Martin Hay's review of David Von Pein's book

[David Von Pein]

Vincent Bugliosi, who introduced evidence supporting a first shot hit before Kennedy went behind the sign in the Zapruder film at the 1986 mock trial of Oswald, failed to acknowledge that he'd done so anywhere in his over 2500 page book Reclaiming History. He pretended as though he'd never claimed Kennedy was hit before going behind the sign.

From a 2010 discussion I had with Pat Speer.....

PAT SPEER SAID:

David, Jim [DiEugenio's] problem with the SBT at 224 comes not from Connally's not being hit at this time, but from Kennedy's having been hit almost two seconds earlier. Now, try as you might, you can't argue he is wrong on this without exposing yourself as a "theorist" at odds with "officialdom". You see, the HSCA photography panel concluded as much back in the 70's and your friend Vinnie pushed as much in his "mock" trial. Of course, you won't find Vinnie acknowledging as much in his book, now will you? After all, it might hurt his credibility a bit if he let his readers know he'd misled the jury during the mock trial. Am I wrong?

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I think it's fairly obvious why Vince Bugliosi endorsed the silly Z190 HSCA timing for the SBT at the 1986 TV docu-trial -- it was because the person who testified for the prosecution during that "trial" was a member of the HSCA's photographic panel, Cecil Kirk, and Kirk endorsed the Z190 SBT timing.

Over a period of time after 1986, while writing his book, Bugliosi quite obviously realized the silliness of the Z190 timing for the Single-Bullet Theory, and Vince adjusted the shot to a later Z-Film frame.

Vince, of course, is still 100% wrong about his "new" SBT time (around Z210), but at least he got a lot closer to the correct frame of Z224 when he shifted from Z190 to circa Z210.

Plus, I'll add this -- Even if Bugliosi, in 1986, had completely disagreed with Kirk's Z190 time for the SBT, I'm guessing that Vince wouldn't have made a huge issue out of the discrepancy during Vincent's questioning of Kirk on the witness stand.

Why not?

Because whether the shot occurred at Z190 or Z210 (or whenever), the man Vince had on the witness stand at the '86 TV trial was still testifying to the likelihood of the SBT being true (which, of course, it is, regardless of what EXACT Zapruder Film frame it occurred at).

Footnote -- I do think that Mr. Bugliosi should have explained in his 2007 book ["Reclaiming History"] the reason(s) he was endorsing a completely different SBT Z-Film timeline in 1986 vs. the Z210 timeline that appears in his book.

And if Vince had provided such an explanation in his book (which, as Pat Speer says, I do not think he did), I believe that explanation would be very similar to the one I just laid out above in this post.

DVP

April 14, 2010

google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/FKUfqhF3Iyk/F6lv-atrGGQJ

Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

Edited April 21, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Paul Baker]

To be clear, Paul, my study of the evidence led me to accept a different shooting scenario than proposed by the most LNs, and most CTs. I could certainly be wrong. But the point of my research, IMO, is to demonstrate that it's clearly wrong to assume all the alternatives have been discussed and presented before the public, and that one must choose between the current LN consensus, three shots fired from the school book depository with a first shot miss and a third shot entering at the supposed cowlick entry, or the most common CT scenario, more than three shots fired from multiple locations with a fatal shot coming from the grassy knoll and blowing out the back of Kennedy's head.

There's just too many problems with these scenarios, IMO. It's time for less problematic scenarios to arise. You appear to be on the youngish side. Perhaps, if you look at this enough, you can come up with one that will stand the test of time.

Hi Pat,

Thanks for your reply. I haven't been around here for a while (it was becoming an obsession). I've always thought that most conspiracy ideas can be more-or-less destroyed with a bit of common sense. When I first started getting interested with this subject, many years ago (that picture of me is about 10 years old, I think. I'm 44), I assumed as most other people did that there was more to this than what the DPD ascertained, and then the Warren Commission. But over time I changed my mind.

I do still think that when you watch a zoomed-in, slow-mo version of the Z-film, that Kennedy and Connally react at the same time to being shot, and I've yet to see a convincing counterargument to the work that Dale Myers' did on this. Regardless of that, I see them getting hit at the same time. Then the wounds prove that one bullet must be responsible for all of that. It wasn't undamaged of course, although that 'fact' is still being bandied around after all of these years. I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe it was pristine.

