Nick Bartetzko

Well, Nick... I... Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg. It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are." But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg. Ashton Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof?? Nick, was I that transparent? I think my report card is going to say "Needs work on social skills." Well, I wasn't being at all facetious when I said I really did appreciate your effort, because I do, but value is where you find it, and in my own research efforts I generally use a steamshovel to sweep interpretations, paraphrasings, hearsay, philosophical musings, opinions, and conclusions into the dumpster by the cubic ton. I try wherever possible to go to primary sources. Where and if I have to turn to other sources, I have a rule of two to compare, preferably three—or dumpster bound.It's a brutal method of research and not for everyone. Also isn't worth a damn for a leisurely rainy-day read. Touché. Ashton Ashton Well.....just maybe......sometimes your social skills could use a "bit of refining". Occasionally, I get a bit irked when I see a lack of civility in some of the posts...and that is not at all limited to your posts. I just don't see a need for harsh rhetoric toward others. You and I differ on the value of Weisberg's research and conclusions. FWIW (and likely not much to you), Weisberg does quote Carrico as saying the neck wound was above the level of the shirt (please don't ask me to spend the time to type it all). My interpretation of the Z film is JFK beginning to show distress either to a neck wound or the sound of gunshot(s) as he emerges from behind the sign. Immediately thereafter, it is obvious to me that he is struck in the back from a relatively flat trajectory shot as he appears to be driven forward. If we assume that Connally's back wound is close to that point, he appears to be driven more downward by impact, reflecting a different shooter trajectory and location. I look forward to more of your posts. Regards, Nick

Well, Nick... I... Well, I really, genuinely, and deeply appreciate all that typing—by both you and Weisberg. It's one of the great tragedies of literature that after all the time invested in interviewing, Malcolm Perry wasn't allowed to wedge a single word of his own into all that Weisbergian paraphrasing other than "as they always are." But at least that was quoted twice. That's very nice, and was a generosity on the part of Mr. Weisberg. Ashton Well, Ashton, I'm genuinely touched by your ......appreciation.....or is it lack thereof?? Glad I made the effort to quote Weisberg. IMHO, in spite of the excess verbiage, Weisberg did come up with some very valuable information. Still makes for easier reading than the WC. BTW, your research is much appreciated and sometimes your writing style as well. Nick

That is the fall-down funniest thing I have read in ages. Can't thank you enough. This has gotten my new year off to a rollicking start. (I think the dry delivery is what brought it to laugh-to-tears-level. Priceless. I hope the Brits are paying attention.) Ashton Here you go, starting mid paragraph on page 377. This is Weisberg, in his unique writing style, speaking of Perry. I have skipped a few paragraphs of Perry's comments about Connally's wounds and the President's head wounds. From my interviews with him, I am without doubt that, had he not been subjected to powerful and improper pressures, there would have been no word he would have said that would not have been completely dependable. From time to time embarrassment showed. He began defensively, going back to the anterior neck wound. He does not deny telling the press that it was one of entrance. He does say that he has been given a tape of one of his interviews in which he hedged the statement by saying it was, to a degree, conjectural. Most doctors, under these circumstances, great urgency, the President as the patient and without their having turned the body over, would have said something like "appeared to be" in describing the wound as one of entrance. While superficially maintaining the position in which Spector put him under oath, of saying he did not really know whether the wound was one of entrance or exit, Perry readily admits that Humes correctly understood him to describe it as a wound of entrance. He also admits that federal agents showed him and the other doctors the autopsy report before their testimony. As I led him over these events and his participation, what he did and the sequence, he recalled that he first looked at the wound, then asked for a "trake" (short for tracheotomy) tray, wiped off the wound, saw a ring of bruising around it, and started cutting. In describing the wound and ring of bruising, he used the words, "as they always are". Pretending not to notice the significance of this important fact he had let bubble out, I retraced the whole procedure with him again. When he had repeated the same words, I asked him if he had ever been asked about the ringed bruise around the wound in the front of the neck. The question told the experienced hunter and the experienced surgeon exactly what he had admitted, one description of the entrance wound. He blushed and improvised the explanation that there was blood around the wound. I did not further embarrass him by pressing him, for we both knew he had seen the wound clearly. He had twice said he had wiped the blood off and had seen the wound clearly, if briefly, before cutting. The official representation and that of an unofficial apologist to which we shall come would have us believe that bruising is a characteristic of entrance wounds only. This is not the case. The reader should not be deceived on this or by Perry's admission that there was bruising. Exit wounds also can show bruising. One difference is that exit wounds do not have to show bruising. That in this case there was bruising by itself need not be taken as an expression of Perry's professional opinion that it was a wound of entrance. The definitive answer is in those words he twice used, quoted directly above, "as they always are". It is entrance wounds only that always are of this description. Thus, Perry had said again and in a different way that this was a shot from the front. In context, this also is the only possible meaning of what Carrico had said. Perry was unwilling to express criticism of the autopsy doctors. Humes had told Spector that the bruise on the President's pleura might have been caused by Perry's surgery. Perry was affronted by the suggestion. He said that they never cause such bruising in tracheotomies in adults and are exceedingly careful to avoid it in the smaller bodies of children. When Perry learned of this bruising, he had wondered if the cause was fragmentation. If he then had no way of knowing it, on the basis of my "new evidence", that today does seem to be the most reasonable explanation. Having learned what Spector suppressed, that Perry is an amateur expert in ammunition....... I am done typing as I couldn't figure out how to cut and paste what I had scanned. This is the relevant text and I hope you and other members found this helpful. Nick

