Dawn Meredith

I have bumped this up so that people can look at the three censored Hours of The Men Who Killed Kennedy. In particular The Smoking Gun, where I refer Ashton, for a 4th alternative re. the head wound. Dawn

[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Dec 29 2006, 05:44 PM' post='86782'] Dawn, I am certain that I read or watched an interview of Sibert where he was asked about those observations he put in his notes and he said that he was right there when Humes made those remarks and he was merely writing down what Humes was observing. The surgery to the top of the head remark - Sibert would not have necessarily known to say that, but Humes did and Sibert made a note of it. The original notes of Humes were destroyed and I can certainly see why the Commander wouldn't mention the surgery at that point because he had since learned that no surgery to JFK had been done in Dallas, thus it would open a whole can of worms. Of course, the motive is only speculation on my part - I do not believe that Humes saying it is speculation. of course, when O'Conner took the President's body out of the body bag that was insidce the gray shipping casket - Paul saw that the cranium was empty ... Custer said the same thing (each man not knowing the other and independent of one another) 1/3 of the President's brain had been said to be blasted out in Dallas and the brain eventually attributed to JFK was of normal weight. I should say that a brain just does not get blasted out in its entirety from what I have learned. It needs to be losened from the inside of the skull .... the precedure I read about reminded me of someone trying to take the guts out of a pumpkin in all one piece.Bill I have not read Best Evidence since it first came out in I believe 81 but I remember that Paul O'Conner was one of THE strongest parts of this case for body alteration. Why else switch caskets, remove the body from its wrapping by the Parkland docs and put it in a damn body bag? At the time I wanted to take Lifton's overly long book and reduce it to just the crucial facts that made it such a blockbuster. Do you believe the autopsy pics are fakes? A rhetorical question I suppose, since I know you believe the head was blown open, and it's put back together in these obscene photos we are told are the autopsy photos. As to the authenticity of the Z film, I am not convinced. I have known Bob Groden since the 70's and I always liked and trusted him. How he came into possession of the film remains a secret, but we owe him a lot for bringing it to us. This is not to say I do not believe that it may not have been tampered with... Dawn

[quote name='Bill Miller' date='Dec 29 2006, 12:43 AM' post='86692'] Also, look at the size of the bone plate in the Zapruder film and try finding one that large in any of the autopsy photos ... something is not right! possibly Humes's observation that surgery had been to the head may offer some clues. Paul O'Conner said the President arrived at Bethesda in a shipping casket and Jerrol Custer was taking the President's Xray's through Bethesda when Jackie pulled up in front of the entrance to the naval hospital. To support these individuals is a reciept stating that the President arrived at BNH in a shipping casket. The shipping casket is the casket that Dennis David's team carried into the morgue. On the following Monday after the assassination there had been quiet talk going around the hospital about the President and how a decoy casket had been used. Dennis David (to satisfy his own curiosity) had asked Boswell which casket had contained the President's body and Boswell replied words to the effect, 'You should know, you helped escort it into the morgue.' In the event anyone missed it - Dennis lead the team that brought in the gray shipping casket. Bill Miller The autopsy photos are fakes. Bill you state above "Humes' observation that surgery had been to the head...". I know that Speacial Agents (FBI) James Silbert and Frank O'Neill made this observation in their report. I have never read/heard that Humes made a similar observation. I first read of this in 1974 and it always stayed with me, back then there were no autopsy photos (fake or real) to observe. Then in the early 80's David Lifton makes an excellent case for body alteration in Best Evidence. Dawn

