Jim Hackett II

Claire Lee Chennault. Commander of the American Volunteer Group, more commonly known as "the Flying Tigers". Native of Louisiana that became a tactical leader of air combat of some expertise. When other P-40s were being destroyed with some ease by the Mitsubishi Zeroes, Chennault knew how the P-40s could survive by using the aircraft's strengths and avoiding WW1 style dog-fighting where advantages were all in the Zeroes corner. After the end of the Japanese war he operated Civil Air Transport (CAT) and we all know where that endeavor wound up with KMT/SW China and the OSS far east hands. Helliwell and etc. Did I get the identity correct? Jim

John, Is this the same individual that was instrumental in empowering the American Volunteer Group in 1941 under the auspices of FDR?? And I would find it significant that Helliwell et al, the KMT/Burma "arena" are part of the efforts that came of the AVG and CAT. My short take is that it was TV Soong's money and Mr. Concoran's string pulling that got the power played out in the Beltway for the AVG. Looking forward to your future information on this man and his deeds. Sincerely Jim

Not only has this thread provided new stuff to read and consider, but also tied some loose ends re:Laos/CIA/Shackley etc. for me. Thanks. It pays sometimes to be silent and open to learn more. Again Thanks to all members for this thread. Jim Oh and Happiest of Holidays and Best of the New Year

FWIW as opinion, I too find Tosh "a man who is telling the truth. Therefore I consider him a reliable witness." I intended to make this point earlier but Holiday and family matters that make this time of year a grand thing delayed this reply. I beg pardon. Jim

Born summer 1953. In southern Indiana USA. Farm Country. Grew up of working class parents both worked to build a life for us kids. Own a home etc. Taught the value of a dollar earned by the sweat of the working people. Formative years spent working grandfathers farm after school and fulltime in summer and all that goes with 650 tillable acres and learning to drive at age 10 and shoot at age 12. Crops and livestock operations and the inherent love and respect for nature. 200 acres of woods that were my place to hunt and camp at will. Interested in JFK assassination since 1965 when even at age 12 I found holes in the WC. Granted of "off and on" interest as the HSCA LIES 1979 broke my spirit and hope of ever getting the truth. I got back into interest about 1990. 4 year honorable service USMC 1972 - 1976. Worked as high steel ironworker (UNION skilled trade) building "skyscrappers" and was disabled in 1992 fall on job. Only "profitable" education past high school was the 3 years in Ironworker's apprenticeship. So when I say the WTC steel couldn't have melted I know what I speak of without an "engineering" degree. A view from the open beam as opposed to a blackboard view of an engineer. I was once the poor guy that had to make the structure do what the print said it did from that office. 3 years post high school at major university IU (bio and poly sci and US history majors) I quit as I could see no future in a degree that at best could go places I didn't want to "live". Teaching in a high school is not for me, it is an honorable trade but not a match for me. I had not the tolerance to stay in to go to law school. Had I done so I would be the poorest lawyer in the US as I would only take cases representing poor people against the Govt. and corporations as John Edwards did. Working indoors at repetitive tasks is never a good job match for a country farm kid that hunted and camped all through growing up age and I still do so. Nor was wasting time in meaningless classes of material I would never use. Nor was being placed under the supervision of those that would not know a minimum wage life from the royal life of the favored. From 1992 disablement I have been a political activist for Veterans and for low income and homeless citizens. For 6 years I had nothing and was homeless, no compensation for on the job dire injuries did I ever get until 1998. I was sensitized to the issues of social justice the hard way. Indiana is a right to work state and enables employers to duck responsibility for injuries in this current age of Adam Smith Lessez Faire Economics. Sure I was angry at first then I threw the saddle on the anger and knew the "establishment" could do no more to me as I was already on the street and broke. I became a radical socialist of that decade of pain and social degradation and the loss of home and land to pay the health care cost of hospital and a year of nursing home rehab. A doctor now owns my land and my lake that I built by damming a creek and built a home on my land. My working class "A frame" house wasn't good enough for a doctor I guess. It all opened my eyes to the issues and need for redress. The roots of my own socialism which go back to seeing that even in USMC I served with only working class sons and a few upper class officers, (but those people were the best people I have ever been part of - Semper Fidelis) the fall injury only gave me back my roots and finished the polarization. As time has gone on I have become active in political research as I have the time and ability to get to NARA on occasion. My partner common law wife Cindy and I host a Black Op Radio dinner on Thursday evening to listen to Len Osanic's BOR internet radio show and to discuss current events and JFK assassination research. We cook and enjoy the community aspects of the events. The host "place" cycles through the group as it makes it easier than our having to do all the cooking as it was at first.

Dawn, FWIW I think you made the right call as to ignoring the poster. As well as where "they" might be better suited. Too many have never talked to people from Louisiana that of Living Memory have a much more complimentary opinion of Judge (ELECTED REPEATEDLY) Jim Garrison. Also as is often pointed out in this house to doubters - WHO ELSE TRIED to bring the case into any Criminal Court of law. That is more than any WC did or HSCA did or ARRB did. A thing too easily forgotten by detractors and those that have never asked nor listened to People of Louisiana tell you about "Standard Oil and the same kinds of people that killed Huey Long did in Jack Kennedy and Jim Garrison was on the right track all along, but he had no chance to get 'em. The thing about corruption and slander of child sex is just more of the same thing he faced when he took them on at trial." I'll keep and take the word of those that elected Jim Garrison and Re-elected Jim Garrison over the word of anyone else like say Ms. McMillian as known paid CIA hack. Sometimes the front porch talk of those that knew at the time is better than all the scholorship of CIA hacks.

