Pat Speer

FWIW, I spent Boxing Day chatting with Chuck Ochelli about the JFK assassination and the research community. After almost an hour of our grumblings, he decided to start recording, LOL. In any event, for those with an interest, our chat can be found here. https://ochelli.com

Oh my. 1. After thinking about what they'd witnessed, and being shown the autopsy photos, Dr.s Carrico, Perry, Jenkins and Baxter all said they'd been mistaken, and that they had not seen cerebellum. 2. Dr. Peters continued to claim he saw cerebellum, but said he saw it from above, looking down into the skull. He pointed out just where he thought he saw this wound, moreover, and it was at the crown of the head, on the parietal bone. He was thereby not a witness to the occipital blow-out proposed by the back of the head cult. 3. You are incorrect if you think Clark doubled-down and said the back of the head was blown out. He actually dismissed CTs as money-grubbers and instead threw in with John Lattimer, the then King of the LNs. 4. .The photos in Groden's The Killing of the President do not suggest a blow out wound low on the back of the head. Far from it. They actually suggest that the occipital blow-out is a myth, or a con, take your pick. From chapter 16c: Now, look back at the photos in Groden's book reproduced on the previous slides... Is it a true statement that these witnesses "almost unanimously" pointed out a wound location at the LOW right rear of their heads? NO. NO. And HELL NO. Let's count then and make it official. First of all, we need to define our terms. For a wound to be LOW on the back of the head, it would have to be at the level of the ear or below, in the location of the wound in the "McClelland" drawing, correct? So let's run back through the photos and note which ones show someone pointing out a wound below the top of their ear. Beverly Oliver points out a large wound at the level of the ear and above. She represents 1 witness whose recollections are consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Phil Willis points out a wound above the level of his right ear. This means only 1 of 2 witnesses so far discussed have had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Marilyn Willis points out a wound on top of her head. This lowers the ratio to 1 of 3 witnesses. Ed Hoffman points out a wound at the top of the back of his head. This lowers it further to 1 of 4 witnesses. Ronald Jones points out a wound above and in back of his ear. This means the recollections of but 1 of 5 witnesses so far discussed are consistent with what Groden, Aguilar, Mantik, and Wecht have been feeding us. Charles Carrico points out a wound on the back of his head above his ear. The ratio drops to 1 of 6 witnesses. Richard Dulaney points out a wound at the top of his head. It spirals downward to 1 of 7 witnesses. Paul Peters points out a wound above his ear. It's clear now that only 1 of 8 witnesses had recollections consistent with what so many have long claimed. Kenneth Salyer points out a wound on the side of the head, by the ear. It bottoms out at 1 of 9 witnesses. Robert McClelland points out a wound on the back of his head, both below and above the top of the ear. This means but 2 of 10 witnesses so far discussed had recollections consistent with a wound at the low right rear. Charles Crenshaw points out a wound mostly behind the ear. He lifts the ratio back to 3 of 11 witnesses. Audrey Bell points out a wound at the level of her ear. The ratio soars to 4 of 12 witnesses...1 in 3. Theran Ward points out a wound by the ear. It drops back to 4 of 13 witnesses. Aubrey Rike points out a wound on the back of the head above the ear. The ratio drops to 4 of 14. Paul O'Connor points out a wound behind the ear. The ratio rises back to 5 of 15 witnesses. Floyd Riebe points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 6 of the 16 witnesses have depicted a wound at the low right rear. Jerrol Custer points out a wound behind the ear. Now, 7 of the 17 witnesses have depicted a wound consistent with the wound described in the conspiracy literature. Frank O'Neill points out a wound on the back of his head above the ear. So there you have it. Only 7 of these 18 witnesses can honestly be claimed to have described a wound at the "low right rear" a la Mantik and Wecht, at the "bottom of the back of the head," a la Lifton, or in the location depicted in the "McClelland" drawing, a la Groden. 