Tom I have been out of town and am now catching up on old posts. I will keep my response brief as it is past midnight here. Harold Weisberg, in his book Post Mortem, interviewed Drs Carrico, Perry and McClelland on 12-1-71 at Parkland Hospital. Dr Carrico told Weisberg that he was certain he saw a bullet hole above the level of the collar and there were no holes in the clothing. Weisberg speculated that damage to the clothing was caused by the nurses cutting off the clothing. Dr Perry told Weisberg that he wiped blood from the wound, noted a ring of bruising, and then began the tracheotomy incision. This differs from Perry's response to you many years later. The relevant pages in the book are 375-379. Based on the interview, Perry was an avid hunter and experienced in firearms and ammunition. Could you confirm if a "ring of bruising" as described by Perry is indeed indicative of an entry wound and would you deem this significant if true? Nick

Dawn, I totally agree it is an easier case to solve and prove offical malfeasance in the tampering with the evidence and investigation, etc. However, look at what happened with the new photos of three CIA 'heavies' lurking in the Ambassador, no doubt hoping to shake RKF's hand in congratulations....and there are no screams I hear of outrage and demand for an investigation....or did I miss something over here in Europe. I think more saw it here than there, in fact. Most here were shocked and shocked it didn't cause riots..or even a loud rumbling noise. Sleep Sheep Sleep....... I agree with you too Dawn. I just wish they would, and get one figured out and solved. Maybe it would cause more people to "move " on solving JFK's. I forget the kids name who was taking all of the pictures that day, [a new camera i beleive] at the moment, but from what i heard, the LAPD and the "powers that be" really messed with him pretty bad. I beleive they took all his film, and it took a lawsuit to get them returned [but some were missing i believe]. I beleive it took years and years. Now hes an adult, and from what i understand he either has a pending lawsuit or won the lawsuit. [im no expert here so correct me if im wrong] Im sure his pictures 'showed' what really happened, as i believe he was shooting film the whole time through the pantry. just my opinion FWIW, thanks-smitty This goes back a few years. I'll give you a brief synopsis from memory as it is getting late here. Scott Enyart did win his lawsuit. A courier was hired to go to the state archives in Sacramento to deliver the film to him. Somewhere in south central Los Angeles, the courier stopped for gas (or had a flat tire) and the briefcase containing the photos was stolen. I think Lisa Pease in Probe did a thorough article on this at the time. Conjecture is the photos were destroyed many years ago. I tend to agree. Had I been the owner of such potentially important evidence, I would have personally traveled to the archives in Sacramento in the presence of my attorney to pick up the film.....FWIW. Nick

Maarten That is an interesting comment about the hairpiece. Looking at the photo, there appears to be an irregular, vertical, zigzag pattern in the hair about 1 inch to the right of the ear. There are also a series of at least three 1-1 1/2 inch sections of straight hair visible along the forehead hairline. Somewhat shaped like an octagon. Unusual, but probably explained as a lighting anomaly. Nick

