By Harrison E. Livingstone
“I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, human liberty as the source of national action, the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas.
─John F. Kennedy
The Warren Report is a theory.
In these two new volumes you will find many hard evidence chapters drawn from my six major works on the case, which totaled 3,400 pages. This is so you can see for yourself what the evidence for conspiracy is, and not get into the plot, people, history, or much else except for brief mentions. I’ve tried to make it easy. The selected chapters also help to trace the development and growth of my research.
The JFK case is broken.
My task, as I see it looking at the JFK case with the long view of 49 years, is to suggest that we have to learn how to rethink what we are doing. Even, learn how to think another way. A new way. In fact, learn to be more suspicious and make certain assumptions about the corruption of the human mind and soul, and ignore the old presumptions and wishful thinking. Just think how many people are falsely convicted of crimes they did not commit because of some fool with a Ouigi board looking at a criminal case thinking that it “has come together.” We may then think that we know what happened in a homicide or other crime, but far too often someone suffers or dies in prison while we think we know what happened because the cop or crime lab who framed him said so. JFK’s killers framed an innocent man, Lee Harvey Oswald, probably a patriot for this country, and soon arranged his murder in a police station because he might be able to prove his innocence. This was an obvious frame-up, and most people thought so. The whole case was a put-up job because it wasn’t real and because the nation was asked to make a long string of presumptions presented in the Warren Report’s official story, nothing but a pile of lies and fraud.
Authenticate evidence before we accept and use it. We have been fools for 50 years because the evidence we were shown was mostly false. Often, the very people who tell us that things aren’t coming together, are perpetrating hugely false evidence and then we wonder why it doesn’t come together! Sometimes they are just simpletons masquerading as professors and detectives and tricking even themselves. They’ll never admit that they’ve wasted many years of their lives and ours studying some puzzle they’ve been tricked into believing is scientific evidence, such as autopsy photos, X-rays or a film. They believe their own lies too often. We’ve been taken to the cleaners and perhaps it has cost us our country. Listen to the following well known statement by another writer found in Doug Horne’s Vol. 4, p. 1,133. “In a homicide case, you see a convergence of the evidence after awhile. There may be discrepancies in detail; but on the whole, things come together. With this case . . . things haven’t gotten any simpler. They haven’t come together. If anything, they’ve become more problematical, more and more mysterious. That just isn’t the way a homicide case develops.” Well, at least not according to the Crystal Ball and Weegee Board school of crime solution. He means we should come to know what happened! In the JFK case, most people really do not have any idea what happened, unless they delude themselves with the false theory that the Warren Commission perpetrated on history like a tsunami. The case will never come together. The theory was invented to cover-up the truth of the murder.
This case, however, is really rather simple once you understand it. Try postulating that all of the official evidence used to bolster the official theory of what happened is false. That is to say, it is fabricated. Then watch how quickly the case comes together and you can figure out what happened. The Administration and many of its policies were overthrown. We know that by the results: A new war in Vietnam hit us in the most sensitive part of our being the moment President Kennedy was laid to rest, and then we were anesthetized to it with a massive mind control operation, as happens to nations that use wars to divert attention from what else might really matter.
Test each part of the evidence we assume is false, and in this case, it will all prove to be a fabrication. We just aren’t suspicious enough. Lots of “conspiracies” are crap, but some are very real, and those who don‘t believe that they exist or who are brainwashed not to think that way, are fools. Conspiracies exist all around us. Don’t forget it. Many people are just crooked, and the rich and powerful have different agendas from most of us.
Don‘t forget it. That’s the answer.
Much central evidence of conspiracy was always there in the 26 volumes published by the Warren Commission, along with their Report. But all the public heard were short regurgitations of the “Report,” nothing but a theory that was a way of spitting on us and those who voted for Kennedy. It was meant for all of us fools who were too “liberal” or “progressive.” That was the Official Story. Nobody had time to read all of those books, but they were printed because, like those from Iberian countries, they record what people say during inquisitions and under torture. It’s just a habit or tradition, so to speak. No one was expected to read the 26 volumes which listed all the doctors who described far different wounds than what we were eventually led to believe, and scores and scores of people and police who reported that the gunmen were in front of the car, more than were behind it, and that the car stopped in the middle of the ambush during the shooting, which we don’t see in the film of the murder. Hang on, because you are in for quite a ride. No newsman in 1963 had the time or was being paid to read those 26 volumes, but the truth was always there. That’s what they thought of us: Fools who wouldn’t read it or even find a news report after the first week that told us anymore of the truth. But the Warren Report was nothing but a theory!
Well, that’s going to end now. We aren’t going to have just a limited hangout. We are now going to get the truth of what the conspiracy evidence really is, and then it will all come together for you, as it has for me and many others. You are going to get the truth at last.
It’s simple, too. But all of us have to learn to think and put aside a lifetime of brainwashing. I recall when our leaders talked a lot about how much the Soviet people were brainwashed. But it really was us who perhaps had more of it than they did.
The public has lost faith in our government, and perhaps the only way it will start to trust it again is if we start getting the truth on John Kennedy’s murder and a lot else. After all, this isn’t Egypt or Syria.
We cannot have violence in our political process, and until we get out house in order and face the truth ourselves, not many will listen to us and haven’t for many years. We live in a thoroughly brainwashed day-dream about how others in the world perceive us.
Readers and those interested in the truth in this tragedy need to know what we have been dealing with in terms of the charlatans and frauds in the case. “Researchers“ credentialed themselves as critics of the Report and were admitted by the gatekeepers. They tricked us and led us down the garden path. These were not the rank and file of often unknown truth seekers who did the tough work and did not have another agenda. The bad ones led us into endless traps, puzzles and dead ends. They were biased and had a political agenda to sell, often enough, but they needed to make a name for themselves with their bags of phony evidence, and led us into disaster and cul de sacs, or kept us going around in circles. This scheme wore a lot of people out and they gave up hoping they would learn the truth.
At last, we have the truth now. Sad that it was always before us.
Is anything in our country and its history truly secure from theft, alteration and damage in the hands of those charged with its safe keeping?
To lead into the mysteries of the assassination of President Kennedy and its cover-up, this might be as good a place as any to say that much evidence was found to be missing from the National Archives early in the case. It didn’t help that a Texan named Marion M. Johnson was in charge of the collection at the Archives in Washington from the beginning. All my efforts to obtain a complete genealogy that might have shown if Marion Johnson was related to President Lyndon Johnson so far are stymied. If there was such a connection, that certainly would be a colossal clue to what was going on, yes? No?
Much was missing, and much was switched for substitute materials. The famous “Magic Bullet, CE 399, was found to be gone from the Archives, and try as they might all the nation’s greatest scientists and ballistics people, and even those who found the alleged bullet at Parkland hospital on the stretcher of a little boy (many believed it was obvious that the missile had been planted) the day of the assassination, could not recognize it remotely as the bullet they had seen or handled. It certainly didn’t weigh the same, and the weights of the different fragments found in the car were far more than could have been missing from the almost pristine bullet we now have in the Archives.
You’ll soon be reading (hopefully) a major chapter on an idea I had and developed which is called “The Substituted Evidence Theory: Fabrication of the Evidence.” This is a common event in criminal cases on the local level, but who would have thought that it was the MO of the cover-up artists in the assassination of President Kennedy? JFK certainly deserved better. You’ll find a mountain of chapters on evidence in these two humble books professing to know exactly what it all means because it is so obvious what really happened to cover the true nature of such a heinous crime. That crime had world-wide ramifications in what became war after war and the transformation of our nation into an “anything goes country” — as one commentator once called it.
Just so you know how this line of reasoning works, we need to keep in mind that many people are corrupt and in need of money either to pay the bills, feed the baby and the wife, or gambling debts to loan sharks and hoods before the curtain falls. The Washington Post article was headed up: “Federal agents raid home of recently retired National Archives (NARA) official” (by Lisa Rein and Spencer S. Hsu, Staff writers, 29 October 2010). The combined forces of state, local and federal police found and took away some 20 boxes of materials he had lifted from the Archives, evidently not trusting in his government pension plan, and needed added security. So did we–from him!
The victim of his own chicanery was Leslie Waffen, 65, the head of the audiovisual division at NARA in College Park, MD. I traveled there frequently to pursue my research, and usually had to ask him for materials. He would often sit nearby watching me, to be sure I did not take anything. I was too afraid of the law to do that, though I had other vices and bad habits for which I didn’t mind taking chances. There were also security cameras all over the ceilings and behind one-way windows. I often came to study the slides Life made from each frame of the Zapruder film.
I complained to Steve Tilley, formerly of the National Security Agency (he was probably just as active reporting on all of us poor sap researchers), who was in charge of the JFK collection in the 1990’s, that stuff was missing, or materials that I had seen were changed for different copies each time we came back. This was a good way to tie me in knots. The Archives, the nation’s most important repository of historical records, was playing a shell game with the evidence and one could not trust what they brought us. I complained about these things to Waffen, and sometimes he was a bit snide with me for complaining. The worst part were innuendoes that I was mistaken, and that I had only imagined that I’d seen something different — or that I had not examined what I now found to be missing. Pretty soon they almost or sometimes actually had you believing that you were the one that was mistaken. How awful! Then 10-12 years later, Waffen, who worked for the Archives 40 years before retiring, was the one caught with many materials he’d pilfered from the Archives, but I haven’t ever seen a list of what he had. Now I suspect that he was the one tampering with what I was looking at, and God knows what else. I could no longer be sure of some of my results and studies.
Another news article finally showed up on my half blind radar screen on the A.P. wire (4 May 2012) with the disposition of his case. Until then, I could not find out if he had been arrested or not, and I thought perhaps they had packed him off to the loony bin to be nice to the poor man. I’m sure having charge of all of us half-crazed researchers who would never stop grieving for the loss of Kennedy and never stop asking for more or less secret stuff pushed him over the edge. If they could have their way, it would be like the butter-fly collections they kept in thousands of drawers at the Harvard Museum where I worked once, just needing a shot of moth balls now and then, but certainly no more researchers sniffing around or breathing on the collection. We are exploring just how safe is our history in the National Archives.
Waffen had indeed been arrested and was sentenced to 18 months in prison by a judge in Maryland where he lived. He was caught when a former radio engineer who had recorded an interview with Babe Ruth and had donated it to the National Archives more than 30 years before, and while scanning through E-Bay, saw his record up for sale. The winning bid was just $34.75. “I took one look at the record label and I said, ‘Holy smokes, that’s my record!” He then started to investigate how this happened and helped uncover the thief. Waffen, perhaps a kleptomaniac, acknowledged stealing thousands of sound recordings from the Archives, and prosecutors say that more than 1,000 were sold on eBay. The thefts started as early as 2001, and the stolen recordings included items ranging from a recording of the 1948 World Series to an eyewitness report of the Hindenburg crash. Oh well, that’s baseball, so what happened to all the rest that went missing in the JFK case starting soon after the assassination and placement of the evidence in the N.A.? There oughta be a Congressional investigation, don’t you think?
