Willard News Conference -- May 15

[Bruce Cormier]

Undoubtedly against my better judgment, and perhaps fueled by my interest in the macabre, I'm off to the hotel in an hour and should be able to provide coverage of the conference through 12:15, at which point I'm out of pocket the remainder of today because of prior commitments. If anyone else here is able to get down there by noon eastern, then we'll have gavel-to-gavel, IF they let non press types in.

[Ron Ecker]

I understand they'll be checking all shoes at the door. No white sneakers allowed. (Such footwear would be a sure sign of a troublemaker or smart aleck.)

[Bruce Cormier]

I understand they'll be checking all shoes at the door. No white sneakers allowed. (Such footwear would be a sure sign of a troublemaker or smart aleck.)

Caught the first hour. Sparsely attended -- 30 guests in a ballroom with seats for 300, which is to be expected when you provide 16 hours notice. Mercifully, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb was very brief -- 5 minutes. Details later this evening.

[Bruce Cormier]

On the theory that even on a day cool and cloudy, a third of a pint is better than none at all, I summarize below my impressions of today's proceedings between 11:00 and noon, Washington time. I had to leave at noon because of prior commitments.

1. The conference's sponsor, Paul Kuntzler, spoke for 5 minutes. Apparently decent and very well meaning, Mr. Kuntzler has been troubled by press coverage since the assassination, and especially since the release of documents following the JFK Act some 15 years ago. With the exceptions of Helen Thomas and Robert MacNeil, no one in the national media, in Kunzler's view, has given this issue the open mind and attention it deserves.

(This gentleman certainly knows how to put on a conference. He secured a substantial portion of the main ballroom of the Willard, one of our finer hotels, and provided seats for about 300 guests. I counted at least 8 flat screen televisions in the anteroom, one showing original footage of that dreadful weekend, another showing "JFK", etc. The ballroom with supplied with a huge flatscreen and an overhead. Unfortunately, I counted about 30 guests in addition to the panelists and technicians that first hour -- many of them in or barely out of college, the balance "forty-something" geezers like me. This, I suppose, is what happens when an event is publicized for the first time the very night before it occurs. I felt sorry for Mr. Kuntzler).

3. He was then followed by Jim Fetzer, who spoke until 11:20 and also served as a bridge between subsequent speakers. Jim launched an attack on the WCR, the HSCA Report, and "Case Closed" that I'm sure is familiar to you all. He recounted his belief that there were at least 6, and as many as 8, shots fired in DP that day, with JFK sustaining a wound to his back from behind, an entrance wound to his throat, and two head wounds, one from behind and another from forward of the vehicle.

4. What, then, is one to make of those X-rays? Enter Dr. Mantik, who had spent nine days at the National Archives and made two principal points today. First, even though five X-rays were taken of JFK's head (he knows this from two witnesses), only three appear in the Archives, and they are copies, not originals. He knows this because the originals should have been roughly textured because of scraped emulsions, but the X-rays he saw were smooth. Dr. Mantik then demonstrated how easy it is to alter copies, suing a pair of scissors and his daughter's toy.

Second, describing a technique termed optical densitometry, Dr. Mantick explained that the massive rear head wound observed by the doctors was deliberately masked by the X-Rays. How does he know this? Because the rear head appears far too bright in the X-rays, with a "contrast factor" of 1000 instead of the usual two. If the X-Ray of the rear head were genuine, then JFK indeed would have been a "bonehead".

Dr. Mantick concluded by noting that the X-rays do not square with pictures and eyewitness descriptions of the brain, with too much matter missing in the front. He also noted 3 doctors did NOT observe a 6.5 mm bullet grain in the brain, which shows up on the X-rays.

5. A little after 11:30, Doug Horne took the floor, also speaking for about 10 minutes. He served on the AARB staff from August 1995 through September 1998 and claims to have found "unequivocal evidence of a government cover-up of the medical evidence", and specifically 'serious fraud' in three areas.

