Nonconspiracists United

[Mel Ayton]

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

[Tim Gratz]

Debate is great, welcome to the Forum, sir!

I suspect I can say with confidence that few members of this Forum accept your position. Nor, according to most polls, do most Americans.

So let the debate begin!

Edited April 15, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[John Simkin]

Great article Mel (although I disagree with virtually every word of it). We desperately need an intelligent and articulate, lone-gunman theorist on this Forum. I hope you will stay and answer your critics.

I hope everybody treats Mel with respect. Don’t let us have any draft comments about Mel being a CIA disinformation agent. (The CIA would never approach this subject in this way.)

I will be replying in detail tomorrow.

[Antti Hynonen]

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 April 15th, 2005.

Mr. Ayton, have any of the deaths of witnesses, either closely or remotely related to the JFK case, ever struck you as being one or several of the following:

* convenient for a (potential) cover-up

* quite un-natural

* a series of unsolved murders

* a very high ratio of suicides, murders, and other violent deaths considering the number of people investigating the case, or having otherwise been close to the case.

What do you think of all the individuals, who claim to have been threatened not to discuss the case?

I have read numerous papers and statements on the medical evidence related to JFK's autopsy. Considering the locations and the types of wounds, I have to say it is more likely than not that JFK was (also) hit from the front.

What do you make of the discrepancy between the statements by the Parkland doctors and the autopsy physicians in Bethesda MD, inparticular to the location of the head wound?

Surely these issues add to the probability of a conspiracy.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

Hi Mel.

Good "Straight Bat" Sir.

Just a simple question, Could you please explain your reasons for believing that LHO was a "Crazed Psychotic" I can see no evidence of this illness in his pre-morbid behavior.

[Mike Toliver]

I'm one of the "few" who agree with Mel - but this issue is (to me) a waste of time. Therefore, I'm very glad the "anti-conspiracy" voice is finally being heard by someone who cares enough to spend the necessary time refuting this stuff.

[Guest Stephen Turner]

I'm one of the "few" who agree with Mel - but this issue is (to me) a waste of time.  Therefore, I'm very glad the "anti-conspiracy" voice is finally being heard by someone who cares enough to spend the necessary time refuting this stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike.

There are many things I consider a "waste of time" but top of the list has to be, people who post on subjects they consider a "waste of time"

Now, if you have somthing to actually add to the debate i'm sure we would all love to hear it!!!

[Mike Toliver]

Sorry - not my intent to irritate anyone. I consider it a waste of time because, as Mel notes, people who want to believe there was a conspiracy refuse to believe contrary evidence.

My own experience with this does not have to do with conspiracies, so, Steven, I really don't have anything to add to this discussion other than to encourage Mel. But to elaborate on my point above, as a biologist I deal frequently with creationists and "intelligent design" advocates who never acknowledge that their criticisms of evolution have been answered. They will not be convinced by evidence. A specific example is the case of "human tracks" with dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, Texas. A CREATIONIST investigator established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the so-called "human tracks" were dinosaur tracks. He pleaded with his fellow creationists to stop using this example. They're still using it.

CT advocates strike me as very similar. I read Posner's book, found it persuasive. I come to this site and find people who believe that 9/11 was a US government plot, that we never landed on the moon, etc., etc.

Again, I apologize if I ticked you off. My sole intent was to encourage Mel.

[Pat Speer]

Mike and Mel, I'd like for you to read my seminar on the autopsy evidence, available in the seminars section of this Forum. I'm currently updating it and would like to know where the weak spots are from a Lone Nutter viewpoint. 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. (Although at least Lifton bases his theory on some terribly confusing eyewitness testimony.) But I've tried to stick to the plausible in my seminar. Please let me know what you think.

Thanks, Pat

[J. Raymond Carroll]

CT advocates strike me as very similar.  I read Posner's book, found it persuasive.  I come to this site and find people who believe that 9/11 was a US government plot, that we never landed on the moon, etc., etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mike: What color are those herrings? As a scientist, what do you make of Mel's statement that " time has a way of eroding the truth."? Does that statement strike you as scientific, or does it strike you (as it strikes me) as being anti-scientific to the core?