In any case, I'm reading through your website so you might yet be able to convince me otherwise!

Kind Regards,

Paul.

[David Lifton]

I think that Martin's review is flawed. I don't have time to pick it apart, because there is too much to pick apart. So I'd like to focus on one part of Martin's review. Then, like a house of cards and a breeze, it all falls flat on its face.

That package. It's not too hard to tear apart any argument about its perceived size, or what it contained. In hindsight, of course, we all like to pay special attention to that package. At the time though it probably wasn't considered important by anyone that noticed it.

Lee told Frazier that it contained curtain rods. This is a lie. Why? Because:

* Lee didn't need curtain rods.

* No curtain rods were found anywhere in the TSBD in the wake of the assassination.

* Why on earth would Lee make a special journey to get some curtain rods that he didn't really need? If he did need them (which he didn't) why didn't he just get them during his usual weekend visit?

It's really a no-brainer.

So we know that the package didn't contain curtain rods, but we know it existed and that it contained something. So what was in that bag if it wasn't Lee's rifle?

One thing you can't accuse the the authors of is failing to apply basic common sense.

Package argument destroyed. My, that was quite easy!

Paul.

You're being way too kind to call Hay's review "flawed."

I just read through some of his writings and they are absurd.

He writes well, but his facts are screwed up, and he's guilty of terrible cherry picking--which he loves to accuse others of.

Some quick examples:

1. Ruth Paine was --imho--not part of any conspiracy. But he refers to her as "the custodian" of the evidence against Oswald. That's just sheer nonsense. (She's a custodian because Oswald kept a rifle in the garage?)

2. Hay says no one saw Oswald with "the" rifle or "a" rifle (which is not clear) for two months perior to the assassination. Has he (conveniently) forgotten about those who saw Oswald engaged in rifle practice, the week before? What about Dr. Wood, and his son? They were deposed by Liebeler. Has Hay (convieniently) forgotten about that testimony?

3. Hay makes it appear that because Ruth Paine telephoned the TSBD, she "got him" the job. More nonsense. Hay clearly does not know the "back story" of that situation. Its not so simple, Martin. I think you need to study up on that situation.

4. He says that the call to Ruth Paine from Michael Paine was a collect call (huh?) and made on 11/22. Pardon me, but I remember seeing those FBI reports, and I think they are dated 11/23. (If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. But for Hay to reference that to John Armstrong is very "iffy". And his whole rendition of the situation is akin to a novelist telling a story.

5. In the area of the medical evidence--it seems to me that anyone who is a sentient human being with an IQ above room temperature has to realize that-wound sizes and such discrepancies aside--there is definite evidence that JFK's body did not make an uninterrupted journey from Parkland to Bethesda. It left in a ceremonial casket, arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket; it left Dallas wrapped in sheets; arrived at Bethesda in a body bag. All of this was established by interviews I conducted in 1979 (and published in Best Evidence) and then in filmed interviews in October 1980. (Google: Best Evidence Research Video)

Stanhope Gould--the senior producer at CBS (under Cronkite) who later worked at KRON-TV in San Francisco, and who (along with Sylvia Chase) did a TV recap of my work (1988) re-interviewing the key witnesses, said that I ("David Lifton") had "courtroom quality evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda." But, our friend Martin Hay, who decries cherry picking, and tells us that WC attorney Willens was "in denial," engages in that very same behavior when it comes to the issue of autopsy fraud, and , in particular, autopsy fraud that began with the covert intercept of the body, and then the matter of bullet removal and wound alteration.

How anyone can engage in this sort of behavior and remain credible is completely baffling.

6. Does Hay believe that Lyndon Johnson became president because Harold Willins (and others on the Warren Commission) endorsed the single bullet theory?

IMHO: Martin Hay emerges as a propagandist with a very narrow view of conspiracy and who wears blinders as to what kind of conspiracy he finds to be "politically correct" (by his standards). And he is often ill informed. A writing style that is stylish is not a substitute for getting one's facts correct, or avoiding key areas of data that any historian or law professor would understand are in the realm of 'best evidence.'

Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin.

Then Hay has the gall to package his ill-informed beliefs as if he knows the truth, and everyone else is either mistaken or intellectually dishonest. (And, of course, he will be the judge, excusing himself, of course, when he indulges in such behavior).

Does Hay understand that documents--and about 10 witnesses--establish that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda, about 20 minutes before the Navy ambulance carrying the coffin? Or has that escaped his notice?

Does Hay understand that serious minded lawyers for Macmillan checked and reviewed the evidence of intercept before accepting my manuscript for publication? And before running ads across the nation showing the AF-1 offload and proclaiming: "The coffin was empty?" Does Hay understand the screening process that goes into the selection of a book for "Book of the Month" selection? And which resulted in the selection of BEST EVIDENCE --from over ten of thousands of books, as a Book of the Month alternate in early 1981?

Does Hay understand that my book was published by four separate publishers over a 17 year period (yes, there will be a fifth) and that there was not a single lawsuit?

Instead of dealing with real data and the most important data of all--that resident in the President's body--Hay crawls into his shell, this cocoon that I call a "1967 view" of the JFK case, fourteen years before the publication of Best Evidence, and reports back from his time-capsule as if the truth wasn't found because of a political conspiracy on the staff of the Warren Commission.

Oh yeah. . sure. . dream on, Martin Hay.

The truth wasn't found in this case because of fraud in the evidence. Not all of the evidence, but a critical part of it.

The truth wasn't found, in this case, because of the successful execution of a strategic deception on November 22, 1963, and in the days immediately following, which created the false appearance that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon; and that Oswald was the assassin.

The notion that Hay's kind of oversimplified, juvenile analysis--his oversimplified view of "political science"--circa, 11/22/63 ( Martin Hay style)-- is continually posted at CTKA, where--apparently--it receives the blessing of DiEugenio is most unfortunate.

Does Martin Hay really want to solve the Kennedy assassination, or is he interested in an interminable debate?

I recall what a law professor said --most unfairly--about Mark Lane, but which certainly applies to Martin Hay:

"Great lawyers have an instinct for the jugular; Martin Hay has an instinct for the capillaries."

DSL

4/2/16 - 6:49 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 2, 2016 by David Lifton

[Tom Neal]

Hello Mr. Lifton,

Tried to PM you, but your mailbox appears to be full...

Thanks,

Tom

[Pat Speer]

I think that Martin's review is flawed. I don't have time to pick it apart, because there is too much to pick apart. So I'd like to focus on one part of Martin's review. Then, like a house of cards and a breeze, it all falls flat on its face.

That package. It's not too hard to tear apart any argument about its perceived size, or what it contained. In hindsight, of course, we all like to pay special attention to that package. At the time though it probably wasn't considered important by anyone that noticed it.

Lee told Frazier that it contained curtain rods. This is a lie. Why? Because:

* Lee didn't need curtain rods.

* No curtain rods were found anywhere in the TSBD in the wake of the assassination.

* Why on earth would Lee make a special journey to get some curtain rods that he didn't really need? If he did need them (which he didn't) why didn't he just get them during his usual weekend visit?

It's really a no-brainer.

So we know that the package didn't contain curtain rods, but we know it existed and that it contained something. So what was in that bag if it wasn't Lee's rifle?

One thing you can't accuse the the authors of is failing to apply basic common sense.

Package argument destroyed. My, that was quite easy!

Paul.

You're being way too kind to call Hay's review "flawed."

I just read through some of his writings and they are absurd.

He writes well, but his facts are screwed up, and he's guilty of terrible cherry picking--which he loves to accuse others of.

Some quick examples:

1. Ruth Paine was --imho--not part of any conspiracy. But he refers to her as "the custodian" of the evidence against Oswald. That's just sheer nonsense. (She's a custodian because Oswald kept a rifle in the garage?)

2. Hay says no one saw Oswald with "the" rifle or "a" rifle (which is not clear) for two months perior to the assassination. Has he (conveniently) forgotten about those who saw Oswald engaged in rifle practice, the week before? What about Dr. Wood, and his son? They were deposed by Liebeler. Has Hay (convieniently) forgotten about that testimony?

