David Josephs

That certainly seems plausible David. Given that Frazier was apparently under extreme duress with the possibility of being charged with the murder of the President looming, it seems likely he would have said whatever was needed to get himself out of that situation.

Yet his rifle and ammo was STILL taken from him...

How can this possibly be related if the rifle was at Wesley's place?

And why would Rose and Stovall even bother with him AND HIS RIFLE on the 22nd? unless to intimidate?

Confiscated Evidence??

Cheers

DJ

I apologize if this has been posted before. A quick search did not reveal it.

In the video, Frazier says he was arrested by two detectives at his home, who then told Fritz that he was being honest and didn't know anything, but that this was not accepted. Frazier then reveals the police tried to force him to sign a confession admitting he assisted in the assassination.

http://www.primecollective.com/buell-frazier/

Had not seen that Josh, thanks

Do you get the feeling he "un"says that they were going to charge him and miraculously the paper bag is born... and coroborrated by family...

and no one else.

Mr. BALL - Did he come in with anybody?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - No.

Mr. BALL - He was alone?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes; he was alone.

Mr. BALL - Do you recall him having anything in his hand?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I didn't see anything, if he did.

Mr. BALL - Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Well, I believe I can---yes, sir---I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time.

Mr. BALL - In other words, your memory is definite on that is it?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - In other words, you would say positively he had nothing in his hands?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I would say that---yes, sir.

Mr. BALL - Or, are you guessing?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - I don't think so.

Mr. BALL - You saw him come in the door?

Mr. DOUGHERTY - Yes.

Completely agree... yet I get the feeling LBJ was more "opportunist" than planner...

And with as much hate as there was against JFK at the time... STEERING the hate was more important than anything else... Aren't the best plans those that dont look like plans at all?

"Making it easier" could have been the plan of the reluctant conspirators... yet as Harry Dean mentions, there HAD to be something pretty substantial to keep EVERYONE from saying something and going along...

I simply do not believe that people in 2012 can grasp the electricity in the air in Dallas, the USA and the World in 1963. Secrecy, Fear... this was when it STARTED.... not where we are now where Fear and Secrecy are the expected norm... corruption and scandal - expected...

In 1963 the great ole USA could do no wrong in the minds of its people... and its government was believed, period. That we come to find something different as the years peel away the lies goes to show that history will forever repeat itself as long as WE THE PEOPLE let it.

Nelson and David Rockefeller may have had nothing to fear... but they the same token Lyndon Johnson was within days of personal and political destruction by the Kennedys.

I am a lot more sure of the Lyndon Johnson/Texas oil men angle than I am of the Rockefellers. The testimonies of Madeleine Brown, Barr McClellan and Billie Sol Estes are are permanent indictment of Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassionation.

I will agree with many if not most JFK researchers that military intelligence did the actual killing of JFK. But Lyndon Johnson had a knack for micro-managing details and he was long experienced at plots as well as killing people (killing Henry Marshall, getting Malcolm Wallace out of jail despite a murder *conviction* in 1952 in Austin.

Lyndon Johnson and his Texas oil men (Murchison, H.L. Hunt) used their military intelligence connections to murder John Kennedy.

If Allen Dulles and Gen. Ed Lansdale were involved, it really makes me think Nelson and/or David Rockefeller were also giving a green light to the JFK assassination.

Most people had no idea how "in bed" LBJ was with the Rockefellers, the CIA and the CFR. LBJ was the appropriator for the military-industrial complex for all of the 1950's. LBJ was one of a handful of senators and congressmen with oversight of the newly created CIA. LBJ and his aide Walter Jenkins had Q-clearance, which is an extremely high level of intelligence clearance. At that level, one can look at any of the nation's atomic secrets.

Most JFK researchers don't know that Clint Murchison went dove hunting in Mexico in the summer of 1963 with John J. McCloy, the chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations from 1953-1970. Clint Murchison was LBJ inner circle; McCloy was Rockefeller inner circle. Read Kai Bird's biography on McCloy; it discusses the McCloy-Texas oil man connection.

The Rockefellers left fewer fingerprints in the JFK assassination; but if Dulles, Lansdale and yes, LBJ, were involved, then they most likely were involved, too.

John Kennedy was estranged from both the Western "Cowboys" of Texas oil men and military contractors AND the Eastern "Yankees" as denoted by Rockefellers, CFR, and CIA.

And Lyndon Johnson? He was plugged into all those groups: BFF with Nelson Rockefeller to boot!

"Lyndon Johnson, one of the key players in the JFK assassination,"

Hey there Robert...

It was refreshing to read this post of yours where you seem to be taking a step back from LBJ all powerful MASTERMIND of the assassination... which he wasn't..

He was indeed, a "player" and benefitted enormously (hint: read as "highly motivated")

Do you really see this as David or Nelson sitting at the dining room table mapping out an assassination strategy? or more likely those wishing to remain on the "King's"

good side and maybe even pull that thorn from his paw... made it happen?

If one believes Harry Dean... the mechanics were equally as crazed right wing militia ready to literally die for the purity of their country. The Rockefellers MAY have pushed that pebble down the mountain.... but that's the great part of being one of "THEM" - no direct connection, no risk, all reward.

LBJ could have been taken out just as easily and he knew it...

David and Nelson had nothing to fear... ever.

Dulles had their protection

Hoover might have had some of their fears so he was kept on place

And Dillon? Not sure but I feel as if the SS Senior Staff did not let this one go to Dillon... yet it was not as if he wasn't in the Rockefeller embrace...

Flyod Boring and E. Roberts more likely as well as Rowley...

Through the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial, established by John D. Rockefeller, Jr. in 1918 and named after his mother, the family shifted the focus of philanthropy into the social sciences, stimulating the founding of university research centres and creating the Social Science Research Council. This memorial fund was subsequently folded into the foundation in a major reorganization in 1928/9.

John D. Rockefeller, Jr. became the foundation chairman in 1917. One of the many prominent trustees of the institution since has been C. Douglas Dillon, the United States Secretary of the Treasury under both Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson. The foundation also supported the early initiatives of Henry Kissinger, such as his directorship of Harvard's International Seminars and the early foreign policy magazine Confluence, both established by him while he was still a graduate student.[15]

Nelson Rockefeller certainly is a very fine candidate for involvement in the JFK assassination. And possibly David Rockefeller, too.