Ray

"Do not block the way of inquiry" C.S. Peirce

[Gary Buell]

Welcome to the Forum Mel.

Mel is the author of several books, none of which I have read although I hope to remedy that. Unfortunately, some of them are unavailabe according to Amazon.

Questions of Conspiracy: The True Facts Behind the Assassination of President Kennedy (Unavailable)

The JFK Assassination - Dispelling The Myths (UnavailableL

Questions of Controversy: the Kennedy Brothers

A Racial Crime: James Earl Ray And The Murder Of Martin Luther King Jr.

[John Simkin]

Sorry - not my intent to irritate anyone.  I consider it a waste of time because, as Mel notes, people who want to believe there was a conspiracy refuse to believe contrary evidence.

My own experience with this does not have to do with conspiracies, so, Steven, I really don't have anything to add to this discussion other than to encourage Mel.  But to elaborate on my point above, as a biologist I deal frequently with creationists and "intelligent design" advocates who never acknowledge that their criticisms of evolution have been answered.  They will not be convinced by evidence.  A specific example is the case of "human tracks" with dinosaur tracks at Glen Rose, Texas.  A CREATIONIST investigator established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the so-called "human tracks" were dinosaur tracks.  He pleaded with his fellow creationists to stop using this example.  They're still using it.

I would also argue that some people are determined to believe in the “lone-gunman” theory because they “refuse to believe contrary evidence”.

You seem to be aware that officially there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. See the House Select Committee on Assassinations Report published in 1979. It is only those who refuse to consider all the evidence available that continue to believe in the conclusions of the Warren Commission. Even several members of the Warren Commission later admitted that they no longer believed in the committee’s original conclusions.

The vast majority of the JFK researchers on this forum are extremely logical people. It is quite absurd to equate them with creationists.

I suggest you follow this thread to see how they rebut Mel’s arguments. The real problem is whether Mel will be willing to continue to argue his case on the forum. In the past, Warren Commission supporters have not lasted very long on this forum.

[Ryan Crowe]

A couple of my questions for WC supporters has always been and ive never got a straight answer is.....Where did Oswald learn to shoot from a elevated position? Also where did Oswald learn to make adjustments to his scope to shoot from elevated positions and on moving targets, please explain where this training had taken place?

This isnt something you read in a book and on the first day achieve success, that even the greatest sniper in U.S military history couldnt achieve when trying to duplicate Oswalds shooting that the WC said he did.

Please do not answer from the Marines as this is false, they do not train to shoot from elevated positions in Boot Camp, nor do they train in firing with a scope. Thats unless Oswald went to Sniper School in which we all know he did not.

One must know to compensate for "bullet drop", how to pan targets and take lead shots, this isnt skeet shooting with gran daddy's shotgun, it takes skill to shoot from a elevated position and ALOT of practice, something Oswald had neither of, skill or practice. And I wont even get into what the WC wants us to believe, that he used the worst POS rifle known to man kind, he might as well used a 1803 flint lock........

[Mark Stapleton]

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.

[Ron Ecker]

I have read numerous papers and statements on the medical evidence related to JFK's autopsy. Considering the locations and the types of wounds, I have to say it is more likely than not that JFK was (also) hit from the front.

What do you make of the discrepancy between the statements by the Parkland doctors and the autopsy physicians in Bethesda MD, inparticular to the location of the head wound?

Surely these issues add to the probability of a conspiracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm sure that's why he left these issues out. As I was reading I kept waiting for him to address the wound issues, the gaping hole in the right rear of JFK's head (obviously an exit wound) seen by the Secret Service, FBI, Parkland doctors and nurses, and Bethesda witnesses, and the back wound well below the top of the shoulder (at the third thoracic vertebra, according to the death certificate signed by Admiral Burkley), making exit through the throat afflicting Connally's wounds per the single bullet theory an absurd notion. But he didn't address them. Not a word about this most crucial evidence, which has to be addressed for any sensible conclusion to be reached, and with only one conclusion possible (more than one shooter). Quite remarkable.

Ron

Edited April 15, 2005 by Ron Ecker