Nonconspiracists United

[Pat Speer]

Mel, congratulations, you've done an excellent job of stating the lone-nutter position. I do have some problems with your article, however. Here's where you lost me.

In the third paragraph you complain about the assassination industry in Dallas. Having been there last fall, for the assassination anniversary, I can state that this industry is much smaller than you seem to believe, and that virtually no one makes a living off of the assassination. Very few of the books have ever been best-sellers, Similarly, the websites devoted to the assassination are almost exclusively a labor of love. For most, the study of the assassination is a hobby, much the same as being a civil war buff and occasionally going to a re-enactment (which no one seems to find distasteful). Your depiction of CTs getting rich is almost laughable; the only "experts" I suspect are making any money are Gerald Posner and Dale Myers, who are dragged onto TV with regularity to preach about the evil of Oswald or show a deceptive cartoon.

In the sixth paragraph you state that America's leaders had hope for detente. This isn't really true. Many of America's leaders, including Barry Goldwater, the leader of the Republican party, were suspicious of Khruschev and believed detente was a trap. You also state that President Johnson was fearful suspicions would lead to conflict, over-looking that LBJ was a man with a great sense of his own power, and had the power to stop a conflict from happening, and that LBJ was also someone who would fein helplessness in order to get what he wanted from those whose ear he was bending. You say that the cover-up was therefore well-intentioned, yet based on LBJ's proven power of manipulation, there is no reason to believe this was so.

In the eighth paragraph you say that if the government agencies had released all the information they had on Oswald, there would have been little room for the conspiracy theorists to maneuver. This has litttle foundation, since we still don't know what information they were withholding. The relationship between George Joannides and the DRE is but one example of withheld information that could still prove to be damaging.

In paragraph 9, you say that the Dallas PD was not conspiratorially involved. I think this judgement should be withheld until the disappearance of the negatives of the "so-called" backyard photographs has been adequately explained, and why investigations into their disappearance seem to have occurred, but never been revealed.

In paragraph 10 you state that Russell and Ford knew of the attempts on Castro. I believe Ford himself denied this knowledge before the HSCA. If he lied before congress, after the assassination plots had already become public knowledge, then Ford is a damned xxxx and we have yet another reason to doubt the findings of the WC.

In 11, you suggest that false witness after false witness has conned the American public into believing them. I believe the opposite has occurred. I believe that the parade of false witnesses has disgusted decent men like yourself and wrongly convinced them that nothing fishy actually took place. Every conspiracist I know has become convinced not by any individual's testimony, but by the behavior of the government itself.

In paragraph 12, you mention Life Magazine's role, neglecting to mention that Life and Reader's Digest only promoted a conspiracy when they thought they could prove foreign involvement. This isn't necessary to your point, but well worth mentioning in an over-view such as yours.

In 13 you state that the Kennedy family asked many of those present at the autopsy not to talk for 25 years. I'm curious as to where you uncovered this. As far as I know, the order of silence came from the military, without any input from the Kennedys. Burkley's suggestion on the family's behalf that the adrenals not be examined is about as far as their role in a cover-up goes. You also state that Bobby had concerns about the WC investigating the attempts on Castro. This is pure Gus Russo invention. Bobby was a morbidly depressed man in this period and completely withdrew and ignored the WC investigation. He never even read its report. He told Garrison an investigation wouldn't bring back his brother. As far as has been established, Bobby believed the attempts on Castro had ended by 1962., and were not relevant to the assassination. Remember, Helms testified that he and Fitzgerald decided amongst themselves to lie about Bobby's blessing to Cubela. There is no reason to believe Bobby was in the loop.

In paragraph 16, you mention that CTs have ignored that the Russians and Cubans were subverting Democracy in Latin America, apparently without irony. While there has been no Communist overthrow of a democratically elected leader in Latin America, the U.S. has sponsored the overthrow of Guatemala and Chile, replacing democratically-elected governments with right-wing dictatorships, claiming that the U.S. had the right to protect countries from the will of their own people. Ironically. the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua, one of the few communist governments to ever gain a foothold in the west, allowed itself to be voted out of office.

In paragraph 18, you make the bold claim that all the major issues have been addressed by America's leading scientific and legal experts. While many claims have certainly been debunked through scientific research, there are many that still have not been adequately explained. You conveniently ignore the fact that many leading pathologists, including Cyril Wecht, Thomas Noguchi, and Henry Lee, have expressed doubts about the medical evidence and the conclusions of the HSCA medical panel.

In 19, you mention computer simulations which prove the SBT, neglecting to note that the Myers simulation moves the back wound up two inches in order to sell the theory. You also fail to mention or realize that the Assassination Files laser re-enactment required the model to be bent over into a position far forward of Kennedy's, in order to project back into the TSBD. You then cite the NAA results of Dr. Guinn, which have been effectively debunked by Wallace Milam, and the backward-movement-of-the-head explanations offered by Alvarez and Sturdivan, which disagree with each other, as supposedly conclusive proof. These theories can easily be debunked, and have. If there was a "jet-effect" coming from the President's right temple, for instance, why didn't his head turn to his left as his skull exploded? More on this in my seminar update. You mention in passing as well that credible eyewitness testimony establishes that Oswald fired the shots...if you're referring to Howard Brennan then you are guilty of the selective choosing of eyewitness testimony to a far greater degree than most conspiracists, as Brennan failed to identify Oswald until after Oswald was in the ground. You then go on to say that Oswald's flight establishes a consciousness of guilt, without explaining how this consciousness rules out that he was part of a conspiracy. or was afraid he'd been set up by a conspiracy.

In the next paragraph, you complain of the gross speculation used by those who research Oswald's connections to Cuba and the CIA, citing it as "guilt by association." Apparently, you don't realize that this is how conspiracies are investigated by the FBI, from the mob, to the KKK, to Al Qaeda. One looks for a circle of people and then tries to understand what actions are occurring in the middle of the circle. As Gary Cornwell has said, you can only investigate a conspiracy by suspecting a conspiracy.

You then mention the selective use of witnesses by conspiracy writers, failing to acknowledge that the Warren Report and Case Closed are as guilty of this as any other book, and more than many, and that you yourself have decided to rely upon Brennan and ignore the testimony of others with whom you disagree.

In paragraph 21, you cite the deluded notion that a conspiracy would have to have involved hundreds if not thousands of people, and that whistle-blowers would have blown the lid off it by now, failing to remember that the murders of several prime suspects, Hoffa, Giancana, and Rosselli, remain unsoved. Why it would take more men to kill Kennedy than to kill any of those three men needs to be explained. If you intend this paragraph to refer only to the grand conspiracy of Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone fame, you should have said so. You fail to acknowledge that many conspiracy theories revolve around a select group of operatives acting on their own, without a paper trail. Such a conspiracy could remain a secret forever.

In 23, you declare the assassination attempts on Castro were common knowledge in New Orleans. I believe this is over-stating the case. While the CIA's backing of Castro's over-throw in 1962 was well-known, by 1963, the government had begun seizing ammunition and shutting down the training camps. If Oswald was the lover of Castro he was claiming to be, he could only have been encouraged.

In 24, you selectively choose one witness who implies Oswald was proud of killing Kennedy and had raised his hands in salute. This is weak, my friend. I've watched that footage dozens of times and have always interpreted Oswald's "salute" as a "yeah, I'm the guy they arrested, look at how they're abusing me"--type motion. There is no sense of satisfaction in Oswald's face, only dismay. Besides, even if he did raise his hands in "salute," it doesn't rule out that he was part of a conspiracy. It probably even supports this possibility, for who else would he be hoping to impress with his salute?

In 25, you mention that many CTs have been ridiculed by the scientific community, failing to mention that men like Wecht, Aguilar, Fetzer, and Mantik are all respected doctors within the scientific community, and men like Posner and yourself are not. (I personally believe this means nothing--after having studied the "science" of men like Baden, Guinn, and Canning, I'll take the common sense of a Harold Weisberg or a Josiah Thompson any old day!")

In your closing paragraph you cite the old maxim that NO evidence has been produced blah blah blah. At least you didn't use the word "scintilla," a sure sign of lone-nut indoctrination. You do hedge yourself a little bit by saying "which can decisively point a conspiratorial finger" and that nothing has "negated the argument for Oswald's guilt." If you're saying that no conspiracy has been decisvely proven, and that Oswald was almost assuredly involved at some stage in any conspiracy that was likely to have occurred, I'll agree with you. But this doesn't remotely mean that we should believe Oswald acted alone. The physical evidence just does not add up to one shooter firing from behind, Mel. Not the bullets, not the trajectories, not the reactions of Kennedy and Connally in the Zapruder film, and, in particular, not the medical evidence. I look forward to convincing you on this point.

Edited April 15, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Bernice Moore]

Hi Mr, Ayton:

I notice you relate to Lee Harvey Oswald..in your article

...as being :presumed to be the:

lone assassin:

Oswald as a self appointed champion of Castro:

Lone Madman:

L.H.O. murdered Police Officer Tippit within an hour

of shooting the President :

also crazed assassin...

But that he is not referred to as the Alleged or as an Accused...

He was never found guilty... in a court of law..therefore he is

not.....I am sure the membership awaits, your proof

of such....

I also notice your article was written and printed in 2003

the 40th Anniversary of the Assassination....so was this article

below.....for your information...and the other members...

Not all Spam comes via e-mail

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/40th.htm

Seeing that you have been adding your link to some other

members Bios, as you see fit for their needed studies...

I thought perhaps along with a welcome to the Forum ,

it would be a nice idea to also provide you with one..

for your needed studies...as well....

The Kennedy Assassination for the Novice.

http://pages.prodigy.net/whiskey99/

Play fair:

B....

[David G. Healy]

Pat wrote:

[...]

I agree with you that there's an awful lot of bs on this Forum and within the research community--Fetzer's work on Zapruder film alteration, for example. or Lifton's work on body alteration.

[...]

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

I'm sure David Mantik MD, PhD. will appreciate those comments, after all he's probably spent more time at NARA studying and handling autopsy [medical] related evidence than anyone in the United States, I believe he's contributed to 3 of Jim Fetzer's books -- As to work on the Z-film film, well Mantik also holds a PhD in Physics and certainly can comment on the Z-film -- I await your credentials regarding film printing and film composition and forensics...

As a wanna-be-writer dealing with JFK Assassination material, commenting about Zapruder Film in particular, I'm sure you can debate the pluses and minuses of optical film printing, in relationship to said film, YES?

David Lifton? Well he's a past NYT best selling author, Pat. Not a wanna-be-writer... in 2 months or so, you'll be glad to know, the 2003 Univ. of Minn Synposium on the Zapruder Film will be available on DVD and/or videotape -- Mantik, Costella, Fetzer [all three Phd's] Lifton, White and yours truly FULL presentations are covered. Stay tuned!

So, BS aside, I await your professional critique regarding Zapruder film alteration...

You never know who reads these threads, Pat! You never know!

DHealy

[John Simkin]

It would take a book to fully answer the points made in your article. However, over the next few weeks I will address most of the points you made in the article. I am sure other members will do the same thing.

In 1964 the Warren Commission investigation of President Kennedy’s assassination concluded that he had been killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the findings were accepted by the majority of the American public. However, a significant minority greeted the findings with instant skepticism. A public opinion poll immediately afterwards revealed that 56% accepted the Commission's conclusions. By the beginning of the new century, however, skepticism had turned to incredulity. Opinion polls were now showing around 10% or 11% of Americans believed that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy.

To understand the way the public perceived the assassination of JFK it is necessary to go back to the days that followed the assassination. The first Gallup poll carried out after the assassination revealed that only 29% of those interviewed thought that Oswald acted on his own. An amazing 52% believed he was part of a extreme right-wing conspiracy. At this stage only 1 per cent thought Oswald acted as the agent of a Communist conspiracy.

It is true that individuals and groups across the political spectrum were quick to try to influence these perceptions. From the start those on the left had great difficulty getting their thoughts published in the American media. That is why the first books arguing that it was a right-wing conspiracy were first published in Europe.

This was partly the reason why Europeans tended to interpret the assassination in a slightly different way to those in America. For example, this passage comes Thomas Buchanan’s book, Who Killed Kennedy? As far as I can find out it was the first book published that suggested that JFK was the victim of a right-wing conspiracy. Based on articles originally published in a French newspaper (L’Express) in March, 1964, it appeared in book form in May, 1964 (four months before the publication of the Warren Commission).

The difference between American and European attitudes towards the crime was excellently summarized in Paris-Match, France's top-circulation magazine, equivalent to Life and Time: "There exists a remarkable contrast between America and Europe, in regard to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. In America, it is scarcely an exaggeration to declare that the affair is on its way to being classified and filed.... The chance encounter of an anarchist and an exhibitionist, of a depressive paranoid and one who was exuberant - that is essentially the explanation being given for the tragedy of Dallas. America accepts this conclusion. Europe, almost in its totality, rejects it. Europeans are convinced the Dallas drama hides a mystery which, if uncovered, would dishonour the United States and shake it to its foundations. So it is better to hide it. Europe might perhaps be induced to believe the explanation of the solitary individual killing the President of the United States upon the street, as not even a dog is killed. But the explanation of the police informer, the proprietor of a house of ill repute, the pimp, the professional gangster killing the President's assassin out of patriotic indignation, Europe does not believe it for a moment. Europe finds the story laughable. It throws upon the hitherto plausible explanation of a solitary Oswald an overwhelming doubt. It brings to view such abysses, in the crime of Dallas, that the eye recoils before them. It justifies suspicion of a deliberate and desperate concealment, carried out by all the organs of authority in the American nation, from the White House to Murder, Incorporated.