Born summer 1953. In southern Indiana USA. Farm Country. Grew up of working class parents both worked to build a life for us kids. Own a home etc. Taught the value of a dollar earned by the sweat of the working people. Formative years spent working grandfathers farm after school and fulltime in summer and all that goes with 650 tillable acres and learning to drive at age 10 and shoot at age 12. Crops and livestock operations and the inherent love and respect for nature. 200 acres of woods that were my place to hunt and camp at will. Interested in JFK assassination since 1965 when even at age 12 I found holes in the WC. Granted of "off and on" interest as the HSCA LIES 1979 broke my spirit and hope of ever getting the truth. I got back into interest about 1990. 4 year honorable service USMC 1972 - 1976. Worked as high steel ironworker (UNION skilled trade) building "skyscrappers" and was disabled in 1992 fall on job. Only "profitable" education past high school was the 3 years in Ironworker's apprenticeship. So when I say the WTC steel couldn't have melted I know what I speak of without an "engineering" degree. A view from the open beam as opposed to a blackboard view of an engineer. I was once the poor guy that had to make the structure do what the print said it did from that office. 3 years post high school at major university IU (bio and poly sci and US history majors) I quit as I could see no future in a degree that at best could go places I didn't want to "live". Teaching in a high school is not for me, it is an honorable trade but not a match for me. I had not the tolerance to stay in to go to law school. Had I done so I would be the poorest lawyer in the US as I would only take cases representing poor people against the Govt. and corporations as John Edwards did. Working indoors at repetitive tasks is never a good job match for a country farm kid that hunted and camped all through growing up age and I still do so. Nor was wasting time in meaningless classes of material I would never use. Nor was being placed under the supervision of those that would not know a minimum wage life from the royal life of the favored. From 1992 disablement I have been a political activist for Veterans and for low income and homeless citizens. For 6 years I had nothing and was homeless, no compensation for on the job dire injuries did I ever get until 1998. I was sensitized to the issues of social justice the hard way. Indiana is a right to work state and enables employers to duck responsibility for injuries in this current age of Adam Smith Lessez Faire Economics. Sure I was angry at first then I threw the saddle on the anger and knew the "establishment" could do no more to me as I was already on the street and broke. I became a radical socialist of that decade of pain and social degradation and the loss of home and land to pay the health care cost of hospital and a year of nursing home rehab. A doctor now owns my land and my lake that I built by damming a creek and built a home on my land. My working class "A frame" house wasn't good enough for a doctor I guess. It all opened my eyes to the issues and need for redress. The roots of my own socialism which go back to seeing that even in USMC I served with only working class sons and a few upper class officers, (but those people were the best people I have ever been part of - Semper Fidelis) the fall injury only gave me back my roots and finished the polarization. As time has gone on I have become active in political research as I have the time and ability to get to NARA on occasion. My partner common law wife Cindy and I host a Black Op Radio dinner on Thursday evening to listen to Len Osanic's BOR internet radio show and to discuss current events and JFK assassination research. We cook and enjoy the community aspects of the events. The host "place" cycles through the group as it makes it easier than our having to do all the cooking as it was at first.

This is kind of fuzzy, I worked with it some but I think the point is that the frame I got isn't really definitive. I feel that some of those weapons are most likely M1 Garand surplus. ?? I would find it very odd if there were two types of weapons in this possibly staged for the camera training session by appearance. That is my tentative idea, anyone have ideas or ways to improve the data? Jim Hackett II

EXCELLENT Larry: Kudos as this post filled a couple of my own questions. The Balkins and so forth. I suppose it shouldn't have shocked me given the history of Italy and the clash of cultures that is the Balkins. On the 13 Days DVD there is a documentary about the Missile Crisis and it shows some of the in training cubans working with and cleaning a rifle that appears to me to be MC carbines. I'll have to go see if I can grab a screenshot of that so others can help me out. The same clip was used in the opening of "JFK" too. I would not be able to swear as fact in court but I think the cabines are MC, however the MC is very similar at a glance to some Mausers. I have to go, but I'll try to dig up what I do have about the "South Florida Militia" and how they were equipped, besides that clip. After all it could be "wishful watching" on my part. Jim Hackett II

>>>>Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered. Marie Muchmore kept her "undeveloped" film in her purse until Monday (11/25/63) at which time she went to UPI and sold them her undeveloped film sight unseen. UPI then sent that film, along with other images they were buying up pertaining to the assassination, to New York. There the film was developed and shown at a local TV station to see if it was of any value. Upon seeing that it did show the shooting of the President, it was then sent over to editing and aired on Television. That film being shown on TV is how the Feds found out about it. >>>>>So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination.<<<<< What the?.....Surely you jest right? You would presume that only the photographer could induce the editing of film? In particular if the photgrapher DID NOT view the film before giving it over to someone else.??? Weak to the extreme. Surely you are aware of the acknowledged FBI dragnet that went on for months in Dallas/Fort Worth of all photo labs and even public appeals on public media? Weak very very weak.... The same film labs that kept photos from patrons rolls of film as reported in [red flag warning..] Crossfire/Marrs kept negatives and prints to use as "evidence" that seemingly never were, these same labs and U.P.I. are suddenly above the things some know they did do? Some members here have posted elsewhere the little notices that were placed in packages of prints when the negatives and prints were "gone missing" (my words). I'll show you why this point is so lame. You again conveniently it seems to me forget the history of the ordeal of the Nix film's return and the request to get another copy because this print isn't as clear as the original print they VIEWED before they turned it over to government agencies. They even got the camera fixed by the F.B.I. which the F.B.I did pay them for. Or the history of Life magazine's photo lab technician "accidentally" breaking the most important piece of film, (Abe's original? MAYBE NOT!) they ever had control of, in a world class photo lab. These are not the kinds of histories that give me total confidence in media photo facilities that you have. No matter the particular film or lab you refer to. Then we have C.I.A. front firm ITEK examining and declaring the Nix film showed nothing of value. But the Orville Nix family has claimed that the film they viewed before and after it left their possession are different. To the point that Orville Nix requested a new copy from the FBI and got it. No clearer but they got it and the camera fixed at tax payers expense. I won't qoute Twyman as I know that puts you in an absolute foaming at the mouth frenzy, all this is detailed on pp. 149 - 153. -- BLOODY TREASON The claim of alteration of film is even more explict than that passage, from another source, Orville Nix's daughter stated that beside not being as clear as the original copy they viewed before turning the film over to the FBI on December 1, 1963, wasn't darkened in the knoll scenes, To be expected I suppose. But as for the Muchmore film: it is too much to stretch credibility to say: "Marie Muchmore's film never had the chance to get into the Feds hands before it was shown on TV. Once that occurred, it was too late for it to be altered. " Oh really? Weak weak weak. Assuming too much. However this is WEAKER "So we have a film that could not have been altered that shows exactly the same thing the Zapruder film does during a critical part of the assassination. " It most certainly does not coincide with the Z cartoon. Nor is it clear to me that the film couldn't be altered, in fact the truth is that grave doubt exists as to it's authenticity too. See [red flag warning] The Great Zapruder Film Hoax pp. 291 - 308 - "The Reel Story or the Real Story" by Dr. David W. Mantek. So what about another odd coincidental film ruined at exactly the headshot frames? Coincidence my butt. Too many coincidences, too many unquieried presumptions of facts that are not facts. Ah well it again an agree to disagree as I just want the STUDENTS you so cavalierly dismiss to check things for themselves ALWAYS. Do not take my word or any one elses, do your own research and thinking. Paraphrased from the introduction to Jim Marrs' CROSSFIRE Jim Hackett II