3. Hay makes it appear that because Ruth Paine telephoned the TSBD, she "got him" the job. More nonsense. Hay clearly does not know the "back story" of that situation. Its not so simple, Martin. I think you need to study up on that situation.

4. He says that the call to Ruth Paine from Michael Paine was a collect call (huh?) and made on 11/22. Pardon me, but I remember seeing those FBI reports, and I think they are dated 11/23. (If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it. But for Hay to reference that to John Armstrong is very "iffy". And his whole rendition of the situation is akin to a novelist telling a story.

5. In the area of the medical evidence--it seems to me that anyone who is a sentient human being with an IQ above room temperature has to realize that-wound sizes and such discrepancies aside--there is definite evidence that JFK's body did not make an uninterrupted journey from Parkland to Bethesda. It left in a ceremonial casket, arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket; it left Dallas wrapped in sheets; arrived at Bethesda in a body bag. All of this was established by interviews I conducted in 1979 (and published in Best Evidence) and then in filmed interviews in October 1980. (Google: Best Evidence Research Video)

Stanhope Gould--the senior producer at CBS (under Cronkite) who later worked at KRON-TV in San Francisco, and who (along with Sylvia Chase) did a TV recap of my work (1988) re-interviewing the key witnesses, said that I ("David Lifton") had "courtroom quality evidence that President Kennedy's body was intercepted between Dallas and Bethesda." But, our friend Martin Hay, who decries cherry picking, and tells us that WC attorney Willens was "in denial," engages in that very same behavior when it comes to the issue of autopsy fraud, and , in particular, autopsy fraud that began with the covert intercept of the body, and then the matter of bullet removal and wound alteration.

How anyone can engage in this sort of behavior and remain credible is completely baffling.

6. Does Hay believe that Lyndon Johnson became president because Harold Willins (and others on the Warren Commission) endorsed the single bullet theory?

IMHO: Martin Hay emerges as a propagandist with a very narrow view of conspiracy and who wears blinders as to what kind of conspiracy he finds to be "politically correct" (by his standards). And he is often ill informed. A writing style that is stylish is not a substitute for getting one's facts correct, or avoiding key areas of data that any historian or law professor would understand are in the realm of 'best evidence.'

Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin.

Then Hay has the gall to package his ill-informed beliefs as if he knows the truth, and everyone else is either mistaken or intellectually dishonest. (And, of course, he will be the judge, excusing himself, of course, when he indulges in such behavior).

Does Hay understand that documents--and about 10 witnesses--establish that JFK's body arrived in a body bag at Bethesda, about 20 minutes before the Navy ambulance carrying the coffin? Or has that escaped his notice?

Does Hay understand that serious minded lawyers for Macmillan checked and reviewed the evidence of intercept before accepting my manuscript for publication? And before running ads across the nation showing the AF-1 offload and proclaiming: "The coffin was empty?" Does Hay understand the screening process that goes into the selection of a book for "Book of the Month" selection? And which resulted in the selection of BEST EVIDENCE --from over ten of thousands of books, as a Book of the Month alternate in early 1981?

Does Hay understand that my book was published by four separate publishers over a 17 year period (yes, there will be a fifth) and that there was not a single lawsuit?

Instead of dealing with real data and the most important data of all--that resident in the President's body--Hay crawls into his shell, this cocoon that I call a "1967 view" of the JFK case, fourteen years before the publication of Best Evidence, and reports back from his time-capsule as if the truth wasn't found because of a political conspiracy on the staff of the Warren Commission.

Oh yeah. . sure. . dream on, Martin Hay.

The truth wasn't found in this case because of fraud in the evidence. Not all of the evidence, but a critical part of it.

The truth wasn't found, in this case, because of the successful execution of a strategic deception on November 22, 1963, and in the days immediately following, which created the false appearance that Oswald's rifle was the murder weapon; and that Oswald was the assassin.

The notion that Hay's kind of oversimplified, juvenile analysis--his oversimplified view of "political science"--circa, 11/22/63 ( Martin Hay style)-- is continually posted at CTKA, where--apparently--it receives the blessing of DiEugenio is most unfortunate.