Just exactly what about it amuses you? Is this some sort of parlour game? Dawn

[quote name='William Kelly' date='Dec 27 2006, 05:53 PM' post='86538'] At one point the Ford Presidential Library in Michigan announced that they were going to establish a Center for the Study of Political Assassinations. But after some initial project proposals they decided that they didn't want to study political assassinations after all. More governments change hands, historically and today, by assassination and coup d'etat than by democracy. Yet, we have hundreds of orgs that study and promote democracy, yet none to study assassination, the most frequently used method of changing governments. Such a center should be located in Washington, and it should be a true research center, something like the Assassination Archives and Research Center (AARC) as it was in the 80s and 90s, except better funded and with live-in dorm quarters for researchers from out of town. There is proposal for the establishment of such a center, but its proposed budget, like that of the Miller Center, DUmbarton Oaks and other similar research centers, would cost millions of dollars. BK What a great idea. Glad it won't come under cover-up artist Ford's name though. That would be a travesty. Dawn

E Howard is still hanging on. Why? Because they never want the truth revealed. The conspirators passed on their power and will continue to, from generation to generation. Unless a Grand Jury forces otherwise. Dawn

This has already been removed from Wikipedia. How can they justify this behaviour? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Ford Beacuse they are the Mocking bird of the Net. Disgusting. Sounds like the are monitered 24/7. Dawn

GREAT, Thanks, but [hate to mention it] some of the Q+A was as or more important - i.e. on Continuity of Govenment et al. Peter, I have that too, but don't have the time to transcribe it out at the moment. Why don't you do it? BK I viewed the COPA talk a few weeks ago and much enjoyed it, as I always enjoy PDS. Don't know where the follow-up Q and A are to be found, however. I am assuming it was also recorded. I'd much rather listen to it than read it. Dawn Bill many thanks for transcribing the talk.

Thanks Ter for the Bruce song. In 1988 my daughter and I drove to Philly from Boston to see the Amneysty International concert and driving thru Bruce's hometown I insisted that Christa- then 16 and not a Bruce fan- listen to this song. "My Hometown". Of course the Boss closed that concert in Philly. And then Christa became a fan. You can't see that man live and not become a fan. Ain't that right, James ? (Richards). Sorry all for diverting this thread....Terry started it Dawn

******************************************************* Hi Mark, There was one thing that really stood out in my mind that weekend. Out of all the pre-empted programming, only one show was allowed to air, and I can't remember if it was on Saturday night or Sunday night. It was The Judy Garland Show. She was forced to go on, even though she was under the impression that they would pre-empt her and allow her to head to D.C. for the funeral. I remember how upset and shaken she was, trying to be the good trouper, in spite of her very palpable grief. She was alone, without any guests, as I recall, and dressed in black for every number. I figured that was her only way of expressing her profound sorrow, and being in mourning, while having to perform under such duress. But, it was the final number at the close of the show that gripped my heart and had my Mom and I, sobbing. One simple statement: "This is for you, Jack." and she broke into an emotional, tearful rendition of "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic" in her inimitable style and grace of delivery. This was only to be matched equivocally, on the day of the funeral, by the way Jackie had the military marching band reproduce "Hail To The Chief" in a heart-wrenching dirge, so beautiful as to render it unrecognizable to my young ears. "Daddy, what's the name of that song, they're playing?" "It's called 'Hail To The Chief, Terry.' Only, they're playing it as a dirge." "What's a dirge?" "It's a musical accompaniment to a funeral, or a processional march, and it's played very slowly, Honey." You could feel the drums in your chest, like during the Macy's Day Parade, only the meter was drawn out between the major to minor chord progressions, pulling a sob up into your throat with every roll of the drums. It was unbelievably beautiful, and I've never heard it played that same way again. And, I kept thinking of how much John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln meant to us, as a people, and a nation. Those are the visions and thoughts that were eternally seared into my memory from Friday afternoon to Monday evening, that Thanksgiving weekend. Terry: What an eloquent rendition of that weekend. You brought it all back. That was such a lonely time for me as I did not know another soul who thought it was a conspiracy. Jackie and Caroline kissing the coffin, and John-John's salute were other sob- inducing moments. But, like with 9-11, at first it was simply surreal. Myra: Thanks for the reminder of that wonderful speech on war. How utterly appropriate. I wonder if W has ever read this. Not that it would change him. When "Heart of Stone" was written those boys never dreamed they'd be singing about a future president. (Several in fact; let's not ever forget his father, Bush the first. ) Dawn