McGeorge Bundy was originally invited to his first Bilderberger conference by Dean Rusk, JFK's hawkish Secretary of State who was a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation from 1950 to 1961. From 1952 to 1961 he was the president of the Rockefeller Foundation.

David Rockefeller was a very big presence at Bilderberger meetings for decades and well as having huge influence in the Council on Foreign Relations.

McGeorge Bundy is the one who as JFK's national security advisor, who was running the Situation Room on the day of 11/22/63, immediately and unreasonably, and contrary to the emerging evidence, adopts the lone nutter view.

The Council on Foreign Relations for decades has been the point of the spear in the cover up of the JFK assassination.

Allen Dulles was the president of the CFR in 1949; his secretary of the CFR at that time was McGeorge Bundy. Allen Dulles is the one who performed so outrageously on the Warren Commission farce.

Allen Dulles: “that little Kennedy. . .he thought he was a god.”

Lyndon Johnson, one of the key players in the JFK assassination, secretly supported Republican Nelson Rockefeller for president in the spring of 1968, after LBJ had withdrawn from the race. I consider that highly significant and related to the cover up of the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson and Lady Bird also used to vacation with Lawrence Rockefeller.

Robert Dallek on the LBJ/Nelson Rockefeller alliance:

“Johnson’s choice as his successor was New York’s Republican Governor Nelson Rockefeller. The two men had a high regard for each other. Johnson saw Rockefeller as a sensible moderate who, in Lady Bird’s words, “was a good human being, a person who was for the disadvantaged, who was a man of compassion, with a capable and effective mind, and capable of being effective, getting things done.” He also believed that Rockefeller was the one man who could beat Bobby Kennedy, no small asset in Johnson’s mind.

Rockefeller reciprocated Johnson’s feelings. He saw the President as “a great statesman and great American patriot.” Rockefeller said later: “He was a tremendous guy.” They and their wives enjoyed a warm personal relationship. Nelson recalled how frank his wife Happy could be with Lyndon, telling him at the ranch not to drive so fast or drink too much. “She was successful in getting him to slow down, which I don’t think most people were.” …

Toward the end of April [1968], Johnson invited the Rockefellers to the White House for dinner, where he urged the governor to declare for the Republican nomination. “He was very friendly about ’68, and very supportive of me for ’68,” Rockefeller said. Johnson also told him he would never campaign against him. Happy Rockefeller remembered how during that evening Johnson urged Rockefeller to run. “He did want Nelson to be President,” she said. Johnson encouraged others to back Rockefeller as well. On April 7, after Irwin Miller, a prominent member of “Republicans for Johnson” in 1964 had asked whether the president would object to his chairing a Draft Rockefeller Committee, LBJ have Miller “a full speed go-ahead.”

Rockefeller did not need much prodding. On April 10, following a brief conversation with Johnson at New York’s St. Patrick’s Cathedral, where they attended Archbishop Terence Cooke’s installation, Rockefeller announced his “availability” for the Republican nomination. On April 30, after the White House evening, Rockefeller declared himself a candidate for the presidency.” [p. 545, A Flawed Giant, Robert Dallek]

I've always thought this passage rang true:

From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:

“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA's counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, "What group were these tapes identifying?" Parker replied: "Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, JOHNSON of Texas, GEORGE BUSH, and J. Edgar Hoover." I asked, "What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?"

I don't have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, "Are we going to have any problems?" And he said, "No, we aren't going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we'll do our job." There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn't realize that his phone has been tapped. Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, p. 638-639]

Let's not forget that if Gen. Ed Lansdale was at Dealey Plaza supervising the JFK assassination, then it is highly likely that both Allen Dulles and Nelson Rockefeller were involved in the JFK assassination.

And then there is the matter of the Rockefeller Commission, with his chief counsel David Belin, and which was yet another cover up of the JFK assassination. Nelson Rockefeller put his imprimatur on that one.

It may have been touched upon...

wouldn't the SS have to be told some story that would elicit that poor a response?

An exercise that they were told about ahead of time perhaps... as there really is no way to explain the behavior away...

no two ways, Kellerman should have been over JFK after the first SOUND like a shot.

Greer... speeding off.

what could they have been told to make sure they 1) put the limo out front, and 2) didn't react?

had to have been pretty good.

You aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know Glenn...

And you simply do not want to know that your snippet and the JFK shot have nothing whatsoever to do with each other...

But if you want to continue to make your point with non sequitur... and then build your case with your hands over your ears/mouth/eyes

have at it.

I explained the differences... the man in your snippet does not move since the bullet only contacts a very small portion of the man's skull and is thru without an explosion of the skull.

A better question is why are you using an example of a shot that does not blow chunks of skull from the victim?

Newton then is correct since you snippet does not allow for anough mass to push thru the skull to move the man...

Now, if you were to try a hollow-point bullet that mushrooms and/or fragments as it tunnels so that much more surface area is affected...

you get something resembling the JFK shot...

And why do you not acknowledge the real extent of the motion... In your snippet the man falls to the ground... does the bullet do this or is this the result of gravity on a dead person?

JFK's head moves because the bullet hits the top right front... His shoulders barely move at all...

He falls to the left FROM GRAVITY.... just like your snippet

He falls to BACK due to the limo moving and again, GRAVITY and the fact the shot came from the right... not behind... if from behind, in the way he was sitting, he would have fallen to his right..

but again..

If you dont want to open yourself to possibilities to answer your question then it seems you simply have an agewnda that does not include finding or discussing answers

and only includes your POV... which again is fine... but then don't keep asking the same question hoping for a different answer...

DJ

Glenn...

Let's please stay on the same page...k?

I am saying as well as providing the supporting evidence, that JFK's HEAD and arms move AFTER his brains are blown out...In your little snippet... where is the blowing open of the skull? Blood shooting high into the air? A piece the size of HARPER blown off?

None of this explains the difference shown in the two snippets, the Z-film and the VC soldier. Why is there no head move in my snippet?

You are circling the question, but you have not explained it. Physical laws tells us that we should not expect the head to move as the result of a bullet passing through. Which is exactly what we see in the little snippet I provided, right?

Did you SEE what Boswell says the head looked like? From one FMJ bullet??