He observed that there were three and not one versions of the autopsy report, Ex. 387. Dr. Humes admitted under oath while deposed by the AARB that he burned a draft report along with his notes in his fireplace. Another "original" autopsy report was then sent to Bobby Kennedy per Secret Service records. Yet, another "original" was thereafter sent to the Nat'l Archives per those same records. How can that be?

Horne then stated that there were two brain examinations, one on November 25, and the second during the period November 29 through December 2. The second examination, which was not of JFK's brain but of a substitute brain, was an occasion for fraud. The photos of that examination were on the wrong kind of film, and were taken from an erroneous perspective. Also, there was no sectioning, as there was in the original exam. All this per the doctors.

Horne concluded that there is something "seriously wrong' with the autopsy photos, which do not square with the observations of Parkland doctors or doctors present at the autopsy. In Horne's estimation, "something is terribly wrong' about all this.

6. Evidently, the sponsor (or perhaps more accurately, Fetzer) has concluded that the Z-film cannot be squared with a 6+ shot scenario, Enter, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb, who temporarily drove this bus into a ditch. Mercifully, he spoke for only five minutes. He made two points.

Using descriptions of Mr. Zapruder's height, and photographs of Mr. Zapruder's assistant's attire, he appeared to raise questions whether these folks, in fact, were old Abe and his assistant. He didn't overly suggest who these people might have been, and if they weren't Abe and his assistant, where the latter two were when the would be imposters filmed. Nor did Lipscomb even mention the rather famous TV footage shortly after the assassination in which Abe -- undoubtedly the genuine article this time -- says he is Abe and explains how he filmed.

Second, and predictably, Lipscomb showed pictures of witnesses with shoes on upon arriving at Dealey Plaza, counterposed with what these women appear to be wearing in a snippet of the Z-film, white sneakers. It was far from clear to me that they were, in fact, wearing white sneakers or whether, instead, their shoes were obscured by the angle of Abe's camera and/or the grass and we were looking at their socks instead. More importantly, there was utterly no effort made to tie the significance of what was on these womens' feet to how the Z-film was altered. How can altering footwear change shot sequence and location?

Lipscomb then said he and others are at the early stages of this Z-film work. Obviously so. Any charge of alteration based on the evidence he presented today is preposterous.

6. Finally, Joan Mellon began talking about Louisiana and LHO, and I had to leave. Unfortunately, they did not get to Jeff Morley, also a panelist, while I was there.

Caveat: I saw only the first hour folks. So if anything transpired thereafter that changes the above in any significant way, I was not there to observe it.

Bruce

On the theory that even on a day cool and cloudy, a third of a pint is better than none at all, I summarize below my impressions of today's proceedings between 11:00 and noon, Washington time. I had to leave at noon because of prior commitments.

1. The conference's sponsor, Paul Kuntzler, spoke for 5 minutes. Apparently decent and very well meaning, Mr. Kuntzler has been troubled by press coverage since the assassination, and especially since the release of documents following the JFK Act some 15 years ago. With the exceptions of Helen Thomas and Robert MacNeil, no one in the national media, in Kunzler's view, has given this issue the open mind and attention it deserves.

(This gentleman certainly knows how to put on a conference. He secured a substantial portion of the main ballroom of the Willard, one of our finer hotels, and provided seats for about 300 guests. I counted at least 8 flat screen televisions in the anteroom, one showing original footage of that dreadful weekend, another showing "JFK", etc. The ballroom with supplied with a huge flatscreen and an overhead. Unfortunately, I counted about 30 guests in addition to the panelists and technicians that first hour -- many of them in or barely out of college, the balance "forty-something" geezers like me. This, I suppose, is what happens when an event is publicized for the first time the very night before it occurs. I felt sorry for Mr. Kuntzler).

3. He was then followed by Jim Fetzer, who spoke until 11:20 and also served as a bridge between subsequent speakers. Jim launched an attack on the WCR, the HSCA Report, and "Case Closed" that I'm sure is familiar to you all. He recounted his belief that there were at least 6, and as many as 8, shots fired in DP that day, with JFK sustaining a wound to his back from behind, an entrance wound to his throat, and two head wounds, one from behind and another from forward of the vehicle.