******************************************************* Hi Mark, There was one thing that really stood out in my mind that weekend. Out of all the pre-empted programming, only one show was allowed to air, and I can't remember if it was on Saturday night or Sunday night. It was The Judy Garland Show. She was forced to go on, even though she was under the impression that they would pre-empt her and allow her to head to D.C. for the funeral. I remember how upset and shaken she was, trying to be the good trouper, in spite of her very palpable grief. She was alone, without any guests, as I recall, and dressed in black for every number. I figured that was her only way of expressing her profound sorrow, and being in mourning, while having to perform under such duress. But, it was the final number at the close of the show that gripped my heart and had my Mom and I, sobbing. One simple statement: "This is for you, Jack." and she broke into an emotional, tearful rendition of "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic" in her inimitable style and grace of delivery. This was only to be matched equivocally, on the day of the funeral, by the way Jackie had the military marching band reproduce "Hail To The Chief" in a heart-wrenching dirge, so beautiful as to render it unrecognizable to my young ears. "Daddy, what's the name of that song, they're playing?" "It's called 'Hail To The Chief, Terry.' Only, they're playing it as a dirge." "What's a dirge?" "It's a musical accompaniment to a funeral, or a processional march, and it's played very slowly, Honey." You could feel the drums in your chest, like during the Macy's Day Parade, only the meter was drawn out between the major to minor chord progressions, pulling a sob up into your throat with every roll of the drums. It was unbelievably beautiful, and I've never heard it played that same way again. And, I kept thinking of how much John F. Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln meant to us, as a people, and a nation. Those are the visions and thoughts that were eternally seared into my memory from Friday afternoon to Monday evening, that Thanksgiving weekend. Terry: What an eloquent rendition of that weekend. You brought it all back. That was such a lonely time for me as I did not know another soul who thought it was a conspiracy. Jackie and Caroline kissing the coffin, and John-John's salute were other sob- inducing moments. But, like with 9-11, at first it was simply surreal. Myra: Thanks for the reminder of that wonderful speech on war. How utterly appropriate. I wonder if W has ever read this. Not that it would change him. When "Heart of Stone" was written those boys never dreamed they'd be singing about a future president. (Several in fact; let's not ever forget his father, Bush the first. ) Dawn

Peter: Absolutely! When I began to understand- in 1974- just who the Rockerfellers et al really backed in WW11, coupled with Hitler's top spymaster Reinhard Gehlen, and his secret mettings with Dulles, culminating in the OSS, just why this country seemed so fascistic became absolutely clear to me. It's pivital to understanding 11/22/63, and today. Dawn

....indeed....and I'll add my vote to Robert being one I'd put some weight on the thoughts of. I can 'buy' Dulles being in on the hit, and always had though he was...but he is the type not to dirty his hands...but just ask the 'stone be removed from his shoe'..... Thank you, Peter. The guy who WOULD get his hands dirty was Lansdale. Lansdale has been positively ID'd in Dealey Plaza by counter-insurgency legend Gen. Victor Krulak in this tramp photo, AFTER Oswald's arrest. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri3/LastScan58.jpg http://www.ratical.org///ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html I'll argue that the ONLY way Lansdale would have exposed himself by appearing in Dealey Plaza was if something had gone WRONG. The patsy was captured alive, the blame Castroconspiracy Plan A scenario was killed, and like an quarterback calling an audible at the line, Lansdale was out fixing the patsy chain to leave only one link -- one Lee Harvey Oswald. I was supposed to be on the road an hour ago...peace and love, y'all... Lansdale was also positively id'd as being in DP by Prouty. I found Prouty's reasoning quite convincing when I read them some years back. Dawn

Boy this case is just riddled with shrinks isn't it? Brings to mind the evil Dr. Louis "Jolly" West of MKULTRA infamy. Has there ever been one scarier than he? Dawn

******************************************************** Thank you, Smitty. I'd also like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Kwanzai, Happy Tet, and a Belated Ramadan, as well. And, a Hopeful New Year for us all. Best wishes, Ter I concur. I hope 07 brings to everyone much health, happiness, peace and prosperity. Dawn ps And a special wish to my very special friend Terry: miss you girl, your pink room here is lonely without you. Much love forever.