All you showed us was a small calibre hole at point blank range from a handgun with nowhere NEAR the velocity or the ammo type...

Yes, do you know the muzzle velocity of the S&W 38? It should be roughly half of that from the Mannlicher Carcano. If this is why we should not expect the VC-guy's head to move, you are more than welcome to explain this.

But other than that your snippet is a perfect example of the JFK headshot...

From all I've read, what happens when a bullet strikes is close to impossible to determine other than

Small hole in - LARGE hole out... and that in a vehicle moving forward, and a person going from alive to dead...

the person will fall AWAY from the shot and opposite from the movement of the vehicle based on gravity and the laws of motion.

Back and to the LEFT... the bullet is only one small piece of the equation to determine JFK's movements... look at my graphic again... his right shoulder barely moves..

Tell you what... take your snippet, and at the moment he is shot, have someone push on his chest, just a small push, right after the shot...wanna guess which direction he's gonna fall?

None of this explains anything of what I asked for. You know David, It's fine with me that you regard this stuff as sufficient evidence about this, but please don't expect me to do that.

I'm simply asking a question, to which there are so far no answers. Let's narrow it down, forget about President Kennedy for a moment and explain the sequence displayed in the VC-snippet? Why no head movement?

Let's try it this way. If I could read only one book about the JFK assassination, what book would you recommend? And to what percentage do you consider it accurate?

Mike,

After reading this entire thread, I too agree with some, disagree with some yet feel as if you've taken the next step with Nazi's yet not with the CIA.

Even Douglas' book does not delve into the men behind the men...

Have you read "None Dare Call it Conspiracy"? http://www.kamron.com/none_dare_call_it_conspiracy.htm

I come from a Finance background... Money/Banking and Marketing to boot....

The selling of "Nothing to see here, just move on" is explained very well... (also see XAT's "History of Money" as well as parts of "Zeitgeist")

The Military DID it (edit: also remember that EVERYONE was in or had been in the military at one time or another in 1963.. THEY were the big boys, not the CIA)

The CIA created the stories to COVER IT UP

The Johnson Administration, FBI and everyone who has ever argued for or against a conspiracy ASSISTED THE COVERUP by not aloowing us to admit how transparent it was (Salandria)

The PLAYERS benefitted by now playing a more interesting, costly and important "game"

While The OWNERS, those international Money Men... and by default those in bed with them as captains of: industry, media, natural resources, etc were the BENEFACTORS

Even the "lowliest" human will find a way to get ahead whether it be cheating, lying, stealing or blaming others

Now add an Ivy league education, the right friends and gobs of money... and the same person simply affects a bigger audience...

... add control of a nation's money supply...

and I would venture to say that NOTHING earthly would be able to stand in the way... and voila... the Council on Foreign Relations.

IMHO, "None Dare" is the book that explains the WHY, BEHIND the JFK assassination...

Peace

DJ

"Please, please don't bring up Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman"

There are 50 others who will tell us about the GK shooter... so that's fine.

"Contempory News Reports" told us three shots, three hits... JFK first, JC next, then JFK... books and articles published well into 1964 say the same thing.

Three seperate and distinct shots that each hit something... and yet.. there are RESULTS in DP that point to well more than just 3 shots... but you know that.

and here you go... avlused:

and the cover-up of said hole:

Glenn...

Let's please stay on the same page...k?

I am saying as well as providing the supporting evidence, that JFK's HEAD and arms move AFTER his brains are blown out...

In your little snippet... where is the blowing open of the skull? Blood shooting high into the air? A piece the size of HARPER blown off?

Did you SEE what Boswell says the head looked like? From one FMJ bullet??

All you showed us was a small calibre hole at point blank range from a handgun with nowhere NEAR the velocity or the ammo type...

But other than that your snippet is a perfect example of the JFK headshot...

From all I've read, what happens when a bullet strikes is close to impossible to determine other than

Small hole in - LARGE hole out... and that in a vehicle moving forward, and a person going from alive to dead...

the person will fall AWAY from the shot and opposite from the movement of the vehicle based on gravity and the laws of motion.

Back and to the LEFT... the bullet is only one small piece of the equation to determine JFK's movements... look at my graphic again... his right shoulder barely moves..

Tell you what... take your snippet, and at the moment he is shot, have someone push on his chest, just a small push, right after the shot...

wanna guess which direction he's gonna fall?

As per the no evidence of two shots nuttiness, Gad you cannot be serious can you? But the thing is, I actually think you are. Maybe you can find a way to dismiss all those witnesses who saw a rather large and avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head? Or the stuff flying across the trunk of the car which Jackie was reaching for. I have absolutely no doubt that, with your affliction of McAdams' DIsease, you can do this. And that affliction allows you to also dismiss the Robinson testimony about the small hole in the right front of JFK's head.

The only shooter was seen, and heard, up in that sixth floor window of the TSBD (although, true to form, you maintain that no shots were fired from that window). Please, please don't bring up Jean Hill, Gordon Arnold or Ed Hoffman.

Most witnesses heard three shots. I'm not aware of a single contemporary news report that said there were more, and I've seen and heard quite a few of those.

The Zapruder film doesn't show a large and avulsed wound at the back of JFK's head.

No doubt there are reasons to explain what we see...

What caught my eye was watching these frames in context - it SEEMS as if JFK is hit again thru the top of the head...

Probably the effect of the blurr and camera movement... but it SEEMS that his head moves much more abnormally than just blur.

Just a theory... a hypothesis... to explain the hole in the lower head and the trail of particles in the upper....

A common distinction made in science is between theories and hypotheses. Hypotheses are individual empirically testable conjectures; while theories are collections of hypotheses that are logically linked together into a coherent explanation of some aspect of reality and which have individually or jointly received some empirical support.

And of course Craig... I have no idea how blurring works. and you haven't a clue about how math shows the zfilm impossible...

We'll just leave it at that and call it even.....

when you can figure out why the WCR tell us the limo was only going 3mph from z161-z166... you let us know... if not, we can explain it again.

I'll start measuring blur... after you explain how to do it correctly and actually SHOW US... like we do with the math.

And then we can talk about the assassiantion itself... you got the chops to present something other than photo analysis...

or just going to stay in your safe little world where conclusions and connections are irrelevent to your participation?