Does Martin Hay really want to solve the Kennedy assassination, or is he interested in an interminable debate?

I recall what a law professor said --most unfairly--about Mark Lane, but which certainly applies to Martin Hay:

"Great lawyers have an instinct for the jugular; Martin Hay has an instinct for the capillaries."

DSL

4/2/16 - 6:49 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

It's nice to hear from you, David. But I do think your outrage is misplaced. If one is to conclude that everyone doubting the body was altered en route to Bethesda is somehow unqualified to write about the assassination, as you have apparently concluded, then one will be forced to conclude that 80-90% of all negative reviews of Oswald-didi-it material have been written by people unqualified to write about the case. Well, if this is so, then you oughta get busy. Someone needs to confront these books, articles, and programs. Perhaps you think there is an army of CTs who fully embrace your theories willing to pick up the slack. But I spend too much of my time online, and have attended 6 conferences in the past three years, and can assure you no such army exists. Most CTs today hold some sort of personal hybrid theory...some shots from behind, some from the front. Many if not most of those thinking the body was altered believe it was done so at Bethesda, as opposed to en route. It seems clear then that while your theories were ground-breaking, and influential, that they haven't been fully embraced. But who knows? Things could always circle back.

I think it strange, moreover, that you have opted to go after a review most of us have forgotten, of a book very few will ever read, and that you have chosen to go after Mr. Hay over some aspects of the case where his perspective is far more popular than your own. Now, you could always be correct on this. But you're not gonna win many converts to your cause by attacking Mr. Hay for his mistrust of Ruth Paine, when the vast majority of CTs similarly mistrust Ruth Paine.

And then there's this: "Martin Hay ignores the critical evidence of conspiracy in the medical area; he makes false statements about the Paines; he asserts that Marina Oswald's testimony is "worthless" (what balderdash!); he claims Oswald did not carry a package long enough to the TSBD (apparently blissfully unaware that, in her original FBI interview (on 11/22 at the DPD) Linnie Mae Randle told the interviewing FBI agents that the package she saw Oswald carry was 36" long, and about 6" wide). Get real, Martin."

What? Martin is 100% correct on this issue and you are 100% wrong. Ms. Randle approximated that the bag was 3 feet long and then said it was much shorter once the FBI re-enacted the bag and showed her what a 3 foot long bag would look like. She also deferred to her brother, who got a much better look at the bag, and swore from day one and continues to swear that the bag shown him on the night of the shooting was not the bag he saw Oswald carrying early that morning, and that this bag was both way too big and made from a different kind of paper.

And that's not all--what's with your claim Oswald practiced with his rifle? Martin Hay was correct. The FBI and WC looked into it and found no credible evidence Oswald had practiced with his rifle in the months before the shooting. A number of witnesses had popped up claiming he had done so, but they were all shot down for various reasons. Are you claiming the FBI and WC were wrong about this, and that they were overly-generous to Oswald in rejecting these "sightings"?

Edited April 2, 2016 by Pat Speer

[James DiEugenio]

Lifton comes out of his igloo to back Paul Baker's year old post, about a book written by Ayton and Von Pein?

BTW, here is a link to Martin's fine review http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Pat, and you are correct, I agree with the first hit on JFK being at about 190. And I should add, not only did the HSCA photo panel agree with this, so did Ray Marcus in his analysis for Jim Garrison back in 1968, and so did CBS in their 1967 special. With the excised frames included in the film, and with the film projected on a large auditorium screen in slow motion, its very hard to deny this.

Edited April 2, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Let me add one other point.

Today, with all we know about the WC through the disclosures in Shenon's book, and through the WIllens diary, and Morley's interview with him, anyone who denies that Willens was one of the very top players on the day to day functions of the Warren Commission has not a clue as to what really went on there.

As Sylvia Meagher once wrote, in the summer of 1964, the Commission was on the verge of collapsing. It was Willens who rallied it, and it was WIllens who brought in two guys who had never once been in a court room, and one of them had just graduated from law school.

What did WIllens have these two babes in the woods do? One did the biography of Ruby, and the other of Oswald.