7 of 18, need it be said, is not the "almost unanimous" claimed by Mantik and Wecht, based on the research of Aguilar, nor the "every" purported by Groden. Now...who were these 7? 1. While Beverly Oliver claims to have been one of the closest witnesses to the shooting, many if not most long time researchers doubt her claims, as she only came forward years after the shooting, and told some pretty wild stories. Even so her description of a wound on the back of the head is in keeping with the wound described by Dr. McClelland, and the drawing prepared by Phillip Johnson. Not exactly credible. 2. And then there's McClelland... In his initial report, McClelland described but one wound, a wound of the left temple. When asked in the 80's to show the location of the one wound he'd observed, moreover, he pointed to a location far above his ear, essentially at the top of the head, and inches away from where the wound was placed in the drawing mistakenly attributed to him. So, no, he is not much of an occipital witness, is he? 3. And Crenshaw... Yikes, Crenshaw. The problem with Crenshaw as a witness is that, not only did he fail to see Kennedy for more than a few seconds, his recollections were not recorded prior to the publication of the "McClelland" drawing showing him how other Parkland witnesses purportedly recalled the wound...or even in the decade after that. He also had a problem with anatomy, as demonstrated by the markings on anatomy drawings he made for the ARRB. Not only are the markings on the posterior and lateral views not in the same place, they barely even touch. Not a great witness. 4. And Audrey Bell... who was similar to Dr. Crenshaw in that, while she has been consistent in her claim that the wound was on the back of Kennedy's head, there is no record of her making this claim prior to the 1980's, long after the "McClelland" drawing was published in Six Seconds in Dallas. While some point to her claiming she saw the wound in a 1960's nursing article, moreover, this article actually damages her credibility, as she was at that time claiming she took possession of the official number of Connally wrist fragments, and this number grew significantly by the time she started yapping about the head wound. As a consequence, she has no credibility regarding the head wound. Zero. 5. And oh yeah, Paul O'Connor. O'Connor was not an occipital witness. Here is the drawing he'd created showing the wound to be entirely above the right ear, i.e. in the parietal region, not occipital region. In Groden's book, of course, he is pointing to a location below this. Well, it's a con. If you watch the video from which the image was taken you will see that O'Connor was pointing out an extensive wound from front to back, quite clearly the wound as observed when the brain was removed, and that Groden cherry-picked the frame with his hand at the back to deceive his readers. 6. And then there's Riebe... Riebe yessiree pointed to a location low on the back of the head for that photo, but he claimed he was incorrect about this after being shown the official autopsy photos by the ARRB. Not a credible occipital witness. 7. And finally, Custer. Well, much as he did with O'Connor, Groden took a frame from a clip of Custer pointing out the dimensions of the massive wound when the brain was removed and pretended this was Custer pointing out the location of a considerably smaller wound entirely on the back of the head in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing. It was a con. Fortunately, moreover, Custer was given the opportunity to clarify the situation and told the ARRB that he took the x-rays showing the back of the head to be intact beneath the scalp. And he went further than that... he also created a drawing for the ARRB showing that in his recollection the top of the back of the head was shattered beneath the scalp, but not blown out. So, YIKES, the frequent claim the witnesses in Groden's book were pointing to a wound low on the back of the skull, and that we should believe them, is utter hoo-ha. Vomit. Only a small minority actually believed there was a wound in this location, and not only were they not particularly credible, they were nowhere near as credible as they would need to have been for us to ignore the other so-called back of the head witnesses, who were most assuredly not witnesses to a wound low on the back of the head.

