Jump to content
The Education Forum
Mike Rago

How did Zapruder know of Single Bullet Theory at time of testimony?

Recommended Posts

How did Zapruder know of the Single Bullet Theory at the time of his testimony?

This is from the testimony of Abraham Zapruder. I believe Mr. Zapruder starts to describe the second shot (which occurred immediately after the shot which passed through the presidents neck), but he stops himself, and goes into the single bullet theory.

He gave his testimony on July 22 1964. When was the "Single Bullet Thoery" first announced to the public?

The Warren Commission report release ...

The 888-page final report was presented to President Johnson on September 24, 1964,[2] and made public three days later.[3

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you form any opinion about the direction from which the shots came by the sound, or were you just upset by the thing you had seen?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - No, there was too much reverberation. There was an echo which gave me a sound all over. In other words that square is kind of--it had a sound all over.

Mr. LIEBELER - And with the buildings around there, too?

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that--I don't know how that is.

Mr. LIEBELER - Well, there are many different theories about that. One thing I would like you to do now--we have a series-- a little book here that is Commission Exhibit No. 885 and it consists of a number of frames from motion pictures and I want to show you certain numbers of them which are important to our work and ask you if those look like they were taken from your film and if in fact you could recognize it as you look through this book that these are individual frame-by-frame pictures of the pictures that you took

http://mcadams.posc....ny/zapruder.htm

.

Note that the lawyer, Mr. Liebeler, completely changes the subject after...

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike,

Although it is not an issue that I have followed or am interested in, when did the public first learn about the SBT, I think you will find it had been discussed widely in the media.

Although the report would not be published for some months, I believe aspects of the report like the SBT were already in the public domain.

If you read "Breach of Trust" by Gerald McKnight you will probably find out when the SBT became public knowledge.

If your question is suggesting something sinister, I think you will find it not so.

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To anyone who has sat and listened to people testify, the manner of this statement raises many red flags.

Zaparuder says there was a second shot. What does the lawyer do? Does the lawyer say, "Did you hear a second shot at this time Mr. Zapruder? The lawyer just ignores it as if nothing happened and moves on to a completely different subject.

Did any of the other witnesses ever mention the single bullet theory in their testimony before the Commission?

I will check the book you mention to see exactly what was in the public domain. From Amazon reviews I read that the author of that book falls into the "CIA did it but blamed in on the Cubans" scenario."

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0700613900

Found this from a Gaeton Fonzi's "The Warren Commission, The Truth and Arlen Specter"

When was the leak?

Before the Warren Commission even issued its Report, Salandria was disturbed by conflicting newspaper accounts of what it supposedly was coming up with. He did not like the idea of the secret hearings. When it was leaked that the Commission was probably going to conclude that a single bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally, he became even more concerned. “I though you had to be objective about it,” he says. “If this had happened in Smolensk or Minsk or Moscow, no American would have believed the story that was evolving about a single assassin, with all its built-in contradictions. But because it happened in Dallas, too many Americans were accepting it.”
Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I cover all this in chapters 3-3c on my website, the link to which is at the bottom of my posts.

When Eisenberg and Specter, etc, realized the eyewitnesses suggested a scenario at odds with Oswald being the lone shooter, they made a deliberate decision to ignore the witnesses, and disregard their accounts of the shooting. As a result, many of the closest witnesses were not called until June and July, AFTER Specter had completed his chapter on the shooting,

The SBT was written in stone after the May 24 re-enactment, and the WC's conclusions were provided Anthony Lewis and the NY Times in early June, long before the report had been completed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To anyone who has sat and listened to people testify, the manner of this statement raises many red flags.

Zaparuder says there was a second shot. What does the lawyer do? Does the lawyer say, "Did you hear a second shot at this time Mr. Zapruder? The lawyer just ignores it as if nothing happened and moves on to a completely different subject.

Did any of the other witnesses ever mention the single bullet theory in their testimony before the Commission?

I will check the book you mention to see exactly what was in the public domain. From Amazon reviews I read that the author of that book falls into the "CIA did it but blamed in on the Cubans" scenario."

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/0700613900

Found this from a Gaeton Fonzi's "The Warren Commission, The Truth and Arlen Specter"

When was the leak?