As I was examing the extent of the fall "back and to the left" I noticed the blurrs and clarity of these three frames

and what looks like a shot flying thru the top of JFK's head.

At 318 the entire frame is blurred as one expects... yet on 319... the background is not blurry while the foreground is a mess...

If one shot when thru the right temple and out the back... "something" had to leave the trail of particles high up... (if the xrays are trustworthy for this)

Simultaneous shots accomplishes this and would be good reason to remove key frames

DJ

Just a note.

This is not about Jim DiEugenio, David Josephs, Paul, me or anyone else. It's about finding out what happened at Dealey Plaza that day. We can bitch about this and that, and win a few battles, but in the end it's all about getting answers. In my view, this discussion about the head shot is just another matter that needs to be resolved. And in my view I think that the question I brought forward today, need to be properly answered.

//GV

Glenn, the movement of a head after being shot is related to how much of the bullet's energy is left in the head. A high-velocity bullet shooting straight through a head will impart very little energy to the head. The movement of the head will be negligible. A low velocity bullet, such as that fired from a handgun, would similarly cause very little movement. But a high-velocity bullet which fragments upon impact will impart far more energy to the head than normal, and cause far more movement than normal.

I have concluded that the bullet struck Kennedy at the supposed exit, from behind, and that this led to a reaction much like the reaction one would have to being slapped on the top of the head--the chin flies down and bounces back, and the elastic recoil of the neck muscles leads him to fall backwards.

Or, as explained by Newton's laws... his head moves forward as he is hit from the front... a slight move and EXACTLY what would be expected...

until the bullet destroys all of the motor functions for the man and he essentially falls limp to his left... away from where the shot originated.

That someone of your knowledge base and history would still talk about the headshot coming from the rear is simply amazing to me.

If he was hit from behind he would have done exactly the opposite... slight move toward the bullet and then fall away from it... he does no such thing.

And if Z was the ONLY evidence then I agree, a discussion is in order... but it is no where NEAR the only evidence for a frontal shot...

When all toaken together... it is impossible to conclude that shot(s) were not fired from the right front.

That we are even discussing it is a surprise Pat. If you of all people are going to argue against a frontal shot... is that what you're doing?

DJ

Glenn... then deal with this please.

I am stating that his body did not move nearly as much as it was made out to be... and that his head moves an entire width for very good reason.

He was not THROWN back and to the left...

He was leaning left, shot in the right front, his head moves back as described below and the body falls...

How is this inconsistent with a frontal shot (along with blood and gore that was sprayed back and left)

and how is this CONSISTENT with a shot from the rear?

You should also notice that there is no "back splatter" that propels the head anywhere... nor does the man fall INTO the shooter... but slightly away.

Add some mushrooming and a slight explosion and your snippet would show the same thing as what happened to JFK

DJ

Okay Glenn... slowly this time and with feeling...

One is shot with a pistol at point blank range - the hole with blood fountaining out did NOT fragment on impact, did NOT blow a hole out the back of his head,

but DID enter his head in just about the same spot but in a different angle.

The OTHER SHOT... was fired at less than 2000fps (please see bullet fragmentation chart), MAY have been a fragmenting bullet based on the trail of particles left in the head,

and could have imparted much more force if expanding than the pistol shot

BUT WELL MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT that JFK did not move nearly as much as you are making it out to be...

The major movement was centered around his HEAD... since he was hit at the right, top, front we can at least agree that external stimuli to that part of the head would AT LEAST push his head up and back a bit....

JFK's head moves around the right shoulder... if the body FLEW BACK as you describe then the immediate motion would be in his entire torso... it is not...

His head moves, his arms go limp, and he falls to the left after his head is pushed back.. the bottom frame in my graphic is the farthest point to the rear he goes...

Very little motion at all compared to z312...

Yes, the head moves its entire width... but the rest of his body does what we see in that film... it simple falls based on gravity and motion ala Newton.

3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

There is nothing we see in Z that contradicts this law, nor is there a HUGE backandtotheleft movement of his BODY...

and Glenn... I asked a question of you - show us any other FMJ bullet doing the damage shown in the xray...leaving a trail of vapor and micro sized particles..

surely in all of history this is not the ONLY TIME it ever happened...

you know, like the first time steel building(s) ever fell and disintegrated down due to fire... 3 times in the same day.

Seems that Paul has got MIA...

Paul... help us understand the extent of the movement YOU see... I see a very short distance in a very short timeperiod...

Are you still saying that he was thrown BACK and to the LEFT in such a manner as to make it impossible in a real physcial world?

Hi,

I've just watched 3 Shots That Changed America. A superb film, for those who haven't seen it. A superb film for those who have seen it. It doesn't tow any particular line.

In the second part, there is a clip of the first showing of the Zapruder film, on Goodnight America in 1975.

We all know what happened to JFK following the headshot; he moved violently backwards, and to the left. Now, anyone who has no understanding of the basic laws of physics (possibly having watched too many films), will assume, as Robert Groden did on that broadcast, that this demonstrates a shot from the front (later in the film, Robert Groden repeated this fallacy during the HSCA meetings: 'Entirely consistent with a shot from the front,' he said).

I wondered then if it was possible for everyone here to agree on one thing, that the movement of JFK following the headshot does not prove that he was shot from the front.

Paul.

Okay Glenn... slowly this time and with feeling...

One is shot with a pistol at point blank range - the hole with blood fountaining out did NOT fragment on impact, did NOT blow a hole out the back of his head,

but DID enter his head in just about the same spot but in a different angle.

The OTHER SHOT... was fired at less than 2000fps (please see bullet fragmentation chart), MAY have been a fragmenting bullet based on the trail of particles left in the head,

and could have imparted much more force if expanding than the pistol shot

BUT WELL MORE IMPORTANT IS THE FACT that JFK did not move nearly as much as you are making it out to be...

The major movement was centered around his HEAD... since he was hit at the right, top, front we can at least agree that external stimuli to that part of the head would AT LEAST push his head up and back a bit....

JFK's head moves around the right shoulder... if the body FLEW BACK as you describe then the immediate motion would be in his entire torso... it is not...

His head moves, his arms go limp, and he falls to the left after his head is pushed back.. the bottom frame in my graphic is the farthest point to the rear he goes...

Very little motion at all compared to z312...

Yes, the head moves its entire width... but the rest of his body does what we see in that film... it simple falls based on gravity and motion ala Newton.