Are you satisfied yet? Made enough of a fool of yourself yet? Stop beating a dead horse. This is very VERY funny....except it is also sad, very sad. So do I laugh or cry? That's easy....I LAUGH OUT LOUD. I expect next a round of "I know you are but what am I?" Schoolyard crap I would say but that would insult the school systems. Jim Hackett II "It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep..."--James Hepburn

GREAT James: Now we are getting to the point of the forum eh? If I might have some other docs or stuff that would be helpful, I'll be glad to share whatever I have. But I am sure many have much more than I do. I'll see if I can't dig up the other 2 pages of the report from the Western Cartridge Co mentioned in that document just for starters, if memory serves I didn't get that. But only a search will tell. Best to you. Jim Hackett II

Excuse me....BUT... I judged by this thread alone. This is as it should be. If Mr/Ms. Eohagan posts incomplete data there ARE BETTER WAYS TO ADVISE THAN TO ALIENATE. Better, more construction less obstructive ways. Education forum root to this one, GET IT? It seems to me your mind is already made up on nearly everything. What good can this serve the members of this educational forum? Presumably with students present, maybe younger ones. This is to exchange ideas and constructively critique our ideas to evolve the general knowledge of the case. My mind is not made up on many things but it seems you have just made my mind up about you. Clues accumulate: Lets see constantly pushing Lancer in almost every thread, opposing the alteration of films, argumentative put downs of others in a forum you do not run. I'm getting a picture...who needs Miss Cleo? And it's not just me that figured it out either. It would seem you desire something most do not... Confrontation. Because of the atmosphere of open discussion in civil manner here I recommended this forum to my most curious nephew. It is their future that they can still shape. With our help and clarification, not ridicule. Younger ones that don't know of the history of the case and might ask a question like: Oh my gosh wait a minute! You mean there was more than one rifle found and photographed coming out of the Texas School Book Depository? IF THEY FELT A QUESTION WOULD BE ANSWERED OR ALLOWED TO BE ASKED TO BE ANSWERED. I repeat LOUDER!!!! BETTER QUALITY PICTURES OR FILES DO NOT BY REQUIREMENT MAKE A BETTER POST. But again you seem to have some thing against Mr./Mrs. Eohagan and myself, that's your problem, I refuse to let it become mine. I gave benefit of doubt that this person was going to finish the thought whatever it was. We all have the right to voice our view with or without images. For that matter who appointed you to judge the quality of posts or intellectual intregity or research level of thought of anyone!!! How can you possibly make any statement about the quality of his image files until you hear him out and then MAYBE PROVIDE BETTER images. That is cooperation, that is education, not obstruction. Jeez you didn't even let the person finish before you put down the person, the post and clearly yourself by showing what you are about in this second post. I thought civil conduct was to refute the data, not the person. But again you and I and all the others were not allowed to hear the point of the thread were we? NOT ALL PEOPLE HAVE SUCH A HIGHLY ADVANCED KNOWLEDGE OF THIS CASE AS ONE SO WISE AND ESTEEMED AS YOU. LoL. You forget the disservice this kind of conduct does to the newcomers lurking and having good thought provoking ideas to be expressed but stifling themselves for fear of being so shabbily treated and insulted. What for the young folks Larry? I think we would do well to try to keep in mind that the newcomers may be reading at any time. It can not serve but to silence the newcomers to see this kind of junk. Why work so hard to belittle? It is small minded conduct. To help another beats acting so as to stop the thread, even if you don't agree with that person, NO moreover when you don't agree with that person. We might learn something from all people, unless we close our minds first. It wouldn't have been as intimidating to the newcomers lurking to just hear that person out. You make much out of something somewhere else this is folly to cite as a source to ridicule as you did. Have you noticed there is not a general trend to stupidity and flame wars here yet. Why import it? Don't expect my help in this effort to silence or change the direction of a thread. I STILL WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER WAS TRYING TO GET TO SAY!! So you succeeded in nothing. Unless MR/MS Eohagan doesn't finish the post. I will not agree with that person unless I do and I will not put them down or ridicule them if I don't agree, I will explain why I feel that this or that is wrong. Man I had a few teachers trying to dictate students thoughts. "Hey Teacher Leave them kids alone!" I await the continuation by Mr/Ms Eohagan, he or she, young or old, right IMHO or wrong IMHO. But you know I would not blame them if they didn't want to be part of this crap. I am done, I don't want to be any longer part of non productive threads. Argumentative putdowns and slams will get the case nowhere. The case is too serious to play with for ego games to me. As another researcher said: Let them argue with themselves. Jim Hackett II "It is difficult to abolish prejudice in those bereft of ideas. The more hatred is superficial, the more it runs deep..."--James Hepburn OK Greg I stole your line again, but it fits so well, don'tcha think? If you are gonna shot me make it quick and in the brain stem. LOL.

