William Kelly

Having just got back from Pittsburgh, I can't go back and answer all the questions on this thread or others, but I will say that I believe that Robinson saw a wound - whether entrance or exit, it doesn't matter - that the autopsy doctors did not record in their examination reports - a hole in the front right temple, that should at the very least be noted as existing. And the mortician is not qualified to determine whether or not it was an entrance wound or an exit wound, that is the responsibility of the autopsy doctors and not the mortician. And since I am not familiar enough or experienced enough to comment on the medical or autopsy evidence, I defer opinion on all such aspects, and defer to those who have focused on this issue - and having met Pat Speer in Pittsburgh, I respect his opinion enough to agree with whatever he has to say in this area, as he certainly knows a lot more than I do. But having read the mortician's report that he saw an previously unreported wound to the president's right forehead, I think that still stands as a fact rather than an informed opinion that either Pat or I could make. Either the hole was there or it wasn't and he was there and saw it and reported it was there, so I believe him. There was a small hole in the president's right front forehead that is not noted in the autopsy report. That's a fact Jack. In addition, according to the most basic tenant of forensic pathology that the entrance wound is always smaller than the exit wound, if JFK was shot from the rear, how come his face wasn't blown out - as Mrs. Kennedy herself said, the front of his face was normal and the back was blown out, and just as SS Agent Clint Hill reported having seen the wound three times - in action, at Parkland and at the Autopsy - and as all of the doctors and witnesses at Parkland reported - there was a large hole in the right back of the head - not an entrance wound. So it was either one way or the other - JFK had a small bullet sized - 1/4 inch sized hole in the back of his head - as the official photos show - or it was blown out as a gaping grapefruit sized hole - in the back of the head - an obvious exit wound, that there is no record of but ALL of the witnesses saw. If JFK was shot from the back rear and the exit wound was in the front - then how come his handsome face wasn't destroyed and there was no distortion to the part of his face that should have been blown out if he had indeed been killed by a bullet from the rear? I ask this to David V P or anyone who believes that the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest was the origin of the head shot, which appears to originate from the right front. BK

Here's some more: http://www.audioforensicexpert.com/blog/ Parts One and Two

Because they aren't interested in the truth, only in selling papers and advertising. Blakey says he was misquoted too, though it appears they at least talked to him. There were two or three presentations at the Wecht conference on the media and how journalism has failed the assassination. Normally such misquotes as those in National Enquirer would go unchallenged, but Tony and Robbyn immediately put out a disclaimer and have periodic updates on their blog and Facebook, so the truth isn't hard to find if you look. And guess what, the truth, the REAL story about these guys, as Larry Hancock has demonstrated here by trying to figure it out - the REAL story is even better than the National Enquirer's sensationalized yellow journalism, I think they call it. There were two or three presentations at the Wecht conference on the media and how journalism has failed the assassination On Thursday night in Pittsburgh, the Heinz History Center sponsored a very interesting program on the media and the assassination with a panel that consisted of Jeff Morley, Lisa Pease, Russ Baker, Jerry Policoff, David Talbot and Oliver Stone, and the video of this program should be available on line. Since they had all been loosened up some of the interactions are interesting and what they discuss important, even though it was discussed in a loose and lightweight fashion. Then on Saturday, Lisa Pease gave a lesson on how everyone must adapt the standards of real journalists and historians - and always check sources and confirm it elsewhere before accepting it, and listed the usual disinformation suspects as ones to beware of - including two - McAdams and Holland, who were there. So you have muckrakers like National Enquirer that will say anything - dizinfo who will give you propaganda, and then real journalists like Tony Summers and few others who try to keep an open mind, research the hell out of it, interview everybody, confirm everything from first hand sources and report that truth as best you can in a style that people will want to read. Tony was upset about the wrong photo caption and moved to correct it right away, and I'm sure he will correct any other such mistakes, in fact we can depend on it.