Buchanan did not have a full understanding of what had been going on in the American media concerning the Kennedy assassination. It was only with the publication of the Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Government Operations With Respect to Intelligence Activities, April, 1976 (pages 191-201) that the American public discovered that the CIA had been involved in manipulating the coverage of political events (Operation Mockingbird). As this was illegal under the terms that the CIA was established (1947 National Security Act) this had been a closely guarded secret. The CIA used Mockingbird to control the way the Kennedy assassination was reported. This is why journalists like Thomas G. Buchanan (Who Killed Kennedy? - 1964) and Joachim Joesten (Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy? - 1964) had to go to Europe to get their books published. Those on the right, such as J. Evetts Haley (A Texan Looks at Lyndon - 1964) and Billy James Hargis (The Far Left - 1964), published their own books on the case. However, these books did not sell well (although Haley's book was popular in Texas). Haley was so right-wing he thought LBJ was part of a communist conspiracy.

However, it was what was appearing in the mainstream television and print media that was important in determining how most people saw the Kennedy assassination. Although initially J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon B. Johnson thought that JFK had been killed as a result of a communist conspiracy (see the LBJ tapes of the conversations that went on between Hoover and LBJ) it was eventually decided that the message was going to be that JFK had been killed by a lone gunman. The media provided this message. So did the Warren Commission. It is therefore not surprising that soon after the publication of the Warren Commission 56% of the American public accepted its conclusions.

Psychologically, most people want to believe what those in authority are telling them. It is part of the socialisation process. In psychological terms, they have convergent personalities. It helps them feel secure to believe they can trust those in authority. That is why those people with convergent personalities can get very emotional when people argue that those in authority cannot be trusted (you have seen examples of this already in this thread). The problem is that society is not only made up of convergent thinkers. Some times the socialisation process fails. Some people evolve into divergent thinkers. They have a need to constantly question those in authority. All the great artists are divergent thinkers. They have to be in order to question what has gone on before them in their own particular field. I would argue that it is also true of the great scientists as well (Einstein definitely thought it was necessary to be a divergent thinker). As Oscar Wilde pointed out, all change takes place because of divergent thinkers.

It was these divergent thinkers who had the courage to question the findings of the Warren Commission. Initially they had difficulty getting their articles and books published in America. Operation Mockingbird was as first fairly successful at preventing an open debate about what really happened in Dallas. The problem for the CIA was the capitalist system. Publishers are driven by the desire to make money. It was only a matter of time before publishers began to test the market. The real breakthrough was Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment (Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 1966). The book was a bestseller. It was not long before other companies also began publishing books on the assassination. These also sold well. This forced these issues to be discussed on radio and television. Articles began appearing in mainstream newspapers. In the long term Mockingbird failed to deliver.

Although the American public still wanted to believe that it had not been lied to by its government. Logic told them that there had indeed been a conspiracy to mislead them. (It is a bit like the story of WMD in Iraq.) By 1967 the majority of people in America no longer believed in the conclusions of the Warren Report. This has remained the case ever since.

As a result the CIA (Operation Mockingbird) had to change its tactics. It could no longer argue convincingly that JFK had been killed by a lone gunman. It therefore had to resort to Plan B. The new message was that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. Oswald was not a lone gunman (the evidence was overwhelming that there were at least two gunman). It was very important to show that Oswald was one of these gunman. However, the key issue was who was he working for? They must have been tempted to point the finger at the KGB/Castro. In fact, some figures in the CIA such as James Angleton did just that. Those running Mockingbird had a better idea (Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Cord Meyer, Thomas H. Karamessines, Richard Ober). A far safer bet was to blame the Mafia. There was evidence available that both Oswald and Ruby had links to organized crime.

Mockingbird therefore used its media assets like Jack Anderson to push the Mafia theory. It also manipulated the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation. This included the appointment of G. Robert Blakey as chief counsel of the HSCA. He in turn appointed Dick Billings as editorial director of the report. Billings had been a long-time CIA media asset.

The HSCA report claimed that there were "four shots, over a total period of 7.91 seconds were fired at the Presidential limousine. The first, second and fourth came from the Depository; the third from the Grassy Knoll."

To make sure the public got the message Blakey and Billings wrote a book about what the HSCA found out about the assassination. In The Plot to Kill the President (1981) they argued:

(1) Oswald alone did shoot and kill J.F.K., as the Warren Commission deduced.

(2) An unknown confederate of Oswald's, however, also shot at the President, firing from the celebrated "grassy knoll." This shot missed.

(3) Apart from the question of the number of assailants in the attack, Oswald acted as the tool of a much larger conspiracy.

(4) The conspiracy behind Oswald was rooted in organized crime and was specifically provoked by J.F.K.'s anti-crime program. Singly or in some combination, prime suspects are Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, godfathers respectively of the New Orleans and Tampa Mafias, and Teamster racketeer James Hoffa. Each one had the motive, means, and opportunity to kill JFK.

This is now the convergent view of the JFK assassination. However, it is not the truth.

[Mel Ayton]

Pat,

Thanks for the input. Your criticisms are, for the most part, valid, even if acerbic. My response -

· “…virtually no one makes a living off of the assassination….” There are …limousine rides, tours, bogus witnesses like Ed Hoffman and Beverly Oliver ‘selling’ their autographs. I’m sure the conspiracy writers who haven’t ‘sold many books’ would like that situation to change.

· I stand by my statement about ‘détente’ – I believe most historians would agree with me.

· I agree with your statement about George Joannides. An open letter in the NYT signed by lone assassin and conspiracy writers, including Gerald Posner, is something I support. This info should be released.

· Ford ‘knew’ – see Max Holland’s research – simple google search – please cite HSCA’s referenece to ‘prove’ he lied.

· If Life magazine was promoting the Lone Assassin position why did the mag devote a cover story, in 1966, to John Connally and the Zapruder film which seemed, at the time, to negate the WR’s conclusions re: single-bullet conclusion?

· Bobby Kennedy asked an aide to read the Warren Report for him. He also initiated his own investigation, I believe it was Chicago based, and came up with nothing.

· Doubts expressed by Cyril Wecht et al.Wecht was part of the HSCA forenesic pathology panel – I believe 9 members – he was the only member to dissent from the report’s conclusions.

· Computer simulations – Dale Myers – his work has been critically acclaimed by many leading computer experts, too many to name, but a simple google search ‘Dale Myers’ will probably suffice.

· Head shot – Ken Rahn has, in my opinion, provided an excellent explanation.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

Readers can judge for themselves.

· ‘Witnesses’ – readers will have to make their own minds up about this – to examine each one will make this forum book-length. I stand by my statement that Howard Brennan was a good eyewitness.

· Your description of Brennan is misleading. He reported his sightings to a police officer at the time of the shooting and gave a good description of the shooter. Later that evening he identified Oswald but said he could not be sure. As we know now he was definitely sure but was afraid the assassination involved others and this is the reason he balked. He was, in fact, guarded by FBI agents for three weeks. His memoirs leave no doubt that he positively saw Oswald shoot from the 6th floor window of the BD.

· There are many excellent books which cover the murders of Sam Giancana – murdered by the mob (probably Accardo) to prevent his return to rule. I believe the evidence presented by author Charles Brandt has solved the Jimmy Hoffa murder. Check his excellent book on Amazon.

· Dallas police officer Billy Combest, in the ambulance with Oswald as the assassin lay dying. He said it was a ‘definite clenched fist salute’.

· Your use of words like ‘indoctrination’ is demeaning to those in the research community who accept the Lone Assassin conclusions.

· Readers should know that the HSCA only reached their conspiracy conclusion for one reason and one reason only – the acoustics evidence which has now been proven to be false (see Ken Rahn JFK Academic website above). The sounds of ‘shots’ eminated from a motor cycle which was nowhere near Dealey Plaza. Furthermore, the sounds eminated from a ‘three-wheeler’ motor cycle.

Last point – I will only participate in this forum if members avoid sarcasm and ridicule.

My appreciation to Tim, John, Stephen and Mike for their support. I realise I have stumbled into a 'viper's nest' but debates like these can only be for the good. I'm not sure how much time I can devote to the site. I am, after all, trying to research and write. However, I'll try my best. One small point to make which I'll mention just to prove I do not take facts eminating from Government bodies uncritically. I have been researching the 1973 murder of Bermuda's Governor for the past year and I believe I have uncovered a conspiracy.

[Larry Hancock]

Mark, you raise a couple of very important points with the latter one illustrating why debates like this generally don't come off well. Much of the arguement for conspiracy begins with an examination of the cover-up, which is now very well documented on the medical side - not only by the work by Horne and others with the ARRB but in the recent research and book by William Law. More evidence of FBI evidence management and manipulation is being documented all the time...as in the recent article by Thompson and Aguilar. Beyond that is the matter that none of the investigating agencies including DPD or FBI gave any real consideration to the fact that some of the evidence may have been introduced as part of a frame of Lee Oswald. Frames are hard enough to proove when you investigate them, when you don't they tend to work. So if the non-conspiracy side is accepting the original WC evidence as fact and not open to the concept of managed or manufactured evidence a meaninful debate starts to grind to a halt pretty quickly.

-- Larry

Mike and Mel,

Welcome to the forum. I agree with other members that you are entitled to argue your case and look I forward to reading your side of the debate.

Just a couple of warm-ups before the pace bowlers come on:

1. Like Stephen, I can't imagine how LHO could be described as a crazed psychotic. The way he reacted to his predicament is the same way any intelligent, rational, innocent person would.

2. The thing that irritates me most about LN theorists is the way they rebut arguments by saying, "but where's the evidence?". This, to me, is a Homer Simpson rebuttal. Firstly, much evidence was destroyed or removed--the president's car was repaired immediately and all the evidence destroyed, for example. Also, it presupposes that anyone who doubts the WC bears the burden of proof. Mel, there was no LHO trial, no conviction, so no-one bears that burden. If anything, it should be you who is asked that question, because, as John pointed out, the official verdict, as at 1979, is conspiracy. 

p.s. I don't believe in moon landing conspiracies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Larry Hancock]

Mel, I won't really be joining the debate but I suggest you might want to examine a few points about Brennan as a witness. There is no doubt he did have a view of the TSBD although several photo analyses show that his position and head movements don't correspond all that well with some of the detail he provided. The photos do show that he did see something up there that got his attention and that he stayed around the front of the TSBD trying to point it out to officials.

However when you match his detailed description of facial expression, body positioning etc against the height of the window (which is unusally low, only slightly above floor level unlike most windows), against what you really can see through a dirty, closed TSBD window (many of us have conducted that experiment), and try to fit it all against the purported positioning of the snipers nest boxes and the very tight space available to move in front of them to the window it raises a lot of questions. Thre is also the fact that the DPD itself maintained that as of Saturday they had no witness to Oswald being in that window (which Currey maintained in his own book on the assassination and which Hoover told Johnson on Saturday morning)..... it may lead you to become open that Brennan became better witness for the FBI report and the WC than he was in the beginning and that his "positive identification" is open to some question. And his would not be the only witness statement that "improved" under FBI control and reporting.

-- Larry

Pat,

Thanks for the input. Your criticisms are, for the most part, valid, even if acerbic. My response -

· “…virtually no one makes a living off of the assassination….” There are …limousine rides, tours, bogus witnesses like Ed Hoffman and Beverly Oliver ‘selling’ their autographs. I’m sure the conspiracy  writers who haven’t ‘sold many books’ would like that situation to change.

· I stand by my statement about ‘détente’ – I believe most historians would agree with me.

· I agree with your statement about George Joannides. An open letter in the NYT signed by lone assassin and  conspiracy writers, including Gerald Posner, is something I support. This info should be released.

·  Ford ‘knew’ – see Max Holland’s research – simple google search – please cite HSCA’s referenece to ‘prove’ he lied.

· If Life magazine was promoting the Lone Assassin position why did the mag devote a cover story, in 1966, to John Connally and the Zapruder film which seemed, at the time, to negate the WR’s conclusions re: single-bullet conclusion?

· Bobby Kennedy asked an aide to read the Warren Report for him. He also initiated his own investigation, I believe it was Chicago based, and came up with nothing.

· Doubts expressed by Cyril Wecht et al.Wecht was part of the HSCA forenesic pathology panel – I believe 9 members – he was the only member to dissent from the report’s conclusions.

· Computer simulations – Dale Myers – his work has been critically acclaimed by many leading computer experts, too many to name, but a simple google search ‘Dale Myers’ will probably suffice.

· Head shot – Ken Rahn has, in my opinion, provided an excellent explanation.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

Readers can judge for themselves.

· ‘Witnesses’ – readers will have to make their own minds up about this – to  examine each one will make this forum book-length. I stand by my statement that Howard Brennan was a good eyewitness.