4. What, then, is one to make of those X-rays? Enter Dr. Mantik, who had spent nine days at the National Archives and made two principal points today. First, even though five X-rays were taken of JFK's head (he knows this from two witnesses), only three appear in the Archives, and they are copies, not originals. He knows this because the originals should have been roughly textured because of scraped emulsions, but the X-rays he saw were smooth. Dr. Mantik then demonstrated how easy it is to alter copies, suing a pair of scissors and his daughter's toy.

Second, describing a technique termed optical densitometry, Dr. Mantick explained that the massive rear head wound observed by the doctors was deliberately masked by the X-Rays. How does he know this? Becuase the rear head appears far too bright in the X-rays, with a "contrast factor" of 1000 instead of the usual two. If the X-Ray of the rear head were genuine, the JFK indeed would have been a "bonehead".

Dr. Mantick concluded by noting that the X-rays do not square with pictures and eyewitness descriptions of the brain, with too much matter missing in the front. He also noted 3 doctors did NOT observe a 6.5 mm bullet grain in the brain, which shows up on the X-rays.

5. A little after 11:30, Doug Horne took the floor, also speaking for about 10 minutes. He served on the AARB staff from August 1995 through September 1998 and claims to have found "unequivocal evidence of a government cover-up of the medical evidence", and specifically 'serious fraud' in three areas.

He observed that there were three and not one versions of the autopsy report, Ex. 387. Dr. Humes admitted under oath while deposed by the AARB that he burned a draft report along with his notes in his fireplace. Another "original" autopsy report was then sent to Bobby Kennedy per Secret Service records. Yet, another "original" was thereafter sent to the Nat'l Archives per those same records. How can that be?

Horne then stated that there were two brain examinations, one on November 25, and the second during the period November 29 through December 2. The second examination, which was not of JFK's brain but of a substitute brain, was an occasion for fraud. The photos of that examination were on the wrong kind of film, and were taken from an erroneous perspective. Also, there was no sectioning, as there was in the original exam. all this per the doctors.

Horne concluded that there is something "seriously wrong' with the autopsy photos, which do not square with the observations of Parkland doctors or doctors present at the autopsy. In Horne's estimation, "something is terribly wrong' about all this.

6. Evidently, the sponsor(or perhaps more accurately, Fetzer) has concluded that the Z-film cannot be squared with a 6+ shot scenario, Enter, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb, who temporarily drove this bus into a ditch. Mercifully, he spoke for only five minutes. He made two points.

Using descriptions of Mr. Zapruder's height, and photographs of Mr. Zapruder's assistant's attire, he appeared to raise questions whether these folks, in fact, were old Abe and his assistant. He didn't overly suggest who these people might have been, and if they weren't Abe and his assistant, where the latter two were when the would be imposters filmed. Nor did Lipscomb even mention the rather famous TV footage shortly after the assassination in which Abe -- undoubtedly the genuine article this time -- says he is Abe and explains how he filmed.

Second, and predictably, Lipscomb showed pictures of witnesses with shoes on upon arriving at Dealey Plaza, counterposed with what these women appear to be wearing in a snippet of the Z-film, white sneakers. It was far from clear to me that they were, in fact, wearing white sneakers or whether, instead, their shoes were obscured by the angle of Abe's camera and/or the grass and were were looking at their socks instead. More importantly, there was utterly no effort made to tie the significance of what was on these womens' feet to how the Z-film was altered. How can altering footwear change shot sequence and location?

Lipscomb then said he and others are at the early stages of this Z-film work. Obviously so. Any charge of alteration based on the evidence he presented today is preposterous.

6. Finally, Joan Mellon began talking about Louisiana and LHO, and I had to leave. Unfortunately, they did not get to Jeff Morley, also a panelist, while I was there.

Caveat: I saw only the first hour folks. So if anything transpired thereafter that changes the above in any significant way, I was not there to observe it.