The point of this exercise is to thoroughly ground you, the reader, at the start to keep in mind at all times that humanity can be corrupted. There is quite a black market in stolen historical materials. But 20 boxes full of goods? How many boxfulls of priceless artifacts had he already disposed of, if he did? Or was this nerd bureaucrat simply your average everyday analy retentive collector?
After only two years, in 2012, The National Archives reversed its commitment to continue declassifying JFK case records, and announced in a press release and a letter from NARA’s general counsel, Gary Stern, that it would withhold records related to the assassination. Dan Alcorn, the director of the Assassination Archives and Research Center made this public to the research community. After nearly fifty years of secrecy, it will continue.
There are countless conflicts in the evidence in the JFK case. One of these concerns the nature of the exit head wound President Kennedy received. Where exactly on the head do we see it? On the side? On top? On the face and forehead as the Zapruder film shows, or mostly on the back of the head, or a little to the right, including mostly the back of the head?
These questions raise another very major question. How do we deal with this and how does the criminal law deal with it? What matters in such conflicts is the preponderance of evidence, which rule. Then the problem is what weight do we subscribe to the different classes of evidence?
It has been common for photographs and sometimes X-rays to become the decisive factor in determining the nature of a wound. It makes things much easier for courts, judges, law enforcement, and researchers if there are photographs of a body, especially autopsy photographs, to easily make up our minds for us. But, it is almost just as easy to fabricate such photographs and X-rays and trick people, as happened when the Warren Commission unofficially viewed the visual evidence, and spent a great deal of time studying the Zapruder film. At no time was any of this evidence authenticated and at no time were questions asked about their authenticity. Do the photos in the National Archives depict the wounds as they were? I feel that the failure to question any of the above visual evidence is one of the single most important causes for the conflicts to exist, and for the cover-up of the true conspiracy in the assassination to have taken place.
Currently, as I write this, a new tyro of the research into Kennedy’s assassination is the former prosecutor of mass murderer Charles Manson and assassination buff, Vincent Bugliosi, a conspiracy theorist of the first water has entered the lists. I find it utterly amazing how he skates by at high speed some of the many conflicts by utilizing completely false presumptions to start with. One of his most major ideas is that the Dallas doctors were entirely mistaken when they felt that Dr. Malcolm Perry was correct in saying that there was a bullet entry wound in the throat, something that the autopsy doctors did not know about or actually probe, since at least officially, they only thought it was the wound of a tracheotomy, and that there was a large, gaping head wound almost entirely on the back of the head.
Mr. Bugliosi concluded that only the autopsy pathologist were qualified to pass judgment on where that large wound was (can anyone really believe that there was any question about it?). As with photographs, it was not generally known that the two primary pathologists had little or no experience whatsoever and had almost or never performed an autopsy.
Dallas, like any other big city, had its major share of violent death, and its emergency wards were accustomed to violent death by gunshot. Nearly every senior doctor that came to the E.R. that day had more than enough experience. Dr. Kemp Clark was the senior physician in the trauma room and pronounced the president dead. He was a professor and chairman of neurological surgery at Southwestern Medical School. Above all, among those many doctors and nurses present there and the doctors and corpsmen at Bethesda Naval Hospital later, he was the most qualified and competent to judge. But the other senior doctors present in the Parkland E.R. were very experienced with gunshot wounds, and at that point, when the head was lifted up (as it was several times so that late arriving doctors could see the wound for themselves): there was no large wound visible on the side, top, or front of the head at that time) there was no mistaking the large defect of missing scalp and bone at the rear of the head as the later autopsy report reported it.
Vincent Bugliosi makes a major mistake when he refers to the approximate number (15) of surgeons and residents present in Parkland’s trauma room as “pathologists,” who normally would not be called to the E.R. Taber’s Medical Dictionary states that a pathologist is a “Specialist in diagnosting the morbid changes in tissues removed at operations and postmortem examinations.” A friend of mine who obtained Bugliosi’s book said that he made so many mistakes at the start that she gave up reading it.
I feel that Bugliosi seriously misinterprets the evidence. The importance of where the large hole on the head was, precisely, before it was damaged further by the journey from Dallas to Washington, bears on the issue of where was the gunman firing from when the head was damaged that way: behind or in front? The Dallas medical witnesses saw an entry wound on the head in the temple area, as did Malcolm Kilduff, a staff person for President Kennedy who filled in as press secretary when he died, addressing the throng of reporters whom had come to the hospital in Dallas. A photo of him pointing to the same right temple area where the doctors saw an entry hole was widely published, and he explained that this was where the bullet entered. That meant that the bullet that blew out the back of the head had come from the right front of the car, evidently from the manhole at the end of the overpass where it meets the stockade fence, discussed in this book and photographed by me, from where very many competent people stated that the shot had come. This evidence is overwhelming and dovetails with that placing the large hole on the back right side of the head. You can see four of the Parkland doctors (Dr. Richard Dulany, Dr. Paul Peters, Dr. Robert McClelland and Dr. “Pepper” Jenkins) demonstrating that exact position and identical position for the wound in these books, and in High Treason 1.
You can also see a number of drawings made by other witnesses showing the large defect in the same area on the back, right of the head. The shot from the right front entered the right temple and took off the back of the head. It does not matter that some of the Parkland doctors present in the E.R. were residents, they were certainly old enough to be able to make such an elementary observation and demonstrate it correctly. So could most children.
Bugliosi goes to great lengths to nit-pic the Dallas witnesses on this and other issues, attacking their credentials and qualifications (which was also done by critics for the autopsy doctors), showing his extreme bias for the Official Story on every issue, and his basic failure, sometimes common to prosecutors (as he is by profession). Bugliosi has a game in all this, and that is to muck up every question or issue with conflicts, some of which result from misinterpretation and deliberate bias. He even pretends that the autopsy report is not theirs when it tells you where that large defect is, even though it is seemingly controverted by the X-rays (not showing at all the same thing as the photo of the back of the head (there is no good explanation for that massive disconnect, either). But Bugliosi or no one else can simply overcome with rhetoric, semantics, and personal attack overwhelming documented evidence published by the Warren Commission alone that there was a gunman in front of the car. Maybe two gunmen on both sides of the bridge. What matters in this entire nightmare is the weight of the evidence or the preponderance of the evidence, as it also called.
The Dallas doctors, once more, have endured 50 years of browbeating to change to one extent or another what they had originally said, and that is what we have to stick with, even though the statements can seemingly be parsed and faulted somewhat beyond endurance. That is the goal: to muck up the specifics so badly that they no longer fit together to give us the “big picture.” Bugliosi finds some minor qualifications for the statements in the old records, but he and his allies do not succeed in doing much more than discrediting themselves–those who seek to destroy the facts. Bugliosi and his cohorts, trying to discredit those who know there was a conspiracy, which is as obvious as day and night, cannot answer the very questions they themselves raise or accuse the “conspiracists” of not answering.
Bugliosi writes about the throat bullet wound which Dr. Malcolm Perry used to place a tracheal tube, and criticized the Dallas doctors for not attempting “to make a determination of whether the wound to the president’s throat was an entrance or exit wound. They were only trying to save his life. Among the later pathologists who did attempt to determine whether it was an entrance or exit wound, all fifteen of them not only concluded that it was an exit wound, but that it was the exit wound of the bullet that entered the president’s upper right back .” (p. 411, bottom). His sentences are often so muddled it is impossible to sort through them. (author’s note: The 15 were the three autopsy doctors, the nine doctors in 1978 on the HSCA medical panel, and the three pathologists on the 1968 Clark Panel). There were only three pathologists present at Bethesda, and according to the official record or their later statements, none of them knew that there had been a bullet hit in the front of the neck, let alone in the same place where the wound of the tracheotomy had been. They knew about the tracheotomy only, and not that it had been inserted in Dallas in a bullet entry wound. After that, the magic bullet had to be invented to tidy things up.
In speaking of “the error made by many of the Parkland doctors,” he makes much of Jim Moore’s speculation that “Since the President was lying on his back and they could not see the rear of his head, most described the large exit wound as being the right rear of the president’s head, ‘because the side of the president’s head was the most rearward portion of the skull they observed.’”
Bugliosi seems to be conflating several subsequent investigations over the many years that followed, On this same page Dr. Baden is quoted, a man who relied almost exclusively on the photos and X-rays for his opinions when he headed the HSCA’s (House Select Committee on Assassinations) medical panel. Another serious error is his lack of knowledge of the statements from the Parkland people that the head was lifted several times to show where the large defect was—on the back of the head. Dr. Kemp Clark did this to show others its back and the large missing portion with much brain gone, in part to demonstrate how hopeless it was that Kennedy could survive or be saved by them. I have also documented this in my writings.
I prolong this extended discussion about the head wound because those who protect the winners and the conspirators in this case cannot tolerate having evidence survive that indicates there was more than one shooter, let alone any that show the cover-up had got into the highest levels of government and the Naval hospital itself to control the photographs and X-rays to the extent of falsifying them. That is what is going on here in these disputes. The conspirators and their supporters in this treason cannot allow evidence of shots from in front.
But Bugliosi, the sophist, continues to batter at the problems and writes “So we see, that all four people who were much closer to the president’s head (he means the photographer and the 3 autopsy doctors) than anyone else, and whose business it was, as opposed to the many other people in the room, to know where the wounds were, have no question in their mind that the exit wound was to the right front side of the president’s head, not the rear.” (p. 410) How silly is this? He denounces the three S.S. men (Clint Hill, William Greer, Roy Kellerman), several of the Parkland doctors and nurses–most especially Diana Bowron who prepared the body for the casket. (See my chapter on her in Killing The Truth, 1993, p.179); the two FBI men sitting close by the table: James Siebert and Francis X. O’Neill whose business it was to watch closely and note it down, not to speak of the medical corpsmen present who closely assisted the doctors, who all described the large defect in the back of the head. One of the photos show the head is picked up, and although this otherwise fake, retouched picture shows the rear intact, others in the room could see what it actually looked like. They have no question in their mind that the exit wound was in the rear right side of the President’s head. Yet, Bugliosi implies that it was on the front, as the X-ray and Zapruder film indeed seem to show.
“ . . . have no question in their mind. . .” Really? How come they denounced such interpretations of what they actually told JAMA in a series of dishonest and cooked articles, and of the X-rays and photographs and continued to state afterwards that the large defect was in the back of the head. Never did they say it was on the “Right front side” which would have made their own autopsy report a lie on that score. This is “Double Speak” at its worst. Show me, Mr. Bugliosi. They never said it to the JAMA writers and editors and afterwards continued to restate what they had always said about the defect being in the back/right side. JAMA paid heavily for trying to change this evidence where the wounds were. Have no question in your mind that the history with JAMA’s “cooked” articles–as I was shown calling them that night on the national news–were exposed as a lie.