Before the Warren Commission even issued its Report, Salandria was disturbed by conflicting newspaper accounts of what it supposedly was coming up with. He did not like the idea of the secret hearings. When it was leaked that the Commission was probably going to conclude that a single bullet hit both Kennedy and Connally, he became even more concerned. “I though you had to be objective about it,” he says. “If this had happened in Smolensk or Minsk or Moscow, no American would have believed the story that was evolving about a single assassin, with all its built-in contradictions. But because it happened in Dallas, too many Americans were accepting it.”

Mike,

I appreciate your focusing on Zapruder’s statement, but your focus, imho, is not quite right; in fact, it is seriously misplaced, because you are dealing with a small, relatively unimportant, piece of data that is far downstream from the source of the problem. Also, you are missing another such “endorsement” of the Single Bullet Theory, this one coming from Jacqueline Kennedy herself, on June 5, 1964, during her Warren Commission deposition, sworn testimony taken by Chief Justice Earl Warren himself, and with Atty General Robert Kennedy sitting besides the witness.

So, to begin with, one must back up all the way to the point where the Warren Commission’s legal staff decided to conduct a “re-enactment” in Dallas.

MAY, 1964: THE WC RE-ENACTMENT

If you will examine the working papers of the Warren Commission, you will become aware of the major (and very public) reconstruction done, in Dealey Plaza, supposedly to “re-enact” the assassination.

There were news stories about that, and I believe that a careful reading of those stories will reveal one (or more) raising the issue of a single bullet passing through Kennedy’s body, and then wounding Connally.

I don’t have a file of those stories in front of me just now, but let’s move forward in time, just a bit, to the beginning of June, 1964.

JUNE 1, 1964

Of greater significance—far greater significance—is the front page story in the New York Times of June 1, 1964, bearing the headline “PANEL TO REJECT THEORIES OF PLOT IN KENNEDY DEATH,” and the sub-head: “Warren Inquiry is Expected to Dispel Doubts in Europe That Oswald Acted Alone.”

This story was written by Anthony Lewis, the Times’ reporter who covered the Supreme Court, and –basically—covered the ongoing Warren Commission investigation.

The lead reads:

Washington,May 31 –A special appendix to the Warren Commission’s report will consider in detail the various theories circulating abroad about the assassination of President Kennedy.

The second paragraph reads:

Unless it finds new information, the commission will unequivocally reject these theories that the assassination was the work of some kind of conspiracy. It has no credible evidence of any conspiracy.

And then:

“The commission’s report is expected, in short, to support the original belief of law enforcement authorities in this country that the President was killed by one man acting along, Lee H. Oswald.”

Then comes a breaker (“A View Hard To Accept”) and these words:

It is the idea that Oswald was the lone assassin that many persons abroad have apparently been unable to accept. Reports from major capitals in Europe indicate that many persons believe this view of the assassination is insufficiently logical, without ideology, senseless.

The Warren Commission is aware of and concerned about the foreign skepticism. It considers that its job is to dispel uncertainty and suspicions about the possibility as far as possible.

I would now suggest to you that much of this is “code” for—or at least an important prelude to—the unveiling of the Single Bullet Theory.

So now, if you (literally) “turn the page” –specifically, to page 19, column 1 of that same New York Times—to where this front page story continues, we find considerably more detail about what the Warren Commission attorney (or attorneys) who were behind this story were (in effect) announcing to the world, through the New York Times, in what was clearly an officially sanctioned news release. Specifically, Page 19 has a major eight-column headline, across the top of the page, which reads:

Warren Panel To Reject Theories of Conspiracy Behind Kennedy’s Assassination

And now we come to the heart of the matter: what happened during the “re-enactment” and how KRLD –TV (which filmed that event) was used to promulgate what was supposedly "proven" or "established" --at least as a possibility--at that time.

THE FIRST PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPH DEPICTING THE SINGLE BULLET TRAJECTORY

Immediately beneath the headline ("Warren Panel To Reject Theories of Conspiracy...") is a photo from the (or “a”) re-enactment, showing two FBI agents seated in the limo—one is the stand-in for JFK, the other, for Connally.

The photograph is taken from the rear (right hand side) and it shows a white dotted line that has been drawn in, indicating a back-to-front bullet trajectory, passing through both the “JFK” figure and then striking Connally on the right side, just beneath the armpit.