3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear.

There is nothing we see in Z that contradicts this law, nor is there a HUGE backandtotheleft movement of his BODY...

and Glenn... I asked a question of you - show us any other FMJ bullet doing the damage shown in the xray...leaving a trail of vapor and micro sized particles..

surely in all of history this is not the ONLY TIME it ever happened...

you know, like the first time steel building(s) ever fell and disintegrated down due to fire... 3 times in the same day.

Question: If Vice President Lyndon Johnson was a "facilitator" in the JFK assassination, isn't he *by definition* also a "sponsor" of the JFK assassination?

I mean, the vice-presidency ain't exactly beanbag is it? And if Lyndon Johnson was not a sponsor of the JFK assassination; then *who* would be? Name names, folks. Feel free to speculate - after years, decades of reserch you have earned that right.

Charles Drago:

"Let me set the record straight: My friend and mentor George Michael Evica correctly understood and thoroughly documented LBJ's criminal role in the assassination conspiracy to be that of Facilitator. He properly identified LBJ as a FALSE Sponsor of the assassination.

Further, George Michael was among the vanguard of deep political scientists who at an early date understood and documented the fact that far from pulling deep political strings, the occupants of the Oval Office were in fact among the puppets whose strings were being pulled by forces who operated behind and above the painted backdrops of Cold War differences.

With the exception, that is, of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Hence the need for his removal."

Robert Morrow's reply: If Lyndon Johnson, as Vice President, was a "facilitator" in the JFK assassination, then by defintion LBJ was one of the key, core, inner circle plotters of JFK's murder. The new president Lyndon Johnson would be critical to the cover up of the JFK assassination and the plotters were fully aware of this. LBJ could not have been a "backbencher," he had to have been one of the "star players" of the JFK assassination.

I have no doubt that Lyndon Johnson was urging on his fellow Cold Warriors behind the scenes to eliminate John Kennedy; and he was probably using the cause of "national security" in that effort.

Robert...

My jury is still out on LBJ's exact role yet one has to accept he benefitted and was just the right person for the job...

YET,

Couldn't his awareness of "something in the works" just led him to plan to take full and complete advantage of the situation when/if the time arose?

The people in charge didn't necessarily WANT LBJ... they simply DIDN'T want JFK to interfere any longer. Evil usually recognizes Evil... which could by why LBJ went along and hoped to gain favor with a force that even he recognized was well behond his reach. LBJ behaves the same way post assassination whether he planned it or not... His own planning of it and control of it could not be near as complete as the CFR backed conspirators... nor would LBJ be worried or concerned about his being taken out if it was his doing...

It wasn't... Not to the extent you would have us accept - at least not yet for me. It's much more plausible that LBJ realizes how little power as POTUS he would really have, yet how much more he would have if he cooperated...

He KNEW something bigger was involved, something that for the first time he would not be able to control, murder or intimidate - and that scared the piss out of him.

So he did what he was told - primarily by Bundy.... got his war, got his wealth, and saw first hand how he was no longer the big bully on the block.

Just today's POV on LBJ. I don't see how a cadre of elite international bankers would give LBJ a second's thought other than to use, as they use any other resource.

Cheers Robert

DJ

So the handgun example was one of these bullets that fragmented and disintegrated THRU the man's head?

How does the track of particles and fragments MOVE UP above the line of either the WCR OR the HSCA entracne wounds?

and please provide ANY EXAMPLE ANY WHERE IN HISTORY where a FMJ bullet left a trail of micro-sized and normal sized fragments...

The speed to cause a FMJ bullet to fragment into IDENTIFIABLE pieces is much faster than the MC could fire...

The REAL question is how did the hole in the right rear happen if the frontal shot disintegrated into these fragments well above where the bullet exited... and the only thing I can come up with are from tests of holoow-point ammo... there is usually a large fragment of two that is left... and THIS would have caused the hole in the right rear while the rest of the bullet was either left all thru JFK's head or the extra with those fragments is NOT JFK...

DJ

"An expanding bullet is a bullet designed to expand on impact, increasing in diameter to limit penetration and/or produce a larger diameter wound. It is informally known as a Dum-dum or a dumdum bullet. The two typical designs are the hollow point bullet and the soft point bullet"

In essence, the hollow point bullet has several purposes: hollow points designed to expand increase in size once within the target, thus maximizing tissue damage and blood loss or shock, and to remain inside the target, thereby transferring all of its kinetic energy to that target (some fraction would remain in the bullet if it passed through instead). Jacketed hollow points (JHPs) or plated hollow points are covered in a coating of harder metal to increase bullet strength and to prevent fouling the barrel with lead stripped from the bullet. The term hollow-cavity bullet is used to describe a hollow point where the hollow is unusually large, sometimes dominating the volume of the bullet, and causes extreme expansion or fragmentation on impact.

Soft-point bullets are less common than hollow points, due to the slower expansion and greater penetration, but they fill roles that hollow points do not. In some cases the reduced expansion is desired, so that more penetration is achieved before the bullet begins the rapid deceleration caused by expansion. In other cases, the smooth, rounded profile typical of a soft-point bullet is preferred over the concave tip of a hollow point, because the latter tends to suffer failure to feed malfunctions in certain magazine-fed firearms. Many of the more modern magazine-fed firearms were expressly designed to feed hollow points reliably, but many older and military-derived designs were not. Many military firearms, especially pistols, were designed to fire only full metal jacket bullet (FMJ) ammunition, and will suffer failures to feed with hollow-point ammunition, leaving soft-point ammunition the best choice for non-military defensive purposes in these firearms. Military firearms are designed to use FMJ rounds because the Hague Convention prohibits nations which are signatory to the convention from using expanding bullets in warfare. However, this convention does not apply to individuals in non-warfare situations, such as law enforcement, personal defense and hunting.

How did Roscoe White end up with a "backyard" photo ?

In the HSCA the footnote for

(368) (2) A photograph designated as 133C-Dees, obtained from

the Dees' widow ; (156)

(156) See ref. 150.