Then why aren't there TWO entry wounds in JFK's head? The autopsy report couldn't be clearer as to the NUMBER of times President Kennedy was shot--and the general direction those shots came from: "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high-velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." -- Via JFK's Autopsy Report http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0281b.htm Are we really supposed to believe the above words are nothing but a pack of lies? Moreover, the above words printed in JFK's autopsy report are corroborated by the autopsy photos AND X-rays, which do not show TWO wounds of entry to JFK's head. More lies? More deceit? More covering up? Is there a limit to the number of lies and fake pictures and fake reports and phony testimony that a reasonable person should swallow when evaluating the JFK evidence? Or are the limits boundless? Yea, David, Coool your jets until you can see the videos of the presentations. Your pal John McAdams was there and so was Max Holland, and I await to hear what they have to say. And you can't just take one presenter, you have to take in all that was said and evaluate it, but from the work of some of the researchers, they argue that there were indeed two head shots, one coming after the Z-film head shot that blows apart the right side of JFK's head. McClellan said he based his opinions on what he saw standing at the end of the gurney and looking at JFK's head wound while the other two doctors worked on the throat wound, and were originally unaware of the gaping wound to the back of JFK's head, which appeared to be an exit wound. As for the source of that entrance wound, although he didn't know the autopsy doctors had missed it, the young mortician who pieced JFK's head back together after the autopsy said that there was a small, thin pencil sized wound above JFK's right eye just above the hair line. If they would have shaved JFK's hair, as they would have done in a proper autopsy, that wound would have been immediately recognized, but because they didn't look for it they didn't record it. As Dr. Wecht pointed out, the autopsy should have taken place in Texas and performed by civilian pathologists who didn't take orders from generals, as the three doctors who did perform the autopsy, - only one of whom - Fink had ever performed autopsies on gunshot victims, as Humes and Boswell had NEVER, Ever performed one autopsy on a gunshot victim before. Finck later testified that a four star general ordered him not to probe the full extent of the back wound, and when the doctors complained about cigar smoke and ordered the cigar smoker out of the autopsy theater - the military officer who was told to convey that message came back and said it was a four star general and he couldn't tell a general not to smoke if he wanted to. So who do you think was running the autopsy, the doctors or the generals? Lies, deceit, cover-up? Let's see, the Navy doctors at Bethesda had never done an autopsy on a gunshot victim before, and the late arriving Finck, who had done thousands of such autopsies in the Army, was ordered not to do a complete autopsy, the doctor who wrote up three different autopsy reports learned the day after the autopsy that there was a throat wound they had missed, then he had burned his notes, and the location they determined was the entrance wound in the back of the head was later corrected by an official medical panel as being four inches off - that's four inches ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. How could they make such a mistake? As Cyril Wecht said, if they were Asian doctors, they would have been so embarrassed they would have committed suicide, if they were European doctors they would have had the honor to resign, but because they are American military officers, they can bullxxxx their way out of it. And I'm glad Anthony enjoyed himself and learned some things, and started this thread, and I look forward to hearing from other forum members who were there - like Zack, Steve Rosen and Pat Speer. Jeff Morley has been blogging about some of the speakers at JFKFacts.org and I will be posting my thoughts and notes at my blog as soon as I can. BK

If you go to Jeff Morley's JFKFacts.org there is a report on my presentation at the Wecht conference and a link to the Audio Forensic web site where you can listen to the new, combined Air Force One radio transmission tape that made its premier at the Wecht conference. I will post the links and transcript to the combined tapes at my JFKcountercoup blog as soon as I can. Still on the road, on the run, BK

Hey Cliff In his opening welcome spiel, Cyril Wect himself asked the question. he didn't know the answer and he asked the question. Others had different answers, but I'll have to get back to you on it. BK

Okay, I'm here, blogging from the main hall at the Wecht conference. Have sent my first report to http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com And I was going to ask a question but I forgot what it is, what am I suppose to ask them again Cliff?

Tony sent this note to some friends, which makes things a little more or less clear: To all: The National Enquirer is as of today running a lurid headline - which I haven't seen yet - suggesting there's now 'proof' of the identity of a second shooter, and that he 'fired from the grassy knoll.' This story claims to be based on the new edition of my book Not In Your Lifetime. Some of you will see this story. Though I have yet to see its text, I want to assure my friends and associates in the Group that I told the Enquirer nothing at all along the lines that there is 'proof' of anything, or even that the man I name in my final chapter - Diaz, was a 'second gunman.' I like to think you would not expect me to make such claims. And hope that - if interested- you'll refer to the Diaz references in the relatively short passage in the final chapter of the new edition of my book. The new information is in fact pretty interesting new information - though by no means what the Enquirer asks its readers to believe! Tony Summers You would think that when the Daily Mail picked up the Enquirer article they would have checked with Tony himself. BK (On the Road)

I would like to know how many people - other than those who were given public tickets in the lottery - how many people will be given a pass? I would think that the people organizing the event - the Mayor, the main speaker - Ruth A. and her committee, and the Sixth Floor - among others - how many OTHER people will be given PASSES to the event besides those who "won" the lottery. And who are they? That should be public info.