OMG. Do the research. Stop coughing up what people selling books and theories want you to believe. When you read the statements and testimony of the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Parkland witnesses, and the Bethesda witnesses they are united on one front. They saw one large wound. Period. No one saw two. Period. The first witnesses demonstrated the location on their own skulls...by the temple. The Parkland witnesses were a mixed bunch, but mostly said it was towards the back of the head. Some indicated as much by claiming to see cerebellum. The autopsy report, however suggests the wound was further forward than as described by these witnesses, basically at the top of the head above the ear. This led to speculation the wound was altered. This sold books and made people go "oooh!!!" When the photos became widely available, and supported the autopsy report, some within the research community changed course, and began claiming that the autopsy photos were faked. To support this argument, some began pretending the Parkland witnesses uniformly believed the back of the head was blown out. These writers pretended as well that the Parkland witnesses uniformly denounced the accuracy of the autopsy photos and uniformly accepted the so-called McClelland drawing as an accurate depiction of the one true wound. But this was a hoax. When shown a tracing of the back of the head photo and McClelland drawing by the Boston Globe, the witnesses were apprehensive about endorsing either one. In fact, more disputed the accuracy of the drawing than the tracing, Also telling, when shown the photos by NOVA, the doctors most involved in JFK's care, sans Clark, admitted they'd been mistaken in their earliest reports and testimony and uniformly agreed that the photos showing an intact back of the head were of JFK, and that no alteration of the body had been performed. Now, one doctor, McClelland, tried to have it both ways by saying he thought intact scalp had been pulled up to cover a gaping hole on the back of the head for the photo. But this was blithering nonsense. Two minutes with a book on gunshot wounds will tell you that the scalp at an exit is torn, and does not sag, let alone sag for inches down the back of the head to the extent it can be pulled back up to conceal a large exit wound. But the CT community persisted, coming up with wilder and weirder theories to support their unwarranted belief the back of the head was blown out--even if the only credible witnesses to say so no longer said so. David Lifton, for example, began telling people that at least two (or was it three) of the Parkland doctors who'd admitted their mistakes were actually in on the plot to kill JFK, and had been hired to alter his wounds in an ambulance before his body got to Parkland. Others insisted instead that these and other doctors were simply cowards, and were lying because they were suddenly scared, 25 years after they'd described the large wound as being on the back of the head in the only testimony in which their recollections actually mattered. Anything but admit that maybe just maybe the doctors had been incorrect about one thing in the reports written without access to notes...because they didn't take notes...hours after last looking at JFK's body, and after some of them had had a pow wow to get their stories straight. I mean, most everyone who's spent even one day researching the JFK case knows 11-22 was a ball of confusion, and that much of what was reported was nonsense. But for some reason all too many refuse to accept the obvious--that doctors can be confused, too. Now, this was the state of things around the time I joined this forum. I saw the intellectual inconsistencies and downright dishonesty among many of these pushing the back of the head story. And I wondered if, by golly, these claims the medical evidence had all been faked even made sense. So I set out on a years-long quest in which I read dozens of forensics texts, and studied hundreds of autopsy photos and x-rays...that led me not to abandon my beliefs there was more than one shooter, but embrace it, as the supposedly-fake medical evidence is 100% clear in its suggestion there were two head wounds, and almost certainly two shooters. Over the next 15 years, moreover, I would expand my scope to include the history of wound ballistics, the history of the HSCA, and the nature of JFK's brain injuries. And this journey further illuminated what had previously been unclear. 1. The autopsy reports suggest at least three wounds and, when studied alongside the Zapruder film, more than one shooter. 2. The medical evidence cover-up began not with the alteration of JFK's wounds, but with Dr. Humes' twisting the evidence within his report to suggest three shots and threes shots only. 3. After the WC realized the back wound was too low to support their belief the bullet creating the back wound exited Kennedy's throat, the cover-up went into overdrive, and the WC pressured the doctors to pretend the back wound was on the back of the neck. 4. After Tink Thompson published the WC's drawings alongside a frame from the Zapruder film, and showed the autopsy report's trajectory made little sense, moreover, the medical evidence cover-up entered phase three, and a secret panel was convened to "solve" this problem, which they "solved" by pretending the autopsy doctors were blithering idiots and that the entrance wound on the back of the head was really four inches higher on the back of the skull than claimed in the autopsy report, where no one saw such a wound, and where the doctors swore there was no such wound. 5. In its attempt to close the JFK case, the HSCA relied upon a number of supposed experts, some of whom twisted the evidence into pretzels in order to support the single-bullet theory and the single-assassin solution. This session of the cover-up is made clear, moreover, by the fact the HSCA's trajectory expert--the man tasked with lining up JFK's and JBC's wounds to see if they were in line with the sniper's nest--claimed JFK was leaning forward when shot in the back and then sat up a bit before being shot in the head...which is the exact opposite of what everyone studying the films knows to be true. In any event, it saddens me that so many "researchers" spend their days repeating dubious and oftentimes transparently false claims about what this or that guy said 30, 40, 50, 60 years after seeing something for all of 3 seconds...that they read about on the internet, no less.. but won't pick up a text book, and see if the "official" story even makes any sense. It's been a huge distraction.