“In the final analysis, it’s difficult to accept the testimony of any of these lay witnesses as irrefutable truths given the fact that their accounts run directly contrary to the conclusions of the three autopsy surgeons and fourteen other pathologists whose position is supported by the autopsy photographs and X-rays. In other words, lay observations, notoriously problematic, have to yield to hard scientific evidence (p. 410).” By that he primarily means that the “hard, scientific evidence” is photographic, and he has downgraded the senior doctors at the Parkland E.R. to “lay” witnesses, as well as totally ignoring the medical corpsmen at Bethesda who on some issues were vastly more experienced and knew more about specifics than the inexperienced military doctors.
The autopsy doctors themselves implied that any conclusions based on the photos and X-rays, if they contradicted their own findings (it was a very simple matter requiring no medical expertise at all as to where the large defect in the head was, other than for the anatomical markers to precisely locate it) were essentially useless, Later on I quote one of several statements Dr. Humes made about the photos and X-rays when he refused to bow to them, and implied that they were ridiculous. Bugliosi then relies on what he thinks the preposterous Zapruder film shows of the wound, which appears to show much of the face missing, and which I demonstrate in another book is a hoax, and a “special effect.” That section of filmstrip in fact seems to be painted. Since when is photo evidence not authenticated or questioned at all?
Mr. Bugliosi, look, there must be some reason why everybody and his brother including most professionals felt that the autopsy was seriously bungled.
Throughout his muddled 70 pp. on the autopsy evidence, he repeatedly shows his reliance (and that of Dr. Baden, the medical examiner of New York) on the photos and X-rays, in spite of the massive questions about their authenticity by both medical experts and many witnesses to the body itself.
Dr. Clark wrote about the wounds (all the medical witnesses that day at Parkland were asked to write down descriptions of the wounds they saw and what occurred there, along with what they did. These reports were added to the 26 volumes of the Warren Report, and some of the doctors testified to the Commission). Kemp Clark, the best witness to the head wounds, told the Commission that the large defect was in the back of the head, There was a “large wound in the right occiput extending into the parietal region.” In another report, he said that the large hole was “in the occipital region of the skull,” and “there was a large wound in the right occipital-parietal region . . . There was a considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue.” He told the Warren Commission that he “examined the 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.” Dr. Clark was far more qualified than the autopsy doctors, but they all saw the wound in the back of the head, primarily. In this volume you will read the chapters from my first book, High Treason 1, which details the extensive evidence of the significant medical witnesses. A child could correctly describe where that wound was, in fact.
If we are to weigh evidence as we must, the opinions of the Dallas doctors must rule in some conflicts because the head began going to pieces as the minutes and hours progressed after it received an explosive gunshot wound that shattered the skull and before it could be autopsied (legally, the body had to be autopsied in Dallas, but it was forcebly taken by the Secret Service and transported to Washington). The body was handled a great deal, washed (this was a mistake from the medical-legal standpoint), wrapped, placed in a casket, transported in an ambulance to the plane, carried up the steep stairway to the cabin, flown to Washington, unloaded, transported in another ambulance a long way across the city and its pot-holed streets to Bethesda, unloaded from the vehicle and moved on a gurney to the autopsy room where it had to be taken from the casket, moved to the table, unwrapped, and the head put on a wooden block. And there we have still another conflict: the corpsmen (all of them greatly experienced in dealing with the bodies of men who had died violent deaths) upon whom the pathologists greatly depended for so much that was done at the autopsy, all say that the metal brace attached to the table supporting the head in some of the autopsy photos did not exist in the room, and only a wooden block was used. This meant that the photos had been taken somewhere else, or that they had been faked.
The head was shattered, and it was difficult to chart just what had happened to it, but the pathologists wrote in their autopsy report that “There is a large, irregular defect of chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter. From the irregular margins of the above scalp defect tears extend in stellate fashion into the more or less intact scalp . . . “ (W.R., USPO Edition p. 540) I feel that this is somewhat accurate. It means that the rear and right side of the head nearly as far as the ear and the temporal region was gone. Theorist V. Bugliosi is guilty of what psychiatrists call “selective inattention” to the evidence, in favor of his theory of a “hinged” flap of scalp and bone. Truth is more bone had fallen in on the right side which enlarged it by the time it was so described.
Bugliosi believes those of us who believe that the murder was a conspiracy are “silly.” That is, he ridicules the 85-90% of the population who believe it. He continues endlessly to try to find fault, for instance mentioning the “missile” that the FBI men present at the autopsy wrote in their report was found by the pathologists. It is claimed that the FBI men at the autopsy since said that the “missile” were two fragments found in the body, and the typist made a mistake (Bugliosi’s note 224 in his autopsy chapter). Well, there is a deformed bullet in the National Archives with an FBI receipt for it, saying it was found in the body, and I published a photo of both the bullet and the receipt with that statement in the 1998 edition of High Treason, (p. 562) which is included in these volumes. Someone needs to research this a lot more. “Behind the ear” is very close to where the possible frontal neck entry was. If it was a handgun missile that hit a vertebra, it might not get far.
It was said to have been found behind the President’s ear, but that is not on the receipt– only that it was found in his body. I doubt that it was the one that hit him in the front/side of the head in the temple, but that it might have been the “missing” bullet that came into his throat, because bullets can behave erratically when they enter a body and may end up quite some distance from where they began. It seems to me to be a handgun bullet, but I’m no expert.
The bullet might have been the one that hit him in the back, as well. But most likely, it was the one that is alleged to have struck him about an inch above the hair line on the back of the neck. It seems small, like it might be a 22. None of us have been able to learn more about it. But it may be a huge piece of the puzzle. The back wound did not transit the body, either.
Following the above mentioned photo is one of the windshield of the limousine showing either a bullet hole or where a fragment struck. A number of fragments were found in the limousine. Outside the hospital, a reporter stuck a pencil through it.
Some of the skull bone was blown out onto the street and grass, and one large piece known as the “Harper” fragment was found the next day and taken to a doctor at a Dallas hospital where it was closely examined and photographed, and within a week sent to Washington. Pieces were found in the limousine and some were taken to Bethesda at about Midnight. Many of the pieces were not placed back in the body before burial.
To explain the partial disparity, none of which included any part of the top or front of the face and head as we see in the fake Zapruder film or the alleged autopsy photographs and X-rays, I have this to say:
The back of the head, meaning scalp and bone, was definitly gone. There was no large “hinged” piece of scalp and bone there, as conspiracy theorist Vincent Bugliosi, has stated as fact, but is only his wild speculation. There is no evidence for that. There were, though, small bits of scalp with broken bone on them but no evidence in favor of his theory of a larger “hinged” flap of scalp and bone were still attached to the head. These were very small, evidently. Some bone had fallen into the deep cavity during transport where some of the brain had been blown out.
In order to establish a rear head entry, a false photograph of the back of the head was made showing it undamaged in anyway except for a clearly painted “entrance” wound about five inches above the hair line. This is four inches above where the autopsy doctors said there was a partial entrance wound on the bone showing half the circumference of a bullet entry where the bone had broken off. It is also several inches from the actual apparent entry hole in the right temple area, also noted in Dallas, though the exact position is a little conflicted. The autopsy evidence is not very clear if there was a head entry wound in back in the occiput, or on the side, perhaps because there were two entries in the head from the front–right side and the rear.
Tom Robinson, the mortician, reconstructed the skull after the autopsy that night, filling in the skull with plaster of paris. There was no pause after the autopsy was over and Robinson had been seated in the gallery watching everything, ready to go to work at once. He next covered the large defect with a rubber dam to prevent leakage, and stretched the remaining scalp over the skull to try to close the hole, and then sutured it. But there was so little scalp left from the original gunshot blow-out, not all of the missing scalp could be covered. There was still a hole about the size of a silver dollar, and he said that once the head was placed in the depression on the coffin’s pillow, turned slightly to the right, the missing scalp could not be seen. A hairpiece was unnecessary and not used because they washed Kennedy’s long hair and combed it down over the hole as best they could. They may not have been able to completely dry it, however, and the hair in the photo appears to be wet, if that explains things. There was no after-autopsy surgery before the mortician began his work at once (with the help of medical corpsman Paul O’Connor) of the head area to falsify the photograph now in evidence of an intact back of the head. David Lifton’s entire idea of after the autopsy surgery to “fool the camera” is preposterous and irrational for the conspirators to undertake anything so complex which might put them at new risks when it was unnecessary. It was a serious mistake for Doug Horne to fall for such a fantasy, but Lifton can always be counted on to create the most complex of puzzles for us to waste time on.
At the point when the work was done and the body ready to go into the coffin, if the room had been cleared, someone could have placed a hairpiece on the defect and taken the now famous photo of the back of the head, though some retouching was apparently required. There is also an apparent matte line showing which indicates a composite photo. There is no record of the body being left alone at that point or of a photographer being there, although it is speculated that Robert Knudsen was there and from other evidence, appears to have possessed both the “before” picture of the large defect when the body arrived, and the “after” photograph of the intact back of the head, clearly made later. Someone else’s head could have been used for that, and the color and texture of the hair in the final picture is not right. In any event, the most likely explanation is for someone to have composed the picture from parts of other photos and retouched it.
Later, when more bone was flown from Dallas, the doctors found lead scrappings on what was clearly the circumference of a bullet, and with this bone, an entry hole was established close to the hair line in the skull. This was below, of course, the major blowout that extended across most of the back of the head, at least four inches across. That blowout helped establish a shot from the right front, and as Chief Jesse Curry writes (I discovered it on my own) there was a trajectory from the head backwards to Officer Hargis riding his motorcycle on the left rear fender of the limousine, through the President’s head to the manhole on the right side of the bridge where a shooter was concealed and could escape through large storm drains at the bottom leading down to the river. It is to this spot where many witnesses ran after the shot exploded and a puff of gunsmoke was seen along with the smell of burnt powder. The puff of smoke drifted along the wooden fence some yards to the east.
In a major documentary film I made (with three camera crews assisting) in 1991 of three medical corpsmen from Bethesda and four of the Parkland witnesses, they all stated that several if not all of the copies of the alleged autopsy evidence from the archives had been retouched or were completely false, especially the photo of the back of the head. One of these men, Floyd Riebe, had taken pictures of the body. (See photo of the conference just before p. 433 of High Treason 2, and Chapter 14 about it) Page 305 has a photo of the “magic” or “pristine” bullet, showing almost nothing lost from it, and a drawing made by Nurse Audrey Bell (who had come to my filming) of the several fragments removed from John Connally which she put in a bottle and gave to the authorities. Clearly, this is not the “pristine” bullet that went through him and greatly fragmented..