The story, as originally published in National Enquirer, stretches the truth a LOT. The Mail should straighten it out, or I'm sure Tony will.

I'm heading to Pittsburg and will try to blog live from the conference at http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com Send me a PM or if you have my email you can email me with some feedback or questions. BK

Whose fault is that? How does that change the significance of the evidence? How does a tailor-made suit initiate legal proceedings? Are those who want to proceed down a legal avenue so inept that they don't recognize the prima facie case for conspiracy? You don't know what the "old xxxx" is, Bill. You don't evince a clue. Bill, what happened to the bullets that caused JFK's throat and back wounds? With the body and the x-rays in front of them the autopsists considered the possibility JFK was struck with advanced weaponry, hi-tech bullets that didn't show up on x-ray. They asked the FBI men if such weaponry existed. SA Sibert called the FBI Lab to find out. We didn't get an answer to that question until the Church Committee in 1975 -- advanced weaponry was tested at Fort Detrick Maryland where the rounds didn't show up on x-ray. Many different types of weapons firing paralytics and toxins. We can't say for certain that this is what happened to JFK, but the corroborative evidence is substantial. You keep telling us about Fort Detrick, what did happen there? Please inform us. thanks And I will ask your question as to what happened to the bullets that caused JFK's throat and back wounds, but only once, not a hundred times, as you have asked it here.

Tilting at windmills, digging rabbit hole after rabbit hole, over-looking obvious investigative leads -- Yes! You've all been hoodwinked. Just as Salandria predicted in '75, and just as Schotz observed in '98. When you claim that the clothing evidence doesn't belong in a court of law you are acting as adjunct to the official cover-up. I'm repeating Schotz' critique, Bill. You guys haven't done much with the old evidence, much less tell us about all the new and exciting evidence you're working on now. I didn't say the clothing evidence didn't belong in a court of law - I said that it hasn't led to a legal reopening of the case - just as I am repeatedly reminded that the Second Floor lunchroom encounter hasn't exonerated Oswald - As for the new and exciting evidence I am working on now - it is identifying new documents and records that weren't reviewed and new witnesses that haven't been questioned, and there are many. You are the one who wants to wallow in the old xxxx, while others, not just me, but others are getting new witnesses and information all the time, and wouldn't it be grand to post it all so you and the debunkers can xxxxe all over it. There will be a time and place to review the new stuff, but its not here and now.

Well, if it is too dangerous to know the truth and act on it - then COPA - whose members are trying to get a release of the remaining government records that are sealed by the government, and trying to get a federal grand jury to investigate the destruction of records and obstruction of justice in the assassination, and a trying to get a local Dallas grand jury to properly investigate the murder of Dallas policeman J.D. Tippit and its association with the assassination, and establish a Hidden History Museum and an assassination archives and research center in DC - COPA members trying to do these things are the biggest threat to those who killed JFK. So I assume those who attack COPA and COPA's projects and objectives feel threatened by what we are doing and I'm glad that we are upsetting people. I just wish it was the people in power and not just internet idiots, or maybe they represent them in spirit? BK

Is it just me, or does anyone else think that those independent researchers who formed the COA - Committee for an Open Archives with me in the late1980s and the people who formed COPA in the early 1990s and monitored the activities of the ARRB and were the only group to continually oversee the JFK Act in Congress, - shall we just let idiots with internet access ignore all the work we have done over the past 30 years and call us soft porn stars and detract from the original work being done today? I think those Lone Nutters who continually proclaim Oswald guilty even though we know for a fact that he was no where near the Sixth Floor Sniper's Nest at the time of the assassination, and those Conspiracy Theorists who try to pin the blame on their favorite donkey, are equally wrong, and the correct approach to the assassination of President Kennedy is to consider it an unsolved cold case homicide - as it should be legally classified and investigated. Those who think COPA "cooperated" with the government are correct only in the sense that COPA actually garnered the overall support needed to get the JFK Act of 1992 passed by Congress, and reluctantly signed by President Bush (G.H.W.), and as accurately described in the Final Report of the ARRB. COPA was the only organization that continued to monitor the work of the ARRB from its inception until it was dissolved, and we continue to monitor it - the only org that I know of that does so - so all attempts to degrade COPA can be blatantly seen as from idiots or part of a psy ops propaganda attack by those who believe COPA to be a threat to them or those who sponsored the Dealey Plaza operation. Those who attack anyone who merely asks questions and seeks answers and those who feel threatened by those questions should consider the fact that they have their heads up their arse and aren't in a position to be objective. I think the soft-porn in the JFK assassination is propagated by those who keep repeating the same themes over and over as if they are can't get enough of it, when in fact the truth about the the assassination is very diverse but can be very clear to anyone who wants to really know the truth. BK