The picture is copyrighted (with the "c" [with a circle] copyright symbol), and is credited to “KRLD-TV-Dallas, Tex.”—which means, imho, that this composite (the photo, plus the dashed white line) was likely the journalistic endeavor of the late Eddie Barker, who apparently believed they had a big scoop.

The caption on this photo reads:

POSSIBLE PATH OF FIRST SHOT: Two F. B. I. agents re-enacting the assassination of President Kennedy. One, left, has a chalk patch on back of jacket, where first bullet hit President. Other, at right, with circle around dot on his jacket, is seated in position of Gov. John Connally of Texas. [Dotted] Line indicates the possible path of the first bullet.” (boldface added by DSL).

So. . . there you have it, the first “public revelation” of the Single Bullet Theory, in the New York Times, on June 1,1964, spelled out in the caption to this picture, which was copyrighted to KRLD-TV.

I have little doubt that the “New York Times News Service” distributed this story to its various clients, and very likely there was also AP and/or UPI wire service distribution of this story.

But note: curiously, there was no actual mention of the “single bullet theory” or of a one-bullet/two-victim trajectory in the text of the story itself--which suggests to me that whoever was orchestrating this affair wanted to climb out on the limb, but was (perhaps) worried about going out too far.

(Pretty slick, eh?)

THE TEXT OF THE NEW YORK TIMES STORY CARRYING THE KRLD-TV PHOTO DEPICTING THE SINGLE BULLET TRAJECTORY

Here’s how the story actually reads, in broaching this, er, rather sensitive subject.

The skeptics also have raised questions about the number of shots fired.

The Commission’s data show that there were three. One hit Mr. Kennedy in the back, wounding him but probably not fatally. The fatal show followed.

A third bullet, fired either before or after these two, went wild.

Now read that again:

The Commission’s data show that there were three. One hit Mr. Kennedy in the back, wounding him but probably not fatally.

(DSL NOTE: No mention about the “continuation” of this "first" bullet, going on to strike Connally! Again, I say, “pretty slick, eh?”)

In my opinion, and knowing what I do about the Warren Commission's staff, this story came from the likes of Norman Redlich, Arlen pecter, and/or David Belin, with full sanction of General Counsel Rankin.

Notice also the following rather arrogant remarks, which then follow the “non-description” of the one-bullet/two victim trajectory, in which the text mentions nothing about the most critical fact of all (the "double hit"), and the important detail has been concealed in the caption.

“The commission spokesman expressed the conviction that its report, when issued, would completely explode the theories published by such persons as Mr. [Thomas] Buchanan [author of “Who Killed Kennedy?”] He said not even the authors of the theories would sand by them.”

“We’ll knock them out of the positions,” he said.

“However, he said, that he did not expect those who wanted to find a conspiracy to cease looking for one.

“They’ll probably shift to something else,” the spokesman declared, “though we can’t know what.”

So much, then, for the “public revelation” or “public prelude” to the Single Bullet Theory.

Now, let’s move forward to the first witness to mention it, and that is Jacqueline Kennedy, sitting next to her brother-in-law, Bobby, when her sworn deposition was taken at her Georgetown, Washington, home, on June 5, 1964.

JUNE 5, 1964 - THE TESTIMONY OF JACKIE KENNEDY

Present: Chief Justice Warren; Rankin, General Counsel; and RFK, the Attorney General.

Location: Jackie's Georgetown, Washington, D.C. home.

The testimony is printed starting on page 178 of Volume 5 of the WC’s 26 volumes.

Note this excerpt, which contains a “plug” for the Single Bullet Theory.

Rankin: Do you have any recollection of whether there were one or more shots?

Jackie: Well, there must have been two because the one that made me turn around was Governor Connally yelling. And it used to confuse me because first I remembered there were three and I used to think my husband didn’t make any sound when he was shot. And Governor Connally screamed. And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both.

And then, continuing. . . :

But I used to think if I only had been looking to the right I would have seen the first shot hit him, then I could have pulled him down, and then the second shot would not have hit him. (etc.)

Finally, to put all this in perspective, we come to Attorney General Bobby Kennedy, in Cracow, Poland, on June 30, 1964.

June 30, 1964 - - Page 1 –New York Times

Robert Kennedy Says Oswald

Acted on Own in Assassination

This exclusive news story, published on June 30, refers to what occurred the day before, in Cracow, Poland, when RFK was answering questions at a meeting of the “City Council of Cracow.” At that point, RFK—in what appears to me to be a somewhat contrived “Q and A” --made his first public pronouncement on his brother’s death. The TImes storywas written by one "Arthur J. Olsen."