In addition, the story that someone was seen beating up on the President’s head with a ball-peen hammer was raised, and Dr. McClelland said that one of the photos showed evidence of such a hammer. That’s a good way to make a large defect that was not there before to get a false X-ray, as we clearly now have. One doctor thought that perhaps the skull in the photos could not be the President’s head.
Bugliosi calls us “silly.” It is not easy to be polite to someone who says that when many of us feel that we’re fighting for the soul of this nation. He devotes quite some space to a personal attack on one of the Dallas doctors, Charles Crenshaw, feeling that at all costs he must discredit him. I perceive Bugliosi as the new spokesman for the Official Story because of his massive distortion of the case and the evidence, and disregard for law and order in the brutal slaying of President Kennedy. He tries to overturn a great amount of medical evidence and testimony of gunmen in front of the limousine and its victims, and he tries to do this with nit-picking and his negative personal assessments and character assassination of witnesses when in many cases they were police with nothing to gain and perhaps risked trouble by saying what they felt happened, as do most witnesses in the case. His utilization of the JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) articles as a new version of the autopsy doctor’s testimony along with his (and JAMA’s) attack on Dr. Crenshaw was a sideways attack at all of the Parkland witnesses), which he has no justification to do.
Bugliosi, with blind faith in the official evidence, says in his 2nd footnote on p. 412 that “Of course, when a bullet entering the body passes through soft tissue before it exits, the exit would is going to be as small or almost as small, (and as circular or almost as circular) as the entrance wound. Striking bone damages the bullet, normally causing it to leave a ragged, irregular, and larger exit hole. The bullet that entered the president’s body in the upper right part of his back only passed through soft tissue before exiting from his throat (CE 387, 16 H 983, and p. 412 of Bugliosi’s book). But Bugliosi doesn’t know that there are all kinds of bullets. Some will not be deformed if they don’t hit bone, and some will. In this case, the alleged “magic” bullet broke Connally’s rib. Worse, he states that the bullet “passed through soft tissue before exiting from his throat (meaning Kennedy’s before it hit Connally).” The wounds of the neck and back could not be probed, and there was no evidence that they were connected with a bullet track. Second, it was completely unreasonable, as Dr. Cyril Wecht has pointed out many times, that they were connected and that the exiting bullet could have then struck Governor Connally sitting in front of JFK and made three new wounds in him at the angles required for some of it to end up in his leg–where it evidently still is in the grave.
Bugliosi denounces those of us who think a conspiracy in the murder is obvious by saying that we can’t explain what happened to the bullet that hit him in the back if it didn’t exit Kennedy’s throat. Well, the autopsy pathologists didn’t know what happened to it, either, because, they did not know (officially—or did not believe) that the throat wound was originally a bullet wound, let alone an entrance wound. More importantly, they were completely unable to probe the back wound, if there really was one, which we now know was moved by Congressman Gerald Ford by six inches to conform to Commission counsel Arlen Specter’s “Magic Bullet Theory.” It’s a lot easier to move an imaginary wound than a real one. I think the evidence was far too strong that there had been no hit in the back of the neck, but the autopsy said there had been one just an inch above the hairline, or so, close to the occipital protuberance. But because James Tague had been hit with cement kicked up by a stray bullet, that was a fourth shot, and the experts felt that only three shots could have been fired, so they had to say that the two other victims (in the limousine) were both hit with one of those two bullets.
So how could this have happened? Thus was born Specter’s “Magic Bullet theory.” Obviously, it’s the conspirators that were the original theorists. As for the portable alleged back wound allegedly found at the autopsy which later moved 6 inches higher, Diana Bowron wrote on a photo I sent her, “This is not the back I saw,” but she did mark the alleged position of the entry wound, apparently.
The only researcher present, I was at the 1992 press conference of JAMA’s, and was shown on national TV, including Dan Rather’s evening news, pouncing on the “cooked” articles (as I called them) published that day by the AMA. I’d like to point out that the magazine and the AMA received mountains of criticism from the medical community and many authorities on the case for their obvious attempt to distort in some respects the findings of the autopsy doctors. The articles were designed to bolster the “Official Story,” and failed miserably. They also seriously libeled Dr. Charles Crenshaw, one of the Parkland Doctors, and among other things, claimed that he was never in the E.R. when JFK died. Crenshaw later sued them for it. It was well documented that he was in fact there, and this could not be controverted. JAMA was massively discredited for inventing the whole story. Nevertheless, Bugliosi relies heavily on the JAMA articles, which were quickly discredited, not only by those on our side, but by the autopsy doctors themselves who found opportunities to repeat what they had always said, and the alleged statements in the article, clearly fabricated, were soon forgotten. Interestingly, Crenshaw’s book was published at that time at the same moment as my High Treason 2, and I felt that I was the real target, as soon became apparent in the suit’s depositions which mention my work maybe a hundred times. Bugliosi makes the argument that the articles massively damaged any thought of conspiracy in the case. This never happened. Dr. Crenshaw (who later died), lived to have the satisfaction of punishing them severely and gained a settlement of nearly a quarter of a million dollars. Bugliosi calls this a “nuisance suit,” (p. 420), which it was not just because JAMA did not have the money, but the goal was to punish those who were responsible and take the opportunity to get the truth out.
Both Lundberg and Brio were fired after the suit was finished, so you can’t exactly call it a “nuisance suit” when you add up the damages. Score one for our side. The liable was proven when many witnesses and documentation proved that Crenshaw had been present in the E.R., showing (as scientists know) that medical journals do in fact publish “cooked” or fabricated material as a matter or course. Reporters in a big hurry on a deadline will simply make things up. After the assassination, Dr. Crenshaw drew a careful map of the trauma room, placing the position of each witness.
For your amusement, you might like to read the exerted pages from the depositions of the editor, George Lundberg, and the reporter, Dennis Brio, before they were canned for all this, in the appendix of my Radical Right and The Murder of John F. Kennedy (2004) for many to see how your medical insurance money was used to defend against JAMA’s lies in the JFK case. Many doctors quit the AMA because of it.
It is my belief that the X-rays and photographs of the body were taken by shifts of photographers and technicians sent in to do this work, without knowing that others were doing the same thing, and the multiple sets of images facilitated the later faking of the material. Even the radiologist said that he had taken some of the images. Robert Knudsen, the White House photographer, was one of the cameramen, and was used along with Thomas Stringer of Baltimore. Several of those present for my filming, had also seen the pictures in the National Archives, including Dr. Robert McClelland and James Curtis Jenkins, and so it was verified that the material I brought were authentic copies of what was in the National Archives–decidedly false evidence. I was the first researcher to have ever shown this material to any of the Parkland medical witnesses. It was four years before anyone else tried.
It is my belief that the films that I made show absolute criminal evidence that there was a conspiracy to kill Kennedy by establishing the true wounds that Kennedy received which meant more than one gunman; a conspiracy to cover-up the murder by falsifying the autopsy photos and X-rays; by theft of massive amounts of evidence from the Archives; and that the conspiracy was at a very high level to reach into the Naval hospital and bring about changes in the records, procedure, and findings, even to alterations in the autopsy report. It is not easy to understand this film and what it really presents—the above case for conspiracy in several respects–but it’s there when one sorts through what each person is saying and how it fits with what the others say. None are being influenced by the others and all came to some of the same conclusions on their own beforehand. Each of the seven saw pretty much what the others saw, and each repeats nearly the same observations and conclusions as do the others with no help from me.
Each are talking about conspiracy–something the buff, Vincent Bugliosi, who seeks to overturn history in his reclamation of it, would never understand. Each of the seven seem to have identical positions on every issue and conflict. So the premises of my conclusions above are rock solid.
He seeks to “reclaim” history by dumping a major amount of garbage in his landfill.
Jackie messaged me through her assistant at Doubleday that the photos were false, as did Senator Edward Kennedy through his Secret Service guard, John Libonatti.
Lets flash over to the book that retired Secret Service agent Clint Hill published the 6th of April 2012. Every one of us sure knows who Clint is, but most do not realize he is nearly the most important witness in the case beside Jacqueline Kennedy–who held her husband’s head in her lap all the way to the hospital after he was shot in the open car they rode in. Not only was he almost killed chasing after the limousine when JFK was shot in the head, but he almost killed himself with drinking to obliterate the horror of what happened November 22, 1963. The men on the Kennedy detail (all Secret Service men) were trained to take a bullet for those whom they had to protect. Whether they were offered bullet proof vests, is never commented on (probably a matter of national security). He jumped off the follow-up car and famously ran after the limousine after hearing the shots and seeing the bullet strike Kennedy in the head and knowing that JFK could not survive such a shot that took off much of his head and brain.
Clint Hill was/is just about the highest class of eye-witness. He told the Warren Commission that the “back” of the head was gone (this does not mean that the blown out skull wound was primarily on the side of the head, nor on the top or the front, as the present official X-rays seem to show) or that there was merely a large flap of hinged scalp and bone in the back of the head (there wasn’t—no solid evidence of that at all), was gone. Hill said also that he had “pushed” Jackie back into her seat), then threw himself over their bodies all the way to the hospital (see Chapter One, “Murder,” of High Treason 1 which is reprinted in this book for his testimony and you’ll read exactly what he told the Warren Commission about where the wound was and about how he got Mrs. Kennedy back into her seat). On 6 April 2012, almost fifty years later he had not changed his story one dot, and he repeated to anchorlady Savannah Guthrie of NBC news almost exactly what he had told his superiors at the S.S. the day of the murder fifty years ago, and it was distilled in Gerald Blaine’s 2010, The Kennedy Detail, (p. 217) and finally in the same language on 6 April 2012 to NBC’s Evening News, and to their “Today” show at that time. In all three instances and probably more, he used nearly identical language, choosing nearly the same words.
On that day in April of 2012, he said on NBC that “I finally got ahold of her and got her into the back seat.” Sounds like he was “hands on,” doesn’t it? Being that close to the action and a participant, he ought to know about the head wound, too, since he stared down into the empty space through the large defect in the back of the head much of the way to the hospital and said then and now that he was “Looking into the back of his head and into his brain. . . .” or what was left of it. Yet Bugliosi denigrates Hill in his monster 1,500 pp. garbage dump, far too large for him to have had much control over let alone handle the research and thought necessary. The only way to have done it was by spacing it over a much longer period of time as I did with my six books and 3,400 pp. which contain few mistakes and certainly no bias or misrepresentation.
At a stroke Hill disproved the theory that the front of JFK’s head was blown out, as the current X-rays and the fake Zapruder film indicate. Why does this one man seek to disprove and make false later conflicting commentaries and opinions of “authorities?” Because that’s the game: To sow confusion and dispute, and to create so many conflicts in the evidence that the case does not appear to be solvable. The public gives up after such a furious cannonade of blather, malarkey and misinformation.
