is it? </div><div align="justify">Mr. DOUGHERTY: Yes, sir.</div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL. In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands? </div><div align="justify">Mr. DOUGHERTY: I would say that---yes, sir. (6H377) </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Warren commission apologists often point out that Dougherty had learning difficulties which led to his receiving a medical discharge from the US Army as if this invalidates his testimony. In truth, Dougherty may not have been the sharpest tool in the box, but since he was at least intelligent enough to perform his duties at the depository, it is safe to assume that he could tell whether or not somebody had held something in their hands. But what to make of the apparent contradiction between Frazier’s and Dougherty’s observations? </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">As Frazier testified, he and Oswald did not walk into the depository together. Frazier had sat in his car for a few minutes with the engine running to charge up his battery and then lagged behind Oswald as he paused to watch the trains. (2H227-8) When Oswald entered the depository building, he had to pass through an enclosed loading dock where a number of rubbish bins were located and it seems that he must have discarded his package there so that his hands were empty seconds later when he emerged in the depository proper to be seen by Dougherty. The only question left unanswered is if it did not contain the rifle or curtain rods, just what was in the package? The <em>precise</em> answer to this question will probably never be known but the Paine garage was, as police would discover, full of junk. So Oswald could have picked out any number of objects that he could stick in a bag and tell Frazier it was curtain rods.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">A 38-inch long paper bag, made from wrapping paper and tape from the depository’s shipping department, was allegedly found near the sixth floor window. The commission claimed that this was the bag Oswald had used to carry the rifle. Oswald had, they said, kept the rifle wrapped up in a blanket in Ruth Paine’s garage. The commission further claimed that the bag contained fibres that “could have come” from the blanket. (R129) The paper bag in question may be the most meaningless piece of “evidence” in the entire investigation. The commission offered no evidence that connected the rifle to the bag or even the bag to the so called “snipers nest.“ FBI Special Agent James C. Cadigan examined the paper bag supposedly found at the depository for any distinguishing marks that might link it to the rifle. From Cadigan’s testimony:</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Mr. EISENBERG: Mr Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were - that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142 - whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?</div><div align="justify">Mr. CADIGAN: I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle?</div><div align="justify">Mr. EISENBERG: Yes?</div><div align="justify">Mr. CADIGAN: And I couldn't find any such markings. (4H97)</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Whilst the absence of any distinguishing markings doesn’t automatically prove that the bag was not used to the carry rifle, it also does not in any way permit the conclusion that it was. The only other “evidence” the commission offered in an attempt to connect the bag to the rifle were the fibres found inside the bag that they said “could have come” from the blanket found in Ruth Paine’s garage. The Bureau’s hair and fibre expert Paul M. Stombaugh carried out various examinations of Oswald’s shirt, the blanket and the fibres:</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Mr. EISENBERG: Now, what do you think the degree of probability is, if you can form an opinion, that the fibers from the bag, fibres in the bag, ultimately came from the blanket? </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Mr. STOMBAUGH: When you get into mathematical probabilities, it is something I stay away from, since in general there are too many unknown factors. All I would say here is that it is possible that these fibers could have come. from this blanket, because this blanket is composed of brown and green woollen fibres, brown and green delustered viscose fibers, and brown and green cotton fibres. Now these 3 different types of fibers have 6 different general colors, and if we would multiply that, say by a minimum of 5 different shades of each so you would have 30 different shades you are looking for, and 3 different types of fibers. Here we have only found 1 brown viscose fiber, and 2 or 3 light green cotton fibers. We found no brown cotton fibers, no green viscose fibers, and no woollen fibers. So if I had found all of these then I would have been able to say these fibers probably had come from this blanket. But since I found so few, then I would say the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket. (4H81)</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Was it really fair for the commission to state that the fibres “could have come” from the blanket based on Stombaugh’s testimony that “the possibility exists“? Stombaugh wouldn’t even say that they had “probably” come from the blanket, merely that “the possibility exists.” It would be fair to say, then, that the fibres “could have come” from any number of sources other than the blanket.