Here's the lead paragraph:

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy said today that his brother had been assassinated by Lee H. Oswald, “a misfit,” who took out his resentment against society by killing the President of the United States.

Then comes this paragraph:

Answering questions at a meeting of the City Council of Cracow, the Attorney General said that Oswald was "a professed Communist" but had not been motivated by Communist ideologywhen he shot the President last Nov. 22."

FWIW: I love the statement that the U.S. Attorney General, in his first public statement on his brother's murder, refers to Oswald as "a professed Communist." Hmmmm.

The next paragraph explains how this remarkable exchange occurred, in the first place:

It was in response to a hesitant question put by a Communist youth leader of Cracow, who attended the council's meeting, that the Attorney General spoke about Oswald and the assassinatin.

Now, to begin with, isn't that something?

--Not in the United States.

--Not on a U.S. college campus.

No, none of that. But in response to "a hesitant quesiton" asked by "a Communist youth leader" who happened to attend a meeting o the City Council of Cracow, Poland, and who asked the question millions around the world would have liked to ask: "Mr. Kennedy. . . who do you think killed your brother?!"

The Times article goes on to provide further background:

It was Mr.Kennedy's first public discussion of the accused assassin, aides said. . . .

The Attorney General briefly sketched Oswald's life story, describing him as a man whohad embraced Communism, and had gone to the Soviet Uniion, but found no place for himself there.

(DSL Comment: Pretty good, for someone who later said he had not read the Warren Report, and would not do so.)

Continuing with the Times' text:

"He was a professed Communist, but the Communists, because of his attitude, would have nothing to do with him," he [RFK] said. "What he did he did on his own, and by himself."

Then came a breaker, which reads:

Discredits Plot Theories

And then the story continues:

Mr. Kennedy said that the assassination was not a racist plot, such as some persons had speculated.

"Ideology in my opinion did not motivate his act," the President's brother said. It was the single act of one person protesting against society." (Boldface added by DSL).

. . .

The Attorney General is known to be fully acquainted with the findings of the Warren Commission. It is presumed by persons close to him that the Commission's report will reflect the views expressed by Mr. Kennedy today. (Underlining added by DSL)

One other post-sript: When the Warren Report was released, the Times ran this story, on 9/28/64:

Robert Kennedy Says

He Won't Read Report

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Robert F. Kennedy, brother of the assassinated President, said yesterday he had been briefed on the Warren Commission report and was "completely satisified."But he added that he had "not read the report, nor doI intend to." . . .

As I said in Poland last summer, I am convinced [Lee Harvey] Oswald was solely responsible for what happened and that he did not have any outside help or assistance. He was a malcontent who could not get along here or in the Soviet Union."

I have not read the report, nor did I intend to. . .But I have been briefed on it and I am completely satisfied that the commission investigated every lead and examined every piece of evidence. The commission's inquiry was thorough and conscientious. (NYT, 9/28/64, p. 11)

FWIW: I do not believe that Talbot mentions this rather important event (RFK's Poland statement) in his book BROTHERS. If one is going to put forward a theory that Robert Kennedy did not believe the Warren Report (and was indicating that privately, and at an early date), then I believe one is obligated to report on his statement of support made in Cracow, Poland, on June 30, 1964, and which was a page one story in the New York Times on the following day, July 1, 1964.

CORRECTION (9/6/12; 4:30 PM, PDT, Los Angeles, California):

The above statement is incorrect, and the result of an oversight. As I just learned several hours ago (from reading a post by Pat Speer on this thread), Talbot--in his book BROTHERS--does in fact report on RFK's (6/29/64) statement in Cracow, Poland, which then became a page 1 story in the New York Times on June 30, 1964. But those closely studying this matter should note the following:

According to the New York Times article (and the AP dispatch, as quoted by Speer), RFK said (of Oswald):

"He was a professed Communist, but the Communists, because of his attitude, would have nothing to do with him," he [RFK] said. "What he did he did on his own, and by himself."

Talbot, unfortunately, made an error in quoting the news dispatch. In BROTHERS, his text reads

He was a confessed communist but even the communists would not have anything to do with him.

I urge the interested reader to focus on the word "confessed", and consider the difference between that term, and the one in the New York Times dispatch (and also in the AP dispatch, as provided by Speer).