Very, very interesting. On the surface, the placement of the ejecta model seems consistent with what is observed in Zapruder, Muchmore, and Nix. With the descending angle in addition to the left-to-right entry near the crown, it could certainly explain the "skull flap" in the z-film -- especially if the bullet ran shallow. Nice work! I agree. Compelling. And Merry Christmas to you too, Ashton, and to all forum members. Peace on earth. Dawn

Robert: I agree with Stan that you are probably the most respected forum member. And while I do not disagree that Hunt and Dulles were involved I don't know that they had the power to pull this off. What about all the murdered witnesses? What about King and RFK? (Realizing you were not asked these questions by Stan). Dawn

This is likely not the place to post this, but I cannot for the life of me understand why for the last two days my posts are showing up twice. I hit the "add reply" button only one time. This never occurred in the past, but started yesterday. Sorry everyone. Anyone else having this problem? Dawn

Mark: Great post. I was a bit older on that horrible day. Fourteen. Living in Quincy MA. with relatives. Our 8th grade homeroom teacher summoned us to our class with the news that the president had been shot. No details. One memory at school stands out- a few dumb boys joking that "Kennedy croaked". I ran home, praying that there would be positive news. He just COULD NOT die. He was only 43 years old. He had been my hero since I was nine or ten. Even before the election he was covered in my little hometown in Springhill, Nova Scotia. My dad hated Catholics so naturally was no fan of JFK and we had huge fights about this. I think, as kids, we could see the hope he offered this nation and the world. He defined idealism. His wit was remarkable. Compare JFK's press conferences to the current moron in the White House. Actually does W even HAVE press conferences? One of my best friends referred to him (W) the other evening as "almost retarded". I agree completely. Cliff, I have another good pal here in Austin who is also a member of this forum, Richard Bartholomew, and he was younger than you, but was hit as hard by this event as were Terry, Mark and I. You are in the minority. Most of America was very shaken by this murder; this coup. And we have not ever recovered. Some of us never will. Unless we somehow achieve justice. Dawn

Mark: Great post. I was a bit older on that horrible day. Fourteen. Living in Quincy MA. with relatives. Our 8th grade homeroom teacher summoned us to our class with the news that the president had been shot. No details. One memory at school stands out- a few dumb boys joking that "Kennedy croaked". I ran home, praying that there would be positive news. He just COULD NOT die. He was only 43 years old. He had been my hero since I was nine or ten. Even before the election he was covered in my little hometown in Springhill, Nova Scotia. My dad hated Catholics so naturally was no fan of JFK and we had huge fights about this. I think, as kids, we could see the hope he offered this nation and the world. He defined idealism. His wit was remarkable. Compare JFK's press conferences to the current moron in the White House. Actually does W even HAVE press conferences? One of my best friends referred to him (W) the other evening as "almost retarded". I agree completely. Cliff, I have another good pal here in Austin who is also a member of this forum, Richard Bartholomew, and he was younger than you, but was hit as hard by this event as were Terry, Mark and I. You are in the minority. Most of America was very shaken by this murder; this coup. And we have not ever recovered. Some of us never will. Unless we somehow achieve justice. Dawn

Terry, how can we coax you out of your shell? Ashton So agreed! Poor Terry, just a shy, retiring schoolmarm... Dawn