Only one head wound was noted by the Newmans, Burkley, and Kilduff, and they were all pointing out the location of that wound. And please please don't post images like the one above, as it is deliberately deceptive. 1. Kilduff was pointing out the location of the one wound observed by Burkley and himself--the large wound observed by others, and shown in the autopsy photos. 2. The other 4 were pointing out where they thought there was a small entrance wound--long after such speculation became commonplace--or were pointing out where they thought they saw a wound in a photo...decades after being shown a photo. None of them were eyewitnesses to a wound in that location, which shouldn't come as a surprise, seeing as dozens of people got a glimpse at JFK's head and none of them saw an entrance wound in that location.

Except they weren't mistaken in precisely the same way, and very few said the wound was in the location presented in the McClelland drawing. The low occipital blow-out is a hoax. The only doctor to place it there is Crenshaw, and he failed to come froward for 30 years and only did so after becoming immersed in the CT literature. The same could be said for McClelland, who originally described a wound of the left temple--presumably meaning the right temple--and insisted for more than a decade that there was nothing about the wound to make him think a shot came from the front. The best evidence for such a wound is contained in the original reports, minus McClelland. And the key doctors--Perry, Carrico, Jenkins, Baxter, Clark--all later disavowed their statements regarding cerebellum within those reports and/or buddied up with the likes of John Lattimer, who claimed Oswald did it and the conspiracy crowd are wackos. In short, there is no way to present the Parkland witnesses as unified and consistent without cherry-picking and saying the men most involved in JFK's treatment were incompetent, cowards, or XXXXX.

The vast majority of witnesses, including McClelland, pointed above the ear. And several of those pointing to the level of the ear and below were pointing out the rear-most part of the skull defect once the scalp was peeled back and skull fell to the table. (And yes, Groden was pulling a fast one.) When the Boston Globe showed the back of the head photo to the Parkland witnesses, along with the McClelland drawing, moreover, more of these witnesses said the McClelland drawing was inaccurate than said the photo was inaccurate. And yet...for roughly 40 years...we've been told the Parkland witnesses uniformly claimed the wound was as depicted in the drawing. It is just not true. It is a hoax. As far as doctors pointing out wound locations...I hope you realize that that's not exactly scientific. None of them took notes. And none of them were asked to point out the location prior to the McClelland drawings publication in Thompson's book as a supposed depiction of what they saw. So...who did point out the wound location, in the immediate aftermath of the shooting?

Okay. Now go back and look at the photos of those pointing out a spot on the back of the head, and note how few of them are pointing out a location at the level of the ear and below.

You're on the right track. The number and length of the fractures is indeed inconsistent with a M/C bullet's entering low and exiting high while passing through nothing but brain.

Maybe I've watched too many movies, but my understanding has long been that when it comes to political journalism, access is everything. You want access, you gotta play footsie. I know Johnson and Nixon cut people off if their reporting made them look bad. And we've seen that happen with Trump--where he essentially banned CNN from the press room for asking too many questions, and allowed people who scarcely qualified as journalists--internet super-patriots who echoed whatever he said--to fill up his press conferences with softball questions, which were clearly orchestrated. Veteran Reporter: "Mr. President, I think America would like to know if you had an affair with that porn star. Did you?" Trump: "Sit back down. I didn't call on you. I am calling on you. (Points at someone no one has ever seen before.) Well, hello young lady." Young Lady No One Has Seen Before or Since: "Why thank you Mr. President. I would just like to know what you plan to do about those anti-American criminals at the DNC, who broadcast messages 24/7 throughout the third world telling the world's vermin they should come here." Trump: "I'm glad you asked... I am going to..."

My "stuff" is made of many conclusions on a number of aspects of the case. So I in fact do hope there is an exhumation, and would not mind in the least if an exhumation proved me wrong about the entrance location. I would however be surprised.