Boy do I feel better about both of those posts. LoL. To Terry and Lee I mean, you folks had me going for a minute. Dazed and confused but hey I'm medicated at the moment. So I kept my mouth shut and now I'm really REALLY GLAD I did. LOL Jerry Ford is a ... a .... oh a jerk. I better go before I call him something like a xxxx or worse. Jim Hackett II

Excuse me Larry: But can I also ask a question? I am going to anyway, you know. Your point Larry was? Your frame was prettier but that's just that a clearer frame. I for one and I bet more were curious about where this gentle person was going with that material. Your frame attached maybe clearer but that doesn't invalidate Mr/Ms. eohagan's view. Quality of visual aid doesn't define quality of thinking and or posts. Please gentleperson of whatever gender continue your thought: I am not baiting you to confront, but I am curious. After all only by open exchange and constant reconsideration can we all advance the case. Also a newcomer might find your point instructive even if some others don't or can't. That is education, not de-education. Reconsider everything, examine everything afresh. If this case has proven nothing to me it has proven that knowledge evolves and old accepted proofs are not always constant. Too little of the truth is constant in this case and the best science proves what was once taken as written in stone now needs to be re-cut and put on hold. Like the indestructability of matter -- until Einstein pondered the chiseled in stone laws of energy and matter. Then the stonecutters had more work to do. So I ask gentleperson eohagan continue please. Sincerely and in Regards Jim Hackett II

BRAVO, I too would second Ms. Mauro's thoughts. I would repeat: "We might be able to pass the torch to another generation, yet! Good work, Mr. Simkins, Mr. Richards! " I would express my desire to see the atmosphere preserved to that end. Best Regards and Thanks to Messrs. Simkins and Richards.

Just thought some might be curious about this document I refered to last week. Best Jim PS I hope this works.

Thank You!!!! Jim Hackett II

Mr. Peters: It is a mistake to base too much on suspicious evidence. To whit the real condition of the SS-100X limousine compliments of Secret Service deception, the Z film compliments of Secret Service, FBI, CIA NPIC, and Life Magazine deceptions, and similar such like deceptions. Did anyone ever notice that all the motion picture films have odd things about them? But wait?!!! It's only common to the films the government got their hands on in 1963 - 64! Like damage or obvious editting done at the time of the Headshot? Nix yep messed up frames right then and a blacked out background. Even the Nix family said the film the FBI returned is not the film they gave to the Government. Muchmore? Same messed up frames at the pinpoint in time of the headshot. Coincidence? Nah I doubt it. Zapruder? Just why did old CIA asset Abe testify he filmed from before the limousine's turn from Houston Street onto Elm Street to the time of the limousine going out of view under the triple underpass? When we know the film doesn't show that version of events. He shot the film, or so we are led to accept, can't he know what he shot with his camera? Evidently not eh? And just where is Ms. Sitzman now? And who taught them the Zapruder waltz on that pedestal? Wonder if Jack White could inquire who was the approved CIA dance instructor in Dallas/Fort Worth in 1963? Just Kidding Jack. But interesting eh? Why no stop or near stop in that cartoon? Clearly no timeclock here. This film is so full of holes that to base anything on it is akin to tainted research. No conclusion can be trusted if it relies on that Z film for support. Why? The Stimmons Freeway sign is phony, the people are not cheering on approach of the limousine. They are in other non altered films, the ones the government didn't get their hands on in 63 - 64. Even Dave Power's film shows the crowd's reactions at other places in the motorcade, why would Dealy Plaza spectators be any different? Even the two primary films of the Government's case, Zapruder and Nix don't coincide. Missing people, contradictions of testimony etc, etc. That and given the fact that the film's were kept from us long enough for anything to be manufactured on those films. Particularly when the Nix family INSISTS the film was altered before it was returned and they sued the FBI to get the camera original returned. Unsuccessfully, are you surprised? I am not. The fastest growing family in history? The Frazens. See Murder In Dealy Plaza by Doctor Fetzer, the color section after p. 324, on the last color page. Compare the two frames from the Zapruder Cartoon and the Nix film as ask yourself if there is any way to explain this or other differences between the two films the government based it's case on. Or better yet read that section by Jack White in Fetzer's book and if you can watch the two films and consider: What the hell is going on with this evidence? Now about the Babushka lady's film that was never returned? Damned odd coincidences concerning film in Dealy Plaza don't you think? The ones the government got have oddities or are missing. They do not agree with testimony or films that "escaped" the FBI dragnet of Dallas Fort Worth photo labs in 63 - 64, nor even each other. If the government is not lying why not return all films and why don't the films agree as to spectators and sequences? They should you know. But they do not. It gets worse: It isn't just films that got lost and or altered. Oops they did it again. Lost evidence, like the brain, like lost chains of possession of evidence, like stealing the body. Too many to accept any photos to be taken as "gospel", moreover when the film contradicts witness testimony not supports it. The truth engine (juris prudence and due process) we swiped from the Brits and then modified will work, but it must be allowed to work and the rules of justice must apply to all, most importantly for the Government's prosecution cases. We Cannot rewrite the rules of evidence no matter how badly we want to, tyranny comes from that way of government and I'd say my opinion is that the US is drifting close enough to fascism already. Jim Hackett II