</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Just as there is no evidence that the paper bag was ever used to carry the rifle, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Oswald constructed the bag. As noted above, the bag was made from wrapping paper and tape from the depository’s shipping department. The depository employee responsible for looking after these materials was Troy Eugene West. As West testified before the commission, he would almost never leave his work bench, except to get water for coffee first thing in the morning before starting work, and was even in the habit of eating his lunch there. (6H356-63) When West was asked if he had ever seen Oswald “around these wrapper rolls or wrapper roll machines, or not?” he replied, “No, sir; I never noticed him being around.” (6H360) The commission had established through FBI agent Cadigan’s testimony that the tape used on the paper bag showed marks from the tape dispenser at West’s work station. The commission was ready to assume that Oswald had taken the paper and the tape and made the bag elsewhere. However, as West explained, the gummed tape was automatically moistened as it was dispensed by the machine: </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Mr. WEST: Well, we have those machines with the little round ball that we fill them up with water, and so we set them up. In to other words, I got a rack that we set them in, and so we put out tape in a machine, and whenever we pull the tape through, why then the water gets, you know, it gets water on it as we pull it through. (6H361) </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Bearing in mind that the tape bared marks from the dispenser, the commission wanted to know if the tape could be dispensed without being moistened:</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Mr. BELIN: If I wanted to pull the tape, pull off a piece without getting water on it, would I just lift it up without going over the wet roller and get the tape without getting it wet? </div><div align="justify">Mr. WEST: You would have to take it out. You would have to take it out of the machine. See, it's put on there and then run through a little clamp that holds it down, and you pull it, well, then the water, it gets water on it. (6H361)</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Thus the bag would have had to have been constructed at West’s workstation. Since West testified that he had “never” seen Oswald around and that he “never did hardly ever leave” his work area, Oswald simply could not have made the paper bag. </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Equally as damning for the commission’s conclusions is the fact that the paper bag does not appear in any of the Dallas Police Department’s crime scene photographs. Additionally, the testimony of the three law enforcement officials who were first on the scene does not support the notion that the bag was found in the “snipers nest.” Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill told the commission, “if it was found up there on the sixth floor, if it was there, I didn't see it.” (7H65) Deputy Sheriff Roger Dean Craig was asked "Was there any long sack laying in the floor there that you remember seeing, or not?" Craig’s reply was simple and direct, "No; I don't remember seeing any." (6H268) Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney testified, “No, sir; in my running around up there, I didn't observe it.”(3H289) Further doubt is cast by John B Hicks, a Dallas police detective who worked in the crime laboratory, was also asked about the paper bag: </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL: Did you ever see a paper sack in the items that were taken from the Texas School Book Depository building?</div><div align="justify">Mr. HICKS: Paper bag?</div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL: Paper bag.</div><div align="justify">Mr. HICKS: No, sir; I did not. It seems like there was some chicken bones or maybe a lunch; no, I believe that someone had gathered it up.</div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL: Well, this was another type of bag made out of brown paper; did you ever see it?</div><div align="justify">Mr. HICKS: No, sir; I don't believe I did. I don't recall it.</div><div align="justify">Mr. BALL: I believe that's all, Mr Hicks. (7H289)</div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">The evidence presented above leads one to the inescapable conclusion that the paper bag was in no way related to the assassination. To recap, the bag bore no distinguishing markings from the rifle (there was not even a trace of oil despite Marina Oswald’s testimony that her husband had kept the rifle well oiled), Oswald had neither the means nor the opportunity to construct the bag, it does not appear in any of the crime scene photographs and Dallas law enforcement officials who were in a position to see the bag testified that they did not. The only evidence lone assassin theorists have left to suggest a connection between Oswald and the bag is the fact that a single fingerprint and a palm print identified as Oswald’s were found on it. However, it hardly needs to be pointed out how meaningless it is that a paper bag, said to have been found on the floor where Oswald worked, had his prints on it. </div><div align="justify"><br />
</div><div align="justify">So what does all this mean for the official story? Oswald's only rifle was, according to Marina, stored in the Paine's garage. For Oswald to be the lone assassin he had to have removed it on the morning of November 22 because at no other time was he seen taking a package from the garage, at no time was any rifle seen at his rooming house and at no other time did he take a large package into the depoistory. It was his only opportunity. So, if the package he carried that morning did not contain the rifle, and all of the evidence tells us it did not, then someone else placed the Mannlicher-Carcano on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and Oswald was exactly what he said he was: A patsy.</div>Martin Hayhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08751300048094175683noreply@blogger.com4