· Your description of Brennan is misleading. He reported his sightings to a police officer at the time of the shooting and gave a good description of the shooter. Later that evening he identified Oswald but said he could not be sure. As we know now he was definitely sure but was afraid the assassination involved others and this is the reason he balked. He was, in fact, guarded by FBI agents for three weeks. His memoirs leave no doubt that he positively saw Oswald shoot from the 6th floor window of the BD.

· There are many excellent books which cover the murders of Sam Giancana – murdered by the mob (probably Accardo) to prevent his return to rule. I believe the evidence presented by author Charles Brandt has solved the Jimmy Hoffa murder. Check his excellent book on Amazon.

· Dallas police officer Billy Combest, in the ambulance with Oswald as the assassin lay dying. He said it was a ‘definite clenched fist salute’.

· Your use of words like ‘indoctrination’ is demeaning to those in the research community who accept the Lone Assassin conclusions.

· Readers should know that the HSCA only reached their conspiracy conclusion for one reason and one reason only – the acoustics evidence which has now been proven to be false (see Ken Rahn JFK Academic website above). The sounds of ‘shots’ eminated from a motor cycle which was nowhere near Dealey Plaza. Furthermore, the sounds eminated from a ‘three-wheeler’ motor cycle.

Last point – I will only participate in this forum if members avoid sarcasm and ridicule.

My appreciation to Tim, John, Stephen and Mike for their support. I realise I have stumbled into a 'viper's nest' but debates like these can only be for the good. I'm not sure how much time I can devote to the site. I am, after all, trying to research and write. However, I'll try my best. One small point to make which I'll mention just to prove I do not take facts eminating from Government bodies uncritically. I have been researching the 1973 murder of Bermuda's Governor for the past year and I believe I have uncovered a conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Terry Mauro]

Pat,

Thanks for the input. Your criticisms are, for the most part, valid, even if acerbic. My response -

· “…virtually no one makes a living off of the assassination….” There are …limousine rides, tours, bogus witnesses like Ed Hoffman and Beverly Oliver ‘selling’ their autographs. I’m sure the conspiracy  writers who haven’t ‘sold many books’ would like that situation to change.

· I stand by my statement about ‘détente’ – I believe most historians would agree with me.

· I agree with your statement about George Joannides. An open letter in the NYT signed by lone assassin and  conspiracy writers, including Gerald Posner, is something I support. This info should be released.

·  Ford ‘knew’ – see Max Holland’s research – simple google search – please cite HSCA’s referenece to ‘prove’ he lied.

· If Life magazine was promoting the Lone Assassin position why did the mag devote a cover story, in 1966, to John Connally and the Zapruder film which seemed, at the time, to negate the WR’s conclusions re: single-bullet conclusion?

· Bobby Kennedy asked an aide to read the Warren Report for him. He also initiated his own investigation, I believe it was Chicago based, and came up with nothing.

· Doubts expressed by Cyril Wecht et al.Wecht was part of the HSCA forenesic pathology panel – I believe 9 members – he was the only member to dissent from the report’s conclusions.

· Computer simulations – Dale Myers – his work has been critically acclaimed by many leading computer experts, too many to name, but a simple google search ‘Dale Myers’ will probably suffice.

· Head shot – Ken Rahn has, in my opinion, provided an excellent explanation.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

Readers can judge for themselves.

· ‘Witnesses’ – readers will have to make their own minds up about this – to  examine each one will make this forum book-length. I stand by my statement that Howard Brennan was a good eyewitness.

· Your description of Brennan is misleading. He reported his sightings to a police officer at the time of the shooting and gave a good description of the shooter. Later that evening he identified Oswald but said he could not be sure. As we know now he was definitely sure but was afraid the assassination involved others and this is the reason he balked. He was, in fact, guarded by FBI agents for three weeks. His memoirs leave no doubt that he positively saw Oswald shoot from the 6th floor window of the BD.

· There are many excellent books which cover the murders of Sam Giancana – murdered by the mob (probably Accardo) to prevent his return to rule. I believe the evidence presented by author Charles Brandt has solved the Jimmy Hoffa murder. Check his excellent book on Amazon.

· Dallas police officer Billy Combest, in the ambulance with Oswald as the assassin lay dying. He said it was a ‘definite clenched fist salute’.

· Your use of words like ‘indoctrination’ is demeaning to those in the research community who accept the Lone Assassin conclusions.

· Readers should know that the HSCA only reached their conspiracy conclusion for one reason and one reason only – the acoustics evidence which has now been proven to be false (see Ken Rahn JFK Academic website above). The sounds of ‘shots’ eminated from a motor cycle which was nowhere near Dealey Plaza. Furthermore, the sounds eminated from a ‘three-wheeler’ motor cycle.

Last point – I will only participate in this forum if members avoid sarcasm and ridicule.

My appreciation to Tim, John, Stephen and Mike for their support. I realise I have stumbled into a 'viper's nest' but debates like these can only be for the good. I'm not sure how much time I can devote to the site. I am, after all, trying to research and write. However, I'll try my best. One small point to make which I'll mention just to prove I do not take facts eminating from Government bodies uncritically. I have been researching the 1973 murder of Bermuda's Governor for the past year and I believe I have uncovered a conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Head shot – Ken Rahn has, in my opinion, provided an excellent explanation.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

I'd like to post a debate between a friend of mine, Chris Dolmar, and Ken Rahn,

which took place over a period of months during June and September 2001:

From Col. L. Fletcher Prouty's site:

Chris

Unregistered User

(9/1/01 5:35 am)

Reply

<http://pub78.ezboard.com/ffletcherproutyfrm1.showAddReplyScreenFromWeb?topicID=14.topic>

Debating Assassination Educator Ken Rahn

Hi Everybody,

I've been busy this summer but have still had time to participate in various arenas of the JFK case and thought I would share my correspondances with a Dr. Ken Rahn, who I mentioned before in the old forum as teaching a course on the JFK Assassination at the University of Rhode Island. He teaches this course as part of a "critical thinking" model in which his students are funneled toward a "LHO-could-have-easily-done-it-alone" conclusion.

He has a website supporting his course located here:

karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html>

Instead of an in-depth review, it appeares to me that Dr. Rahn and his alleged critical thinking review was as biased as anyone's based on what was shown in the "further thoughts" section of his course outline:

"There is overwhelming physical evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK.

There is an overwhelming absence of evidence that anyone else was involved.

No other credible suspects, general or named, have emerged after 37 years of intensive investigation.

Thus, the exceedingly strong working hypothesis must be that Lee Harvey Oswald did it alone.

The logical and procedural errors of the critics and conspiracists are so clear and obvious that further discussion of conspiracy is no longer justified without solid new evidence.

Given that no conspiracy has emerged in 37 years, there is no reason to expect the present situation to change (although it could at any time). Therefore the era of national soul-searching and angst that followed the JFK assassination and the distrust of the government it created were unnecessary and hurtful. The spotlight should have been turned inward on the critics rather than outward on the government. Recognizing these things, we are now ready to write the simple, clear, and true history of the assassination."

Re: karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/...ughts.html

<http://karws.gso.uri.edu/PSC404/Spring2001/Further_thoughts.html>

Obviously, when the "teacher" puts statements like that into a course outline, the direction of that course has already been determined. As such, the students in the class already know what is necessary...though not necessarily correct...to obtain a good grade. Challenging a tenured professor's stated opinion would hardly help achieve a good mark, and most students understand that. Others attempting to debate aspects of the assassination might also feel intimidated, confronted by the prestige of his professional standing.

I believe we should hold our educators to high standards in their methodology. They influence many potential leaders and are looked up to by the masses of the populace. As such, they must be totally objective, something apparently lost in this case. Anything less than complete integrity risks creating and perpetuating a false history.

And so, I decide to engage our esteemed Dr. Rahn in an evidence debate to see just how strongly he could hold up to a lowly Alaskan wilderness guide in support of his university course objectives.

Following is our email debate:

6/6/01 (9:25pm)

Hi Mr. Rahn,

My name is Chris Dolmar and I'm writing to you from the far south coast of Alaska.

After studying the JFK event since about 15, when I saw a bootlegged copy of the Zapruder film shown on an early Geraldo Rivera tv show, I have personally come to the conclusion that the evidence surrounding CE 139 indicates that NOBODY, much less LHO could have performed the shooting skills required to accomplish the assassination as presented by the WC to the American people.

WHAT THE EVIDENCE AND TESTIMONY ACTUALLY SHOWED:

The 2 sheriff's deputies who found a rifle on the 6th floor of the TSBD, and a highly decorated deputy who saw it before it was taken from the floor, ALL identified it as a "7.65mm Mauser". Subsequent documents and affidavits filed by these deputies continued to identify it that way (Commission Exhibit Decker 5323).

CIA documents still identified it as a "Mauser", 4 days later. One of the officers, decorated deputy sheriff, Roger Craig, continued to insist that this identification was correct, even after his testimony before the Commission. He maintained that the gun he saw had the word "MAUSER" stamped on the barrel. Craig also told researchers that his WC testimony had been altered in 14 different places by WC counsel David Belin so that it appears bland in the 26 volumes.

Another of the deputies in question, Constable Seymour Weitzman, had also sold rifles while working, for many years in a sporting goods store and therefore, had a vast amount of experience in both handling and identifying them. Police officers are trained to properly observe and notate evidence. In fact, their observations are more readily accepted in a court of law than those of most other witnesses.

The Warren Commission Report attempts to slide past this "problem" with the weapon by saying that the deputies only had a "glance" at the weapon.

The tape recording of a news broadcast of November 22, 1963 on Dallas radio station K-BOX said:

"Sheriff's deputies identify the rifle as a seven point sixty-five Mauser, a German-made Army rifle with a telescopic sight. It had one shell in the chamber. Three spent shells were found nearby." (CE 304)

Additionally, in his book, On the Trail of the Assassins, Jim Garrison claims to have viewed a Dallas TV newsreel from that day which he claims showed a police officer bringing another rifle down the fire escape from the roof. Five separate documents with descriptions of the rifle originally found on the 6th floor were missing from the FBI files on the Presidential assassination when presented to the WC. Those documents were:

1) DPD Lt Carl Day's dictated memorandum on the weapon

2) Day's description to FBI SA Bardwell Odum

3) Odum's subsequent description, which was broadcast over FBI radio

4) Constable Weitzman's original report to the FBI

5) DPD Detective C N Dhority's written report.

The legal "chain of possession" of CE 139 was never properly established. The officers who found a gun should have either marked it for identification purposes immediately, or watched as the detective who removed it did so.

Neither identification procedure took place at the scene. It appears that this was finally done some six hours later, at DPD Headquarters, after the weapon found had passed through countless other hands, and had allegedly laid in the evidence room for several hours. What chain of possession that existed after that, was again broken when the rifle was taken to FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, by FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain on the night of November 22nd, unaccompanied by any officer of the DPD.

In 1963, even though threatening the President was a federal crime, the assassination of a President was not. It was merely an all too common, local murder. This meant that the FBI had no jurisdiction whatsoever in the case. If the weapon needed to be sent to an FBI lab for analysis, it needed to be accompanied by a Dallas officer to maintain the legal "chain of possession". The reasons behind this continuous improper handling of such vital evidence, in such a high profile case, by highly trained local and federal officers are very suspicious.

This type of handling would have been questionable enough for the weapon to have been excluded from the evidence in any trial of LHO. How fortunate they were that there was no trial. Despite all the controversy over the initial

"misidentification" of the rifle, at no time did the WC show CE 139 to any of the Dallas law enforcement officers who found it and ask them, point blank, if CE 139 was the weapon that they had found. What they showed them were photographs,

not the weapon itself. Not one of those Dallas witnesses could positively state that the weapon in the photos was the weapon that they had found. Even today, you and I still can only see photographs of this infamous weapon at the National Archives. We cannot see nor measure the weapon itself.

The paper bag found on the 6th floor showed no signs of any gunpowder residue nor any gun oil, and contained no verifiable fingerprints (a partial palm print that had some characteristics similar to Oswald's palm print was found. However, there were too few similarities for a legal match), according to the FBI examination conducted of it. The package's size was also too small to have contained CE 139, unless the rifle was broken down. (CE 1304) Next, when broken down, the weapon contained a number of sharp-edged parts, which, logically, should have made some scratches or tears in the paper, had it been in there. Not only were there no scratches or tears, there wasn't a single crease which the FBI could match to any part of CE 139.

Basically, we find that there was no physical evidence that any gun had ever been inside the bag found on the 6th floor and alleged by the WC to have carried CE 139 from Irving, Texas to the TSBD that day. If the rifle was broken down for transport, its accuracy would have suffered further without the ability to be sighted-in after re-assembly.

Military experts stated that a minimum of 10 shots would have been required, adjusting the scope after each, to re-sight any rifle for accurate shooting. Both Buell Frazier and Linnie Randle, the only people to have seen it, testified that the package LHO had in Frazier's car was no more than 26" in length, yet the longest part of CE 139, even when broken down was 34.8". (CE 1303)

Frazier further testified that when Oswald laid the package in the back seat of the car, it took up less than half of the length of the seat. The back seat's total length was 62". Frazier also testified that when they arrived at work, Oswald took the package out of the back seat and, holding one end in the palm of his hand, tucked the other end under his arm. For the package Frazier saw to have contained CE 139, even broken down, would have required Oswald to have an arm length of over 36". Rather amazing for a man of 5' 9". (2 WCH 210-245)

We see, therefore, that there was also absolutely no testimony corroborating the WCR conclusion about how Oswald allegedly got the rifle into the depository, either. How and why then was this conclusion drawn?