Clint Hill is precisely corroborated by nearly every single medical witness in Dallas and at the autopsy in Bethesda, Maryland, and that all together, collectively, they are the best evidence and best witnesses, overriding wildly invented theories and fake photographs and X-rays heavily relied upon by Bugliosi who never questioned their authenticity. The false materials show entirely different wounds made that way to imply there was no conspiracy, and no gunmen in front. That is one of the major lies in this case, and it was part of my life’s work to be the first person to show those pictures to the near totality of all of them and garner their certain recollections. They had, in fact, testified to the W.C. that the back of the head and only the back of the head was gone, not the side, not the top, not the front. There was a small overlap of anatomical areas in those places where the skull was gone primarily in the large occipital bone along with small parts of parietal bone, etc, but the blown out skull and brain was located in the back of the head a little to the right side.
The Zapruder film is indeed fake because it does not show Clint Hill even touching Jackie, though the Orville Nix film, taken from across the street, does show him as he all but has his arms around her to move her back to safety. All this is momentous evidence, but you will find it in my books dating back many years starting with the first chapter (“Murder”) in High Treason 1, and in photos of the film frames reproduced in my book on the Zapruder film, also reproduced in these books.
My findings that the Nix film contradicts the Zapruder film and prove it is a hoax have been validated by former military documents analyst and staff investigator for the Assassination Records Review Board, Doug Horne.
November 22, 1963 might have played out differently had the Secret Service detail not been out drinking at a strip club with a bunch of women the night before until the middle of the night, with some of the men at the club until four and five in the morning. You will find this in the chapter on the S.S. in the above book. The House Select Committee on Assassinations found that the President’s security was “uniquely insecure.” Nothing much unique about it. Recently a large group of Secret Service advance men for President Barack Obama was exposed for going to a nightclub in Cartegena, Columbia, drinking, and taking prostitutes to their hotel rooms. Although none of the men were in the President’s personal guard, it was considered a serious breach because the visitors in such intimate circumstances might reveal plans and data that could be used for an attack or other purpose. Granted there is a great deal of stress and personal risk in such a job, but so much for a culture of partying from the time of President Lincoln’s assassination in 1865 at a theatre while his guard slipped out for a drink. Still more embarrassing incidents at the rate of one per year began to surface during the 2012 investigation. These had been concealed, apparently so as not to indicate such a culture was endemic to the agency.
We are trying to come face to face with the cover-up in place from the time of the assassination. Now is not the time to discuss why the President was killed, but it is time to lay out the prosecutor’s case for conspiracy, and it is massive. The real case was hidden, but always there right in front of us. The Report of the Warren Commission presented us with the so-called evidence for no conspiracy and was mostly fabricated and covered in specious rhetoric, and is essentially non-existent. In other words, the Commission played it both ways: at the same time printing a vast throve of witness testimony that proved beyond a shadow of a doubt the real truth that there had indeed been a conspiracy, but few read or understood it. Instead, they swallowed the fake “scientific” evidence.
The public wanted the truth but they had to accept the lies of the Warren Commission’s Report, perhaps the greatest lie in our history, along with denials of atrocities and massacres of countless American Indians and the My Lai Vietnam and Afghanistan massacres.
Apologists for the Warren Commission, such as Vincent Bugliosi or Gerald Posner have got nothing. Bugliosi made his mark putting the mass killer Charles Manson into prison, who was undoubtedly guilty. God help anyone else who might have been innocent, because this man does not give a crap for whether they did it or not. Lee Harvey Oswald risked his life by infiltrating the USSR to serve his country. Conspiracy buff Vincent Bugliosi would have hung Oswald after being falsely framed for the assassination of JFK. Bugliosi’s so called “research” is nothing if not sloppy, but also heavily ridden with vilification, invective, liable, sophistry, semantic games, and snide sarcasm. He makes his case with nothing more than the thinnest of reasoning or layers of so-called facts that say nothing. He presents 70 pages of work on the alleged “autopsy” of JFK which was universally known as “botched” and “incomplete.” I don’t think it was that bad, but the doctors were clearly both ignored, or forced to lie on certain issues. Being in the Navy, they were used to taking orders and were in a real bad spot. The fact that so many of those at the autopsy, including Dr. Finck, were later sent to Vietnam where they could have easily been killed, tells the story of the fear that they must have been living with.
These books will lead you through the autopsy and its alleged evidence both real and unreal, step by step, as well as present you with the strongest possible evidence of what and where the wounds were, how many shots and gunmen there really were, where the shots came from, what and where the autopsy report, photos and X-rays were possibly changed, and just what a monstrous, well planned murder this was. The result was 60,000 American troops and 1 million people killed in Vietnam. It led to the great enrichment of the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Texas military industrial complex and the fat cat oilmen who endlessly benefited. The war was an economic development project, primarily for them. America began its long and terrible slide down, led by the deliberate destruction of the Middle Class and its economic system.
Forty witnesses—many of them Dallas police, wrote down or testified that there were shooters in front of the car on the bridge as the limo drove towards it. Forty (40) witnesses. The shots were not echoes.
The procedure I followed in evaluating evidence in the case was a lawyerly one: I weighed evidence. Justice is blind, we know, so I tried to do it by instinct and feel, as well. The process that our opponents have used was the opposite and based on bias and sinister intent. That is, they did not weigh the evidence but instead believed what accepted authorities told them, such as the FBI and other government stooges — though I am not saying that all or most FBI are stooges. My stepfather was an FBI agent.
The reasoning was often backwards. For instance, starting with a false assumption (only one gunman), to where they thought he was (from false and shaky evidence) to find there was no conspiracy. If there was no large defect in the photo of the back of the head, then there was no gunman in front, even though the back of the head had largely been missing. My point is that the sort of methodology of the “investigation” devoted to the murder, when so much evidence documented gunmen in front of the car and the first shots fired from the corner of Houston and Elm, the reasoning was childish and so ridiculous in its means to justify the conclusion of no conspiracy, when viewed objectively, as to make not just a farce of the Warren Report, Along with Bugliosi, it shows the massive disrespect for the people of America and the World who must suffer such lies and this sort of imbecility. The autopsy photos worked for 49 years to fool the public and history, but it must stop now, and such inauthenticate artifice should be forever ignored and never happen again. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it is a duck. Common sense is a big factor in our conflicts in this case, too often disregarded.
I chose to rely mostly on eye-witness testimony and when forty witnesses told the W.C. that the shots came from in front of the car (see Chief Jesse Curry’s book, J.F.K. Assassination File, 1969, letter of Officer J.M. Smith, Exhibit No. 48 in his book, and in Killing The Truth; and the accounts on pp. 30 and 61-62). Curry says that Smith’s account of a shooter in front of the limousine on the bridge and on the Knoll where it joined the bridge is similar to that of “other officers who thought the shots were coming from the direction of the underpass.” For other lists of eye-witness accounts:, see Rusty Yardum’s work devoted to Knoll witnesses, and the Harold Feldman article about 51 knoll witnesses; and a list of 261 witnesses giving where they said shots came from, is at: http://www. historymatters.com/analysis/Witness/Sort216Witness.htm (these mentions are courtesy of Martin Shackelford). Others made out a good case for shooters behind the car. There was no conflict because it was a well planned military style ambush surrounding the limousine and the evidence of shooters in front was far too strong to ignore. But the W.C. did ignore it because the crime was political, the evidence was politicized and there was a political cover-up. There was too much power on the side of hiding the dangerous truth from the public.
“Many” witnesses also testified to the W.C. that the first shot was fired just as the limousine completed its turn from Houston Street onto Elm (see Bugliosi, Reclaiming History, p. 469). Bugliosi writes “The Warren Commission testimony of many witnesses strongly supports the conclusion that the first shot was fired as the President’s limousine was completing its turn onto Elm Street.” This is long before we see any results of the ambush in the alleged Zapruder film, and well before there was a safe shot from the 6th Floor window at the limousine going away.
What does this mean? Vince sure doesn’t get it. I have always believed that something must have happened at the turn, and that a shot was fired, perhaps from a bystander with a handgun. A doctor at Parkland hospital who tried to save Kennedy, said the wound in the throat looked like it had been made by a handgun. This doctor had plenty of experience with wounds made by handguns.
There was a great deal of testimony to the W.C. that a shot was fired at the moment that the limousine completed the turn at the corner, long before any shot was ever thought possible from the alleged “sniper’s window.” However, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) concluded that the first shot occurred at approximately frame 160. The W.C. never considered any shots sooner than Frame 210. The HSCA concluded from examining the statements of John Connally, who was near fatally wounded, weaving it into his testimony as to when he reacted to the first shot he heard: “His reactions, as shown in Z 162-167 reflect the start of a rapid head movement from left to right (p. 469) ” as quoted from conspiracy theorist Vincent Bugliosi. The trouble is, we do not see the limousine in the film, which runs continuously from Frame # 1, but which has a major break in the scenes we are shown at Frame 132 when we last see the motorcycles ahead of the limousine, out of sight behind, approaching along the street, and in the next frame see the limousine coming out from behind the freeway sign. That means that many frames are missing that might have shown what was happening at the corner the limousine just passed.
It seems to me that the car may have stopped trying to round that very sharp turn from Houston to the left onto Elm St. Some said that it hit the curb, but the driver denied it was so soon. He would have been startled by a shot there. Many witnesses were certain that the car stopped and Greer said he was nearly stopped. Since it cannot be seen normally in the film, we don’t know where this happened, except for the following: (See The Hoax of the Century, Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film, Chapter 3, p. 57). I found that two frames in the film, Z-174 and Z-175, show no movement whatsoever between them. Although the slides could be duplicates, they have different frame numbers, so they must have printed out in that order. There is very little movement by the limousine surrounding the two frames.
All of these events are detailed in my books or those of others, with their names. I believe that no one was in the 6th Floor window at the Depository Building firing almost straight down at the car as it completed its turn. Why then? For a full block, the car had been approaching the building along Houston Street dead on, and nobody shot at it from the same window, when the limousine was a much better target — a very easy thing to do, but not at all easy when the limo came real close down below the window and went into its turn on Elm. Soon it was shielded from the window by a large tree and it was impossible to shoot at it until about frame 210 or so as it moved away to the West. Do you get the huge disconnect between Frame 210 when the W.C. said the 1st shot could be fired from the window, Connally’s reaction after the turn and 2½ seconds or so before it was possible, and long before a shot is heard at the corner as the car turned? These folks are all mixed up!
A gunman might have been on the roof, however, and a cop ran up there right away. Others speculated there was a gunman on the roof of the TSBD. That’s more plausible than one in the window. But how did he get away without being seen? Or, was there an excellent hiding place on the roof to wait until nightfall when the heat was gone and things blew over?