There is a critical difference between RFK describing Oswald as a "professed Communist" and a "confessed Communist."

In my dictionary, one of the primary definitions of “profess” is “to make a false claim about something.”

So. . .: If Oswald was a “confessed Communist,” then there would be no doubt about his “political bona-fides.”

But for Bobby Kennedy (on June 29, 1964) to publicly describe Oswald as a “professed Communist” carries with it the clear implication that Bobby was leaving the door open (indeed, wide open, imho) to the possibility (if not the fact) that Oswald was posing as a leftist, and was not a genuine leftist at all.

What is significant about “professed” is not so much what it means—one can check the dictionary for that—but that Bobby Kennedy would describe Oswald using that term.

Now back to David Talbot: In (apparently) misperceiving the quote—and writing “confessed” instead of “professed” (clearly an innocent error)—Talbot missed the opportunity to make a critical point: that this choice of language, on RFK's part, was not accidental, and in fact might well signify greater knowledge (again, on Bobby’s part, and by June 29, 1964) as to just who Oswald was, and whether his October, 1959 defection was phony.

END OF CORRECTION

Finally (and perhaps now placed in proper contenxt) we come to Mr. Zapruder, whose Warren Commission deposition was taken on July 22, 1964, in Dallas, by WC attorney Liebeler.

JULY 22, 1964 – ZAPRUDER TESTIFYING IN DALLAS

Here is an excerpt, which does mention the Single Bullet Theory, in passing:

Zapruder: I didn’t from the first sound, from him leaning over—I couldn’t think it was a shot, but of course, the second—I think it was the second shot. I don’t know whether they proved anything—they claim he was hit—that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that—I don’t know how that is.

Liebeler: Well, there are many different theories about that.

Although everything so far has been discussed in chronological order, I would now like to "break chronology" and do "flashback" of sorts, because it is relevant to the issue of the origin of the Single Bullet Theory.

THE MID-DECEMBER (1963) NEWS STORY – Dallas Morning News

In my own very extensive newspaper research (done decades ago, and "the old fashioned way,"using microfilms ordered on Interlibrary Loan,and studied at the UCLA Research Library) I found a mid-December, 1963 –yes, 1963—news story of some significance. This story mentions, in passing (and in connection with attempting to explain the missed “Tague shot” (i.e., the curb hit) and just how to account for all this in the context of “3 shots" that Oswald supposedly fired--the statement is made raising the possibility that a single bullet passed through Kennedy, and hit Connally. (Yes, in mid-December, 1963, in the Dallas Morning News.)

This struck me as a planted news story, and I think it is significant.

MY OWN CONCLUSIONS:

1. The Single Bullet theory—as a hypothesis—ante-dated creation of the Warren Commission. I feel certain of that because of its mention in a December, 1963 news story.

2. There is at least one internal memo (that I recall, from a careful study of the office files of the Warren Commission) that shows that in mid-January, 1964, SS Inspector Thomas Kelly (from memory, here) advanced the theory to WC attorney Arlen Specter. (So, it appears to me, at least, that a Secret Service line of authority was used to advance the hypothesis to a lawyer on the Warren Commission, who then "bought into it."). But that is a whole other story. “Who thought of it first?” is really not the issue. The underlying fact is that neither Kennedy or Connally had any bullets in their body (i.e., bodies) and so the only “ammunition” available was the bullet found on the stretcher, and the two large fragments found in the limousine (at about 10 PM at night, in the White House garage).

3. The WC conducted a re-enactment to supposedly ascertain data that would support this hypothesis. That re-enactment—whose date I do not have at hand—led to one or two news stories as to what the Warren Commission was doing, what its conclusions were likely to be, etc. An important leader in this regard was KRLD (and KRLD-TV) in Dallas. And I suspect that Eddie Barker was tipped off that the Single Bullet Theory would be the Warren Commission's explanation for the shooting.

4. A still photograph was created from KRLD-TV's coverage of the re-enactment, and then someone—presumably at KRLD—drew a white dotted line through the picture demonstrating the Single Bullet trajectory. This photograph was copyrighted, and provided to the New York Times, for its story stating that the Warren Commission reject all conspiracy theories. (As far as I know, this was the first time an actual graphic of the "single bullet trajectory" was published).