Bruce

[David G. Healy]

On the theory that even on a day cool and cloudy, a third of a pint is better than none at all, I summarize below my impressions of today's proceedings between 11:00 and noon, Washington time. I had to leave at noon because of prior commitments.

1. The conference's sponsor, Paul Kuntzler, spoke for 5 minutes. Apparently decent and very well meaning, Mr. Kuntzler has been troubled by press coverage since the assassination, and especially since the release of documents following the JFK Act some 15 years ago. With the exceptions of Helen Thomas and Robert MacNeil, no one in the national media, in Kunzler's view, has given this issue the open mind and attention it deserves.

(This gentleman certainly knows how to put on a conference. He secured a substantial portion of the main ballroom of the Willard, one of our finer hotels, and provided seats for about 300 guests. I counted at least 8 flat screen televisions in the anteroom, one showing original footage of that dreadful weekend, another showing "JFK", etc. The ballroom with supplied with a huge flatscreen and an overhead. Unfortunately, I counted about 30 guests in addition to the panelists and technicians that first hour -- many of them in or barely out of college, the balance "forty-something" geezers like me. This, I suppose, is what happens when an event is publicized for the first time the very night before it occurs. I felt sorry for Mr. Kuntzler).

3. He was then followed by Jim Fetzer, who spoke until 11:20 and also served as a bridge between subsequent speakers. Jim launched an attack on the WCR, the HSCA Report, and "Case Closed" that I'm sure is familiar to you all. He recounted his belief that there were at least 6, and as many as 8, shots fired in DP that day, with JFK sustaining a wound to his back from behind, an entrance wound to his throat, and two head wounds, one from behind and another from forward of the vehicle.

4. What, then, is one to make of those X-rays? Enter Dr. Mantik, who had spent nine days at the National Archives and made two principal points today. First, even though five X-rays were taken of JFK's head (he knows this from two witnesses), only three appear in the Archives, and they are copies, not originals. He knows this because the originals should have been roughly textured because of scraped emulsions, but the X-rays he saw were smooth. Dr. Mantik then demonstrated how easy it is to alter copies, suing a pair of scissors and his daughter's toy.

Second, describing a technique termed optical densitometry, Dr. Mantick explained that the massive rear head wound observed by the doctors was deliberately masked by the X-Rays. How does he know this? Because the rear head appears far too bright in the X-rays, with a "contrast factor" of 1000 instead of the usual two. If the X-Ray of the rear head were genuine, then JFK indeed would have been a "bonehead".

Dr. Mantick concluded by noting that the X-rays do not square with pictures and eyewitness descriptions of the brain, with too much matter missing in the front. He also noted 3 doctors did NOT observe a 6.5 mm bullet grain in the brain, which shows up on the X-rays.

5. A little after 11:30, Doug Horne took the floor, also speaking for about 10 minutes. He served on the AARB staff from August 1995 through September 1998 and claims to have found "unequivocal evidence of a government cover-up of the medical evidence", and specifically 'serious fraud' in three areas.

He observed that there were three and not one versions of the autopsy report, Ex. 387. Dr. Humes admitted under oath while deposed by the AARB that he burned a draft report along with his notes in his fireplace. Another "original" autopsy report was then sent to Bobby Kennedy per Secret Service records. Yet, another "original" was thereafter sent to the Nat'l Archives per those same records. How can that be?

Horne then stated that there were two brain examinations, one on November 25, and the second during the period November 29 through December 2. The second examination, which was not of JFK's brain but of a substitute brain, was an occasion for fraud. The photos of that examination were on the wrong kind of film, and were taken from an erroneous perspective. Also, there was no sectioning, as there was in the original exam. All this per the doctors.

Horne concluded that there is something "seriously wrong' with the autopsy photos, which do not square with the observations of Parkland doctors or doctors present at the autopsy. In Horne's estimation, "something is terribly wrong' about all this.

6. Evidently, the sponsor (or perhaps more accurately, Fetzer) has concluded that the Z-film cannot be squared with a 6+ shot scenario, Enter, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb, who temporarily drove this bus into a ditch. Mercifully, he spoke for only five minutes. He made two points.