More plausible still was a possible gunman across Houston street in the Dal-Tex Building, where Zapruder had his offices–low down, perhaps on the 2nd floor, just above but essentially on the corner where so many heard a shot. A man was even arrested in that building who didn’t belong there. A gangster.
Quoting again from theorist Bugliosi (p. 469 of his Reclaiming History), who had little experience in what was a new field for him, he writes: “As we just saw, the Warren Commission testimony of many witnesses strongly supports the conclusion that the first shot was fired as the president’s limousine was completing its turn onto Elm Street.” Now we have a mouthful of conspiracy evidence including Bugliosi’s near admission of a conspiracy and cover-up that the first shot was fired down at the corner, about (100 feet behind the limousine at frame 162-167). Lee Harvey Oswald could not have done that—he wasn’t even there.
Myself and the police who flew to Dallas with me on many occasions (and well armed, I might add!) measured all of Dealey Plaza with my 200’ engineer’s tape and found that the last block of Elm street down to the overpass, minus a little to account for its curve, was about 450’ long, so we were well familiar with the distances, and when I prepared the 3rd chapter on the shots, “The Reenactments and the Trajectories,” in Killing Kennedy, my 4th book at the time, I knew the distances, working from a huge map of the Plaza obtained from the city. Daryll Weatherly and myself were also able to determine conclusively that the FBI figures had used Beverly Oliver’s (“The Babushka Lady”) as yet unseen film that they took from her and never returned, in spite of promises. As she was standing near the corner of Houston and Elm, her film would have probably shown the crowd reacting, and perhaps even depicted the shooter at the corner. All the other films except two which show nothing revelatory in the background (these may be altered or, as I suspect, the camera angles were such that they do not show any of the crowd), have this part of the limousine’s progress around the corner cut, as happens in the Zapruder film.
Another strong reason for believing this is that all but two of the films that show the limousine moving along Houston Street appear to be “jump cut” and do not show the car turning. If the films were cut, it was because we might have seen the crowd reacting to that shot. With so many people testifying that the first shot had been fired as the car emerged from the turn, that is good enough reason to believe it. The Tina Towner film and one other, the Hughes film, show the car moving all the way around the corner in its sharp turn onto Elm, and reveal nothing about the crowd or any reaction to the shot. One of these films ends at the instant its turn is completed. I failed to express some of this perfectly in my book on the Z-film.
Vincent, an experienced prosecutor, after quoting more eyewitness testimony, writes “Clearly, then, the first shot is fired between Z143 and Z160, just before the limousine passes under the branches of the oak tree shading Elm Street (p. 469).” What is occurring as you read this is that Vincent seriously contradicts the W.C. and says the 1st shot fired in the ambush that everyone heard, apparently, is being pushed farther and farther back in time, farther and farther up the street the limousine just traveled, making it impossible for any shot to have come from the 6th Floor window above and pass through both victims, as the official story required. The limousine progressed down the hill to the underpass, long after (as film time goes) it ever went under the tree where it was shielded from the view of the alleged assassin–if there had ever been one in the 6th floor window. But Vincent ignores how greatly fractured his thought processes are and plunges madly on. He sure made a mess of the record and the case in the process, this proverbial bull in the china shop.
Just as clearly, the 1st shot was really long before frame 132 because the car was already at least 100 feet past the corner and we don’t see it anywhere during that time in the Z-film. To repeat, this means that it was impossible for there to have been a shot from the window during the time the limousine was turning the corner — due to the acute downward angle of the shot, let alone hit both men.
Abraham Zapruder of Dallas, who took this most famous propaganda film of the motorcade and the fatal shot to the head, swore that he never stopped his camera (letter of FBI SAC (89-43) (P) Dallas, 5 December 1963 to Director, FBI and to the FBI Laboratory). But, strangely, the Zapruder film was jump cut at Frame 133, as our studies of “First Frame Over exposure” show (explained fully in my sixth book, The Hoax of the Century: Decoding the Forgery of the Zapruder Film, 2004, Chapter 11 and reprinted in this book as well), and a great deal of footage is cut out so that first we only see the lead motorcycles in the motorcade, and then, suddenly, when the car is mostly behind a freeway entrance sign, it appears, magically, and the bikes are gone in the space of one frame. The car can be seen above the sign as the scene changes. The technology of the Bell & Howell camera was such that it proves the camera was not in fact, stopped, just as Zapruder said, but instead the film was jump cut, leaving a telltale clue of “first frame over-exposure.
Yes, the film is actually a propaganda film. See Daryll Weatherly’s page (“The Film As A Propaganda Weapon”) on this in Killing Kennedy, p. 381, included in this set of books as well.
In the film, Kennedy, clearly hit, has his hand to his throat. He was shot in the throat most likely from in front sometime during the passage of the car down the street from the corner that we don’t see. His hands are to his throat, so we know he has been badly hurt, and perhaps the bullet severed his spinal cord and paralyzed him. The shot that hit him in the throat was quite a bit sooner than was possible if it was to have struck both men. We also know from close study of the slides of each frame, that Connally is not hit until some moments after Kennedy was shot in the throat. The shot came from in front, though it hit him in the back at Frame 285 (p. 47 and p. 62 of Hoax of the Century). This is about six seconds later than when the HSCA felt he showed signs of being hit or reacting to the blast of a shot. That’s quite a long time.
More trouble: to repeat, this first shot could not have come from the alleged “Assassin’s window” because the tree shielded any view, except for a split second through the tree’s branches when the limousine could be seen, but any shot from there was essentially impossible for that fleeting split second.
Some of the evidence of conspiracy is that gunmen were up ahead of the limousine at both the street corner and on the bridge, and that the first shot was fired at the corner just as the car finished the turn, which probably helped push the limo’s driver forward into the ambush with two gunmen facing it–enfilading it on left and right from the overpass, so that there was no escape for the two victims trapped in the limousine.
The Zapruder film shows JFK holding his throat or apparently doing so when we first see the car emerge from behind the highway sign, long before anyone could have shot him from the window above and behind. This bullet did not transit his body. The medical evidence actually proves gunmen ahead of the car (the autopsy pathologists witnessed the bullet residue on the skull in the temporal area, pretty much where the Dallas doctors saw such a hole). The slides of the Zapruder film’s frames show the actual hit on Connally when he is turned around looking at JFK. There was also a bullet hole in the windshield of the car. It was said that half of the circumference of the bullet entry was on the intact skull, and the other half on a piece of late arriving bone that was flown in. The bone fit right into the space in the puzzle it had left, or so they said. A photo of the late arriving bone, however, seemed to fit right into a space of missing skull in the photos and diagrams of the large defect.
Was there anyone at all in the School Book Depository? It was not possible that anyone was in the building shooting at all, as the Warren Commission alleged in its most specious theory of the murder (after all, the Official Story was only a theory!). Everyone remaining in the building would have fled at the first shot, but they didn’t because there was no explosion of a shot as there normally would be with such a rifle and ammunition in such a cavernous warehouse, AND, if a shooter was directly in front on the street or nearby, perhaps across Houston Street, on the second floor of the Dal-Tex Building where Zapruder had his business, nobody in their right mind would have left the building and walked into the line of fire.
Even more strange: if there had been someone in the building firing, all those employees standing on the steps outside, with a supposed shooter in a window above them, would not have turned and walked inside, as most of them did when the shooting stopped. They felt that the building was safe. To theorize something else is completely irrational.
The conspirators, the FBI and the Dallas Police had to invent a shooter in the TSBD because the pre-selected patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald, worked there. “No sir, I didn’t shoot anybody!” he said afterwards, before he was killed in the police station by a mobster/nightclub owner.
A note on the autopsy photographs and X-rays which are treated exhaustively in my work. Years ago, when I realized that the visual record that was made of the body and the wounds might be or was probably false, I set out to disprove or prove that theory, and had an open mind. The documentary record of the eyewitnesses was clear, however, as to what they saw: primarily, a large hole was blown out in the very back (occipital) of the head — a little to the right — and at first no one claimed that there was a “hinged” piece of bone and scalp in the occipital area that covered it. There apparently were a few quite small flaps of scalp and bone, but they would not remotely cover the missing area, as was testified. Assassination buffs, again mentioning Vincent Bugliosi, claim, however, that there was a large hinged flap that covered it, in spite of the autopsy report denying it was possible. For a time I bought into the possibility, but after reading the protestations of the autopsy pathologists themselves who questioned what the photos and X-rays showed, I realized that this was a false idea. The Bethesda Naval Hospital pathologists, and Colonel Pierre Finck, from Walter Reed Hospital, perhaps the most knowledgeable among them that night at Bethesda, themselves were the strongest reason not to believe the pictures. There is a great deal of documentation of their observations and opinions in these volumes, and my primary investigation was usually focused on the medical-forensic aspects of the tragedy. For me (and most of us) it was terrible that so many issues would become obscured with many false statements making a mish-mash of the official record, perhaps deliberately to discredit anything said by any of the doctors, Naval corpsmen, nurses, and the two FBI men present at the hospitals where the body was brought. It seemed possible that there was a bit of scalp unsupported by underlying bone that remained, but nothing can cover the large defect until the “Harper” fragment arrived a week later (though without scalp) after being examined and photographed at another Dallas hospital, and the body was buried by then. Other bone fragments arrived at midnight as the autopsy and cosmetic work was finishing. Please see the section on the head wound in Chapter 6, p. 251 in Killing Kennedy.
Worse were some researchers whose task seemed to deliberately sabotage the record with contrary information. Well, the evidence was politicized. The Radical Right was afraid of evidence that implicated them in the murder and so they planted provocateurs, and others of them inserted themselves in the investigating process as time passed. Provocateurs and saboteurs deliberately disrupted other researchers, or falsified findings and planted misleading theories in the record. One example was the major research done by doctor and professor, David Mantik, who became my friend, but who was a target, as many of us were, for takeover, or disruption by some of the bigger operators in the case who had sinister intent. Some of my time and work was devoted to exposing those who dominated the case often enough for years and who attempted to insure that their Right Wing position did not erode. I wrote entire chapters on some of them and this issue, but have left them out of this limited publication of primarily hard evidence chapters from my six books.
To my surprise, this approach to the saboteurs and provocateurs in this highly politicized case, however, brought to us new waves of spoilers in attempts to eclipse the original 1963 evidence of a major conspiracy to both kill the president and cover it up.
For instance an ambitious sometime professor of philosophy, more or less, James Fetzer, published a series of anthologies. He did his damnedest to get me to donate my work to him to be published, but I would have had to submit to his editing, and knowing his intent to re-engineer what other investigators wrote, would change my work, so I refused in spite of his many attempts to capture me. One of those he did capture was David Mantik, a radiological oncologist–both a professor of physics and medicine. I had introduced David to questions about the autopsy X-rays when he journeyed from his home in California to mine in Baltimore at the time, and my best friend, Dr. Donald Siple, an old college chum, was a chief radiologist for many years in a large hospital, shared dinner with us where he told David just what I told him first: that there were major problems with the X-rays (Killing Kennedy. Chapter 4, p. 81). My friend had done some of his training at Bethesda and knew some of the principals. I had educated him with the problems I found with the X-rays, but was not a trained doctor in the subject and needed Don’s help.