5. The New York Times ran a major story on June 1, 1964, announcing that the Warren Commission Report would reject all conspiracy theories and state that the JFK assassination was the work of one man. This story carried the KRLD-TV picture, showing the Single Bullet Trajectory.

6. Included in that story was the copyrighted picture, from KRLD, taken during the re-enactment, and showing a white dotted line going through Kennedy’s neck, and then on to Connally. This picture illustrated the single bullet theory, and the caption spelled it out, as a “possible” bullet trajectory.

7. Jacqueline Kennedy’s deposition was taken on June 5, 1964. During her testimony, she did indeed mention the “single bullet trajectory,” but it’s a weak endorsement, and it is (apparently) referenced to the New York Times article with the picture showing the trajectory going through two men. Again, her language: And then I read the other day that it was the same shot that hit them both. Far more important is what occurred next.

8. On June 29, 1964, in Cracow, Poland, Robert Kennedy endorsed the Warren Commission’s (forthcoming) conclusions, referring to Oswald as a “professed” communist and stating that the murder of his brother was the work of Oswald, and Oswald alone, and that ideology had nothing to do with it. RFK’s statements were a page one story in the New York Times (of June 30, 1964). [Deleted. . prior incorrect statement re Talbot].

9. On July 22, 1964, Abraham Zapruder’s deposition was taken by WC attorney Wesley Liebeler in Dallas. Zapruder states: “they claim he was hit—that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that—I don’t know how that is.” This statement, imho, is totally inconsequential, since the assassination, just a month or so before, was “re-enacted” right outside his window,on Elm Street, and inasmuch as the single bullet theory (by that time) had received an important “preview” (of sorts) in the New York Times story of June 1, 1964, complete with a copyrighted picture from KRLD-TV. (which also suggests to me that the same story was given a lot of play in the Dallas Times Herald, affiliated with KRLD-TV, and probably publicized in the Dallas Morning News, as well).

In the above list, the 4 most important items, imho, are:

(a) The mid-December, 1963 story in the Dallas Morning News, which mentions (in passing) the one bullet/two victim trajectory

(b ) The WC memo (mid-January, 1964, as I recall) that proves that Specter did not originate the hypothesis, but rather that it was “advanced” to him (as I recall) by someone in the Secret Service (and I think it was Inspector Kelly).

(c ) Jackie Kennedy’s gratuitous mention of it, while giving a sworn deposition and seated in the same room as her brother, the Attorney General

(d ) Bobby Kennedy’s lengthy and explicit statement in Cracow, Poland, supporting the “lone- assassin” view (not yet officially published); and referring to Oswald as a “professed Communist.”

AFTERMATH

Of course, all of this provides the “public face” for what happened back in 1963/64, and is the historical backdrop for the truly most important underlying drama (other than the actual shooting, itself): the falsification of the Kennedy autopsy protocol starting on the evening of November 22, 1963, extending over the weekend, and resulting in a false autopsy report that became the foundation for the “Oswald-did-it” story published in the Warren Report.

That false autopsy was made possible because of the covert interception and alteration of the President’s body, a critical “second crime” which took place after his murder, and which laid the foundation for the falsification of the basic facts of the Kennedy assassination.

And that, of course, is the subject of BEST EVIDENCE, which was first published in 1980.

If you buy into that autopsy, then –as a practical matter—you are buying into the "official architecture" of the crime, and into Oswald’s guilt.

If you dispute that autopsy (as a deliberate fraud), then you are dealing with what is truly important and significant: a plot to alter the basic facts of Kennedy’s murder, which was in operation within hours of his death.

DSL

9/5/12, 3:25 PM PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick note... - I have the Morning Kansas City Star (KC Times) from September 28, 1964 - Warren Report Day...

"Seconds later shots resounded... The President's hands moved to his neck.....

"The governor was hit by a bullet which entered at the extreme right side of his back....

"Another bullet then struck Pres Kennedy in the rear portion of his head....

my bolding

I have scanned them and will post what I can soon.... but here we are months later and each time they describe Connally's wounds they DO NOT equate the bullet thru the neck of JFK as the same bullet that hit JC... but they also don't exactly say it wasn't....

and I quote....

"One bullet passed thru the Pres' neck; a subsequent bullet which was lethal, shattered the right side of his skull.

Gov Connally sustained bullet wounds in his back, the right side of his chest, right wrist , and left thigh."