Well, I agree that some of the witnesses to the large wound were confused. But I thought you were saying there was no small entrance wound low on the back of the head. Every autopsy participant observing the small entrance wound said it was low on the head. Donahue was fooled by the Clark Panel, who said it was actually near the top of the head in the cowlick. The HSCA confirmed that. But most everyone to view the autopsy materials since have said there is no entrance where the Clark Panel placed the wound.

From patspeer.com, Chapter 13: Even more disturbing, a September 16, 1977 article distributed by UPI reported that Dr. Russell Morgan had spoken at Michigan State University the day before, and had told reporters that "Mr. Kennedy's X-rays showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that "Congressional investigators should concentrate on other elements in their inquiry into the assassination." Well, this is quite interesting. The last time Dr. Morgan had been quoted in the press about the assassination was but days before Dr. Cyril Wecht was to become the first non-government-affiliated pathologist to view the assassination materials at the archives, and in effect review his findings. And now, on the day before 6 members of the HSCA pathology panel were to visit the archives and review his findings, and meet with Dr. Humes (whose findings he'd rejected), Morgan re-appears, urging that no new study of the X-rays be conducted. In this context, his words read like a threat. Should everyone to look at the autopsy materials in between these two appearances have confirmed his findings, that would be one thing...but in 1975, Dr. Fred Hodges, a Professor of Radiology at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, where Morgan served as Dean, was asked to study Kennedy's X-rays on behalf the Rockefeller Commission, and had provided them a report which directly contradicted Morgan's re-interpretation of the head wound location. Yes, in a little discussed report long withheld from the public, in a passage rarely if ever quoted before I started broadcasting it all over the internet, Hodges refuted the findings of the Clark Panel, noting instead that "a small round hole visible from the intracranial side after the brain was removed is described in the autopsy report in the right occipital bone, and many of the linear fracture lines converge on the described site." Even worse, for Morgan, was the next line: "The appearance is in keeping with the colored photographs showing a large, compound, comminuted injury in the right frontal region, and a small round soft tissue wound in the occipital region." Morgan, of course, had claimed there was no wound in the occipital bone on the X-rays or photographs, and had pushed the Clark Panel into concluding the wound was actually four inches or more higher on the back of Kennedy's skull, in the parietal bone. Hodges' then still-secret report was thus bad news for Morgan. And seeing as Morgan was Hodges' boss, it was bad news that Morgan would almost certainly have discovered. It follows then that Morgan's urging congressional investigators to forget about the X-rays and focus on other matters may not have been so innocent, and was instead a plea designed to protect his own reputation. While this might seem a little harsh, let's remember Morgan's viewpoint but five years earlier. While he once was reportedly of the opinion that the X-rays were "produced in a hurry under extremely trying conditions" and were of "poor quality" and "severely over-exposed.," and that "great care and special techniques would be required before they would show the conclusive evidence," he now claimed they "showed conclusively that a single-bullet fired from behind was the cause of death" and that no further investigation was necessary. Perhaps he'd simply changed his mind and no longer felt the cowlick entrance he'd thought he'd "discovered" was a necessary ingredient to the single-assassin conclusion, and worth verifying. Or perhaps he simply didn't care if Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy or not, as long as his own reputation was protected

So all those claiming to see an EOP entry were lying? And all the descriptions by the doctors of an EOP entrance on the photos and x-rays were a hoax? What are you saying?

That's not what it says at all. He played footsie with the LBJ administration while trying to take down Garrison. He wasn't alone. A lot of people, including some in the JFK research community, thought Garrison was only in it to make a name for himself, while trashing America to the rest of the world. This playing footsie is not something he alone was doing, moreover. It's what most journalists do. They give the rich and powerful a heads up and a chance to respond, in exchange for access. Sometimes they bury a story in exchange for an exclusive. Sometimes they willingly serve up propaganda in exchange for a look behind the curtain...that they can later write about in their memoirs, etc.