Well, Erick, you brought the Zapruder film into evidence for what you proffered as "The Head Wound Explained," so I rather think you "opened the door," counselor. As to the validity of that particular piece of filmaking: despite wondering why you would call it into question now after introducing it as evidence at the outset of your argument, I am painfully aware of the temperature of the debate over whether it is newsreel or cinéma verité. But there already is a very active thread in this forum wherein John Dolva, Frank Agbat, et al. have done, and continue to do, an astounding job of comparing the Zapruder film to the Nix film (and now others) in terms of sync. And I am on record of having said before they began their riveting work that I believed that the Zapruder film and the Nix film shared, I believe I said, "a cruciform concordance"—which confused the hell out of several people, I think, and with sound reason. I meant only that from my lay observation they did synchronize in ways that could not be faked. They cross. They overlap. They intersect at and around the head shot depicting the same event. We'll see. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue using the Zapruder film in the discussion you started by calling upon it as evidence for a frontal head shot. To that end, I've made a somewhat longer clip that I include below, after some discussion, to attempt to provide a little more visual context regarding some of the points you raised. I'll put it in the message where I feel it's most pertinent. Regarding the forward ejecta I pointed out in my first four-frame exhibit, you said: With all due respect—and not stipulating for a moment that Mrs. Kennedy was on a bone retrieval mission when she climbed onto the back of the limo—you seem to be arguing vigorously against yourself. Convincingly, from here.Unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, ejecta reasonably could be expected from both the entrance and exit points of a projectile—or, in your "concussion" model of the head explosion, "backwards out of the wound" (unless you are now abandoning the concussion model). Therefore, your argument on the subject of ejecta alone now supports a hypothesis for the head wound coming from either the front or the rear. Is that correct, or do you want to amend that argument? Hmmm. Well, I'm a bit more simple minded. I observe the motorcade moving in a direction that necessarily would carry Officer Hargis into a cloud of relatively lightweight particles suddenly dispersing into the air in many directions—particularly on a day with wind (which seems to be uniformly left out of the equation). It's also my understanding from the record that Officer Hargis wasn't the only one in the area splattered with blood and brain tissue. And again we are back to the duality of the ejecta question. You seem to have argued successfully already that Hargis very well could have been hit with ejecta caused by a shot from behind. I'm sorry, but it is here we have to part ways entirely. That is why I'm now including an expansion on the earlier animation, adding more frames before and after. I had hoped to demonstrate in the smaller anim in favor of bandwidth considerations, but allow me to direct your attention to the following series beginning at Zapruder frame 308.Please note the relatively static position and attitude of JFK's body for five frames prior to the head shot. I assure you that it changes very little prior to that as well, but this will illustrate. There is almost no movement of his body or head at all for five frames. And then there's the head shot. And in the time allowed by ONE frame, Kennedy's head flies forward at least two inches, perhaps more (estimated by head and ear dimensions). And yes, it most certainly is forward—not "left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy," because there is no possible stretching of a human neck in that direction relative to the camera position that ever could account for what is depicted in the violent forward motion of the head, pivoting at the neck. Here is the longer animation: It is inarguable that at the moment of impact the head flies violently forward. I don't care how many times Oliver Stone had Kevin Costner drone, "Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left." The animation above demonstrates a violent and abrupt forward change in the positioin of the head at the moment of impact, and in the next frame a considerable chunk of ejecta appears to be shot out of the President's head in precisely the direction of the head movement. And no other thing or person in the moving vehicle exhibits anything even remotely close to the violent sudden forward jerk of John F. Kennedy's head as the right front portion of his forehead explodes outward, to the front. And only after the head has flown forward, only after the skull has been blown open, only then, in frame 315, does the torso arch "back and to the left," the right arm beginning to flying upward in an uncontrolled, autonomic motion. Having studied each frame above in excruciating detail, having traced the dark outline of the head and back—discernible even in frame 313 where the obfuscating mist is greatest—I disagree emphatically. But others can look with their own eyes and judge for themselves. Ashton Well, I have viewed the slowed down video dozens of times now and seeing it slowed down like this makes it even more difficult for me to tell anything different. Obviously, as we have long known frame 313 is when the president's head is hit. He is clearly seen moving forward PRIOR to 313, and it can be argued that brain matter is going forward, but in this video all that is really clear to me is that the matter is being ejected, period. And then immediately after 313 is the backward motion. But I conceed that I have zero knowledge of film analysis. On my copy of the Z film it seemed a lot easier to tell when the film is moving at its normal speed. The slowing down allows for the eyes to almost play tricks on what you see or think you see. But I did look and will be interested in reading the comments of what others see in this slowed- down anim. As I said, I am open to be shown something new. But I am now sickened and dizzy from viewing this so many times. Dawn