".... Gov Connally was certain that he was hit with the second shot, which he stated he did not hear."

DJ... FWIW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lifton,

I was going to compliment you on your thorough explanation regarding the first public airing of the Single Bullet Theory. However I see you had to add the "Aftermath" and your crazy conclusion about body alteration. I do not recall seeing that when I first read your response earlier today.

In fact, I was not going to respond any more to this thread, I was going to let you have the last word on this subject. But when you make statements that I know are not correct ...

I notice you did not comment on your friend Mr. Liebeler and his changing of the subject when Zapruder mentions the second shot. Did you ever ask Mr. Liebeler about that?

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mr. Lifton,

I was going to compliment you on your thorough explanation regarding the first public airing of the Single Bullet Theory. However I see you had to add the "Aftermath" and your crazy conclusion about body alteration.

Mike,

Until recently I also was skeptical about the idea of body alteration. However, to be fair to David Lifton, he has been ahead of many researchers since 1981.

You say the theory is "crazy." Again I understand you feeling. It is not for me to persuade you whether you are right or wrong, but I will outline why I now know David is right and you are wrong.

At the end of last year I began looking at the medical evidence, especially the travel of a bullet through JFK's upper chest area. I can now prove how a bullet entered his throat, where that bullet traveled and finally where that bullet rested. During that process I was often forced to face comments from people like David Von Pein, who persisted is saying "well if a bullet entered the throat, then tell me where is that bullet?" Like it or not, that is one of the strongest arguments in support of the SBT.

Anyway such taunts focused my attention and made me realise there were only three answers to the question.

Answer 1:- The SBT was right all along. I know that is not possible. Better still I can prove it. During the last few days my work with my 3D model I have proved how wrong the SBT is. So wrong that I am scared what will happen when I unveil my findings next April. I have applied data to the theory that was never applied by the FBI or indeed the Secret Service that should have been applied but was just ignored.. If I am right it will be a "game over" moment. So one reason the bullet is not there is not because the SBT is right. I can prove the SBT is wrong.

Answer 2:- The bullet was discovered, but it was not acknowledged. That is a rational alternative. I rejected that because I could not see how any discovery of a bullet could escape the eyes of Sibert and O'Neill. They were there to create an accurate document of what happened and they they did not leave until it was over. If a bullet was discovered there is no way they would not have seen it and therefore recorded it. Anyone who suggests such a discovery could have been made without Sibert and O'Neill seeing have no understanding of their purpose and who they were. Therefore another reason the bullet was not there was not because one was actually found but hidden from documentation.

That leaves only one alternative. Somehow, and I do not know how, the bullet was removed. David came to this conclusion back in 1981, because the evidence led him to that conclusion.

I have come to that conclusion because logic tells me it is the only possible answer. Yes, there is another alternative, the Ice Bullet, and yes I reject that. I cannot believe men determined to assassinate a President are going to use such ammunition. And that side steps whether it is even a possible kind of ammunition.

I know a bullet entered the throat. I agree with David Von Pein that no bullet was found. I know the SBT is nonsense. I know no bullet was actually found and hidden from view and documentation. I know that serious men intent on assassinating a President wound never depend on such an attack by using Ice bullets.

That just leaves one option. Somehow, somewhere that bullet was removed. The answer to David Von Pein's taunt is because it was removed. Like mathematics, logic cannot be ignored.

You may find the idea of bullet removal difficult to accept, I certainly did for a long time, but when one gets serious about the medical evidence I realised that there is only one logical answer to where the bullet went, it was removed.

You say he theory is crazy. It is not crazy. It may be uncomfortable to accept, but for me it is the only rational explanation. If you have read David Lifton's posts in the last few days you will see his listing of the evidence that he has found to explain why he has come to this view. If you really believe this idea is crazy, then maybe you can provide reasons how that damage came to be inflicted on JFK's body by bullets and not by the attempt of persons unknown to remove the evidence.

James

Edited by James R Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, there is another alternative, the Ice Bullet, and yes I reject that. I cannot believe men determined to assassinate a President are going to use such ammunition. And that side steps whether it is even a possible kind of ammunition.

That issue is not in doubt. The answer to the autopsists' questions the night of the autopsy re: a bullet which "dissolves after contact" is -- Yes. Such weaponry existed. It was tested on humans by the Central Intelligence Agency. There were a variety of firearms which delivered either a paralytic or a toxin which could not be detected on x-ray.