Lee and all: I must make this shorter than I would like as I am not feeling my best today. I will try to address your questions and again I woud stress that my work on this point is NOT the best work on this topic. This is why I would hope some curious people would check out Mr. Craig Roberts work and that of Mr. John Richson. My testing is just a country boy doing a few things to satisfy my own ideas. They are the sniper and ballastician, NOT ME. My primary quest was for valid nitrate testing from a bolt action '92 Mauser and the "study of impact pathology" was an after thought that became more after the nitrate paraffin tests. First yes I did first a presumed first impact with a jacketed round from the rear at a range I guessed to be about the TSBD and Dal-Tex buildings. I did use a laser range finder. I didn't have one when I went to Dealy Plaza, I used plats of Dealy Plaza to guess ranges. What I found was that every single time on a few hunting successes the rear jacketed first shot exited. I am at a loss to determine why the rear shot to the President's head did not? Less power from the Carcano Carbine as we know it is less powerful than the Mauser? Degraded ammo? Sabot? I honestly do not know, I only know that every single jacketed from the rear first shot that I fired exited from the front (in the direction of the critter's muzzle). To be again clear, my endeavors are not real evidence, only things I did to answer my own questions for my own satisfaction and that of my hunting partner. Again to clarify I had to conduct these "experiments" over many hunts over the last three years. Only so many shots can be taken by any "target". Second shot simulations (the the right front of the cranium) were from estimated 50 feet, not so accurate, but I never expected to be submitting this to anyone except in my own home. First a second jacketed 7.62 Nato round was fired about a inch behind the corner of the right eye, it too went cleanly in and not so cleanly out the rear side of the skull. But the deer's head was intact enough that we could use the antler rack to pick the front of the carcass up to attach the "come along" to pick the whole thing up to field dress it. On a later hunt this was not the case for the filled (not mercury) fragible round. It produced after the right rear shot as similar as I could make it, a mess. If anything it was less focused than the blow out the Parkland Doctors described. It was not possible to pick the buck's head up by the rack (antlers). <SPECULATION> I had thought deer's craniums would be more substantial than human's because of all the rut and antler fighting the males do? Are they? <SPECULATION> I digress about the Parkland Doctors press conference, I rely more on this transcript than any other source of data for wounds, to include the photos and X-rays from Bethesda. Things went kind of funny with that body after it left Parkland in my opinion. I would be the first to admit the short comings of my methodology, but I did bring it up first I guess. And all this may prove nothing to some, but I am convinced, atleast about the frontal shot being not a jacketed round. As to why the first from the rear jacketed shot did not exit, I am still considering things. It befuddles me to this day! Sabot? Bad Ammo? Intentionally degraded cartridge? Did the FBI or DPD ever test the condition of the unfired round ejected from the Carcano? Best Regards That's all for now folks! Jim Hackett II