(150) Staff summary of interview with Mrs. G. Dees, Jan. 5, 1977, House

Select Committee on Assassinations (J .F .K . Document 004030)

2. The Dees (White) Photo

HSCA VI, p 141

The committee obtained an 8 X 10 print of an additional view of Oswald holding the rifle in a pose different from CE 133-A or generation print, * was given to the committee on December 30, 1976 by Mrs. Geneya Dees of Paris, Tex,

According to Mrs. Dees, it had been acquired by her former husband, Roscoe White, now deceased, while employed with the Dallas Police at the time of the assassination. The panel designated this recently discovered photograph as 133-C.

Gil - can you dig up this document? J .F .K . Document 004030

This is related to the 133C prints - yet we NEVER had an original negative for either A or C prints....

Both are enlargements from the original negative.*

*Dallas police officer R. L. Studebaker testified to the House Select Committee

on Assassinations that in 1963, while working in the Dallas Police Department

Photography Laboratory, he made numerous copies of the Kennedy photographic

evidence for fellow Dallas police officers ; included in the pictures distributed

were prints of CE 133-A and CE 133-B as well as of the third pose not

seen by the Warren Commission. Testimony of R. L. Studebaker, supra note 127.

Mr. BALL. Have you had some experience in operating a camera?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. How much?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Well, on this certain camera?

Mr. BALL. Yes.

Mr. STUDEBAKER. About 2 months.

Mr. BALL. But you have had photography in your crime lab work?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Yes.

Mr. BALL. For how long?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Was about 2 months.

Mr. BALL. How long have you done photography altogether?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. In my lifetime?

Mr. BALL. No, as one of the assistants in the crime lab, what period of years?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. 2 months. I went to the crime lab in October, the 1st of October.

Mr. BALL. You did - had you done any photography before that?

Mr. STUDEBAKER. Just home photography.

Agree 100% David... If anything... once the turn onto Elm was completed that limo should have done nothing but accelerate its way to the freeway..

There were no more crowds and nothing but danger in the bowl of DP... and for these trained men not to have realized this weeks in advance is absurd to even consider.

When we look at Nix/Muchmoore Hill does not come close to the limo until well after z313...

Try jumping off a moving vehicle at 5-7 mph and hit the ground running and catch another moving vehicle in less than 1 second...

Greer is simply not doing his job here... and his testimony (ala analysis from Palmara) is wrought with CYA and plain out lying.

I always thought, Greer brought the limo to a halt to give the SS-men of the follow-up car the opportunity to get onto the Lincoln-Limo, and protect JFK with their body's...but the SS-men didn't move...following an order by Emory Roberts..."Don't move!"

To me Greer did the right thing, while Roberts order, and behavior is more than questionable...

KK

Where did you get the idea that Greer slowed the limo for that reason?

Did Greer say anything like that in his testimony or anywhere else?

Is there anything in Secret Service protocols that would require him to do such a thing?

Let me be brief, because this is not a very important point, and I'm doing this from memory, but. . .:

A veteran JFK researcher recently pointed out to me that in the book The Kennedy Detail, the author actually advances the view that the President's limo slowed down sharply for the following reason: that Greer, upon hearing loud noises, thought he his vehicle might have suffered a blowout. Consequently, he then tapped on the brake pedal, slowing the car down, just to test to see if the car was "stable" (i.e., to determine whether he had had a blowout); then, and only after determining there had been no blowout, he then stepped on the gas, and sped away.

FWIW: I find this explanation to be absurd and ridiculous, but that's what the book says. If time permits, or if someone wants to email me the exact quotes, I'll edit this post accordingly.

But I find it amazing that, so many years after the fact, anyone would have the audacity to come up with such an "explanation".

DSL

4/2/12; 4:50 AM PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Maybe I missed the discussion about this... but Max Phillips' own report talks about a 4th print.. even though the official record shows something else...

P 1199

"The official record shows that Zapruder went home late Friday night with his original film and with one of the three 'first day copies'—the other two 'first day copies' had been loaned to the Secret Service. Zapruder would never see them again."

....since the Secret Service had two copies and LIFE reportedly had the original—was the third of the three 'first day copies' made by Zapruder, thus proving that it did not go to New York on

Saturday as Stolley incorrectly recalled in 1973.

Doesn't this report suggest that there was no copy to view in Dallas other than the original, and why refer to it as a "master" as opposed to "the original"?

The quality of the National Archives' photographic copy of this hand written report is so poor that many of its words cannot be made out in a scanned copy. Consequently, we have provided below a typed copy ]

CD - 87 Folder 1

CO2 34030 11/22

9:55

To: Chief Rowley

From: Max D. Phillips

Subject: 8mm movie film showing President

Kennedy being shot

Enclosed is an 8mm movie film

taken by Mr. A. Zapruder, 501 Elm St., Dallas

Texas (RI8-6071)

Mr.. Zapruder was photographing

the President at the instant he was shot.

According to Mr. Zapruder, the position of

the assassin was behind Mr. Zapruder.

Note: Disregard personel scenes

shown on Mr. Zapruder’s film.. Mr. Zapruder

is in custody of the "master" film. Two prints

were given to SAIC Sorrels, this date.

The third print is forwarded.

Max D. Phillips

Special Agent - PRS

10 Z-Film Questions that can and should be answered that have nothing to do with its content.

1) Who suggested to Abe Zapruder that he should do something he’s never done before and buy an 8mm home movie projector and film the president? Why did he do it?

2) After the film was developed at Kodak and three copies made at Jameson, where did they go? The A-1 Original stayed with Zapruder; B-1 Copy went to Life; B-2 Copy and B-3 Copy went to Secret Service. Who at Life and Who at SS physically took possession of the copies and where did they go with them? The SS agent should have filed a report on this. Is there such a report?

3) If the Provenance – Chain of Custody was not broken, then we should be able to connect the dots and follow the film to where we know it was – Life Chicago; NPIC DC. Which copies went where, and who took them there?

4) If one set of still photos from the Z-film frames were used to make briefing boards with Dino Brugioni, and that set used to brief CIA director McCone, who was briefed with the other boards and who did the briefing?

5) After Life purchased all the rights (on Saturday?) and obtained the A-1 Original, what did they do with it?

6) How did the original get the two splices in it, who did it and how or why did that happen, twice?

7) If there are frames missing from the original because of the splices, are the missing frames in the B-1,2,3 copies?

8) If the frames missing from the A-1 Original are in the copies, then the intersprocket images in the original frames are still missing? Or were they picked up from the editing room floor and are still in existence?