Dave, I'll give you some deep background on her before you go. You should make arrangements ahead of time. And be sure and be polite and not accusatory as you will represent all JFK researchers, and some are just rude and reflect bad on everyone who has legitimate questions. It's also important to get it on audio tape, if not audio-video - and she will agree that its important for accuracy and you don't want to misquote her. BK Also, to keep from cutting your own name off, make sure that you let the tape recorder run for about five seconds before you start talking. And make a copy for yourself before you sent the original to anybody... --Tommy Tommy, I tried to send you a PM to get you to advise Dave, but your box is full. And I have heard back from Baylor Library and they will archive any oral history tapes and transcripts that are compiled. You can send the consent form but it isn't necessary as long as you identify yourself on the tape and say that you are taping it for accuracy and your subject knows you are taping them. And make sure you don't have the pause button on the whole time. BK

I was there at the COPA conference when E. M. Schotz gave his "Waters of Knowledge" speech and Vince Salandria his keynote, though I hope we've learned a lot more since then, including the realization that despite Fonzi and Cliff to propagate the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket as positive proof of conspiracy, and while convincing on a personal level, it will not reopen the case at the legal level. But if all the scientists could agree on the acoustical evidence, - that there are at least four shots on the DPD tape and one is from the Grassy Knoll, then that could and should require the legal gears to move, however rusty they are. The scientists don't agree however, and although I have a copy and have tried to read the "new" study referred to, I don't understand it and am not qualified to comment on it. If you are a scientist or a really smart person and want a copy of the "Sabato" acoustics study, send me a PM with your email and I forward it to you. I do know that the scientists who did the original studies stand by their work, and no attempt has ever been made to duplicate their work, which is the way science is supposed to be tested. And the porno is in the mind of the beholder, not in the words or the pictures or the conferences and symposiums. BK

The new data, Dr Sabato says, takes the House Select Committee's theories about a second shooter and 'blows them out of the water'. 'Their evidence simply does not hold. And they concluded there was a conspiracy,' he told CBS. The JFK Assassination Porn Industry reaps what it sows. Reaps what it swallows.

Dave, I'll give you some deep background on her before you go. You should make arrangements ahead of time. And be sure and be polite and not accusatory as you will represent all JFK researchers, and some are just rude and reflect bad on everyone who has legitimate questions. It's also important to get it on audio tape, if not audio-video - and she will agree that its important for accuracy and you don't want to misquote her. BK

Hey Dave, she lives in an assistant living facility, but seems like her mind is still sharp. Maybe they'll let you visit her with a tape recorder, for an "oral history" interview, but check to see if there's a video of her giving the talk first and make sure you don't duplicate any of the info she has already given out. She's a very interesting person, and while she testified extensively before Warren Commission, they didn't ask her a lot of important questions, and inexplicably neither she nor her ex-Michael Paine were called to testify before the HSCA or ARRB. Maybe you can do what the government failed to do?

Elisabeth Forsling Harris worked with the PR firm that handled the motorcade, Sam Bloom - a big PR firm in Dallas at the time. Peuterbaugh officially worked for the Agricultural Department, but took his orders from the Democratic National Committee, and got in to the DC crowd through Orville Freeman, the Sec of Interior who accompanied JFK on the Conservation tour in late September '63. I think EFH's $ came from CIA, and they bankrolled some literary ops like MS and the Paris Review, another CIA financed publication. Sam Bloom - the Dallas PR firm that she worked with, was a big one, and ironically they hired the Jagger/Chiles/Stoval graphics arts firm as subcontractors for photos and printing, and the day the guns Oswald ordered arrived at the Dallas post office, Oswald noted on his timed work sheet that he was working on a project for the Sam Bloom PR firm. He is also listed as working all day that day, until 5pm, so he couldn't have picked up the weapons after the post office had closed, and its still a mystery of when he did that, and even if he did it, since no one at the post office recalls handing him the rifle and pistol over the counter. In any case, both EFH and Jack Peuterbaugh were in the thick of the motorcade business, and Peuterbaugh is still alive to answer questions. BK