That completed the cover up alright. Go Howard!

Edited April 2, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

Here's how Oswald did it. He somehow got his disassembled rifle onto the sixth floor and quickly assembled it with a dime, leaving no fingerprints on the rifle. Scrunching down, he rapidly fired three shots, cleaning the rifle barrel of any corrosion. By the time Robert Frazier examined the rifle the next day, the barrel had become badly corroded. At least one of the rounds Oswald fires is a re-load. Oswald did not possess re-loading equipment.

Oswald makes his way down the stairs, after stashing the rifle, and is encountered appearing calm by Marion Baker just inside the door to the second floor lunch room.

Oswald returns to his lodging, gets his pistol, and walks quickly to a place where he encounters and kills J.D. Tippit.

Shortly thereafter, Oswald is arrested in the Texas Theater.

This statement of facts raises no questions and is completely verifiable beyond a reasonable doubt. Case Closed.

Eh, DVP?

And Jon, don't forget, too, that he owned not one, not two, but three wallets and when he shot Tippit he took out one of the three wallets and carefully laid it down next to the body. The reason why he did that was because he wanted everyone to know he murdered Tippit.

:-)

[Tom Neal]

I agree with the first hit on JFK being at about 190. And I should add, not only did the HSCA photo panel agree with this, so did Ray Marcus in his analysis for Jim Garrison back in 1968, and so did CBS in their 1967 special. With the excised frames included in the film, and with the film projected on a large auditorium screen in slow motion, its very hard to deny this.

Jim,

Is this the back shot at frame 190?

Thanks,

Tom

[Michael Walton]

I'd love to know how CE399, the "magic bullet", came through all those wounds and lost just a small amount of lead from the base.

Jfk's back,

Jfk's throat,

Connally's back

Connally's rib

Connally's chest,

Connally's Wrist

Connally's thigh.

A truly "Magic" bullet.

It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that?

It was a high velocity bullet. A little streamlined piece of metal designed to penetrate flesh. What's magic about it? If you watch the Zapruder film in slow motion you can see both Kennedy and Connally reacting simultaneously. How do you account for that?

Oh, really? I don't see that at all I see a man reacting to a throat shot, a back shot, and then JC turning and then reacting. And to take it a step further JC, to his dying day, *never* believed that he was hit with the same shot Kennedy was hit with.

It was a high velocity bullet.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say it was "high velocity" and then, during the autopsy, Humes finds that this "high velocity" bullet couldn't even make it out of JFK's back and stopping there. While at the same time - if you believe the SBT - this so-called back shot supposedly went into the back wound, somehow work its way upward to exit a higher point in JFK (his throat) then go on to do all of JC's wounds.

[David Lifton]

Hello Mr. Lifton,

Tried to PM you, but your mailbox appears to be full...

Thanks,

Tom

You can reach me at DSL74@Cornell.edu

DSL

[James DiEugenio]

I agree with the first hit on JFK being at about 190. And I should add, not only did the HSCA photo panel agree with this, so did Ray Marcus in his analysis for Jim Garrison back in 1968, and so did CBS in their 1967 special. With the excised frames included in the film, and with the film projected on a large auditorium screen in slow motion, its very hard to deny this.

Jim,

Is this the back shot at frame 190?

Thanks,

Tom

Yes Tom.

In 1993, at the Harvard Conference, Groden showed his slowed down, stabilized version of the film with the excised frames inserted.

He projected it in 16 mm, on an auditorium size screen. I had never seen it complete, in that format, or projected onto a large screen like that.

It was plain to me, and many others, that Kennedy is hit from behind before he disappears behind the sign. And his head buckles forward as he does so.

All this other crapola, from the WC, and Mr. Meyersvision, is meant to conceal and disguise the fact of that reaction. And I believe this is why those frames were excised in the first place.

Kennedy was hit at 190, and JBC at 236. This is why Specter had to come up with his "delayed reaction".

The problem was that JBC said it was all wrong since he was not hit with the first shot, he couldn't have been. And BTW, if you read McBride's book, he has a very good source that JBC thought the whole firing sequence in the WC was nothing but pure malarkey.