FWIW, Dave Perry was another mixed bag. While he pushed the Oswald did it scenario for many years, I recall his speaking up in an 11-18-13 article and admitting he thought others may have been involved. I found that refreshing at the time, and still do. Here is a quote from that article... 5. “The CIA did it” This is the conspiracy theory that interests Perry the most. “The problem is, of all of them, this is one I can’t debunk,” he laughs. “Supposedly Kennedy was fed up with the shenanigans that the CIA was pulling,” Perry said. “He found out the CIA was trying to kill (Cuban leader Fidel) Castro, which is a fact. So the argument is that the CIA felt that Kennedy was going to disband them. And as a result of that, they were the ones that ordered the killing of Kennedy.” Perry points out that a former head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, was a member of the Warren Commission, the special Johnson-appointed panel tasked with the official investigation of the assassination. The commission determined that Oswald acted alone. Oswald was a supporter of Soviet-backed Cuba. “We know Oswald was in the Russian embassy in Mexico City,” Perry said. “We even know who he talked to. But we don’t know what was said. Then a few weeks later, he shoots Kennedy.” “It may have been something that they overheard involving him and the Russians. Or, maybe the CIA had Oswald on the payroll. He might have been a double agent.” Is it possible that Russians ordered Oswald to do it? Not likely, said Perry. The Russians would never have ordered Oswald to kill Kennedy because of his well-known links to Russia and his pro-Cuban sympathies. Russia’s leaders knew they would have been the first suspects if they’d engineered an assassination by Oswald. It would have been an act of war, which could have triggered a nuclear attack. “We need to know what happened in Mexico City,” Perry said. The answer, he said, may be contained in still-classified CIA documents. The U.S. National Archives currently holds a number of unreleased CIA documents related to the assassination. Those papers are scheduled to be made public in 2017 as part of the 1992 Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act.

What a crock!!! First of all, I think you're taking Duran and Hoover out of context. If you could point us to where they both said Oswald DID NOT go to Mexico it would be appreciated. (What Hoover said was that Oswald was impersonated in the photos--a point now accepted by most everyone. And besides, the FBI as an institution most certainly believed Oswald went to Mexico. As far as Duran, I seem to recall that she ended up talking to Phil Shenon for his book and that the point of contention was not that she claimed she never met with Oswald, but that she continued to dispute that she'd taken Oswald out to a dance, or whatever.) As far as me being the only one... Tell that to John Newman, and Fabian Escalante, and heck, all the Russians who met with Oswald at the Embassy.

Aynsworth was a mixed bag, as I suspect most men are. I do not doubt most of the bad things said about him. But I think it should be pointed out that he was quite helpful to Mark Lane when he first looked into the case, and even supplied him with the report saying no nitrates were found on Oswald's cheek. He was also helpful to Buell Frazier, as I recall, and encouraged him to come out of his cave and speak openly about the JFK case...all the while knowing that the bulk of what Frazier would be saying was CT stuff. So...not evil...human...

If you read ZR/Rifle you'll see that it has forms and photos submitted by the real Oswald to the Cuban government. This book was encouraged and authorized by Fabian Escalante, the head of Cuban intelligence. If he'd thought they'd been visited by a fake Oswald, he'd have said so. The Cuban Government's position is now, and always has been, that they were visited by the real Oswald.

No, because the Mexicans said so, the Russians said so, and the Cubans said so.

The books Passport to Assassination and ZR/Rifle were written by and with the assistance of members of Russian and Cuban intelligence. Both books claim the real Oswald was in Mexico City. Kostikov, for that matter, was interviewed for Passport to Assassination. As I recall he said he met the real Oswald. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Numerous witnesses claim they saw him while he was supposedly in MC. And he wasn't seen anywhere else when he was supposedly in MC. So Occam says he was in MC, right?