9) Was there ever a point after Life took possession of the A-1 Original when all four of the films came together again at the same place?

10) If the Original A-1 Z-film was put through an optical printer and tampered with then the film in optical printer would now be at the NARA A-2, and since it wasn’t filmed with Zapruder’s camera, but the optical printer’s camera, it should be compared with the two other films known to have been filmed in Zapruder’s camera and differences should be apparent, just as each gun barrel makes different marks on a bullet and each manual typewriter exhibits unique traits. Has this comparison been made? If not, why not?

Bill...those are good questions FOR STARTERS. There are many others. For instance, you refer to B-1, B-2, and B-3...but there is ONE MISSING

IN THAT SEQUENCE, according to the Kodak numbering sequence.

Jack

Fascinating. Simple question, stupid answers.

Anyone who's been to school care to contribute?

Anyone past the 3rd grade can see that ONLY a shot from the right will push someone left...

That a shot from behind... pushes someone forward

and that a shot from the front, will push a person backward.

Most will tell you a FMJ bullet would have gone clean thru and thru... no exploding skull

The 6th floor TSBD window was almost in direct line with JFK... HE WAS LOOKING TO HIS LEFT...

A shot from high and behind WILL NOT move him back and to the left... Will NOT push him to his left,

Will NOT shoot brain matter all over Hargis and Martin

will NOT push a skull piece back and to the left to land at Brehm's feet

will NOT give the impression to altgens that matter came out the left side of his skull

and finally will not give the MANY MANY people who were there, saw him get hit as well as the doctors prior to the government stealing the body

the impression that he was shot anywhere but in the right temple...

That you need a physicist to explain common sense is most puzzling... If this was any other shooting, right front would have been a conclusion

not a cause for excuses and confusion

C'mon Tom

No pix?

Let's make it real simple... let's just name the ones who didn't "womanize"

and assume that a man who was aggressive and excessive in most areas of life...

....can in no way run a country.

The "evil" that was LBJ had nothing to do with understanding his sexual nature...

the "evil" lay in the action.

What amazes me is that there was an ounce of truth in anything Lucky said...

Was there really only two

tall,

thin,

glasses,

drinker,

womanizer,

smoker,

with a nose

in the senate

at that time?

Milton Young http://history.nd.gov/ndhistory/politicrealign.html

(edit: I am NOT accusing Milton... just yoking...)

Hang on there David/Daniel...

Since there is no reliable measurement of the location of the hole on JFK, how can you say the jacket and shirt are so much higher...?

"This wound is measured to be 14 cm. from the tip of the right acromion

process and 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process."

Scroll down for a look at the right acromion process

http://www.aidmyrotatorcuff.com/rotator-cuff-information/rotator-cuff-and-shoulder-anatomy.php

In WHICH DIRECTION 14cms from the acromion? There is a wound 1-2 inches off the spine and they use a landmark at the tip of the right shoulder

and now the Mastoid process... and the other landmark is at the bottom of the MOVEABLE skull...

There is NO WAY to determine where that wound was from this description... when the measuremenat needed to be from one of the Cervical vertebrae down and then a number of cms over.

In fact... if you measure straight down from the acromion you are still on the arm...

STRAIGHT to the left, then go UP to the Mastoid and measure down?

Are you willing to state that holes were put into the jacket and shirt BEFORE there was any wound on JFK (who had the clothes?) and then this information is relayed to the autopsy room where a hole is made prior to Sibert/O'Neill coming back in at 8:15... Maybe you are suggesting this was one fo the things they did on AF-1 to JFK?

Is that more likely than a non-transiting wound from which a bullet is removed and disappeared?

This shows the limo going thru the open space looking North toward the TSBD

In both films the front/middle/rear of the limo passes trhu that open space...

In one (Martin) we see Rose run along side the center of the limo as it passes

While in the other (Bell)... no Rose...

What up?

It is surprising that after all this time there are still those who can ask straight faced:

"where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing?"

That after spending time on this forum assumably with eyes open and reading for comprehension...

that you can ask such uninformed questions.... like

"where are the bullets" and "who saw the assassins"

I've never minded LNers who come to the table with some knowledge of the situation and the ability to form a coherent sentence in support of the WCR...

But you are an embarassment to anyone who taken the time to read ANYTHING about the assassiantion.

Try something Glenn... show a picture of CE399 to a bunch of 15 year olds and then tell them what it was supposed to have done to two men and a number of bones...

then show them the CE next to it illustrating what happened when the test bullet went ONLY thru a wrist....

Ask them if the conclusion that CE399 did what the WCR says it did makes any sense...

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

As the line goes... Sir - "you are not going to learn what you DONT want to know"

and with questions like those that I find you repeating ad nauseum... it is way too obvious that there is absolutley NOTHING you want to know about this case

beyond what you THINK.

LNer research at its best...

Greg - very well put as usual. Instead of challenging the CT theories, be nice if a LNer would defend his version of the event by AUTHENTICATING the evidence used to convict...

DJ

What's wrong with this picture? What's wrong with The Education Forum? Consider this example:

During a recent Internet exchange, I was able to box in Gary Mack, because he asserted on the one

hand that his most important contributions to JFK research are "Badge Man" and the acoustical tape

evidence, while maintaining--in his role as Curator--that there was only one shooter, Lee H. Oswald.

When I pointed out that Badge Man is firing at JFK and that the acoustical tape includes discernable

sounds of six or seven or even more shots, he was left in the uncomfortable position of being on

both sides of the conspiracy question. It was a rare opportunity to expose his hypocrisy over JFK.

So I published (in three segments) the original version of "The Great JFK Non-Debate" right her at EF,

and then posted the final segment, which I had added after one of the participants in the exchange

pointed out that some of my strongest arguments were in the parts of our exchange I had omitted.

Included was a discussion of Gary Mack's assertion of an internet email privilege, which I discussed

with Gordon Duff, the Senior Editor of VETERANS TODAY, who assured me in no uncertain language

that there is NO internet confidentiality privilege and that everything is fair fame for open discussion.

Now apparently the EF is unaware of this fact, where The 6th Floor Museum has used claims of this

kind, especially in relation to the control of access to its versions of the Zapruder film, virtually from

the beginning. So I am baffled at the eagerness of the moderators here suppress this information.