Well, Erick, you brought the Zapruder film into evidence for what you proffered as "The Head Wound Explained," so I rather think you "opened the door," counselor. As to the validity of that particular piece of filmaking: despite wondering why you would call it into question now after introducing it as evidence at the outset of your argument, I am painfully aware of the temperature of the debate over whether it is newsreel or cinéma verité. But there already is a very active thread in this forum wherein John Dolva, Frank Agbat, et al. have done, and continue to do, an astounding job of comparing the Zapruder film to the Nix film (and now others) in terms of sync. And I am on record of having said before they began their riveting work that I believed that the Zapruder film and the Nix film shared, I believe I said, "a cruciform concordance"—which confused the hell out of several people, I think, and with sound reason. I meant only that from my lay observation they did synchronize in ways that could not be faked. They cross. They overlap. They intersect at and around the head shot depicting the same event. We'll see. Meanwhile, I'm going to continue using the Zapruder film in the discussion you started by calling upon it as evidence for a frontal head shot. To that end, I've made a somewhat longer clip that I include below, after some discussion, to attempt to provide a little more visual context regarding some of the points you raised. I'll put it in the message where I feel it's most pertinent. Regarding the forward ejecta I pointed out in my first four-frame exhibit, you said: With all due respect—and not stipulating for a moment that Mrs. Kennedy was on a bone retrieval mission when she climbed onto the back of the limo—you seem to be arguing vigorously against yourself. Convincingly, from here.Unless I'm badly misunderstanding you, ejecta reasonably could be expected from both the entrance and exit points of a projectile—or, in your "concussion" model of the head explosion, "backwards out of the wound" (unless you are now abandoning the concussion model). Therefore, your argument on the subject of ejecta alone now supports a hypothesis for the head wound coming from either the front or the rear. Is that correct, or do you want to amend that argument? Hmmm. Well, I'm a bit more simple minded. I observe the motorcade moving in a direction that necessarily would carry Officer Hargis into a cloud of relatively lightweight particles suddenly dispersing into the air in many directions—particularly on a day with wind (which seems to be uniformly left out of the equation). It's also my understanding from the record that Officer Hargis wasn't the only one in the area splattered with blood and brain tissue. And again we are back to the duality of the ejecta question. You seem to have argued successfully already that Hargis very well could have been hit with ejecta caused by a shot from behind. I'm sorry, but it is here we have to part ways entirely. That is why I'm now including an expansion on the earlier animation, adding more frames before and after. I had hoped to demonstrate in the smaller anim in favor of bandwidth considerations, but allow me to direct your attention to the following series beginning at Zapruder frame 308.Please note the relatively static position and attitude of JFK's body for five frames prior to the head shot. I assure you that it changes very little prior to that as well, but this will illustrate. There is almost no movement of his body or head at all for five frames. And then there's the head shot. And in the time allowed by ONE frame, Kennedy's head flies forward at least two inches, perhaps more (estimated by head and ear dimensions). And yes, it most certainly is forward—not "left and downward, towards Mrs. Kennedy," because there is no possible stretching of a human neck in that direction relative to the camera position that ever could account for what is depicted in the violent forward motion of the head, pivoting at the neck. Here is the longer animation: It is inarguable that at the moment of impact the head flies violently forward. I don't care how many times Oliver Stone had Kevin Costner drone, "Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left. Back, and to the left." The animation above demonstrates a violent and abrupt forward change in the positioin of the head at the moment of impact, and in the next frame a considerable chunk of ejecta appears to be shot out of the President's head in precisely the direction of the head movement. And no other thing or person in the moving vehicle exhibits anything even remotely close to the violent sudden forward jerk of John F. Kennedy's head as the right front portion of his forehead explodes outward, to the front. And only after the head has flown forward, only after the skull has been blown open, only then, in frame 315, does the torso arch "back and to the left," the right arm beginning to flying upward in an uncontrolled, autonomic motion. Having studied each frame above in excruciating detail, having traced the dark outline of the head and back—discernible even in frame 313 where the obfuscating mist is greatest—I disagree emphatically. But others can look with their own eyes and judge for themselves. Ashton Well, I have viewed the slowed down video dozens of times now and seeing it slowed down like this makes it even more difficult for me to tell anything different. Obviously, as we have long known frame 313 is when the president's head is hit. He is clearly seen moving forward PRIOR to 313, and it can be argued that brain matter is going forward, but in this video all that is really clear to me is that the matter is being ejected, period. And then immediately after 313 is the backward motion. But I conceed that I have zero knowledge of film analysis. On my copy of the Z film it seemed a lot easier to tell when the film is moving at its normal speed. The slowing down allows for the eyes to almost play tricks on what you see or think you see. But I did look and will be interested in reading the comments of what others see in this slowed- down anim. As I said, I am open to be shown something new. But I am now sickened and dizzy from viewing this so many times. Dawn