While the Warren Commission Report used as evidence an FBI document (Dallas 89-43) which says that the FBI laboratory found the materials used to construct the paper bag entered into evidence to be consistent with materials found at the TSBD and could have been constructed from them, researcher Livingstone in his book High Treason, shows another copy of that same document which says that the materials were not similar.

While there is no way to categorically determine which is the correct copy, there would appear to be no logical reason for the FBI to have revised the report to deny the similarities, then enter the incorrect one into evidence. However, if my belief that they altered evidence is correct, then changing the report from Not similar, to similar fits in quite nicely with that scenario.

FBI tests of CE 139`s accuracy showed that the rifle was:

1) inaccurate from 15 yards (CE 549),

2) carrying a scope that was mounted for a left-handed shooter (CE 2560); [LHO was right-handed], and,

3) unable to be sighted in, using the scope, without the installation of 2 metal shims, which were not present when the rifle arrived for testing, nor notated in any previous description of CE 139. (3 WCH Pg 440-445) Nothing resembling a shim was found at the TSBD, Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, or on his person, when arrested.

During efforts, supervised by the FBI, to duplicate the shooting accuracy allegedly achieved, no FBI, military, or civilian (National Rifle Association) expert was ever able to match the concluded performance, while using CE 139 in the condition it was found, within the time frame established, and under conditions similar to those faced by a shooter crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD.

These re-creations took place on November 27, 1963, March 16, 1964, and March 27, 1964. None of these attempts were made under circumstances that came even remotely close to the difficulties and pressures that would have been encountered by a gunman in that 6th floor window and still, they all failed to duplicate the feats attributed to Oswald.

Later efforts, sponsored by the HSCA Firearms Panel, were successful in hitting three stationary targets, within the time frames. However, they used a different rifle, albeit a similar Mannlicher-Carcano and fired using open-sights, instead of the scope, and again, from a different position, angle, and under different circumstances than would have been encountered by LHO, or anyone else,

crouched in the 6th floor window of the TSBD. (3 WCH 390-430)

In addition, the HSCA testimony of Firearms Panel member Monty Lutz shows his opinion of the scope:

Mr. LUTZ: This is a four-power Ordinance Optics telescopic sight with a crosshair reticle.

Mr. MCDONALD: Would you, in your opinion, classify it as an accurate scope?

Mr. LUTZ: The accuracy is fairly undependable, as far as once getting the rifle sighted in, and it is very cheaply made, the scope itself has a crosshair reticle that is subject to movement, or being capable of being dislodged from dropping, from impact, or a very sharp recoil. So, the accuracy would be somewhat questionable for this particular type of a scope. (HSCA Vol 1, pg 449)

Why the HSCA experts did not use the real exhibit is another valid question that has never been answered. Perhaps, it was because the original examination by the FBI in 1963-1964 showed that CE 139 was inaccurate at 15 yards, or someone involved knew the shooting could not be duplicated using that weapon.

Former HSCA Firearms Panel member Lutz, an expert rifleman himself, later confirmed these failures. He stated, in a 1986 mock Oswald trial sponsored by the BBC, that to his knowledge, no one had ever duplicated LHO's alleged shooting feats, using CE 139 in the condition it was found. Also, in this regard, Craig Roberts, a Marine Corps sniper with combat experience in Vietnam, professional law enforcement officer, and world-class rifleman, states in his book Kill Zone, that even using his precise equipment loaded with matched rounds, he could not have equaled the shooting process assumed by the Warren Commission to have taken place.

It is very hard to disregard such statements by an expert who has actually looked out on Elm St from the "sniper's window". Mr. Roberts is not the only expert to feel this way. In fact, efforts to duplicate the shooting expertise were attempted by agencies within the governments of Cuba, Israel, and the USSR. All reached the same conclusion:

The shooting, as outlined by the Warren Commission, was virtually impossible!

The time frames required were established by the FBI after the review and calculation of time between shots shown on the Zapruder film, also taking into consideration the time required to operate CE 139, and the view from the 6th floor. The HSCA findings concluded that only if Oswald had fired using open sights, could he have fired 3 shots accurately within the WCR time frames.

No possible scenario that included any additional gunmen was ever considered, meaning all shots must have come from that rifle and during the designated time frames.

DPD searches of Oswald's room in Oak Cliff, and his family's residence in Irving, failed to unearth any additional ammunition, or any cleaning supplies normally associated with the operation of a rifle. In fact, additional checks by agents of the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, failed to find any evidence that either LHO, or Alec Hidell, had ever purchased any ammunition for the rifle, either. Yet, an FBI memorandum described the rifle, when presented to them, as being in "...a well-oiled condition...".

Additional ammunition would have been needed to practice, and that same FBI memorandum, signed by Director J.Edgar Hoover himself, noted that an examination of the firing pin showed that "numerous" shots had been fired through CE 139. (CE 2974) Also, the three experts who first test-fired the rifle showed concern that the firing pin might break because it was rusted. (3 WCH 444)

Ammunition isn't purchased one bullet at a time. The minimum would be a box of twenty. It would be inconsistent with the way LHO allegedly purchased the weapon, for him to hide the purchase of the ammunition. And, rusted firing pins are not what one would consider suitable for a rifle being used in such a high profile political assassination...what if it broke on the first shot?

FBI searches of every gun range in the greater Dallas-Fort Worth area failed to come up with even a single shell casing that could be matched to CE 139. In all, literally millions of used casings were reviewed, and 13,000 possible Mannlicher-Carcano casings were recovered and compared. None ballistically matched CE 139.

This lack of physical evidence came despite the testimony of several witnesses who told stories of a man, allegedly LHO, practicing at various ranges with a high-powered rifle, and being very visible doing so...in some cases going out of his way to draw attention to himself. The fact is, that the FBI could find absolutely no physical evidence, which showed that LHO had ever purchased ammunition, or practiced firing CE 139.

Yet again, in spite of this lack of evidence, not only did the WCR conclude that he had, but they also concluded that he became so good at shooting that he could make shots that documented experts could not.

The length of CE 139 and the length of the rifle depicted in the ad allegedly used to order it, from the February, 1963, issue of American Rifleman magazine, are significantly different. The weapon depicted in that ad, a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5mm Italian Carbine, model # C20-T750, is 36" long, assembled. This is the weapon reportedly shipped, on March 20, 1963 to:

A. Hidell

PO Box 2915

Dallas, Texas

The length of CE 139 is 40.2" assembled and it is model # C20-750. Representatives of Kleins were unable to adequately explain these differences. (CE 773) Also, the FBI records of the length of the rifle they tested show 3 different figures, none of which was 36".

(NOTE: the author owns a Mannlicher-Carcano of the same model as CE 139. Its length is 40.2")

Klein's was also able to state how it was paid for (postal money order), when it was deposited, AND they were able to produce both the envelope it was received in, and the stamp used to mail the order to them!

While the serial number of CE 139---C2766---was the same as that of the weapon shipped by Kleins to A. Hidell, the FBI discovered that, due to the manufacturing techniques used by Italy during World War II, this serial number was not necessarily unique to only one such weapon. In fact, it is possible that as many as 5 different rifles could have had the serial number C2766. The FBI eventually traced another Carcano, serial number C2766, to Canada.

In addition, Scottish researcher, and friend Bill MacDowall, has done significant research in this area, and has traced the rifle mailed by Kleins to A. Hidell, all the way back to its manufacturer. He has found evidence that ALL identifying markings were supposedly removed prior to Kleins purchase of the weapon.

Bill has written an extensive paper on this weapon and has made it available to be posted exclusively on this site. While evidence showed that the rifle from Kleins was shipped to the post office box of LHO, no one knows for sure who actually took possession of it, on its arrival. For Oswald to have received it, the Dallas Post Office would have needed to violate Postal Regulations since it was addressed to "Hidell", and it was Oswald's PO box.

Amazingly, the FBI was able to track this weapon to the retailer (Kleins) even before SA Vince Drain actually took possession of it at 11:30 that first night. This is truly amazing since, as late as 9PM on the night of November 22nd, Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade was still calling it a "Mauser", and other than the serial number, there was nothing to go on to search for its owner.

That serial number was only worthwhile if the FBI knew the manufacturer, and in this case even that would not have been enough, since more than one Mannlicher-Carcano had that serial number. Yet, by 11:00 PM, government agents were already at Kleins to look up the purchase and shipping orders, despite the fact that the retailer would have been next-to-last on the possession time-line.

Few of the eyewitnesses who testified that they saw a gun firing, from the 6th floor window of the TSBD, described anything similar to CE 139. Several felt that the weapon was an automatic rifle because of the speed of the firing, and those few witnesses who testified as to seeing a scope mounted on the rifle they saw, did not see the rifle actually being fired.

There is no notation, anywhere within the twenty-six volumes of evidence that either, the DPD or FBI, ever tested CE 139 to see if it had been fired recently...

they simply assumed that it had been fired that day. This, despite the fact that no one testified to smelling gunpowder, in or around, the "sniper's nest", and with no notations that forensic examinations of the boxes, showed any traces of gunpowder residue.

Documents concerning what was recovered from the 6th floor all state that one live round was in the chamber when the rifle was found. One live round was also turned over to the FBI. The problems with this are generally overlooked.

They are:

1) None of the witnesses who testified as to seeing the shots fired, spoke of seeing the shooter eject a round after the fatal head shot, thus meaning a spent cartridge, not a live round should have been in the chamber.

2) If the shooter did eject the fired round, why would he do it after moving away from the window?

3) And if he did so, why were all 3 casings allegedly recovered together?

If it was LHO who did this, we must factor in the additional delay that ejecting the final spent round, for reasons unknown, would have on his ability to wipe the gun clean of prints, hide it, and still be on the first floor no more than 90 seconds after firing the fatal shot.

Do you have any opinions, input, feedback, or any other comments relating to these issues concerning CE 139 as I have expressed them?

Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

*****************************************************************

Rahn's response: 6/11/01 (11:03am)

Dear Chris,

Thanks for your note. I just returned from two weeks of traveling and found it last night.

I do indeed have much to say about your views, but I don't know when I will get time enough.

Basically, you are emphasizing the apparent negatives and avoiding all the positive physical evidence that shows that the assassination was an easily do-able feat.

I urge you to take more time on the sites maintained by John McAdams and me.

More later, but I don't know quite when.

Best regards,

Ken Rahn

Kenneth A. Rahn

Center for Atmospheric Chemistry Studies

Graduate School of Oceanography

University of Rhode Island

Narragansett, RI 02882-1197, USA

*****************************************************************

My 2nd email to Rahn: 6/28/01 (2:14am)

Hello Mr. Rahn,

No doubt you are a busy man as I am, but I thought I would maintain our correspondance regarding CE 139.

I think, as was outlined in my initial email to you, that the ability of THE WEAPON itself, is in serious question as to whether it (CE 139) could have been remotely mechanically capable of accomplishing the accuracy attributed to it by the SBT & WC, the shooting skills of the alleged assassin, notwithstanding.

The only way the assassination "could have been an easily do-able feat", as you stated to me previously, is if LHO had acted like the Lone gunman that the WC portrays him as, and taken the Best percentage shot he had - which was a straight away, dead-on, head shot at Kennedy as the limousine was traveling down Houston Street - almost straight at him-before it took the dog-leg left turn onto Elm Street.

But, being LHO was, allegedly, using a rifle (CE 139) that the FBI determined was:

1) INACCURATE at 15 yards.

2) Had a scope mounted for a LEFT-handed shooter (LHO was a RIGHT-handed shooter).

3) And, was missing 2 metal shims that further compromised its accuracy.

4) That LHO, the lone gunman, STILL passed up "The Perfect Shot" on Houston Street, for a tree-filtered, going-away, MUCH lower-percentage shot, on Elm Street? Why did LHO pass on the EASY Houston Street shot?

- and let's not debate the difficulty of the Houston & Elm Street shots:

The Houston Street shot would have been, BY FAR, the EASIEST shot for ANY shooter in the, alleged, "sniper's nest" of the TSBD~especially a "lone nut assassin", who (in his mind) would have known that ONLY he would have a chance to kill the president.

Knowing that, as a lone assassin, in your opinion Mr. Rahn, why didn't LHO take the high percentage, easy shot on Houston Street?

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

************************************************************

Rahn's response: 6/28/01 (5:28am)

Chris,

I cannot pretend to get inside Oswald's head. I can only say that the shot on Houston Street has a couple of obvious disadvantages:

The Secret Service agents would be looking right at him.

And, Gov. Connally would have blocked much of Kennedy's body.

I think I also heard something about the metallic "rollbar" blocking something as well, but I can't really remember.

I believe you are overstating the inaccuracy of the rifle.

But, your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle, to the exclusion of all others.

We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically.

In general, I think that it is an error to start asking "Why?", too soon.

First, we settle what happened, and only then do we worry about why.

Ken Rahn

******************************************************************

My Followup email to Rahn: 8/25/01/ (2:53pm)

Hello Mr. Rahn,

It's been a couple of months since we corresponded.