The claim that "serious" people didn't have a "serious" interest in this technology is demonstrably wrong:

http://karws.gso.uri...s/flechette.txt

I know a bullet entered the throat. I agree with David Von Pein that no bullet was found. I know the SBT is nonsense. I know no bullet was actually found and hidden from view and documentation. I know that serious men intent on assassinating a President wound never depend on such an attack by using Ice bullets.

How do you "know" that, James?

The Zapruder film shows JFK appearing to seize up paralyzed in about two seconds, consistent with being shot with a paralytic.

The wound in the throat was small, the missile only struck soft tissue -- and yet it did not exit. That's a mighty low caliber piece of ordinance there, especially for a First Shot-Kill Shot scenario!

And the same deal with the back wound -- shallow, no exit.

What kind of glorified pop guns were these "serious" assassins of yours firing, James?

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the the photographic evidence is very clear what happened here and it is supported by almost all of the witness testimony. The first bullet passed through the presidents neck and struck, grazed or startled Connally on his left side. As Connally turned back to his right he was struck by a second bullet which missed the president completely.

The photographic evidence is an extremely high hurdle to overcome....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe the the photographic evidence is very clear what happened here and it is supported by almost all of the witness testimony. The first bullet passed through the presidents neck and struck, grazed or startled Connally on his left side. As Connally turned back to his right he was struck by a second bullet which missed the president completely.

Well Mike that is certainly one way of looking at the evidence.

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

I have watched you evolve. You have now joined the body alterationist and photo alterationist camp.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James,

I have watched you evolve. You have now joined the body alterationist and photo alterationist camp.

Mike,

I am far too busy for a protracted argument that you have a tendency to create. I accept that the alterationist's view is very difficult to grasp. I certainly had difficulty accepting it. Essentially, although you have adjusted it, you believe in the SBT. That is a rational position to take.

However where such a view crumbles to the ground is determining where the entry point on the back is positioned. As I remember your position your entry point is below CostaIR. The implications from such an entry point is that the bullet MUST strike the lung. To say otherwise is to demonstrate a poor understanding of the human anatomy of the upper chest area.

Some time ago I posted a MRI scan demonstrating the SBT trajectory. One consequence of this was that when exiting the body the trajectory of the SBT has the bullet moving towards Mrs Connally and not her husband. Now of course bullets do not travel in a straight line, but the change of direction to move towards John Connaly would require the striking of a bone or some similar hard object and there is none close to the Trachea.

As I pointed out, I do not accept the SBT, even your modified version. I also do not believe that a bullet was discovered and not reported. That only leaves one option open to me and that is that the bullet had to be removed.

I will add, that your version of the SBT like the official version are fatally flawed when applied to the reality of Dealey Plaza. I am not prepared to inform you what that flaw is, at this point, but there is a major problem you know nothing about that totally undermines your theory.

James.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, the size and character of the "trach incision," as reported by Humes, is at odds with how Perry himself described the trach incision to Lifton, and by other Dallas personnel in attendance. I am aware of statements by Dr. Crenshaw and Nurse Bell that Perry would never have created a 7cm gash, as seen in the autopsy photo, for a simple tracheostomy. Various efforts to suggest otherwise do so on the basis that Perry wanted to explore the wounding which required creating the large gash (with irregular edges) seen in the autopsy photo. I find such reasoning absurd. It was Perry's job to insert a trach tube, not to perform forensic functions on an obviously moribund President.

A large gash with irregular edges would, however, make perfect sense as the work of someone in a great deal of hurry trying to find and remove a bullet from the President's body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread was not about body alteration until Mr. Lifton injected it. He seems incapable of mentioning anything about the case without injecting body alteration , however, out of place it may look.

*Mr. Lifton made a mistake many years ago. He did not consult the photographic evidence before he made some of his outlandish conclusions based only upon eye witness testimony. As the picture presented by the photographic evidence evolved Mr. Lifton had only one option, to make another outlandish conclusion, that the body alterationists also became photographic alterationists.

For me, what ever good work Mr. Lifton has done on the research side is far overshadowed by the illogical and bizarre conclusions he as made from this work. There is something not right here.

*Since I have not read his book I can only conclude that he did not consult the photographic evidence before he made some of the conclusions he has made that is such conflict with it.

Edited by Mike Rago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×