Could anyone confess to any crime, no matter how important, on the internet and claim a privacy

privilege that would preclude its publication on the EF, no matter how central or important it might

be to research here? I am forming the impression the EF is an extension of The 6th Floor Museum.

When dubious or non-existent internet proprieties are cited as a reason to cover-up an important

admission by Gary Mack about his two-faced approach to the assassination of JFK, but instead of

letting it stand and allowing the chips to fall where they may, the moderators rendered it invisible!

And they have apparently done that, even with the segment in which the alleged internet privilege

was explicitly discussed and dismissed. This is not simply a matter of being polite but of letting a

phony and a fraud off the hook. It is incredibly difficult to box him in. I did it. You suppressed it.

I'm surprised you didn't title the thread "Treason".

"Eight to ten shots fired, provably so!"

Let me ask you Mr Fetzer, where are the proofs of this enormous carpet bombing? How many of the witnesses on the Dealey Plaza that day would agree to you assessment? And where, Mr Fetzer, did this flurry of bullets end up? You have not, and cannot answer these simple questions, as you are not interested in researcing and/or listening. And why is it that no one beside yourself saw all these snipers come in - or leave - the assassination Plaza? If you you have ever answered these questions, I've missed it. And I would have to apologize.

Now, the question of "Treason".

I've seen all kinds of "experts" over the years, having it "right" - or having it "wrong". A few of those I have the highest regard for.

Including the "Treason" guys; Reitzes, Dale Mayers, Gus Russo and and others. Next: Josiah Thompson. You've made this very clear over the last couple of decades.

In that debate I have one advice if you don't mind - shut your mouth and open your ears for a second?

Greg Burnham? What's your thoughts? Mr Fetzer?

My thoughts? Well, for starters, I wonder why you are even in this debate? There seems to be no motivation for you to continue posting about a subject in which you have no genuine interest, no level of expertise, and no desire to become educated.

Second, I don't concern myself with certain specifics about the case because they are not important and/or they may well be unknowable at this stage. For instance, without more reliable forensic evidence I cannot determine how many shots were fired. In my view, the assassins fired "as many shots as it took" to get the job done. If the number of shots that they fired had not been sufficient to accomplish their goal, then there would have been as many more fired as was needed to reach their ends. Having said that, it remains true that the evidence supports a scenario in which more than 3 shots were fired. It does not support a scenarion in which the number of shots fired were limited to just 3.

Third, I have no "conspiracy theory" to explain the events in Dallas. However, I do know that the "official theory" cannot possibly be true. Therefore, it follows that a conspiracy to assassinate the president and a conspiracy to obstruct justice were and are both in play.

Daniel,

Doesn't the shirt and jacket come into play here? His clothes were taken from him.. SS agents testify to seeing the bullet hit him in the back (yes, I know, but...)

The difference in the location of the hole in jacket and shirt is the 1/8" as expected...

When are you supposing they created all these holes to line up so well?

Furthermore... my understanding of the 45-60 degrees is NOT the angle of the shot but the angles of the wound...

If the bullet was traveling as slow as it would be to only penetrate shallow... it could have easily tumbled downward as it entered creating this perceived angle...

Add Osbournes statement about the bullet and clothes coupled with the statment by the Gov't that he must have been "MISTAKEN" (as is with any bit of contraty evidence to the Oswald did it alone conclusion) and we have every reason to believe what happened was as Humes and Osbourne state... Shallow wound, bullet out due to external cardio, into his clothes....

THIS may have been ce399... yet due to what we know from Frazier:

Mr. EISENBERG - Did you prepare the bullet in any way for examination? That is, did you clean it or in any way alter it?

Mr. FRAZIER - No, sir; it was not necessary. The bullet was clean and it was not necessary to change it in any way. Mr. EISENBERG - There was no blood or similar material on the bullet when you received it?

Mr. FRAZIER - Not any which would interfere with the examination, no, sir. Now there may have been slight traces which could have been removed just ,in ordinary handling, but it wasn't necessary to actually clean blood or tissue off of the bullet.

To me this is one of the most inexcusable declarations of stupidity in the testimony and proves that the bullet from Parkland was not the bullet Johnson gave to Rowley...

but IS the one Rowley gave to Todd.... where did Rowley get CE399?

Mr. EISENBERG - Mr. Frazier, I now hand you Commission Exhibit 399, which, for the record, is a bullet, and also for the record, it is a bullet which was found in the Parkland Hospital following the assassination. Are you familiar with this exhibit?

Mr. FRAZIER - Yes, sir. This is a bullet which was delivered to me in the FBI laboratory on November 22, 1963 by Special Agent Elmer Todd of the FBI Washington Field Office.

What if the back wound, not seen at Parkland, is not a bullet wound at all, but was inflicted with a type of metal punch to simulate a bullet wound?

Is this possible? Might David Lifton or Dr. Mantik weigh in?

My copy of BE is in pieces but if David would chime in he would point the the following: Dr. Carrico did a munual examination of the back while Kennedy was lying down on his back to determine if there was any defect in the back. He didn't find any. Later, Humes called Perry and asked if he made any wounds in the back. Why would he do that? And finally, Clint Hill mentions an "opening" in the back -- strange wording for a bullet wound. This is all from memory. I am not experienced with gunshot wounds, but it is difficult to understand how a bullet traveling downwards form 45 to 60 degrees according to the FBI penetrated such a short distance, failing to violate the pleural cavity. And it is suspicious that Nurses Bowron and Henchcliff, and orderly Sanders, make no mention of the back wound, although they washed the body and should have seen it. I know in the 90s Bowron told of it to Harrison Livingston, but the value of that claim is of dubious value IMO. She had plenty of opportunity to spread the knowledge of the wound even before that time, and not a peep until over 30 years after the event. And to my knowledge Nurse Henchliff has gone on record as saying she never saw such a wound. I recall asking about this on Lancer and getting that response. I wish I remembered from whom that tidbit came from and when.

Surely all of this was known to the authors of this new work; at the very least the wound is strange and cries out for explanation. I would have preferred to read their speculation on the matter, to see how they dealt with all of the above. Some have argued that it is speculation that the throat wound was enlarged, yet that did not prevent the authors from stepping into that mindfield. So why avoid the back wound issues? Still unhappy in Pasadena, Daniel