This is the biggest push of the year, business-wise, for me and thus my infrequent exchanges.

I thought I would continue our correspondance regarding some of the issues you last mentioned.

You said:

" But your arguments are made moot by the fact that each of the two bullets recovered was traceable ballistically to that rifle to the exclusion of all others."

From what I can ascertain, allegedly, no human matter of any kind was found on CE 399 despite the necessary assumption that it had caused numerous wounds, nor was it recovered from either victim's body. It, therefore, could not be scientifically linked to either, Kennedy or Connally.

In fact, in what appears to be an effort to hide this, the WC leads FBI SA Robert Frazier through contradictory testimony about CE 399. (WCH 3, Pgs 228-244)

He finally states, however, that even under microscopic examination, no blood nor human tissue was found.

No striation marks (tiny scratches) were found by the FBI on the bulbous, undamaged nose of CE 399, despite allegedly going through JFK's jacket, shirt, possibly nicking his tie, JBC's jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket, jacket, shirt, shirt, jacket and pants. Striation marks, around the nose, are common even when bullets are fired only into cotton for ballistic comparison purposes. Because of this, CE 399 cannot scientifically be determined to have gone through either man's clothes, much less both.

No traces of copper were found on JFK's tie. This is very inconsistent with the copper traces found in the other clothes and/or wounds of both men. CE 399 is copper jacketed. If traces of copper were found on JFK's suit (entrance), and in JBC's wounds (entrance and exit), logic would dictate that there should be traces on the tie (JFK exit), IF they were caused by the same bullet or even the same type of bullet.

In addition:

The testimony of every one of the autopsy doctors and the physician who treated Connally at Parkland, stated that none of them could believe that CE 399 could have caused all the wounds because of its "pristine" condition and because too much metal was removed or remained in the victims.

Their testimony on this point was unequivocal.

(2 WCH 374-375, 382; 4 WCH 109, 113-114)

Dr. Shaw's testimony about the wound in JBC's thigh (4 WCH 109-135) is extremely important yet, almost always overlooked. For the SBT theory to hold up, the wound to Connally must have been made by the complete bullet (CE 399) which later "fell out". The wound must therefore show these characteristics.

Shaw's testimony, while ambiguous on this point, appears to describe the wound as being made by a fragment, not a complete bullet. CE 399 is not a fragment, and the largest fragment that could have come from it would have been no more than 3 grains, hardly large enough to cause a treatable wound.

Additionally, Dr. Shaw has told researcher Livingstone that the thigh wound was indeed caused by a fragment, larger than 5 grains. The Parkland Hospital report on Connally (CE 392), appears to corroborate this point, and Dr. Shaw again identified the thigh wound as being made by a fragment in the NOVA documentary, "Who Killed President Kennedy?". This seriously undermines the theory that CE 399 fell out of JBC's leg while he was on the stretcher, and that CE 399 caused all his wounds.

In addition, fragments too large to have come from CE 399 show up in X-rays of Connally. Parkland nurse, Audrey Bell, described these fragments as, "Anywhere from 3-4 millimeters in length by a couple of millimeters wide." (Dallas Morning News interview, 4/1/77)

Finally, Dr Charles Gregory, who worked on Connally, testified (6 WCH 122-123) that he saw multiple fragments that were large enough for him to determine their color.

Darrel Tomlinson, the Parkland hospital employee who recovered the bullet from a stretcher in the hall of the emergency room, required much cross-examination by Commission counsel Arlen Specter before he would say that it was even possible that the stretcher in question was the one that carried John Connally. His initial, and vigorously maintained testimony was that the bullet he found came from a stretcher that had not been used by either, Connally or Kennedy (6 WCH 130-134).

He has stood by that contention ever since. (NOVA, November 15, 198?)

Neither Tomlinson, O.P. Wright, Secret Service Agent Richard Johnsen, nor Secret Service Chief J.J. Rowley, the first 4 people to handle the bullet found on the stretcher, could later identify CE 399 as that bullet, leaving open the possibility that another bullet was originally found and CE 399, a ballistic match to CE 139, substituted to implicate LHO. This would have been possible, since many hours passed before the proper chain of possession was established. (CE 2011)

But you fail to backup your statement, "We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments chemically.", with any available supporting source references concerning this issue.

"CE 567 and CE 569---Two bullet fragments, one from the front of a bullet, the other from the rear of a bullet. They were supposedly found, on the night of November 22-23, 1963, inside the President's limousine while it was being searched at the White House Garage.

Secret Service agents, allegedly, found both of these fragments on the floor, near the front seat. Each fragment was ballistically linked to CE 139, the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.---"

However, I find NO source references concerning this evidence anywhere that they could be linked, in any fashion, to any of the other fragments removed from either victim, nor could they be scientifically linked to either victim.

Please list official source references for me to review concerning this issue. So, as can be seen, there is NO SUPPORTING TESTIMONY, and NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, to support the KEY WCR conclusion that:

"All the evidence indicated that the bullet found on the Governor's stretcher could have caused all the wounds."

I have spent some time browsing your website, Dr. Rahn, and I couldn't help but notice that at the bottom of your 1st page, you state:

"My JFK course at the University of Rhode Island takes this academic approach. Each year it enlightens a significant fraction of the students who take it, often with striking results. That is also the goal of this web site-enlightenment though proper academic procedures. I welcome any and all reactions from readers, and will post them for all to see."

When I went to view your "Reactions from Readers" link, I was disappointed to see the most recent exchange of messages was posted from Aug 30, 2000-almost a year ago-and thought I would suggest you update your link to that page, perhaps starting with our exchange.

I think visitors, to that particular link on your site, would enjoy seeing that debates over differences of opinions (and, on reaching critical-thinking conclusions) on issues surrounding this case can be discussed in a courteous and respectful manner even between a renowned university professor and a simple Alaskan wilderness guide, and judge for themselves which one of us is displaying true

critical thinking over the issues being debated.

Thank you for taking time to debate these issues with me.

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

************************************************************

Rahn's last reply: 8/25/01 (8:00pm)

Chris,

Please understand that I didn't let, "Replies from Readers" go because I wanted to. It was a casualty of general workload, including preparing the big monograph on NAA, which was a huge undertaking but very important to the JFK case.

Also, the kinds of messages you write, with many questions and weak premises, take hours to answer properly. I seldom have that amount of time to spare these days.

Lastly, if you are implying that I am not thinking critically in my class and my writings, I am out of this discussion immediately. I will discuss things, but I will not be put under the gun.

Ken Rahn

************************************************************

And my most recent reply to Rahn: 8/28/01 (5:03am)

Good Morning Mr. Rahn,

I just finished reading your reply to my last email to you.

I did not mean to put you on the defensive, and had thought that according to your WORLD WIDE WEBSITE that you defined your course analysis of the JFK as an objective one.

Oh yes, Dr. Rahn, I have spent a considerable amount of my leisure time examining your site, and have thus directed my own VERY OBJECTIVE queries to you regarding THE EVIDENCE in a courteous, albeit, professional manner, as you might review throughout our correspondances.

Your last response does you no justice as far as confronting the issues I brought forth backed up with solid, supporting WC, and/or HSCA testimony and evidence.

"weak premises"????? Are you accusing me of providing false source references to you concerning the issues we have been debating? Please elaborate and don't try to tell me it would take hours, as I drafted my email to you in less than one hour, referencing everything with which you've confronted me concerning the issues I've brought forth to you with WC, and/or HSCA recorded testimony/

evidence.

In most of my emails I have not asked questions, simply provided the FACTS. If I asked you for source references regarding your unsupported replying

statements to me - you should have been able to reference them, and cut & paste them into your reply e-mails to me in a matter of minutes.

After all, you're an acknowledged expert on the case and happen to have the ENORMOUS RESPONSIBILITY of providing AN OBJECTIVE presentation of the assassination events to numerous generations of our impressionable youth, some of whom may one day become leaders in various fields in our country.

I waded through your very dated, "Reactions From Readers", page and enjoyed it very much. But, am I willing to bet (and, to be honest with you, I'm not a wagering man) that OUR CORRESPONDANCES will never see the light of day on any "Reactions From Readers" page on your website because you CANNOT (and SO FAR REFUSE) to refute ANY of the issues I have confronted you with in an OBJECTIVE way that would do justice to your website statement:

"I can state with surety, and will demonstrate in the coming months, that anyone in command of the core physical data, and the principles of critical thinking, can circumscribe the right answer to the assassination in a matter of minutes."

BUT YOU TOLD ME it would take HOURS to answer my questions???? I didn't really pose many questions to you, JUST FACTS, that you for one reason or another, REFUSE to refute. WHY?

For example, (from our last correspondance):

"But you fail to backup your statement: 'We also know that the bullets were not planted, because fragments from JFK's brain and Connally's wrist matched the larger fragments, chemically.', with any available supporting source references concerning this issue."

Is this an issue you can't support with any verifiable source references? C'mon DR. Rahn, you're an educator of this case - BACK IT UP, OR DON'T TELL ME my "premises" are "weak".

When you take on the responsiblity of educating college students (WHO ARE PAYING YOU TO BE OBJECTIVE) then at least assume that responsibility,

OBJECTIVELY, as you CLAIM you are.

Your defensive attitude reeks of an official who thinks his "credentials" automatically enable him to preach his "gospels" in a manner that is unquestionable.

Please, OBJECTIVELY, respond to my very ACCURATE source references concerning the FEW issues we have debated, in a professional manner, so that I may ponder ALL my "weak premises".

Thank you for taking time to consider my statements.

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

************************************************************

I apologize for the extreme length of this post but I thought it worth sharing to reveal how some of our, "celebrated", university professors, who are entrusted with educating our youth, show their true colors when confronted by individuals who happen to be able to debate them on their own terms.

In Dr. Rahn's case, I expect the only reply I will ever hear from him, after my last correspondance to him, will be the deafening sound of silence. And, I should hope his silence speaks volumes to you all, and especially to any youths who might happen to take the time to read through this post.

Blessings to All,

Chris

************************************************************

From: Chris Dolmar

To: Kenneth A. Rahn 8/28/01 (5:35am)

Dear Dr. Rahn,

I thought I would add a list of "objective" source references concerning various issues of this case for you to review. Although, they are manied and varied, as an objective historian of the case, they merit review.

Sources and Notes:

Oswald: Michael Benson, "Who's Who in the JFK Assassination" (New York: Citadel Press, 1993), pp. 124, 329-352; John M. Newman, "Oswald and the

CIA" (Carroll & Graf, 1995) Paul Brancato, "Coup D'etat" illustrated card set (Forestville, California: Eclipse Enterprises, 1989), pp. 1, 7, 10.

Although we often assume that most of the American public initially accepted the lonegunman scenario, some of the following source references show that this was not necessarily the case.

Public doubt: Paul B. Sheatsley and Jacob J. Feldman, "The Kennedy Assassination and the American Public", National Opinion Research Center, [stanford University Press, 1965] (a large majority expressing doubt over Oswald's guilt).

For sources of public opinion for the period Nov. 1963 through Feb. 1977, see: "Studies of Public Reactions," items 1673-1714, DeLloyd J. Guth and David R. Wrone, "The Assassination of John F. Kennedy:

A Comprehensive Historical and Legal Bibliography, 1963-1979"

[Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 198 pp. 174-177; hereafter cited as Guth and Wrone 174-177.

It's also interesting to note that on Sunday, Nov. 24, 1963, soon after Oswald had been shot, Gordon McClendon, owner of Dallas radio station KLIF, reported the following from Cleveland's Municipal Stadium, where 40,000 spectators were attending the Dallas Cowboys-Cleveland Browns football game:

"People seem to think that the Dallas Police Department really had the wrong man, or that Oswald was being held for want of a better suspect...No one here that we've talked to -- taxi drivers, hotel employees, the various people we've had an opportunity to be around since we arrived here yesterday afternoon -- no one really thought that Oswald was the guilty party." ("The Fateful Hours:

a Presentation of KLIF News in Dallas," Capitol Records, 1964; reissued on audiotape by KLIF, 1993.)

For sources of public opinion just before and after the release of the Oliver Stone film; "JFK", see: Kenneth Auchincloss, "Twisted History," Newsweek Dec. 23, 1991, p. 46, and Ted Gest and Joseph Shapiro,

"JFK: The Untold Story of the Warren Commission,"

U.S. News & World Report Aug. 17, 1992, p. 29.

No "credible" evidence: Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) p. 374; hereafter cited as R 374.