Not at all. I assume Brugioni was aware of and maybe even participated in the study performed by McMahon and Hunter. I admit I haven't studied the Brugioni story in detail. But I don't need to. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. 1. When did Brugioni's story first come out? To my understanding he was in his late 80's, right? 2. When was it first recorded, and by whom? If by Horne, well, hell, we can only assume Horne had long talks with him before he ever went on the record. Well, how do we know he wasn't pushed in certain directions? I read an obituary of Brugioni's. It said he reveled in story-telling, and spent his last years speaking before audiences, etc. IOW, he was an attention-seeker. Did Horne or anyone else obtain copies or accounts of his speeches, and compare them to the historical record? Brugioni may very well have been a fabulist, a la O'Donnell. 3. As to specifics... It is my understanding Brugioni claimed he'd worked with a team. Well, who were they? Did Horne track them down? Did he talk to them or their families to see if they could back up Brugioni? 4. McMahon and Hunter told Horne and the ARRB they came in on Saturday or Sunday, and worked through the night. If they'd come in on Sunday, and worked into Monday morning, wouldn't they have remembered it? I mean, that makes sense, right? if you work late Sunday into early Monday morning, you either don't come in on Monday, or come in very late. Either way, it clicks a box in your brain. And yet neither remembered anything about missing time on Monday. 5. I did see within the ARRB's files an interview with Rollie Zavada, in which he asserted the Rochester lab left initials on the films they'd developed, and that there was no such mark on the Z-film. Has this been countered? I mean, the belief the film was altered there suggests it was copied there as well, and that these copies were shipped out across the country and swapped out for the copies held by the FBI, SS, and Zapruder, right? Is there any evidence this was done? Is there any evidence the film viewed on Friday the 22nd was different than the film shown to reporters and sold what? That Monday? 6. Bottom line. The Z-film's trip to the NPIC wasn't thoroughly investigated by the ARRB. Not that one can blame them. At the time, no-one foresaw that someone would come forth years later with stories suggesting that McMahon and Hunter studied an altered film... If they had they would have interviewed as many former NPIC employees as possible, right? And maybe cleared it all up. Because as it, there is no support for Brugioni's claims, outside the recollections of his 80 plus year old brain, right?

Simple question, David. IF the Russians KNEW Oswald had never actually visited their embassy in Mexico City, WHY would they not have said something in the years and decades after the assassination? It was a cold war, largely fought through propaganda. IF Oswald had never visited them, and they knew it, they would have been given a propaganda bomb. Why wouldn't they use it?

So where was it? Prominent CTs have long claimed these people are pointing out a wound low on the far back of the head at the level of the ear, in the location depicted in the so-called "McClelland" drawing. Do you agree?

My recollection was that Lifton claimed he'd figured out that the film was taken to Hawkeye Works. Not that he'd made it up, but that he'd figured it out. From looking back through that old thread, it does indeed appear that he was the first to mention Hawkeye Works in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. But with the current availability of the ARRB's files, we can see that it was actually first brought up by McMahon. So...I honestly don't remember... Did Lifton read the ARRB files before writing his chapter? Or did he hear about it from Horne? And, if so, was this before or after the word "Hawkeye" was unredacted in the ARRB files? The thought occurs that Lifton read "Kodak Rochester" in the files and pieced together on his own that this was one and the same as Hawkeye Works. I'm hoping someone with the book can set me straight. P.S. Brugioni didn't work at Hawkeye Works. The Hawkeye Works story is pieced together from the statements of McMahon, who said he created some boards after the film was brought to him at NPIC from Hawkeye Works, and Brugioni, who later came to claim that he'd created boards for the film at NPIC the day before McMahon. His decades-later recollections, moreover, were that the film he worked on differed from the film on McMahon's boards--which is the film as known today. So there is no evidence Brugioni worked on the film outside Brugioni's say-so, and no actual evidence it was altered at Hawkeye Works. (To be clear, the belief it was altered there comes not from any witnesses to its alteration or paper trail demonstrating it was even there but conjecture holding that 1) McMahon's decades-later recollection it was brought to him from there is accurate, 2) Brugioni's decades later recollection of working on the film the day before McMahon is accurate, and 3) Brugioni's decades-later recollection of the specifics of the film are accurate.) P.P.S. In looking back through the ARRB file, a few more problems emerge. Both McMahon and Hunter were unsure if they looked at the film Saturday night or Sunday night. If Saturday, of course, Brugioni's claim is debunked. There's also some disagreement on whether they were working on an original film, or a copy. As Hunter felt fairly certain there were no images by the sprocket holes, for that matter, his recollections suggest it was a copy.