We had quite an evening at the Chart House on the Inner Harbor in beautiful Baltimore that night, in 1990, and David came away with the intent of working with us on the issues, and this lead to his nine visits to the National Archives to examine the autopsy materials with the permission of the Kennedy family, which was the only way anyone could look at the secret medical material. David utilized his expertise in physics and brought an optical densitometer into the Archives to scientifically study the X-rays for signs of alteration. Thus it was that I became David’s first publisher of his medical research into the JFK case in my fourth book, Killing Kennedy and the Hoax of the Century (1995, Carroll & Graf.) This was in the 35 page Chapter 4, “The Forged Autopsy X-rays and Dr. David Mantik’s Historic Findings” (p. 79). The densitometer (photos on pp 82, 83) is explained in that chapter, with photographs. Nine visits!
“I examined the JFK autopsy materials at the National Archives (NARA) on four separate days in 1993, on two days in 1994, and on two days in 1995. This review included the photographs, X-rays, clothing, magic bullet, and two metal fragments removed from the skull. My last visit was on 12 April 2001. Nearly six years had passed since my eighth visit, during which time the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) had come and gone. During this six-year hiatus my initial findings had been published in two books, both edited by James Fetzer.” See something wrong with Fetzer’s presentation on the Internet? David didn’t write the last statement, which forgets that his initial findings were published by me years before. Fetzer had poached this witness and medical investigator, as he had hijacked an important press conference given by my publisher before. There is a lot more wrong with countless pieces in the anthologies that Fetzer (not in any sense a researcher or even a serious writer, but just an “anthologist”) presented to pad his back-list. Articles were written by many scurrilous amateurs which contained countless mistakes and distortions. Evidence was seriously twisted and falsified.
David Mantik, however, listed quite a few things wrong with not only the X-rays, but the photographs and other evidence as well. I would suggest that you read Chapter 4 in Killing the Truth, reprinted in this book, early on. Mantik believe that the X-rays are incompatible with both the brain photographs and photos of the head, which he has seen in the archives. He says this because the X-rays show the brain missing where it is not missing in the autopsy report and witness testimony, and vice versa. Worse, the brain photographs are incompatible with any medical evidence in the case. Please take special note of the testimony of FBI agents Siebert and O’Neill to the Presidential Commission (ARRB) (also in this book) saying that the brain in the photos was not Kennedy’s brain. In 1997, Saundra Spencer told the ARRB (Assassinations Records Review Board) that the alleged autopsy photographs now in the National Archives she developed at the Naval Photographic Center at Anacostia are not the photos she developed.
As with the wound in the back, which Congressman Gerald Ford (later President Ford) and Arlen Specter (later Senator Specter) had moved six inches higher, the alleged entry hole in the back of the head also moved higher in the newly intact back of the head in the alleged autopsy photographs—four inches. This was a conspiracy to cover-up the evidence in President Kennedy’s assassination by future President Ford, a Republican, and the evidence by future Senator Arlen Specter, who soon switched to the GOP, and the rats were deserting the ship! These were serious crimes in a murder case. The autopsy pathologists appeared before the House Select Committee on Assassinations and were closely questioned about the movement upwards of the entry hole on the back of the head—now miraculously intact: “I asked him,” Andy Purdy, said, “whether the wound was in the upper or lower part of the head. Dr. Humes said that it was in the ‘lower head’ area. I asked Dr. Humes about his knowledge of the Clark Panel Report. He said he knows some of the people who served on it and he thought they confirmed the essential findings of the autopsy doctors. I cited to him the Clark Panel’s recitation of their determination that the autopsy doctors had miscalculated the location of the head wound by a vertical distance of approximately 100 millimeters (they said the autopsy doctors place the wound that much lower than it really was). Dr. Humes stated categorically that his physical measurements are correct and emphasized that he had access to the body itself and made the measurements of the actual head region. In addition, he said that photographs and X-rays have inherent limitations which are not present when one is examining the subject.”
I have to interject that even though the Zapruder film has numerous alterations, it still retains a great deal of valid evidence, as you will see — most or all of which you and other researchers are not aware of. This happened because the forging was done in great haste and there were slip-ups.
Another question of process intrudes: What has happened with all this? People are either corrupt or can be corrupted. They can even be afraid of what they encounter in their own research, and retreat into denial. The Official Story and the Cover-up was perpetrated by those who seized power from the elected and murdered president. The whole case was corrupted and the evidence politicized. That is the real problem: Politics. Lawful and time-tested means of investigation were not to rule in this case. It was a political cover-up to keep the truth from the public.
Perhaps because everyone was frightened. Many sensed or knew the truth that there had been a coup, and the Administration of the country had been overthrown. People who knew a lot about life also realized that there would be nothing they could do. Too much power was in play, and the killers didn’t care who they killed or what they did because they knew they could get away with it. Why should we be any different from many other countries where violence, subterfuge and mind control secretly rule?
Americans and those around the world who care about this country and what happens to it and how its policies are controlled, listen, because you will see how enormous the lie still is and how it is ruining us today. Covering-up JFK’s death has led to so much of the horror we now live with in senseless useless wars, and countless atrocities that we hear little about. We have become the new Nazis in the world and it is because we let the radicals and the military industry get away with murder in 1963. Once they killed JFK and stopped his withdrawal from Vietnam, they had a free lunch of immense proportions. I am not entirely a pacifist, but I say this: the warmongers and military industry needed a little war, which rapidly grew much larger. The winners had the run of the world, and this led to reactions among potential enemies such as Saudi Arabia, Osama Bin Ladin and al Qaeda’s declaration of war on 9/11/02, and our near destruction in 2008-10 by Wall Street and the everlasting hatred of so many who lost their jobs and who are still unemployed. We didn’t take care of business and we didn’t regulate what has to be regulated. We fell into the hands of doctrinaire ideologues who are nothing but the lackeys of the very richest and stupidest of the race.
Why would Pakistan convict the doctor who betrayed bin Ladin to the U.S. for high treason? Why should we be surprised? The Bin Ladin family is the 2nd most powerful family in Saudi Arabia, and was their proxy in 9/11. That is, President George W. Bush thought he was the close friend of the King of Saudi Arabia, who suckered him and who was fed up with our policies on Palestine, and attacked us. Bush was a star-struck fool who essentially had betrayed us to the Saudis and was afraid of what happened. Pakistan was far more afraid of Saudi Arabia, a nation much closer to their home than we, and were more beholden to them than they were to the U.S. That’s why their border with Afghanistan is so porous–because it is controlled by the defacto Pashtune nation.
The FBI, then, was led by one of the most sinister men since Lavrenti Beria, the murderous thug behind Stalin’s power that had so much to do with the pit of darkness that the Soviet Union and much of the world spun into. It is my belief that The dangerous threat to the world that Stalin and Communism posed encouraged the even darker forces of Adolph Hitler and the Nazis, not to speak of the blindness of Germany itself. But what would Hitler care for the Germans, being an Austrian? What did Stalin care for the Russians or Ukrainians or both that he slaughtered, being a Georgian? Napoleon cared not a naught for the vast numbers of Frenchmen he led to their deaths because he was a Corsican. How could anyone care whom so blithely asked them all to die in the final holocaust and Gotterdammerung? The same was true for the many millions who died in the Soviet Union before Germany invaded them.
I say all this because the death of JFK caused very dark men to take over the U.S. and immediately lead us into the terrible Vietnam war that cost the lives of 60,000 American men and a million Vietnamese. It is still leading us into war after war, and the false belief that we can win any war we set our hearts and minds to. But many people don’t care and aren’t fully aware of just how despicable these wars often are, or the many people who were killed in Panama City when we raided it at night to capture President Manuel Noriega, a bad man if there ever was one. But the atrocities we perpetrated to catch him were not justification for the carpet bombing and wholesale murder of so many impoverished innocent victims and their children that terrible night in the Barrio. It does not justify the Afghanistan war for the last ten years — to become our longest war in history, and commit to the year 2024 to stay there and go on killing and having our men and women killed and their families and lives forever disrupted or ruined, when we have no idea who the enemy is. We cannot justify many of our unilateral invasions at the expense of our economy and security.
All the endless wars like Reagan’s “Glory that was Grenada” diverted attention and covered up the conspiracy in John Kennedy’s assassination that we were led into were justified on the basis of the “domino” theory and the legitimate historical notion that staying out of both World Wars made them much worse because we did not perform our moral duty early to intervene and stop them–taking seriously our self-appointed role as the World’s policeman. We did not feel that we should be involved in the wars of other nations — and look at the nightmares that resulted from that attitude and isolationism! Inevitably, this led to the false notion that interventionism was therefore always justified, and the war profiteers used that justification for no truly moral reason at all for the cost in lives and reputation. The real result of covering up Kennedy’s assassination was to convert us into a militaristic authoritarian state, primarily motivated by the vast profits of a perpetual war economy based on defense spending (and for that we always need an enemy!), and the ruinous business model of the military industrial state. President Eisenhower warned us strongly about this in his farewell address.
America cannot continue to live with this lie when it subverts and wrecks our social, economic, political and cultural life, and makes us the most hated nation on the earth–open to attack from many directions. The bottom line is that we have opened the door to violence in our political life, and like Rome, which was destroyed by the social and political results of rule by the military and its supporters, we will be devoured by them. We have not the moral right to presume to lead the world once we start covering up violence in our political process while we preach democracy to so many who are often delivered into the hands of the rich and powerful once they rebel. It is my belief that covering up the real nature of the conspiracy in JFK’s death is killing us, and we must expose it now. Once we let it be covered up, we became the original terrorist nation in the world. Our people no longer believe in their government and many feel that democracy is an enormous lie and cannot solve our problems. We gave ourselves over to those who wish to establish an authoritarian regime in America, and indeed, beneath the surface, that is what it may already be. We are living a colossal lie.
We have entered into a tribal war in Afghanistan with a defacto nation of 50 million Pashtune people spread across four countries, a people who have lived there for centuries and for whom national boundaries artificially drawn often enough by Western countries are utterly meaningless to the inhabitants. We seem to have no idea that the Taliban are the military arm of the Pashtune nation. We cannot win this war. Who do we think we’re kidding? We’re making the same mistakes that we made in Vietnam and we never had a hope of winning that war. But it doesn’t matter to the war profiteers because whatever keeps the game going is the object.