Official doubt: Chairman Warren: William M. Blair, "Warren Commission Will Ask Mrs. Oswald to Identify Rifle Used in the Kennedy Assassination," New York Times Feb. 5, 1964, p. 19; Richard Bartholomew discussion with Clint Richmond, Mar. 5, 1997; Commissioners Russell, Cooper and Boggs: Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, The Investigation

of the Assassination of President Kennedy:

Performance of the Intelligence Agencies [senate Report 94-755, 94th Cong., 2nd sess., 1976, Final Report, Book V] p. 80; cited in Bernard Fensterwald, "Coincidence or Conspiracy" (New York: Zebra Books, 1977) pp.74-75 (hereafter cited as Fensterwald 74-75);

Edward Jay Epstein, "Inquest: The Warren Commission and the Establishment of Truth" (New York: Viking, Jun. 1966) pp. 149-50, (Bantam, Oct. 1966) p. 122;

see also Fensterwald 86, 91, 96, 99; Commissioner McCloy: Hearings Before the House Select Committee on Assassinations, vol. XI (Washington D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1979) note 11 at p. 14; hereafter cited as 11 HH 14 n.11; see also Fensterwald 86; Griffin statements: Charles J. Sanders and Mark S. Zaid, "The Declassification of Dealey Plaza: After Thirty Years, A New Disclosure Law At Last May Help To Clarify the Facts of the Kennedy Assassination," South Texas Law Review, Vol. 34:407, Oct. 1993; later published in "The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992" (ARCA), The Fourth Decade, Special Edition, 1994, pp. 411-12 n.8; hereafter cited as Sanders and Zaid 411-12 n.8; President Johnson: Walter Cronkite interview, CBS News, broadcast on Apr. 25, 1975 (President Johnson's doubt); see also Fensterwald 76, 124; FBI policy: Warren Commission Hearings and Evidence (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964, v. V) p. 99 ; cited hereafter as 5H 99 (Hoover's policy); see also Sanders and Zaid, p. 412 n.11.

Evidence problems: Robert Sam Anson, "They've Killed the President!" (New York: Bantam, 1975) p. 356; hereafter cited as Anson 356; Peter Dale Scott, "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK" (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1993) pp. 58, 60-61, 69; hereafter cited as Scott 58, 60-61, 69; Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew, "The Gun that Didn't Smoke" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 19, November-December 1997); Karen Gullo, "No JFK Shirt Material on Bullets," Associated Press, January 21, 2000, (AP-NY-01-21-00 1120EST, www.wire.ap.org/);

<http://www.wire.ap.org/);> Joe Backes, "Backes responds to NARA's blundered test report, and Gullo's AP piece" (self published critique, January 21, 2000, 19:32:42 EST); Charles E. O'Hara, "Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation" (Springfield, Ill.: Thomas Books, 1956, 1970, 2nd ed., 2nd printing) pp. 5-6, 30, 67, 69, 80, 197, 199, 438, 450, 493, 562, 575, 681, 684-85, 687; hereafter cited as O'Hara with page number(s). As if speaking to the crime-scene investigators of the JFK assassination, O'Hara wrote the following in a brief preface to his second edition: "On review, however, it would appear that insufficient attention had been given to the role of the investigator in establishing the innocence of persons falsely accused. It was thought that this aspect of investigation was too obvious to stress; that the continued insistence on objectivity and professionalism in the investigator's conduct should meet this requirement. After all, the process of establishing innocence is hardly separable from the task of detecting the guilty. One does not, that is to say, prove guilt by the method of exhaustion." (O'Hara vii)

See also: Walt Brown, Ph.D.,"The People v. Lee Harvey Oswald" (Carroll & Graff, 1994).

Two Oswalds: John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee," A lecture by John Armstrong, including text and documents; Introduction by Jim Hargrove (Self published, 199 100 pgs.; Deb Riechmann, "Tape: Call on JFK wasn't Oswald," Associated Press, Nov. 21, 1999, 1246EST;

Joe Nick Patoski, "The Two Oswalds," Texas Monthly magazine, November 1998, pp. 135, 160.

Conflicting single bullet theories: Warren Commission: Sanders and Zaid 410-12 n.8; House Committee: Guth and Wrone xxvii-xxx; American Bar Association: Gerald Posner, "Case Closed" (New York: Random House, 1993) p. 317, 326,-35, 474, 477, 478-79; hereafter cited as Posner with page number(s) (Posner's theory is taken from the American Bar Association Mock Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald prosecution single bullet theory. It was presented uncritically and without credit to the A.B.A. by Posner. The entire, unabridged transcript of the 1992 American Bar Association's two-day mock trial presentation: "The United States v. Lee Harvey Oswald" can be found in American Jurisprudence "Trials" Volume 56, published by Lawyers Cooperative Publishing).

JFK and Vietnam: L. Fletcher Prouty, "JFK: The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy" (New York: Birch Lane Press, 1992);

John M. Newman, "JFK and Vietnam: Deception, Intrigue and the Struggle for Power" (New York, NY, 1992) CIA - Oil industry & Wall Street connections: Darwin Payne, "Initiative in Energy: Dresser Industries, Inc. 1880-1978" (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), Appendix C; Donald Gibson, "Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency" (New York: Sheridan Square Press, 1994)

The Assassination and Academic History: Michael L. Kurtz (is a Professor of History at Southeastern Louisiana University and has taught a course on the assassination for several decades), "Crime of the Century: The Kennedy

Assassination from a Historian's Perspective"(University of Tennessee Press, 1993, 2nd ed); Kenneth A. Rahn, "The Academic JFK Assassination Website": karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html <http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html>

which supports the University of Rhode Island's Political Science course: "The JFK Assassination."

The Assassination in the Media: Dr. George Michael Evica produces a weekly half-hour radio program on the assassination and related matters, "Assassination Journal," which is broadcast by the University of Hartford's radio station WWUH. It is the Longest-Running Public Affairs Program in the United States. Live webcasts are broadcast every Tuesday from 12noon-12:30pm EST & repeated(sameday)from 8:30-9:00pm EST at:

uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/ <http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/WWUH/>

The program focuses mainly on the JFK assassination, but has covered coups, murders, and mysteries such as TWA 800, the Gulf War Syndrome, and the failed war on drugs. Dr. Evica is Professor Emeritus of Sociology at the University of Hartford, Connecticut. He has been interested in the JFK assassination from its inception. He is the author of one book, "And We Are All Mortal: New Evidence And Analysis In The Assassination Of John F. Kennedy," published in 1978 by the University of Hartford. For several years he was Editor of "Assassination Chronicles", published by JFK Lancer, Inc., in Dallas, Texas. During the last decade, he has published several articles and has lectured at many JFK conferences.

Len Osanic, "Black Ops Radio", webcast live: Thurdays, 6pm PST / 9pm EST

Call in... 1 604 525- 4167, see: www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm

<http://www.astridmm.com/radio/blackmain.htm>

Misc. Assassination-related topic sources: David G. Armstrong, "Where Was George?," Austin Chronicle, February 28, 1992, pp. 20-22; Richard Bartholomew, "Possible Discovery of an Automobile Used in the JFK Conspiracy" (self-published manuscript, 1993, p. 63; Fair Play Magazine, Issue 17, July-August 1997).

Malcolm Wallace Fingerprint: John Kelin, "JFK Breakthrough?", (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 23, July-August 1999 ; "A. Nathan Darby's Affidavit" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 24, September-October, 1999; Barr McClellan, "Mac Wallace Update: Statement Regarding Print Evidence" (Fair Play Magazine, Issue 28, May-June 1999).

And finally, a couple of notes to conclude with:

Let's consider that a bullet fired from the 6th floor window of TSBD entered the back of JFK's head and killed him. The building in question was horizontally located to the President's rear, while the 6th floor of that building was vertically considerably above the President's head. Therefore, any such bullet must have entered the President's head from above and behind. That much is indisputable. No photographs of the President's injuries were published at the time, but the Warren Commission Report (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964) did provide drawings (which can also be found in James H. Fetzer's, Ph.D.

[editor] "Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK", p 38, Catfeet Press, 199.

Since these illustrations are published in the Warren Report, we must assume they are official and accurate portrayals of the President's injuries. The drawings of the head wound do therefore, appear to show a trajectory from above and behind, as the official account requires.

In what I consider to be a solid study of the most basic evidence in this case by Stewart Galanor for his work "Cover-Up" (Kestrel Books, 199, he has juxtaposed the official WC drawing with frame 312 of the Zapruder film, which the WC itself regarded as the instant before the fatal head shot incident to frame 313, with the following result: when the images of the WC head wound drawing and Zapruder frame 312 are super-imposed over each other and the President's head is properly positioned, the WC's own drawing displays an upward rather than downward trajectory. If the official WC drawing of the injury to the head is correct, then the conjecture that the President's head wound was sustained from a hit from above and behind cannot be true. The Zapruder film itself confirms this.

Let's also consider that the bullets that hit JFK & JBC were fired by LHO using a high-powered rifle, which the WC also identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano.

The President's death certificates, The Warren Report, articles published in the Journal of the AMA, as well as other sources state that the President was killed by wounds inflicted by high velocity missiles. (Some of these articles are reprinted in Fetzer's, "Assassination Science")

The Mannlicher-Carcano is the only weapon that LHO is alleged to have used to kill the President, but the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon:

its muzzle velocity of approximately 2000 fps indicates that it qualifies as a medium to low velocity weapon. This issue is especially noteworthy, because the extensive and severe damage sustained by JFK's skull and brain, could not possibly have been inflicted by a weapon of this kind.

The ammunition that LHO is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round which is supposed to have been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, a photograph of which appears as CE 399. This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention standards for humane conduct of warfare and is not intended to maim but pass through the body leaving a fairly clean, small wound, as far as bullet wounds go. In other words, this type of ammo does not explode on impact. If you examine the lateral cranial X-ray of the President's head, it reveals an obvious and definitive pepper-like display pattern of metallic debris which classically exhibits the effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind LHO was alleged to have used.

The axis of the debris in the above mentioned X-ray also appears to be consistent with a shot entering the area of the right temple rather than the back of the head. Studies of this issue are found in Joseph N. Riley's, Ph.D. "The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries", The Third Decade (March 1993) pp 1-15, in David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D. research on the X-rays published in James Fetzer's "Assassination Science"(199, in his comments on the recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB (Appendix G), and in his present study of the medical evidence. The major fatal trauma the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high velocity weapons.

Any comments?

Sincerely,

Chris Dolmar

******************************************

I know Chris to be a diligent and extensively detail-oriented researcher.

If I've overstepped any bounds in posting this debate, I apologize to Chris Dolmar and Len Osanic. But, if the case is so strong for no conspiracy, then why is Dr. Rahn's response so weak?

Thank you for you time and consideration in allowing me to post this debate.

Sincerely yours,

Theresa C. Mauro

[John Geraghty]

Mike,

you might want to check out Michael Griffiths' page on Gerald Posners book 'Case Closed', 'Hasty Judgement', http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id81.htm It paints a clear picture of what is wrong with Posner's work and his lack of attention to detail. Although I have never agreed with Posner's work and knew a lot of it to be misleading, I always thought that he was thorough and had a good reputation as an academic, I soon realised that he neglected to interview people, brushed over evidence and came up with new twists on Warren Commission propositions. You may also want to take a look at William Pepper's excellent book on the MLK assassiation 'An Act of State' in which completely takes apart Gerald Posner's book on the King murder.

Mel,

Welcome to the forum. I would be interested in what you think about the finding in favour of the King family in the civil trial against Lloyd Jowers, given that you have written a book on the topic. I'm sure you have read Dr. William Peppers' an Act of State' in which he contributes a considerable amount of the book to rebutting Gerald Posner's book on the assassination. Having not read your books I assume you are of the same mind as Gerald Posner on the topic.

Once again welcome to the forum.

[Charles Black]

By way of introduction to this forum I have added the following article which sets out my take on the JFK assassination.

40 Years On—Who Killed Kennedy?

By Mel Ayton

This essay first appeared in History Ireland, Vol. 11, No. 4 (Winter issue, 2003)

      In 1964 the Warren Commission investigation of President Kennedy’s assassination concluded that he had been killed by a lone assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, and the findings were accepted by the majority of the American public. However, a significant minority greeted the findings with instant skepticism. A public opinion poll immediately afterwards revealed that 56% accepted the Commission's conclusions. By the beginning of the new century, however, skepticism had turned to incredulity. Opinion polls were now showing around 10% or 11% of Americans believed that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy.

      The assassination of JFK has held a fascination for three generations of Americans. 40 years on, it has become the “Great Whodunnit” of the 20th Century. And the plots have become labyrinthine in their complexity. The Mafia, the CIA, the military-industrial complex, Texas oilmen, pro-Castro Cubans, anti-Castro Cubans, the KGB, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI, Lyndon Johnson, southern racists, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all come under suspicion. However, no credible evidence has surfaced to support these theories.

      The enduring popularity of conspiracies makes them a highly lucrative enterprise and vested interests keep the myths alive. Six million visitors a year visit the JFK assassination site, where “researchers” peddle books, autopsy pictures and signed “grassy knoll witness” photos. The visitor can experience a virtual “Disneyland” of assassination themes, from limousine rides which trace JFK’s route from Love Field to Dealey Plaza to bus trips which follow Oswald’s escape route. It is a multimillion-dollar industry promoting books, videos, CD-ROMs, T-Shirts, and even board games. Conspiracy theories have brought the assassination into the world of entertainment.

      So how did we arrive at this position?

      From the start, the fact that a crazed psychotic could have changed the world in a single moment staggered belief. The American public simply could not believe such a monumental crime could be committed by such a pathetic individual. The cause—Oswald as a self-appointed champion of Castro—seemed so disproportionate to the consequences.