Yes. And have asked several times for a proponent of the alleged "throat wound" to start a thread on the subject, which I will be happy to discuss there. What is in evidence is a tracheotomy opening where a "throat wound" is claimed by some to have been (under what circumstances such claims were made would be of interest to pursue in its own thread). From somewhere behind; yes, that's precisely what I see, and what I have invested more than a little time in effort in attempting to demonstrate clearly, illustrating on the film the outline of the head and back and shoulders with a grid of motion lines showing the very sudden forward motion of the head between frame 312 and 313.Do you see, with your own eyes, the extraordinarily abrupt and forward pitch of Kennedy's head in what I have posted, or do you not? I'm simply asking you what you see, with your own eyes. Forget about the Warren Commission, forget about Oswald, forget about Oliver Stone, forget about the Badge Man, the Dog Man, the Umbrella Man, the Sewer Man, the Candy Man, the Piltdown Man, and Manfred Mann. Just look at what happens in the animation above and tell me what you see in regards to the motion of the head at the moment of impact. Yes. I agree. There unquestionably is a backward motion of the torso, and the head unquestionably goes with it. The question is what happens to the head at the moment a projectile of some description hits the head (or concusses the head, take your pick), and the further question is whether it is a projectile that drives the entire torso backward, or whether it is an autonomic seizure of the nervous system in the close aftermath of a good deal of the brain having been blown forward out through the right front of the forehead/temple area at the moment of impact—when the head plainly, significantly, inarguably jerks forward. And the latter is my position from what I see with my eyeballs and have attempted in good faith to show visually. I'm not certain if you are being argumentative for its own sake, or if you really can't comprehend any other possibilities than the two you attempt to limit me to.I don't "endorse." I never argue "for its own sake." I look with my eyes, I observe for myself, and I say what I observe. I don't ask permission to look, and I never check to make sure I'm following the tail of something or somebody in front of me first. So I've said here what I see with my eyes. What do you see? Ain't it, though. Ashton Ashton: I have a copy of the film and when I am in less a good mood then I presetly am I will watch it several times and be open to seeing new things. I have not viewed the film in some time and have never seen it where it did not upset me greatly. I think it would be upsetting for me to view anyone's muder on film. Seeing any form of pain is distressing to me. Worse for me is that he was a president I truly loved. Pretty damn rare. In fact he's the only one I can say this of. I recognize and respect that you do not follow the crowd and I am always open to be shown if I am wrong. But, that said, it was this very backward motion that permitted the earliest critics to see that the WC's conclusions of three shots, from behind by LHO were so misguided. Bottom line, he was killed by the highest level of our government and we have been lied to by this government and the press and our educational insititutions our whole lives. On this we agree. I hope you also reply to Charlie Black's post. Dawn