I don't believe nobody can come up with anything interesting on Elizabeth Forsling Harris. And hope Linda hasn't dropped out. BK I thought I would post this obituary for Elizabeth F Harris because, when I clicked on the link above cited as her obituary, it was the following.Paid Notice: Deaths HARRIS, ELIZABETH FORSLING Published: August 17, 1999 HARRIS-Elizabeth Forsling. To Betty, the mother I always wanted, you opened the door on the real world for me and for others I will never meet. I love you and will be listening for your creative spirit for the rest of my own days on this earth. I know I'll never find another like you in this lifetime. Will be looking for you in the next one. Karen Olson Here is the full text of the N Y Times obituary: August 7, 1999 Elizabeth F. Harris, 77, the First Publisher of Ms. By NICK RAVO Elizabeth Forsling Harris, who was briefly the first publisher of Ms. magazine, died on July 14 in Manhattan, where she lived. She was 77. She died in a hospital of complications from emphysema, said a friend, Patricia Reilly. Ms. Harris helped start Ms. magazine in late 1971, but she left after the first issue, citing disagreement on a wide range of issues. In 1975, she filed a suit for $1.7 million against the first editor of Ms., Gloria Steinem, and Pat Carbine, the publisher, contending that they had fraudulently misrepresented the value of the magazine's stock. The suit was dismissed. After Ms. magazine, Ms. Harris worked in the early days of cable television, developing a shopping service called Cable Catalog with Neiman Marcus. In 1976, she became the publisher of Working Woman. In the early 1980's, she was a deputy commissioner at the New York State Department of Commerce. Ms. Harris was born in Greeneville, Tenn., on Jan. 8, 1922, and graduated from Mount Vernon College in Washington. In 1941, she took a job at Newsweek in New York as a researcher. She later became a radio and television editor. In 1951, she joined ABC, where she produced a program featuring Walter Winchell, and was one of the network's first programming executives. Two years later, she left to start her own public relations company in Dallas, where she remained through the late 1950's, until she became a special consultant for Arthur Godfrey Productions in New York. In 1961, she was the deputy associate director of the Peace Corps. She returned to Dallas in July 1963 and was the local White House liaison for President John F. Kennedy's visit on Nov. 22, 1963. After the Kennedy assassination, she returned to Washington, where she again worked for the Peace Corps and the Democratic National Committee. She later worked for the Girl Scouts of the U.S.A. in New York, the Urban Institute research organization in Washington and CRM Inc., in Del Mar, Calif., the publisher of Psychology Today. Ms. Harris was the first president of the Women's Forum, a networking organization, served on the board of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and was a trustee of Mount Vernon College and Tusculum College in Tusculum, Tenn. No immediate survivors were reported. What is interesting to me is her relationship with Arthur Godfrey, although Godfrey came from a family of ostensible freethinkers, Godfrey himself was a former navy man who was involved in radio communications..... One area that deserves mention is that "Godfrey used his pervasive fame to advocate a strong anti-Communist stance and to pitch for enhanced strategic air power in the Cold War atmosphere. In addition to his advocacy for civil rights, he became a strong promoter of his middle-class fans vacationing in Hawaii and Miami Beach, Florida, formerly enclaves for the wealthy. He made a TV movie in 1953 taking the controls of an Eastern Airlines Lockheed Constellation airliner and flying to Miami, thus showing how safe airline travel had become. As a reserve officer, he used his public position to cajole the Navy into qualifying him as a Naval Aviator, and played that against the Air Force, who successfully recruited him into their reserve. At one time during the 1950s, Godfrey had flown every active aircraft in the military inventory at one time or another. His continued unpaid shilling for Eastern Airlines earned him the undying gratitude of good friend Eddie Rickenbacker, the WWI flying ace who was the President of the airline. He was such a good friend of the airline that Rickenbacker took a retiring DC-3, fitted it out with an executive interior and DC-4 engines, and presented it to Godfrey, who then used it to commute to the studios in New York City from his huge Leesburg, Virginia farm every Sunday night. Such a quid pro quo would nowadays bring charges of conflict of interest, but in the context of the early 1950s, nothing was said." Small world, isn't it......