      Another answer lies in how the investigation of Kennedy’s murder was handled by the American government. In the hours following the assassination, America’s leaders feared that a public hysteria would demand revenge for the death of the president. At the very least their hopes for détente with the Soviet Union would be dashed. Some believed a world war would be imminent if evidence had been found that the Soviets or Cubans were behind the murder. Although intelligence agencies, using sophisticated methods, confirmed that Khrushchev and Castro were not involved, President Johnson was fearful that suspicions alone could lead to conflict. The government therefore decided they must convince the public that the president’s death was the work of a lone madman, not of some vast Communist conspiracy. In the context of the time this strategy was well intentioned, but many leads pointing to Oswald’s peripheral connections with foreign agencies were ignored or swept under the carpet.

      The actions of succeeding American administrations can also explain why the American public became open to persuasion by conspiracy advocates. The American people faced a litany of lies, distortions and half-truths by government agencies during the administrations of Johnson (Vietnam war), Nixon (Watergate) and Reagan (Iran-Contra); therefore allegations of a cover-up did not appear unusual or outrageous.

      The start of the assassination myths, however, began with the Warren Commission. Had the Commission carried out a more thorough investigation and demanded complete cooperation from the FBI and CIA, questions about Oswald and his nefarious activities in the weeks leading up to the assassination might have been immediately answered. If the FBI and CIA had been more forthcoming with the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which reinvestigated the crime in the 1970s, some of the “mysteries” might never have taken hold. Had the information they held on Oswald been released to investigatory bodies, there would have been little room left for the conspiracy theorists to maneuver.

      Blame for the way suspicions were engendered can be shared. The Dallas Police were careless with Oswald, a carelessness that led to the assassin’s murder by Jack Ruby, but they were not conspiratorially involved. The FBI failed in their duty to protect the president and failed to keep Oswald under observation during the presidential visit. They had a file on Oswald which traced his movements back to his time in the Soviet Union. Two weeks before the assassination, Oswald marched into the local FBI office in Dallas and created a scene, complaining about the harassment his wife was receiving from its agents who were trying to keep track of the ex-Marine Russian defector. And former CIA Director Allen Dulles, a Warren Commission member, failed to tell his colleagues on the commission or staff investigators about the assassination attempts against Castro. This knowledge could have given investigators an important lead on Oswald’s time in Mexico City in the short period before the assassination. In this sense, the "cover-up" is a historical truth.

      The CIA had their reasons for withholding files from the Warren Commission and the House Assassinations Committee. During the Cold War, information concerning the electronic bugging and surveillance of the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City was deemed sensitive (as it is to this day). The National Security Agency’s capabilities and the methodology of its electronic intercepts are the most highly guarded of secrets. Information gleaned from bugging is protected on the grounds that it may inevitably lead to the discovery of intelligence-gathering methodology or the placement of undercover agents. Even though the CIA files were (and are) central to proving that Oswald was not the agent of a foreign power (or an agent of the CIA, for that matter), they have remained partially classified for these reasons. Commission members Richard Russell and Gerald Ford also knew about the Castro assassination plots. However, if no link existed between Oswald and the Soviet or Cuban governments, they reasoned, there was no reason to inform their staff investigators who wrote the Commission’s report.

      Initially, the Warren Commission Report was well received. However, as time passed, a series of proconspiracy books and newspaper revelations began to chip away at the commission’s lone-assassin conclusions. The Zapruder film apparently revealed how Kennedy had been shot from the right front; new witnesses spoke of how Oswald and his killer, Jack Ruby, had known one another; independent researchers and New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison alleged that Oswald had been tied in with anti-Castro Cuban groups. Some researchers believed that shots had been fired from the “Grassy Knoll.” “Eyewitness” after “eyewitness” came forward to report they had recovered their memories and were “now ready to talk.” Their tales were rightly treated with skepticism by government investigators, but they convinced many a conspiracy author as well as the American public.

      The media can also take some responsibility for fanning the flames of conspiracy thinking. Following the assassination, every witness, no matter how remote from first-hand knowledge, became a “newsmaker.” The spotlight confused many of them—seldom did any respond with a “don't know” answer to media questions. The result was a flood of distortion and misinformation. As Patricia Lambert wrote, "(In 1966 LIFE magazine) ... may have played a greater role in turning the majority of Americans away from the conclusions of the Warren Report than any book written. In those days most of the country still relied heavily on the print media for its news. LIFE was an honored part of the American scene. For an institution as conservative and important to endorse such an idea seemed, in itself, to validate the notion of conspiracy."

      Thousands of new documents released following the enactment of the JFK Records Act in 1992 also show how the Kennedys may have inadvertently fed the conspiracy machine. Jacqueline Kennedy and the president's brother Robert Kennedy asked many of those present at the autopsy to promise not to talk about the procedure for 25 years. They feared that JFK’s health problems, which he lied about to get elected, may have been revealed. Conspiracy theorists pointed to this wall of silence as “proof” of a continuing cover-up, when in fact the doctors and staff were merely adhering to the wishes of the family. Beyond the autopsy, Robert Kennedy may have worried that the Warren Commission might stumble onto the government’s plots to kill Castro. He did not want the Warren Commission investigating Cuba even though the plots had nothing to do with the assassination.

      Even though assassination conspiracy theories have been successfully challenged time after time and found to be without merit, they have remained very appealing. Conspiracy theories are powerfully seductive, offering mystery and intrigue to the reader. Additionally, a conspiracy with a valid aim suggests control; the psychotic actions of a lone individual suggest chaos. And people are always looking for simple and straightforward answers. Furthermore, conspiracy theories are like the legendary Hydra—cut off one of its heads and a score of others will replace it.

      Conspiracies, imagined or otherwise, are part of the culture of American society. Far-reaching and complex conspiracy themes have been the staple diet of Hollywood, with movies like “The Manchurian Candidate,” “Conspiracy Theory,” “The Parallax View,” “Total Recall,” and “JFK.” Even television and the Internet have joined forces to promote sinister and antilibertarian motives of the United States government.

      Conspiracy theories have in the past been promoted by ideologues left and right alike. During the 1950s and 1960s, conspiracy theorists were generally right-wingers like Joseph McCarthy, who saw an America subverted by Communists. From the late ‘60s to the present, it has been the idealists of the left, who tended to see America subverted by right-wing conspiracies. JFK conspiracies have undergone a similar shift. Early targets were the Russians or the Cubans. Since the late 1960s it has been popular to suggest that the president’s death was the result of clandestine groups or agencies which had a natural right-wing bias, like the CIA, the Pentagon, or right-wing Texas oilmen. While the Soviet Union and Castro’s Cuba were busy subverting democracies in Latin America, conspiracy theorists in the United States began to look inward to the subversion of democratic institutions by faceless and powerful groups dedicated to the advancement of American corporations and the “military-industrial complex” that President Eisenhower spoke of.

      Conspiracy advocates have promoted the JFK conspiracy myth by adopting changing tactics in their desire to keep the issue alive. When named conspiracists were discovered to have been innocent, or no evidence could be provided to support various allegations, conspiracy theorists accused the government and suggested scenarios which were impossible to discredit—a very powerful group of individuals inside officialdom killed the president, a group powerful enough to engage vast legions of workers to cover up the conspiracy. These circumstances led Professor Jacob Cohen to criticize “the platoons of conspiracists (who) concertedly scavenged the record, floating their appalling and thrilling ‘might-have-beens,’ unfazed by the contradictions and absurdities in their own wantonly selective accounts, often consciously, cunningly deceitful.”

      Scientific and historical research throughout the 1990s, together with the release of government files, has now established the true circumstances surrounding the assassination, despite the protestations of the conspiracy-minded. All the major issues of the case, which center around the existence of single or multiple assassins, have been successfully addressed by America’s leading scientific and legal experts.

      Even though conspiracy advocates continue to insist that a conspiracy killed JFK, the evidence does not support their arguments. No “smoking gun” from the JFK assassination files has been unearthed. Sophisticated reenactments of the assassination using state of the art technology (computer models and laser-assisted weaponry) have shown that three shots were fired, all from behind and from the direction of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, where eyewitness Howard Brennan placed Oswald at the time of the shooting. The rifle and the pistol were traced directly to Oswald. Spectrographic analysis of photographs purporting to show gunmen on the “Grassy Knoll” reveal only light and shadows. Neutron-activation analyses of bullet fragments support the single bullet theory, which was central to the single-assassin conclusion. A computer- enhanced version of the Zapruder film has confirmed that Oswald could have fired the three shots in the time sequence required. Ballistics experts have testified that Oswald’s rifle was more than adequate for the job. Forensic pathologists and physicists have proven that the backward snap of Kennedy's head is consistent with a shot from the rear. Incontrovertible evidence links Oswald with the murder weapon. And credible eyewitness testimony and circumstantial evidence establishes that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shots which killed President Kennedy. His fleeing the scene of the crime established his “consciousness of guilt.” Incontrovertible evidence establishes that Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Police Officer Tippit within an hour of shooting President Kennedy.

      Researcher Don Thomas’s acoustics research, published in 2001 and alleging that more than three shots had been fired, has now been rejected by the National Academy of Sciences and other acoustics/ballistics experts(http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html) who concluded his research was flawed. Reports of Oswald’s alleged contacts with anti-Castro Cubans, KGB agents, rogue elements of the CIA, and Castro’s intelligence agents have been researched fully and found to be the product of guilt by association and gross speculation. The Jim Garrison investigation, made famous by Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK,” in which the New Orleans District Attorney claimed to have uncovered the conspiracy behind the assassination, was found to be politically inspired and bogus when his files were opened for scrutiny by the Assassination Records Review Board, which reported the results of its five-year investigation of Government files in 1998. Books by Gerald Posner and Patricia Lambert revealed how conspiracy advocates, fueled by a public hooked on conspiracy theories, have continually abused the evidential record. These authors have shown how conspiracy theorists misrepresented the facts of the case through selective use of witnesses, presentation of crude scientific opinion about the physical evidence, and by accusing government officials of involvement without providing concrete proof. Furthermore, over a period of 40 years, documents connected to the case have been proven to be forged, “conspiracy witnesses” have provided no corroborative evidence, and conspiracy authors have accused innocent individuals of involvement in the crime.

      Conspiracy advocates have never been able to address many logical aspects of the crime which decisively argue against conspiracy. For example, how could a conspiracy, which would have to involve hundreds if not thousands of people, remain a secret in an age when “whistle-blowers” have succeeded in everything from revealing corruption in government to initiating the impeachment of presidents?

      Confusion about motive was at the heart of the Kennedy murder. The Warren Commission failed to decisively conclude that Oswald was anything but a deranged assassin, which left open many avenues for speculation. Yet there was definitely a political motive for Oswald’s actions. He had spent his adolescence and early manhood pursuing a Communist dream and searching for some kind of involvement in revolutionary activities. Disillusioned with his time spent in the Soviet Union, the young Oswald returned home searching for a new cause. He found it in his hero, Fidel Castro, and began planning a way to help the revolution. As his wife Marina said, “I only know that his basic desire was to get to Cuba by any means, and all the rest of it was window dressing for that purpose.” His friend Michael Paine said Oswald wanted to be an active guerrilla in the effort to bring about a new world order.

      During the time he spent in New Orleans he set himself up as an agent provocateur for the cause and imagined himself as a hero of the revolution. In New Orleans it was common knowledge that anti-Castro exiles had been planning another invasion of Cuba and had been attempting to kill Castro with the assistance of the CIA. As an avid reader of political magazines and newspapers, Oswald could not have failed to see a September 1963 New Orleans newspaper article in which Castro threatened retaliation for attempts on his life. It is plausible Oswald had been inspired by this article.

      Oswald’s political ideals remained with him up to the moment of his death at the hands of a Dallas self-appointed vigilante, Jack Ruby. It was inevitable that someone as politically motivated as Oswald would wish to reveal his political sympathies to the world following his arrest for the murder of the president and a Dallas police officer. However, he did not accomplish this by confessing, but instead by parading around the Dallas police department giving a clenched-fist salute. Most conspiracy advocates had assumed Oswald had been merely showing his manacled hands to reporters. But two photographs taken that tragic weekend show clearly Oswald’s left-wing salute. His actions were confirmed by Dallas police officer Billy Combest, who accompanied Oswald in the ambulance as he lay dying. According to Combest, Oswald “made a definite clenched-fist salute.”

      However, conspiracy advocates continue to muddy the waters with the release of new books to coincide with the 40th anniversary of the assassination. Engaging in indiscriminate presentations of “fact” and applying fractured logic, they continue to construct false theories. The end result is a narrative of half-truths and speculation “proving” that President Johnson and a mixed bag of intelligence agents, military officers, gangsters, and police officials conspired to eliminate a “dangerous” president. Even the most erudite reader would have to spend a considerable amount of time to filter the information they present, eventually becoming overwhelmed by the masses of esoteric and highly technical data, most of it the work of self-proclaimed “experts” who have been ridiculed by the scientific community. Conspiracists are at an advantage in that their use of facts and evidence that supposedly support their theories is not easily falsifiable. Conversely, books which rightly reject the conspiracy solution to the Kennedy assassination have been relatively unsuccessful because there are no really dramatic discoveries.