In fact, he went even further than that. He actually said the WR was nothing but utter BS. IN a private conversation at a political gathering in 1982, Connally was asked if he thought Oswald killed Kennedy. Quicker than a flash, Connally said, "Absolutlely not!" He then added, "I do not for one second believe the conclusions of the Warren Report." (Joseph McBride, Into the Nightmare p. 418)

Well, let's see now, RFK did not buy it. JBC did not buy it. LBJ did not buy it. The whole Southern Wing of the WC did not buy it: Russell, Boggs, Cooper. Ford told the premier of France they knew it was wrong. Hoover knew it was BS too.

When you are down to Dulles and McCloy, well......hmm.

Edited April 3, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Tom Neal]

Hello Mr. Lifton,

Tried to PM you, but your mailbox appears to be full...

Thanks,

Tom

You can reach me at DSL74@Cornell.edu

DSL

Thank you, David!

Tom

Edited April 3, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Tom Neal]

I agree with the first hit on JFK being at about 190. ...and so did CBS in their 1967 special.

*CBS* agreed with Z-190? Hmmmmmmmm... Now I'm confused -- is this evidence for or against frame 190?

In 1993, at the Harvard Conference, Groden showed his slowed down, stabilized version of the film with the

excised frames inserted. He projected it in 16 mm, on an auditorium size screen. I had never seen it complete,

in that format, or projected onto a large screen like that.

It was plain to me, and many others, that Kennedy is hit from behind before he disappears behind the sign. And

his head buckles forward as he does so.

The back shot is the one I could never pin to a specific Z-frame, so thanks for this info!

Mr. Meyersvision, is meant to conceal and disguise the fact of that reaction.

When I read Myers statement that after carefully aligning the position of JFK's head to the film, the first time he

projected a line through the head wounds and it went "right through the center of window" in the TSBD Sniper's Nest,

without even seeing his "animation" I knew he was full of it. Just to be certain I sat right down and with a little

trigonometry determined that at a distance of 100 yards, a 1 degree error in head angle was enough to miss the

window completely. Can a 1 degree error be discerned from the Z-film? And, this presumes that he managed to get the

precise distance from the window to his head in all 3 dimensions. How he aligned the bullet 'exit hole' precisely

through the 3 or 4" 'entry' hole in the back of his skull has never been explained...

And I believe this is why those frames were excised in the first place.

Jim,

The next time that you watched the Z-film, with the knowledge that the back shot was at 190, could you pick up JFK's

forward movement, or was it all restricted to those excised frames? Is this version available anywhere on line, or has

Groden kept it in his possession?

The problem was that JBC said it was all wrong since he was not hit with the first shot, he couldn't have been. And

BTW, if you read McBride's book, he has a very good source that JBC thought the whole firing sequence in the WC was

nothing but pure malarkey.

With the full knowledge that his statement alone eliminates the SBT completely, sinking the WC in the process, he says

in public, that he believes the WC. I guess he didn't want to have one of those accidents so common to those who refuse

to toe the line, and I give him a LOT of credit for refusing to change his story.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Tom Neal

[Sandy Larsen]

Lifton comes out of his igloo to back Paul Baker's year old post, about a book written by Ayton and Von Pein?

BTW, here is a link to Martin's fine review http://www.ctka.net/2015/Ayton%20Review.html

Pat, and you are correct, I agree with the first hit on JFK being at about 190. And I should add, not only did the HSCA photo panel agree with this, so did Ray Marcus in his analysis for Jim Garrison back in 1968, and so did CBS in their 1967 special. With the excised frames included in the film, and with the film projected on a large auditorium screen in slow motion, its very hard to deny this.

Jim,

I'd never heard of these frames being excised from the Z film. When were they removed? Is there evidence of their removal?

I take it you saw the film before those frames were removed.

Pat Speer says on his website that the hit at Z190 is clear, but I can see nothing despite trying for 20 minutes, looking at various films and frame-by-frame. JFK gets blurry right at Z190 and stays blurry for a few frames. (I'm not saying there's nothing to see there... I'm saying only that I don't see it.) I do see his waving hand move to his forehead before he goes behind the sign.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Sandy Larsen