But Baker and Truly's WC testimony rules out their encountering someone else on the fourth floor. If Baker and Truly are trustworthy witnesses, as you keep insisting, why don't you rule out a fourth floor encounter? Are you saying they might have lied to the WC? [...] Did Truly lie? I don't know, but don't think so. He didn't have to, as if he did lie he would have seen Oswald go through the lunchroom door and would have kept Lumpkin's key role out of it. Bill, If Truly had lied and said he'd seen Oswald go through what you call "the lunchroom door," how would that have kept Lumpkin "out of it?" BK: TOMMY, THEY AREN'T NECESSARILY RELATED, JUST TWO ITEMS THAT IF TRULY'S BEHAVIOR WAS SCRIPTED, HE SHOULD HAVE SEEN OSWALD GO THROUGH THE DOOR, AND LUMPKIN'S ROLE WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED - AND I BELIEVE SUPPRESSED. As I understand it, Truly claimed that he witnessed Baker talking to Oswald (and vouched for Oswald) in the second floor lunchroom and then, about ten minutes later, noticed that Oswald was missing. Then Truly called the warehouse and got Oswald's address, phone number, and physical description. Then he told Lumpkin that Oswald was missing, and Lumpkin suggested that he tell Fritz, which Truly did. So how does Truly's telling the truth (not seeing) or lying (seeing) Oswald walk through "the lunchroom door" have anything to do with the chain of events I've just outlined, given the fact that Truly claimed that he not only witnessed Oswald in the lunchroom but vouched for him there, as well? What do you think Lumpkin would have done regarding Oswald if Truly hadn't mentioned to him that Oswald was missing? Do you think Lumpkin would have said to Truly, "Say, Roy, is your temporary employee who used to live in Russia, that Lee Harvey Oswald guy, missing by any chance?" Thank you, --Tommy PS Every time I click on your two links, I get the error message "Server Not Found -- Firefox can't find the server at www.jfkcountercoup.blogspot. I don't know what Truly would have done if Lumpkin didn't get him to go see Fritz, and I don't know what Lumpkin would have done if Truly didn't tell him about the suddenly and mysteriously missing employee who he had seen on the second floor ten minutes earlier. I don't think that Oswald was the only employee missing, as some of them, if you read their statements - reported they were not permitted back in the building after going out to see the motorcade. So Oswald couldn't have been the only missing employee. I don't know the answers, I'm just asking questions myself. And I don't know how to fix the link problem, but blogspot is run by Google and if you go through Google first you should be able to get there. But I will be leaving this subject soon, and devoting my time to the Air Force One tapes, though I hope you all keep trying to figure it out. BK And isn't my blog link posted by Ed Forum just below my biography?

I don't know Ian. i guess if you eliminate Oswald as the Sixth Floor sniper, if he wasn't a "stranger," you'd have to look at all of the other employees, not just the floor laying crew or other book order boys like Oswald and JED, but those who worked for the sub-contractors and book publishers, as well as those who delivered books to the TSBD and were there on occasion. Dougherty was described as a former vet, but one who was slow and with a low IQ. I think he lived with his parents and was assisted in his testimony, though we don't know much more about him. At least I don't There is also the possibility the Sixth Floor sniper was a cop, as that would explain why he was in no hurry to leave and that the plan was to just blend in with those searching the building after it was sealed. Most everybody though, wants to chase Ozzie the Rabbit, and gets distracted from even attempting to identify the real gunman, who we know wore a white shirt, was between 25-30 years old, and had a bald spot on the top of his head, and was armed with a rifle. The cop who "discovered" the Sniper's Nest, also passed two men descending the steps when he was going up. Who were they? BK

The HSCA acoustical study focused on the echo unique echo patterns produced by the sound of a high powered rifle being shot - and they shot their own guns and taped them and compared them to what's on the tape and when one of the acoustical scientists who conducted the story was asked if he was told the sounds on the tape were produced somewhere else - he replied that he would want to be taken there and find an exact duplicate of Dealey Plaza. The only way the HSCA study could be seriously refuted would be to duplicate the experiments, and I don't think they did that. They did just what debunkers and the NSF did and put out a report saying it is wrong. The HSCA conclusions concerning conspiracy did not depend on the acoustical evidence, but they in fact came up with other evidence of conspiracy even though they were the target of a CIA disinformation operation and lost their congressional support.