This reflects my own philosophy. That is why I have refused to delete the membership of right-wingers, lone-nutters, etc. Members are asked to refrain from name-calling. However, it is physically impossible for Andy and myself to read every posting and then delete insults. Even if it was, it is extremely difficult to make judgements about the terms being used. This is explained by the debate on this thread about terms like ignorant. However, it is clear that some members are uniting up against certain individuals and are attempting to bully them off the Forum. Jack White and Ashton Gray have both suffered from this. My message to you is that I am sure most viewers are able to see this happening and it is the image of the bullies which is suffering. Stay strong, do not retaliate in kind, and you will win the battle. Their behaviour only illustrates the weakness of their arguments and the fear they have of your views. John The name calling and extreme rudeness is......was distressing. That is why I am now so indebted to Ron Ecker for alerting me about the "ignore" feature. Have used it twice now. Visiting your forum has again become an informative and pleasant experience. Regards Nick

Greetings Opinions are always welcome, but I was wondering what the point was of using the words kook and nutcase. Seems there are way too many folks around already who are rude, inflammatory, inconsiderate etc. Hope you are not among those ranks Regards Nick

Ask Gary Mack, who wrote several Easterling articles for his excellent newsletter COVERUPS! As I recall, it had something to do with New Orleans Fire Department records showing that a fire Easterling talks about was not true. That, plus a lot of other stuff about supplying rifles, etc. Sticking in my memory is something about firing a rifle into a barrel of water to recover a pristine Carcano bullet. My memory may not be very accurate unless I look up my newsletter copies. Email Gary, and he can summarize; post his reply for us. My main thought about Easterling: No plotters in their right minds would select such an unreliable goofy guy as a crucial part of a sophisticated plot. That is not the way the agency operates. Better to use him as a red herring. Hurt threatened to sue Gary over the allegations in his newsletter, proving to me that Gary was onto something. Jack I have the Henry Hurt book and hadn't read it in years. I recalled some of the allegations of Easterling because he was such an unusual character. The fire incident really stood out to me in that some of what Easterling claimed might indeed be correct. A fire did occur on September 24, 1963 in New Orleans. The records were located by Tom Noonan, a PI that Hurt had hired. Seems Noonan found a ledger in the basement of the New Orleans Public Library with a handwritten description by a fireman. The address was listed and it was within a few minutes drive of Easterling's original description. The Noonan information is on page 371 of Hurt's book. I have Gary Mack's book Coverup somewhere, but can't locate it right now so am unable to say how he might have debunked the fire incident. The fire certainly seems plausible based on Noonan's discovery. Nick

Brendan, you say the above as if you find glee in what happen to JFK. Bill Miller Pathetic. I think pathetic is correct in describing such a poor, tasteless choice of words.

So bizarre that none of you losers has managed to put a dent in it lo these past 43 years. I liken you to isolated Japanese soldiers in 1946 and beyond, blissfully unaware that the war has ended. Of course, they were detached from their units and from all forms of official communication. What's your excuse? Nah, there's so much to ridicule right here. I imagine I'll be busy for quite some time, provided the super scary "military industrial complex" doesn't get me first. Time to up your meds, Mark. I guess everyone has a personal style of communicating. I'm not a fan of the ridicule, insult, in your face method. It's interesting that some people are such strong believers in conspiracy and others in the government "lone nut" version or the revised "lone nut with someone shooting from behind the fence, but he missed" version. Over the years, I've been to Dallas a few times, read many books, looked at the various photos and films, studied the government's version(s) and I hardly think this is an open and shut case. Some of the troubling issues are: 1) Oswald's negative nitrate test on his face 2) Dr David Mantik's opinions of the xrays based on his work with optical density 3) AARB witness statements of the back of the head wound vs the summary report written 4) the AARB comments of Agent Sibert regarding the photos of the head 5) the comment of Dr Perry to Harold Weisberg in 1966 about the "ring of bruising" of the neck wound 6) the missing photos of the chest cavity 7) the issues raised by Doug Horne regarding the brain examination(s) 8) official government reports moving the head entry wound by 4" 9) Joseph Milteer's taped comments made 11-9-63 10) Rose Cheramie's comments 11) witness testimony of 2 individuals on the 6th floor 12) the Z film which to me, a layman, seems to show JFK is pushed forward and JBC is pushed downward. I've never understood how one bullet could account for such dissimilar movements. These are a few troubling areas recalled from memory. My thanks to John Simkin for this forum and allowing all, in their own unique way, to voice their opinions. Regards Nick

Thanks for the great post. I was thinking similar rhetorical, metaphorical thoughts. Regards, Nick

Bill I've read your posts and your explanation of the technical aspects of the Z film and the difficulty of attempting alteration. Forgetting the technical aspects of the Z film for the sake of this question, are there any concerns you would have as to blurring, occupant movement or any other anomolies that would cause you to suspect a problem? Also, have you seen any evidence of alteration of any kind in any of the other photos or movies? Thanks Nick

I have the Roffman book and neither photo that James posted is in the book.