Using descriptions of Mr. Zapruder's height, and photographs of Mr. Zapruder's assistant's attire, he appeared to raise questions whether these folks, in fact, were old Abe and his assistant. He didn't overly suggest who these people might have been, and if they weren't Abe and his assistant, where the latter two were when the would be imposters filmed. Nor did Lipscomb even mention the rather famous TV footage shortly after the assassination in which Abe -- undoubtedly the genuine article this time -- says he is Abe and explains how he filmed.

Second, and predictably, Lipscomb showed pictures of witnesses with shoes on upon arriving at Dealey Plaza, counterposed with what these women appear to be wearing in a snippet of the Z-film, white sneakers. It was far from clear to me that they were, in fact, wearing white sneakers or whether, instead, their shoes were obscured by the angle of Abe's camera and/or the grass and we were looking at their socks instead. More importantly, there was utterly no effort made to tie the significance of what was on these womens' feet to how the Z-film was altered. How can altering footwear change shot sequence and location?

Lipscomb then said he and others are at the early stages of this Z-film work. Obviously so. Any charge of alteration based on the evidence he presented today is preposterous.

6. Finally, Joan Mellon began talking about Louisiana and LHO, and I had to leave. Unfortunately, they did not get to Jeff Morley, also a panelist, while I was there.

Caveat: I saw only the first hour folks. So if anything transpired thereafter that changes the above in any significant way, I was not there to observe it.

Bruce

On the theory that even on a day cool and cloudy, a third of a pint is better than none at all, I summarize below my impressions of today's proceedings between 11:00 and noon, Washington time. I had to leave at noon because of prior commitments.

1. The conference's sponsor, Paul Kuntzler, spoke for 5 minutes. Apparently decent and very well meaning, Mr. Kuntzler has been troubled by press coverage since the assassination, and especially since the release of documents following the JFK Act some 15 years ago. With the exceptions of Helen Thomas and Robert MacNeil, no one in the national media, in Kunzler's view, has given this issue the open mind and attention it deserves.

(This gentleman certainly knows how to put on a conference. He secured a substantial portion of the main ballroom of the Willard, one of our finer hotels, and provided seats for about 300 guests. I counted at least 8 flat screen televisions in the anteroom, one showing original footage of that dreadful weekend, another showing "JFK", etc. The ballroom with supplied with a huge flatscreen and an overhead. Unfortunately, I counted about 30 guests in addition to the panelists and technicians that first hour -- many of them in or barely out of college, the balance "forty-something" geezers like me. This, I suppose, is what happens when an event is publicized for the first time the very night before it occurs. I felt sorry for Mr. Kuntzler).

3. He was then followed by Jim Fetzer, who spoke until 11:20 and also served as a bridge between subsequent speakers. Jim launched an attack on the WCR, the HSCA Report, and "Case Closed" that I'm sure is familiar to you all. He recounted his belief that there were at least 6, and as many as 8, shots fired in DP that day, with JFK sustaining a wound to his back from behind, an entrance wound to his throat, and two head wounds, one from behind and another from forward of the vehicle.

4. What, then, is one to make of those X-rays? Enter Dr. Mantik, who had spent nine days at the National Archives and made two principal points today. First, even though five X-rays were taken of JFK's head (he knows this from two witnesses), only three appear in the Archives, and they are copies, not originals. He knows this because the originals should have been roughly textured because of scraped emulsions, but the X-rays he saw were smooth. Dr. Mantik then demonstrated how easy it is to alter copies, suing a pair of scissors and his daughter's toy.

Second, describing a technique termed optical densitometry, Dr. Mantick explained that the massive rear head wound observed by the doctors was deliberately masked by the X-Rays. How does he know this? Becuase the rear head appears far too bright in the X-rays, with a "contrast factor" of 1000 instead of the usual two. If the X-Ray of the rear head were genuine, the JFK indeed would have been a "bonehead".