We have to weigh evidence in the JFK case. Dr. Mantik found scientific and legal studies of eyewitness testimony showing when it is valid and when it may not be. For that we have the right to weigh evidence in the scales of judgment and should have been quicker about it. But somewhere along the line a thoroughly brainwashed people lost the ability to make informed judgments. We gave over the power to Earl Warren and some other politicians in 1963 because the big winner in the assassination, the new president, Lyndon Johnson, said so. He put his Commission, with most of its members already in his pocket, in charge and turned them over to the tender mercies of FBI leaders and its chief, J. Edgar Hoover, who decided that an innocent man, a patriot and the patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald did it, a decision made for them by planted evidence placed by some of the Dallas Police. But some members of the Warren Commission—not the liars like Gerald Ford, whose reward was to become an unelected president later on when Richard Nixon was forced to resign after his vice president, Spiral Agnew was also forced to resign, and another liar, Arlen Specter, the inventor of the “Magic Bullet Theory,” assumed a prominent role with the Warren Commission. Then Specter switched political parties, and went with the winners. Ford was the man who moved the bullet hole on the back of the President from where it is on the autopsy face sheet, six inches up to the edge of the back of the neck. He was trying to make it more plausible that only one bullet went through President Kennedy and Governor John Connally at the same time, even when elements of the FBI still insisted that both men were hit with different bullets. (on Ford, see the A.P. story of 2 July, 1997 when Ford admitted that the “Entry wound was moved, reinforcing single-bullet theory in JFK assassination,” also in my Radical Right and the Murder of John F. Kennedy, Introduction, p. 16 footnote, and in this book).
Diana Bowron was a young British nurse working at Parkland Hospital when President Kennedy was shot and was brought there where he died. She was assigned to washing his body and wrapping it and helped to place it in a coffin for transport to Washington. After she had done these things and was allowed to leave her job, she returned to England to be with her family, and eventually married and moved very far away from our countries. No one could find her. I put out a message in England, especially to Ian Griggs, a retired inspector of Scotland Yard, that I wished to interview her, and thus became the first and last person to ever do so, as she wished to speak only with me. Afterwards, I received a call from police in England asking me if I would sign a contract to never reveal where she lived. I agreed, and was put in touch with her and conducted several phone interviews. I was not well at the time and did not perfectly go for all the information the historical record needed, but got plenty, and wrote and published a chapter in Killing the Truth (1993), p. 179, on her testimony to me, all of which was taped, and her experiences. The full page photograph alleged by the National Archives to be of Kennedy’s back, after p. 384, is where she seems to have marked the hole in the back, and it is about 6 inches down and a little to the right of the spine. The startling thing about the picture is what she wrote under it: “This is not the back I saw.”
Since no one else was ever able to interview her, I became a target for those who tried to discredit the interviews, all of which were taped. I was invited to the Hillsborough home of Dr. Gary Aguilar (a San Francisco eye surgeon) after this book appeared, and he had invited the principal researchers in the Bay area, including Josiah Thompson, who had begun to resent my questions about the authenticity of the Zapruder film which he had a great deal of faith in. I had been staying at Gary’s House where I nearly died one night from some substance there, which was probably polyurethane insulation, though he had no idea what was causing the trouble which he seemed to deny existed. He soon sold his beautiful home and gardens. I had to drive off and seek a hospital for treatment, and then returned and sat up all night.
The meeting was held outside in a gazebo on the doctor’s grounds, and they popped quite a surprise on me: a tape recording was produced and played outside in that beautiful setting. I was shocked to hear an impostor—a woman with a strong Texas accent pretend to be Diana who stated that she had never talked to or been interviewed by me. Evidently the purveyors of this false evidence, one of those present, had been unaware that Diana was British and had a very strong British accent. When I denounced them for participating in this and it began to turn into an angry fight, I left. But, I felt the voice sounded like Mary Ferrell, one of the most dangerous persons in the case–assigned the job of spying on those in the research community who came to Dallas to talk to witnesses, evidently by a later governor of Texas after the assassination, and who seriously disrupted our work with her interference. I exposed her in the same book with Diana’s interview, along with a number of other alleged researchers who had a stranglehold on this research until some of us broke free. I was too busy with new books and research to think more of it and have no idea of the result except that I received more and more hostility from the better known actors in the research community, and a vast amount of praise from the almost countless people who read my four books at the time who felt that I was speaking for everyone who were simply trying to learn the truth and who mistrusted the leaders of the JFK assassination research community. As the poet Carl Sandburg said, “The people know!” But everyone present at that meeting, ostensibly friends, became forever hostile to me, though I wasn’t in the work for adulation, to make friends, or to win a popularity contest. If those hostile events hadn’t happened, I would know that I wasn’t doing my job as I saw it. Later, Aguilar moved openly to try to take over my research, push me out and pirate my writing and medical forensic work. He failed to credit me for being the originator of most of it.
In closing, I would like to say that Vincent Bugliosi, is tainting the process and prejudicing the case. He and others like him poison the history of what happened by coercing and driving the witnesses to retreat, to unnecessarily qualify what they have said where it wasn’t warranted, to become afraid for their future, their jobs, their reputation in the hands of the rich and powerful. Bugliosi hates people who don’t go with the program he and his rich friends want. He writes, with gross fabrication, “The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit was. Zapruder frame 313 (when the president’s head exploded) and frame 328 (almost a second later) clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the right front of the president’s head. The back of his head shows no such large wound and clearly is completely intact.” Myself and even David Lifton and countless others noticed that the back of the head in those frames clearly have been retouched to show it intact. One can see the brush or pencil strokes on the frames. And our eyes and instincts tell us that the large “blob” and defect on the right front is painted on (not directly) these frames by a special effects lab. I heard it from too many experienced film people to think otherwise. I have the same feelings about some of the autopsy photographs—that they are “art work.”
“And yet, silly conspiracy theorists cite witness after witness and write article after article—even in prestigious academic journals—alleging that the exit wound was to the back of the president’s head. There is simply nothing that will take the air out of their tires of advocacy for the conspiracy position.” Yes, well, we want the truth, and the film is the biggest hoax of the century—just one more propaganda film—this one in the form of a terror movie showing who has the power and that they can kill anyone in public and get away with it. Nothing Bugliosi can say–and in spite of all the lies and twisted distortions Bugliosi can impose upon this issue, nothing will overturn the truth that there was no back of the head after that shot from in front hit him in the head and took it off like a cracked egg shell, and the fake photos and film of an intact back of the head cannot overturn the contradictory evidence of just about everyone who saw the body.
I and those like myself, are trying to reclaim America from the killers and war profiteers who killed him.
I possess what I believe to be the most explosive single piece of evidence in the case. The film presents conclusive testimony from a number of the best medical witnesses from the Bethesda and Parkland hospitals who in 1991 all met with me at the same time to speak out and prove, when all was taken together, that there were criminal conspiracies to kill the president with more than one gunman, to fabricate evidence, and to cover up the true nature of the assassination, not to speak of the ultimate crimes against America, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the world.
It will take time for others to study my film and understand it, why it happened, and how the testimony I took constitutes an indictment of massive proportions in this terrible tragedy. I did not coach or lead the witnesses in any way.
Our task now is to help reeducate the world in solving problems among nations peacefully, and forever abolish war and its profit motive that generates so much massive violence just so some people can make a dishonest buck and live ostentatiously.
Forgive me. I’m only trying to reclaim our history from the murderers, thugs and their lackeys who perverted it and seek to reclaim that history from George Orwell’s “Double Speak.” They have made a mockery of all that we held dear.
Dr. David Mantik wrote something that I used at the head of my book on the forgery of the Zapruder film: “If the Zapruder film is authentic, and yet displays such profound disagreement with the eyewitnesses (who speak with almost one voice), then deeply troubling questions arise about any historical event not recorded by a motion picture camera—even in those cases in which the eyewitnesses agree. If such radical cynicism about historical events is justified, then all historians should be put on noticed that almost nothing in history can be certain since eyewitnesses, no matter how high their level of agreement, would be essentially useless.”
One final lesson from Mantik in the fine preface he wrote to my last book, which was the benchmark work on the Zapruder film. The piece, in toto, is near the end of Volume two in this compendium, and I’m proud of it and again thank him for writing such praise.
In it, he tells you something about the value of eyewitness testimony:
“Wrong traditional values must lose their grip on individual lives, then orthodox beliefs must necessarily be reassessed. So also for this film: if it cannot be trusted, then prior assumptions must be questioned, perhaps even folios of dogma discarded. We must start over, which is no small task. But this is not an impossible task. In view of many new disclosures, particularly over the past decade, countless pieces of the assassination puzzle can now be reliably interlocked. In the absence of an authentic film, however, this often requires a greater dependence on eyewitnesses and an enlarged tolerance of new possibilities. Such evidence is particularly indispensable when these witnesses provide a uniform testimony. Of course, this infuriates some orthodox devotees; they tend rather to side with the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in its almost religious zeal to deny the veracity of almost any human recollection. Here, too, the reader must decide how to weigh eyewitness testimony. Livingstone’s opening quote (from my prior work) still seems germane: If the orthodox view of eyewitness is correct, what then can we trust in history without a movie camera? (or, as Livingstone notes. What about all those trials in history without movie films for evidence, or even without modern forensic evidence—trials that necessarily relied solely on witnesses? Are we to disregard all of those verdicts, too?) On the other hand, my position is easy to summarize: for events that are simple, promptly recalled, and salient, eyewitnesses are remarkably reliable.
“I encounter that phenomenon routinely with my patients as they recall their own medical histories. I know that their recollections are trustworthy, For eons, legions of experienced physicians have likewise known that the correct diagnosis can often be made merely by listening closely to the patient.”
Please read and pay close attention to the Table of Contents for both of these volumes and note the subject matter of each chapter. Thank you.
The sudden transition between frames 132 and 133 of the Zapruder film, from the three motorcycles leading the motorcade to the limousine proceeding down Elm Street, is both the jugular vein and Rosetta Stone of the cover-up in the assassination of President Kennedy. My research proves that the film was edited at that point with numerous frames cut out, just as appears in some or all of six other films evidently showing a similar cut. The film was edited at the point when the shooting started and the limousine stopped. The vast lie the nation lived with this false propaganda film all of these years is exposed, and the entire official government position on the JFK case crumbles to dust because of my discovery.
”If the Zapruder film is authentic, and yet
displays such profound disagreement with
the eyewitnesses (who speak with almost one
voice), then deeply troubling questions
arise about any historical event not
recorded by a motion picture camera–even
in those cases in which the eyewitnesses
agree. If such radical cynicism about
historical events is justified, then all
historians should be put on notice that
almost nothing in history can be certain–
since eyewitnesses, no matter now high
their level of agreement, would be
–David Mantik, M.D., PhD
”Take no part in the worthless pleasures of evil and darkness, but instead, rebuke and expose them.”