Vernon still owes me a few bucks on that subscription fee I paid for Real Player........

I need a wee tad of help. (1) Somewhere here or on Lancer (or elsewhere; I think it was in a thread, anyway) the was a recounting of the incident, I believe involving James Worrell, where he had seen someone running from the back of the TSBD. Someone - I forget the name - disputed Worrell's story, saying that he'd been right there, too, and saw nothing of the sort. The latter told of moving a construction barricade to allow a car to come through. Can anyone please direct me to this info so I don't have to reconstruct it all? Many thanks in advance! Duke I recall exactly what you are talking about. My guess is that it is in Jerry Rose's The Third Decade or Fourth Decade publication. I will try and locate all of the issues. Interestingly, there is a very small article on Same Pate on page 7 of the Jan 1999 issue of the Fourth Decade. If I find the information you want, I'll post the reference immediately. Nick Duke I have located an article entitled "North of Elm on Houston" by Dennis Ford. It is in the July 1995 issue of The Fourth Decade. It is about 6 pages long and relates the stories of Richard Carr, James Worrell, Sam Pate and James Romack. Let me know if you want a copy and if mail or fax is OK Regards Nick

Ron, there is no "if" about it. It's a match. What the FBI, and most researchers, do not yet know is that other Mac Wallace fingerprints were matched to other unidentified latent carton prints. Wallace handled those boxes. Judge the FBI based on that truth. Richard Can you elaborate on your statement (and your source)? I thought it was just one print on one box. Thanks Nick

Thanks. I have bookmarked those sites.

Can you be more specific about any one thing that you would like to see addressed? Bill I don't have a copy of the film to review. Many of my books are still in storage after my move, so all my comments are from memory. I also want to be clear that I'm not experienced at all in video, having seen maybe 30-40 8mm home videos over the years. The discepancies that come to mind right now are: 1) The blob...the head wound that does not appear to be real. Appears to be painted on. 2) The movement of Jackie's arm after the fatal shot. Seems too quick for the frames involved. 3) The description by Rather and Hill as to some forward head movement, yet it is barely seen on film. Add that to the evidence of a shot to the rear of the head, but Vince Palamera's reference to Sam Kinney saying that there was tissue and bone in the followup secret service car. I don't see how that is physically possible. 4) There was a study years ago regarding the car's front blinker lights and the sequencing of same versus the number of fps of the Z film. 5) the actual movement of JFK after the head shot. Seems very unusual and unlikely to me in that brief time frame. If there was any alteration, then removal of frames would seem most likely. Is it possible? Apparently not based on what many experts have said. Those are some of my thoughts on the subject. You needn't address them as these have all been covered over the years, but those are my thoughts. My thanks to you for your work and posts.

David coerced them into this discussion because I quoted them as saying that the alterations alleged in Hoax were impossible in 1963 Coercion or not, it's a great idea and I'm looking forward to their comments. I've always had mixed feelings about alleged alteration and alleged pseudo Z films that others claim to have seen, but can never get their hands on a copy. My concern with the Z film is that some of the movements depicted don't seem possible and eyewitness testimony/comments contradict what is shown. Thanks for your work and comments in this area.

Having these gentlemen contribute their time and insight is quite an accomplishment. They owe us nothing and are quite gracious if it, in fact, happens. Thanks, David, for working on this.

Duncan I do see a figure. The head, eyes, chest and arms (not hands) are visible. The shirt appears to be buttoned to the top and the shirt pattern is very similar to what Lovelady said he wore. The strange thing is the nearly square black color that is on the chest area. Maybe it's just an illsusion, but I do see what I describe very clearly. Nick

Duncan Just curious if you've ever used that great software to zero in on the TSBD doorway crowd...aka Lovelady etc. Nick

Ron, that's an interesting name you've come up with. Is there any information about this fellow from the early 60's or is that only available via FOIA? Would certainly be interesting who the associates and subordinates were. Claude Capehart's name comes to mind for some reason.