Dr. Mantick concluded by noting that the X-rays do not square with pictures and eyewitness descriptions of the brain, with too much matter missing in the front. He also noted 3 doctors did NOT observe a 6.5 mm bullet grain in the brain, which shows up on the X-rays.

5. A little after 11:30, Doug Horne took the floor, also speaking for about 10 minutes. He served on the AARB staff from August 1995 through September 1998 and claims to have found "unequivocal evidence of a government cover-up of the medical evidence", and specifically 'serious fraud' in three areas.

He observed that there were three and not one versions of the autopsy report, Ex. 387. Dr. Humes admitted under oath while deposed by the AARB that he burned a draft report along with his notes in his fireplace. Another "original" autopsy report was then sent to Bobby Kennedy per Secret Service records. Yet, another "original" was thereafter sent to the Nat'l Archives per those same records. How can that be?

Horne then stated that there were two brain examinations, one on November 25, and the second during the period November 29 through December 2. The second examination, which was not of JFK's brain but of a substitute brain, was an occasion for fraud. The photos of that examination were on the wrong kind of film, and were taken from an erroneous perspective. Also, there was no sectioning, as there was in the original exam. all this per the doctors.

Horne concluded that there is something "seriously wrong' with the autopsy photos, which do not square with the observations of Parkland doctors or doctors present at the autopsy. In Horne's estimation, "something is terribly wrong' about all this.

6. Evidently, the sponsor(or perhaps more accurately, Fetzer) has concluded that the Z-film cannot be squared with a 6+ shot scenario, Enter, Thomas "Nike" Lipscomb, who temporarily drove this bus into a ditch. Mercifully, he spoke for only five minutes. He made two points.

Using descriptions of Mr. Zapruder's height, and photographs of Mr. Zapruder's assistant's attire, he appeared to raise questions whether these folks, in fact, were old Abe and his assistant. He didn't overly suggest who these people might have been, and if they weren't Abe and his assistant, where the latter two were when the would be imposters filmed. Nor did Lipscomb even mention the rather famous TV footage shortly after the assassination in which Abe -- undoubtedly the genuine article this time -- says he is Abe and explains how he filmed.

Second, and predictably, Lipscomb showed pictures of witnesses with shoes on upon arriving at Dealey Plaza, counterposed with what these women appear to be wearing in a snippet of the Z-film, white sneakers. It was far from clear to me that they were, in fact, wearing white sneakers or whether, instead, their shoes were obscured by the angle of Abe's camera and/or the grass and were were looking at their socks instead. More importantly, there was utterly no effort made to tie the significance of what was on these womens' feet to how the Z-film was altered. How can altering footwear change shot sequence and location?

Lipscomb then said he and others are at the early stages of this Z-film work. Obviously so. Any charge of alteration based on the evidence he presented today is preposterous.

6. Finally, Joan Mellon began talking about Louisiana and LHO, and I had to leave. Unfortunately, they did not get to Jeff Morley, also a panelist, while I was there.

Caveat: I saw only the first hour folks. So if anything transpired thereafter that changes the above in any significant way, I was not there to observe it.

Bruce

re-run the tape twice? Thanks for your update! Hope you didn't get a parking ticket.

Oh, don't worry we won't tell a soul about your interest in the macarbe...

Edited May 15, 2006 by David G. Healy

[Dawn Meredith]

Bruce,

Thanks so much for the recap of the part you saw. Of course when I got in from court and turned on the news there was not a word on this. W will be all over tonite on the immigration issue. Hope someone will post the rest of the conference. This was a big step. NOW how to get the press to cover this stuff. My money says top brass dictates this stuff be ignored, or given the Posner spin.

Dawn

[Mark Stapleton]

Bruce,

Thanks for your report on the part of the conference you were able to witness.

Dawn, I hope your observation is wrong but I think you may be right. The media agenda setters will either ignore it or paint the conference as a conspiracy theory circus. It's hard to believe they can still get away with this while roughly 80% of the population believe a conspiracy occured. That's the power of the media for you.