      The true facts cannot now be established with absolute precision. Too many false leads have been sown, too many witnesses have died, and the volume of material pertaining to the case can be misinterpreted by anyone who wishes to construct a false story. And time has a way of eroding the truth. However, after 40 years of speculation we can now say, for the purposes of historical accuracy, that no evidence has been produced which can decisively point a conspiratorial finger, nor has any evidence negated the argument for Oswald’s guilt.

Mel Ayton

http://www.melayton.co.uk

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hello Mel Ayton and welcome to the forum. Always potentially enlightening to perhaps hear fresh thoughts. In that I am very pressed for time on this beautifully sunny Florida morning I will be very brief and address but two points.

"All the major issues in this case which center around the existence of single or multiple assassins have been successfully addressed by America's leading scientific and legal experts".

Sir, would please quote your references for these successful addresses by America's leading scientific and legal experts. It seems that over the past thirty years I have somehow missed them.

The only other question which I have for you this morning pertains to shooting skills. Even excluding the three second time frame, which is a very major exclusion, have you ever re-acquired a moving target thru a misaligned rifle scope from 65 feet in the air and at a range of 85 meters with a very slow cycling, 19th century vintage, bolt action rifle? If so, did you hit your target? I personally was a much better shot than LHO when I was in the military and since target shooting is a hobby of mine (at least once a week), I find it strange that even today I still am unable to do this while many lone nut theorists profess that this is no mean feat.

Needless to say that in my target practice I am not physically shaken by the tremendous adrenalin flow which would have resulted from knowing that I was murdering the most powerful man in the world, from a position in which escape would be very difficult, and that I had no sidearm for protection nor any planned escape strategy. I would think also that the confusion created by hundreds of shouting onlookers would certainly further disrupt me.

Unless you feel that either you or persons that you know could successfully have handled this situation, as you profess to believe that Oswald did, any further discussion of Oswald's lone nut, near super human involvement would be pointless.

I feel that it is generally acknowledged by both consp. theorists and lone nutters that LHO was of at least average intelligence and many consider that his IQ to have been well above average.

Mel, I ask you for just a little speculation, though much less than was asked of witnesses by Warren commission council. If a person of at least average intelligence had decided to murder the most powerful man in the world, and who had the money immediately prior to the assassination to have purchased a weapon much more likely to have accomplished same, don't you feel that he would have done so, particularly in the light that he was most likely going to die during the attempt? Or do you feel that in order to be frugal he decided to attempt this with a near unworkable 19th century vintage rifle and only four rounds of WWII miitary ammo. CharlieB

[John Simkin]

I'd like to post a debate between a friend of mine, Chris Dolmar, and Ken Rahn, which took place over a period of months during June and September 2001:

Thank you for this. You should get Chris Dolmar to join the JFK Forum.

I also had an exchange of emails with Ken Rahn. I objected to the idea that he presented the views expressed on his website as being academic and objective. Much of his work involves smearing those who have argued in favour of a conspiracy. His favourite term is “leftist”. Rahn believes this mean that “leftists” are not to be trusted. Like Joe McCarthy, Rahn believes that a leftist is anyone who has ever associated with anyone who is left of centre. The evidence he uses for this is from writers and journals under the control of the CIA. (See Operation Mockingbird)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

His treatment of right-wing conspiracy theorists is interesting. For example, he does not mention that Billy James Hargis was a member of the John Birch Society and other extreme right-wing groups.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhargis.htm

I invited Ken Rahn to defend his views on our Forum. He refused, saying he did not think it was “educational”.

[Steven Gaal]

Dear Mr. Ayton, Hello ! You have really stimulated my mind. I would like to ask you a simple queston. Lets suppose that the CIA killed JFK,would they release a memo stating such or even hinting at such ?? Please see this link where Dulles briefs President Eisenhower on PBSUCESS. Dulles informs Eisenhower ,at a formal briefing, that only one CIA rebel was killed. In fact many score were killed. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/28051

If they could lie to the President of the United States in a private briefing,what would they say to the average people ? Please keep in mind no one was dreaming of things like FOIA document releases. Further let me add the press had (had ?) a role as a propaganda arm for the CIA. (SEE Simkin's Mockingbird Material)

You use the term 'conspiratorial finger' . I think there is a montain of evidence to ' point' to a conspiracy. Lets take a look at one piece of the mountain - Ruth Paine. Now as per first paragraph above-we are not going to get any direct documents. We need to look at the penumbra and assume there is an object causing the shadow. Please see this link http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules/nodule9.htm

Now we dont have a CIA memo stating that Ruth Paine is CIA,however, there is "penumbra" data indicating such. Ruth's sister and brother-inlaw are CIA. Ruth's father is part of Nationwide Insurance. Per The Kennedy Assassination and Cover-up book by Donald Gisbson, Allen Dulles sat on the Nationwide Board . The CIA considered recriuting Ruth's father (See Weberman link). Further Fredrick Osborne Sr. was a friend of Allen Dulles working at Radio Free Europe (CIA) and his son Osborn Jr. went before the WC to state that Ruth Paine was a good person. (see Article Friends in High Places PROBE magazine). Now Ruth Paine is in contact with numerous Russian youth per Quaker program. CIA states it would like to develope Russian contacts via private organizations.(see Weberman link). Ruth Paine is not on the HT LINGUAL list till 1966,per the direct CIA documents. Seems that Ruth Paine is not on the HT LINGUAL list when she should . I recall that in John Newman's Oswald and the CIA book that- when LHO shouldnt be on the HT LINGUAL list -he is-when he should be on the list - he isnt (???).

Ruth's husband is a CABOT on both sides of his family. (see Weberman link)

I can post a host of data on how the CABOT family benefited three ways from the JFK assassination. I wont go into all my CABOT data,but just state a few facts. The CABOT's were major investors in Hanna Mining. The Dulles brothers were not only major investors in Hanna Mining,they were Hanna Mining's main lawyers at one point (See Bruce Adamson's Vol 9) . The CABOT'S offered the CIA help with their Steamship line for the Bay of Pigs (see Weberman link above). The CABOT'S had a bank nationalized by CASTRO when he came to power. The CABOT's controlled the First National Bank of Boston (FNBB). The FNBB in turn was the main investor-banker in TEXTRON. In 1962 TEXTRON obtained full majority control of Bell Helicopter (though TEXTRON started obtaining Bell Helicopter stocks by 1956 ) -(see history of Bell Helicopter ,numerous websites). Bell Helicopter is where Ruth's husband worked.He really worked for his family - the CABOTS. These datum are only the shadows,however, for you dont seriously think we will see a direct CIA-JFK-ASSASSINATION memo ? The only comment I can make here is an American saying, "Keep your eye on the doughnut,and not the hole". THANKS STEVE GAAL PS Let me add that at one time Mary Bancroft was the simultaneous lover of Henry Luce and Allen Dulles. Further, Mary Bancroft was a long term friend of Ruth Paine husband's mother (Ruth Forbes Paine). We in America have another saying,'Keeping it all in the family". (SEE Bruce Adamson material and also this link for research purposes only) http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_4.html

Edited April 18, 2005 by Steven Gaal

[Pat Speer]

Dear Mr. Ayton, Hello ! You have really stimulated my mind. I would like to ask you a simple queston. Lets suppose that the CIA killed JFK,would they release a  memo stating such or even hinting at such ?? Please see this link where Dulles briefs President Eisenhower on PBSUCESS. Dulles informs Eisenhower that only one rebel was assassinated. In fact over four dozen were assassinated. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/28051

    (url=http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_4.html]http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/gtds_4.html[/url]

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steven, in order to keep the debate here on as accurate a level as possible, I'd like to point out that you misunderstood the lie the CIA told. At a party in their honor after the overthrow of Arbenz, a number of the CIA officers involved were asked to tell the President and VP their personal stories. At this party, the CIA para-military officer in charge of training the rebel roops of Castillo-Armas told Eisenhower that they'd only lost one member of the rebel forces, when the real number was something like 100. The xxxx was Rip Robertson, a man who was also involved in the Bay of Pigs invasion, (and a man who bears a striking resemblance to a man photographed in Dealey Plaza--check out James Richards' thread on Rosselli.) Rip Robertson's name also appears on a note found in the CIA files attached to a list of Guatemalans with Communist ties. The CIA now acknowledges this list was given to Castillo-Armas as an assassination list, but says that none of the men were actually assassinated. Since the names were redacted, however, this can not be independently verified. Books on Guatemala state, however, that Castillo-Armas went on a bit of a killing spree after gaining power, so who knows?

[Pat Speer]

Pat wrote:

[...]

I agree with you that there's an awful lot of bs on this Forum and within the research community--Fetzer's work on Zapruder film alteration, for example. or Lifton's work on body alteration. 

[...]

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

I'm sure David Mantik MD, PhD. will appreciate those comments, after all he's probably spent more time at NARA studying and handling autopsy [medical] related evidence than anyone in the United States, I believe he's contributed to 3 of Jim Fetzer's books -- As to work on the Z-film film, well Mantik also holds a PhD in Physics and certainly can comment on the Z-film -- I await your credentials regarding film printing and film composition and forensics...

As a wanna-be-writer dealing with JFK Assassination material, commenting about Zapruder Film in particular, I'm sure you can debate the pluses and minuses of optical film printing, in relationship to said film, YES?

David Lifton? Well he's a past NYT best selling author, Pat. Not a wanna-be-writer... in 2 months or so, you'll be glad to know, the 2003 Univ. of Minn Synposium on the Zapruder Film will be available on DVD and/or videotape -- Mantik, Costella, Fetzer [all three Phd's] Lifton, White and yours truly FULL presentations are covered. Stay tuned!

So, BS aside, I await your professional critique regarding Zapruder film alteration...

You never know who reads these threads, Pat! You never know!

DHealy 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sorry if I offended you, David, by using the term b.s. I believe both Mantik and Fetzer are well-intentioned and I would not want any discussion about them to drift into the nastiness of the Thompson/Fetzer feud of a few years ago.

I do take issue with a number of your comments. I disagree that Mantik's visits to NARA somehow make him THE authority. Your suggestion of this is self-contradictory, since you believe that the autopsy doctors, who saw the actual body, and the HSCA, which spent months discussing the wounds and exaiming the photos, were both wrong. If you wish to worship at the cult of expertise--which Thompson complains about and which even an expert like Cyril Wecht agrees is dangerous--then you have to side with all the government "experts" as well. And many of them are as you know, dead wrong. Unless you are going to somehow show how Baden, Guinn, and Canning are all in agreement with Mantik, then your whole "expert" argument is proven fallacious. Please read my seminar and compare it to Dr. Mantik's; while he has the advantage in experience, most will almost certainly agree mine has the advantage on sound reasoning.

And your argument about Lifton is equally weak. While I respect Lifton's devotion I disagree with many of his conclusions. One has to wonder, for instance, why he excludes the eyewitnesses in Dealey Plaza from his theory of alteration.

After all, since they all seemed to think the large wound was on the top or side of JFK's head, then that would mean the wound was changed en route to Parkland, only to be changed back on Air Force One on the way to Bethesda. And this is twice as wild a story.

So what if he sold a bunch of books? The Warren Report sold more than Accessories After the Fact, and which one has more credibility?

I suggest you restrain yourself from attacking myself and others on the basis of our "wanna-be" status. If you read my seminar, you'll see that I believe the suggestion of alteration in the autopsy photos and the Zapruder film only has merit if the photos and film do indeed show evidence for a lone-nut scenario, and I believe they indicate convincingly that Kennedy himself was shot three times, making a conclusion of conspiracy almost inevitable. Please read my seminar and tell me where I'm wrong. Argue that the photos and Zapruder film PROVE the lone nut theory, and then we'll talk.

Edited April 18, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Bernice Moore]

I'd like to post a debate between a friend of mine, Chris Dolmar, and Ken Rahn, which took place over a period of months during June and September 2001:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you for this. You should get Chris Dolmar to join the JFK Forum.

I also had an exchange of emails with Ken Rahn. I objected to the idea that he presented the views expressed on his website as being academic and objective. Much of his work involves smearing those who have argued in favour of a conspiracy. His favourite term is “leftist”. Rahn believes this mean that “leftists” are not to be trusted. Like Joe McCarthy, Rahn believes that a leftist is anyone who has ever associated with anyone who is left of centre. The evidence he uses for this is from writers and journals under the control of the CIA. (See Operation Mockingbird)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmockingbird.htm

His treatment of right-wing conspiracy theorists is interesting. For example, he does not mention that Billy James Hargis was a member of the John Birch Society and other extreme right-wing groups.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhargis.htm

I invited Ken Rahn to defend his views on our Forum. He refused, saying he did not think it was “educational”.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

*****************************

Dr.J. Fetzer : Quote:

"Has no one observed that Ken Rahn's work is useless

as evidence that implicates Lee Oswald because (1)

the lead used to manufacture Mannlicher-Carcano ammo

was recycled and therefore is not sufficiently uni-

form to establish comparisons and (2) that even if

his work were "good as gold", it would establish at

most that some of the rounds were fired using Mann-

licher-Carcanos but not (a) that they were fired

from the Book Depository as opposed to the Dal-Tex,

for example, much less ( that they were fired by

Lee Oswald, who was actually on the second floor

drinking a coke at the time of the assassination?

I don't know why anyone takes Ken Rahn seriously."

Jim

B..

Edited April 18, 2005 by Bernice Moore