1 smoking gun [Colloq.] any conclusive evidence that proves guilt or fault. —Webster’s New World Dictionary During an interview shortly before a professional conference on “The Death of JFK” that would be held on the Twin Cities campus of The University of Minnesota on 14–16 May 1998, Federal Judge John R. Tunheim, who had served as Chair of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), reported that no “smoking guns” had been discovered in the course of its efforts to declassify assassination records that had been secreted away for 50 years. The ARRB had come into existence as an effect of the passage of “The JFK Act” by Congress during the resurgence of interest in the assassination following the 1991 release of the Oliver Stone film, JFK. The JFK Act had been passed over the intense opposition of President George Bush, a former Director of the CIA, perhaps in part because JFK implies that the CIA, the FBI, and the Pentagon played important roles in planning, executing, and covering up the death of our 35th president. Indeed, even after its passage, President Bush refused to appoint any members to the board, which had to await action by his successor, President Bill Clinton. As its own Final Report (ARRB 1998, p. xxiii) explains, this delay consumed the first 18 months of the existence of the ARRB, which began with a three-year mandate that later would be extended to four, during which it managed to declassify more than 60,000 records. The ARRB My concern, however, was less historical and more immediate. As the organizer and moderator of the Twin Cities conference, I had invited more than a dozen of the most accomplished students of JFK’s assassination to serve as speakers and as commentators in an effort to broaden and deepen our understanding of this event by taking into account new findings, especially those of the ARRB. Prologue “Smoking Guns” in the Death of JFK James H. Fetzer, Ph.D. 2 Murder in Dealey Plaza It was my considered opinion—one I knew to be shared by virtually every other invited speaker, including Douglas Horne, Senior Military Analyst for the ARRB itself—that many records released by the ARRB not only substantiate previous conclusions about conspiracy and cover-up but clearly qualify as “smoking guns.” Judge Tunheim, whom I knew personally, was scheduled to speak at the opening banquet Friday evening, which meant his talk would be the very first presentation of the conference. I resolved to introduce him with a list of findings that, in my judgment, were on the order of “smoking guns,” and drafted some notes as guidelines for my introduction. I thereby hoped to induce him to confront these issues directly. As luck would have it, he arrived nearly 45 minutes late, which made it impossible for me to present my list of discoveries and still keep the meeting on schedule. Although the opportunity was lost, I also resolved to pursue this issue in the belief that the American people should know at least as much as the Chair of the ARRB about its own findings. This book is meant to serve that purpose. The Warren Report John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was murdered during a motorcade as it passed through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 22 November 1963. The official government account of the crime, known as The Warren Report after its Chair, Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren—but technically entitled, The Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1964)—held that JFK was killed by a lone, demented assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald, who fired three shots with a high-velocity rifle from a sixth floor window of the nearby Texas School Book Depository, scoring two hits and one miss, which struck a distant concrete curb, ricocheted and slightly injured by-stander James Tague. (A photograph of the injury may be found in Robert Groden, The Killing of a President 1993, p. 41.) The presumptive shots that hit, however, wreaked considerable damage. The first is alleged to have entered the President’s back at the base of his neck, traversed his neck without impacting any bony structure, exited his throat at the level of his tie, entered the back of Texas Governor John Connally (riding in a jump seat in front of him), shattering a rib, exiting his chest, impacting his right wrist, and deflecting into his left thigh. The bullet supposed to have performed these remarkable feats, moreover, is alleged to have been recovered virtually undamaged from a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, where President Kennedy and Governor Connally were rushed for treatment, and has come to be known as “the magic bullet.” The other struck JFK in the back of his head and killed him. The HSCA Indeed, these findings were reaffirmed and refined by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during its re-investigation of 1977–78 in its report of 1979, with the exception that—on the basis of disputed acoustical evidence, which it never adequately explored—it concluded that a fourth shot had been fired from “the grassy knoll,” which made it probable that the President, after all, had been assassinated by a conspiracy, possibly one of small scale, a matter that the HSCA did not pursue. But, in relation to the major findings of the Warren Commis- “Smoking Guns” 3 sion, the HSCA reaffirmed them. For the official government account of the death of JFK to be true, therefore, at least the following three conjectures—“hypotheses,” let us call them, to avoid begging the question by taking for granted what needs to be established on independent grounds—have to be true: (H1) JFK was hit at the base of the back of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck without hitting any bony structures and exited his throat at the level of his tie; (H2) JFK was hit in the back of his head by a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, as its diagrams display, causing his death ; and, (H3) these bullets were fired by a sole assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, using a highpowered rifle, which was identified as a 6.5 mm Italian Mannlicher-Carcano . As a point of deductive logic, if any of these hypotheses is false, then any account that entails them cannot be true. Yet it is surprisingly easy to show that all three are false. Smoking Gun #1 : (H1) is an anatomical impossibility, because the bullet would have had to impact bony structures. Consider, for example, hypothesis (H1). David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who holds a Ph.D. in physics and is also board-certified in radiation oncology, has studied X-rays of the President’s chest. He has used the cross-section of a body whose upper chest and neck dimensions were the same as those of JFK and performed a simple experiment. Taking the specific locations specified by the HSCA for the point of entry at the base of the back of the neck and the point of exit at the throat, he has drawn a straight line to represent the trajectory that any bullet would have to have taken from that point of entry to that point of exit. Any such trajectory would intersect cervical vertebrae. A CAT scan demonstrating Mantik’s experiment has been published in a splendid study of some of the most basic evidence in this case by Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up (1998). Here is a visual representation of such a bullet’s trajectory: Mantik drew a line through a CAT scan 4 Murder in Dealey Plaza When the President’s head is properly positioned, the Commission’s own drawing displays an upward rather than a downward trajectory. If the official drawing of the injury to the head is correct, then the conjecture that the President was hit from above and behind cannot be true; and if the President was hit from above and behind, the official drawing of the injury must be false. Hypothesis (H2) cannot possibly be true. Zapruder Frame 312 The WC Drawing It would have been anatomically impossible for a bullet to have taken the trajectory specified by the official account. Hypothesis (H1) is not just false but cannot possibly be true. (Mantik’s study may be found in Assassination Science 1998, pp. 157–58.) Smoking Gun #2: The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of his head at the time of the shot, falsifying (H2). Consider (H2), the hypothesis that a bullet fired from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository entered the back of his head and killed him. The building in question was horizontally located to the President’s rear, while the sixth floor of that building was vertically considerably above the President’s head. Therefore, any such bullet must have entered the President’s head from above and behind. That much is indisputable. No photographs of the President’s injuries were published at the time, but The Warren Report (1964) did provide drawings (copies of which may be found in Assassination Science (1998), p. 438). The drawings of the head wound therefore appear to show a trajector from above and behind, as the official account requires. Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up (1998), however, has juxtaposed the official drawing with frame 312 of the Zapruder film, which the Warren Commission itself regarded as the moment before the fatal head shot incident to frame 313, with the following result: “Smoking Guns” 5 Smoking Gun #3: The weapon, which was not even a rifle, could not have fired the bullets that killed the President, falsifying (H3). Consider (H3), finally, which maintains that the bullets that hit their target were fired by Lee Harvey Oswald using a high-powered rifle, which The Warren Report (1964) also identified as a 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano. As other authors, including Harold Weisberg, Whitewash (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JKF: The Case for Conspiracy (1976), and Robert Groden and Harrison E. Livingstone, High Treason (1989) have also observed, the Mannlicher-Carcano that Oswald is supposed to have used is a 6.5 mm weapon, but it is not high velocity. Its muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 fps means that it qualifes as a medium-to-low velocity weapon. [Editor’s note: Indeed, strictly speaking, the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a rifle but a carbine.] The death certificates, The Warren Report, articles in JAMA, and other sources state that the President was killed by wounds inflicted by high-velocity missiles. (Some are reprinted in Assassination Science (1998).) The Mannlicher-Carcano is the only weapon that Oswald is alleged to have used to kill the President, but the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high-velocity weapon; consequently, Lee Oswald could not have fired the bullets that killed the President. Thus, hypothesis (H3) cannot be true. This discovery is especially important, because the extensive damage sustained by JFK’s skull and brain could not possibly have been inflicted by a weapon of this kind. The major trauma the President endured had to have been inflicted by one or more high-velocity weapons. The Death of Deception The hypotheses under consideration, (H1), (H2), and (H3), therefore, are not merely false but are provably false. Moreover, these hypotheses are by no means peripheral to the official account but the core of its conclusions. If (H1), (H2), and (H3) are false, then The Warren Report (1964) cannot be salvaged, even in spite of the best efforts of the Gerald Posners of the world. [Editor’s note: Some problems encountered by his popular attempt to revive it have been dissected in The 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano, which is not a high-velocity weapon. 6 Murder in Dealey Plaza Assassination Science (1998), pp. 145–152.] Among the central findings of The Warren Report (1964), therefore, the only one that appears to be true is the least important, namely: that bystander James Tague was hit by a bullet fragment that ricocheted from a distant curb and caused him minor injury. There are many more, which may be found in this and other studies of the death of JFK. Since Bertrand Russell raised 16 “questions” about the investigation during 1964—even while it was still in progress—it seems appropriate to contrast what we know now with what Russell knew then by offering 16 “smoking guns” that complement his work. In some instances, these smoking guns overlap with Russell’s questions, but discerning readers ought to have no difficulty discovering others in the course of study of this book. I have found that every access route to this subject—whether by means of the medical evidence, the physical evidence, the eyewitness evidence, the Dallas police, The Warren Report, the FBI, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Secret Service, or any other avenue of approach—leads to the same conclusions we have reached here and in Assassination Science (1998). Other “Smoking Guns” Smoking Gun #4 : The bullets, which were standard copper-jacked World War IIvintage military ammunition, could not have caused the explosive damage. The ammunition that Oswald is alleged to have used was standard full-metal jacketed military ammunition, one round of which was supposed to have been found on a stretcher at Parkland Hospital, a photograph of which appears as Commission Exhibit 399 (elsewhere in this volume). This kind of ammunition conforms to Geneva Convention standards for humane conduct of warfare and is not intended to maim but, absent its impact with hard bodily features, to pass through a body. It does not explode. The lateral cranial X-ray of the President’s head (the image of his head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to have used, thereby exonerating him. Axis of Metallic Debris Lateral Cranial X-ray “Smoking Guns” 7 Smoking Gun #5: The axis of metallic debris is inconsistent with a shot from behind but consistent with a shot that entered the area of the right temple. The axis of debris appears to be consistent with a shot entering the area of the right temple rather than the back of the head. Studies of this issue are found in Joseph N. Riley, Ph.D., “The Head Wounds of John F. Kennedy: One Bullet Cannot Account for the Injuries,” The Third Decade (March 1993), pp. 1–15, and in Mantik’s research on the X-rays published in Assassination Science (1998), in his comments on the recent deposition of James J. Humes, M.D., for the ARRB (Appendix G), and in his new study of the medical evidence. In the autopsy report, Humes had described this metallic trail as beginning low on the right rear of the skull. The actual trail, however, lies more than 4 inches higher, much closer to the top of the skull than to the bottom. Confronted with this discrepancy, Humes concedes that the autopsy report is wrong by some 10 cm. Humes here faced an impossible paradox, which he could not honestly resolve. If he had described the trail correctly and simultaneously reported the low entry wound to the back of the head, then the only reasonable conclusion would have been two shots to the head—one from behind and one from in front—which, in turn, would have implied the existence of at least two gunmen. Humes had no choice but literally to move the trail of metallic debris downward by more than four inches (10 cm), which is precisely what he did. As Mantik explains, it took more than three decades for Humes to be asked to confront this important paradox, which falsifies the lone gunman theory. Smoking Gun #6: The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40 eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and photographs. Gary Aguiliar, M.D., has collated the testimony of more than 40 eyewitnesses, spectators in Dealey Plaza, physicians and nurses at Parkland Hospital, Navy medical technicians and FBI agents at Bethesda Naval Hospital, who report a massive blow-out to the back of the head. Several physicans have diagrammed this blow-out as it was observed at Parkland, which had the general character of the wound depicted below. David Lifton, Best Evidence (1980), however, has diagrammed what the wound resembled based upon the official autopsy report from Bethesda. These may be labeled as “the heel” and “the footprint” due to their size and relationship. When the HSCA reinvestigated the crime in 1978–79, its diagrams and photographs now depicted a small entry wound, which is sometimes referred to as “the red spot”: Parkland (“the heel”) Bethesda (“the footprint”) HSCA (“the red spot”) 8 Murder in Dealey Plaza Smoking Gun #7 : These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the Xrays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways. As Mantik has discovered through the employment of optical densitometry studies, the lateral cranial X-ray has been fabricated by imposing a patch over a massive defect to the back of the head, which corresponds to the eyewitness reports describing (what is called here) “the heel” shot. In effecting this deception, the perpetrators used material that was much too dense to be normal skull material, which enabled Mantik to discover what had been done. It turns out that, although not common knowledge at the time, instructions that could be followed to create composites were available in contemporary radiology publications. He has replicated these results in the radiology darkroom, as he explains here and in earlier studies in Assassination Science (1998). Lateral Cranial X-ray The Patch (“Area P”) The anterior-posterior (front-to-rear) autopsy X-ray, moreover, has been fabricated by imposing a 6.5 mm metal object not present on the original, which Mantik has established on the basis of additional optical densitometry studies published in Assassination Science (1998). All three of the military pathologists who conducted the autopsy at Bethesda have now confirmed to the ARRB that they did not see this metallic object on the X-ray, no doubt because it was added after the autopsy was finished. The addition of this metallic object appears to have been done to implicate a 6.5 mm weapon, such as the Mannlicher-Carcano, in the assassination of President Kennedy. The conspirators made mistakes due to their lack of familiarity with this weapon, however, since it is not a highvelocity rifle and could not have inflicted the damage that caused the President’s death. Smoking Gun #8: Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of the brain of someone other than JFK. Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world authority on the human brain, has concluded that credible reports of damage to the cerebrum and especially to the cerebellum—numerous and consistent from the physicians at Parkland, as Aguilar has explained—are incompatible with the diagrams and photographs that are alleged to be of the brain of President Kennedy. As he summarizes his findings, Livingston, who is also an expert on wound ballistics, states, “A conclusion is “Smoking Guns” 9 obligatorily forced that the photographs and drawings of the brain in the National Archives are those of some brain other than that of John Fitzgerald Kennedy” (Assassination Science 1998, p. 164). This stunning inference has been confirmed by new evidence released by the ARRB, which establishes the occurrence of two distinct post-autopsy brain examinations involving two distinct brains, as Douglas Horne, who was the Senior Analyst for Military Records of the ARRB, explains in a contribution to this volume. Smoking Gun #9 : Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs claim that parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or destroyed . As a consequence of depositions by the ARRB, we now also have extensive additional evidence that autopsy photographs have been altered, created, or destroyed. One of the fascinating discoveries that has emerged from its efforts are eyewitness reports from John Stringer, the offical autopsy photographer, that the photographs of the brain shown in the official set are not those that he took at the time; from Robert Knudsen, White House photographer, who has reported having in his possession—at one and the same time— photographs that displayed a major blow-out to the President’s head and others that did not; and from Saundra Spencer, who processed the originals, who explains that she knows they are not the same because they do not have the same physical features as other photographs she processed using the same film, some of which she still possesses. The importance of these and related discoveries for understanding the medical evidence in this case is explored in studies by Aguilar and by Mantik elsewhere in this volume. Smoking Gun #10: The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques . Since The Warren Report (1964) published many of the frames of the Zapruder film and placed heavy reliance upon its authenticity in arriving at its conclusions about how many shots were fired and the time it took to fire them, if the photographic evidence is flawed, then the Commission’s conclusions are equally in doubt. And, indeed, there are many reasons to question the authenticity of the Zapruder film as well as much of the other photographic evidence. In his major study of the assassination of JFK, Bloody Treason (1997), Noel Twyman reports consulting with Roderick Ryan, a leading technical expert on motion picture film. Twyman had been puzzled by the discovery of numerous anomalies in the film, including blurred stationary background figures but sharp focus of the limousine in frame 302 versus the sharp focus of both in frame 303: Zapruder Frame 303 Zapruder Frame 302 10 Murder in Dealey Plaza When Twyman asked Ryan how this could be explained, he stated, “the limousine is moving in 302 and standing still in 303” (Twyman 1997, p. 150). And when Twyman asked him about the mysterious “blob” that seems to shift around from frame to frame immediately after the fatal head shot at frame 313, Ryan told him “it looked as if the blobs had been painted in” (Twyman 1997, p. 151). [Editor’s note: The cover highlights ”the blob“ and Jackie’s face, which also seems to be painted in.] Ryan’s opinions are all the more important insofar as they corroborate conclusions about film alteration that had been drawn independently by Jack White and by David Mantik, initially in Part IV of Assassination Science (1998) and now in Part V of the current volume. Dr. Ryan received an Oscar for his technical contributions to the motion picture industry during the April 2000 Academy Awards. Among the most remarkable discoveries of the ARRB, moreover, was locating two persons who worked on processing a home movie of the assassination at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) run by the CIA the weekend of the murder. This movie, which appears to have been the “out-of-camera” original of the Zapruder film, was studied by Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the color laboratory at the time. He has reported that, after viewing it at least 10 times, he had concluded that JFK was hit 6 or 8 times from at least three directions, a conclusion subsequently dismissed by Secret Service Agent William Smith, who declared that McMahon had to be mistaken because only three shots had been fired from above and behind, an opinion he had reached without studying the film at NPIC, a stunning episode recorded in a series of interviews conducted for the ARRB by Douglas Horne and published here. Smoking Gun #11: The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcast reports on radio and television about two shots fired from the front. Descriptions of two wounds—of a small wound to the throat as well as a massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by an entry wound to the right temple—were widely broadcast that afternoon. If you look at television coverage from that day, you will find that, at 1:35 PM, NBC reports both a shot to the throat and a shot through the right temple, findings attributed to Admiral George Burkley, the President’s personal physician. At 1:45 PM, another network reports a shot through the head and a shot to the throat. Chet Huntley reports a shot through the right temple. Robert MacNeil says it is unclear to him how the President could have been shot through the throat and temple if the assassin was firing from above and behind. Frank McGee calls it “incongruous.” Malcolm Perry, M.D., who performed a tracheostomy in a vain attempt to save the life of the mortally injured President, was so certain that a small wound to the throat at the location of the tracheostomy had been fired from in front that—when told that the assassin had been above and behind the limousine—he concluded that JFK must have stood and turned to wave to spectators who were behind him. During a press conference held at Parkland that afternoon, he stated three times that the wound to the throat had been a wound of entry, not a wound of exit. Through deceptive use of a series of hypothetical questions—that assumed the bullet entered at the based of the neck, transited the neck without hitting any bony structures, and exited at the base of the throat—the author of “the single bullet theory,” Arlen Specter, was able to obfuscate these observations in support of the official account, in which the trajectories of these wounds were reversed. “Smoking Guns” 11 Smoking Gun #12 : The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit eyewitness reports. An important point of which most Americans are generally unaware is that legal procedure permits photographs and motion pictures to be used as evidence in courts of law only when a foundation for their introduction has been established by eyewitness testimony, as Milicent Cranor has observed. According to McCormick on Evidence, 3rd edition (1984), Section 214, for example, concerning photographs, movies, and sound recordings: The principle upon which photographs are most commonly admitted into evidence is the same as that underlying the admission of illustrative drawings, maps, and diagrams. Under this theory, a photograph is viewed merely as a graphic portrayal of oral testimony, and becomes admissible only when a witness has testified that it is a correct and accurate representation of the relevant facts personally observed by the witness. The practice of the Warren Commission and apologists for its findings appears to be the exact opposite, where photographs and films—including X-rays—have been used to discount the testimony of eyewitnesses, which is not only the better evidence but is actually required to lay a foundation for the admissibility of evidence of those kinds. Some defenders of the official account have maintained that the Warren Commission inquiry was not a legal proceeding but merely an advisory body offering its findings and its recommendations to the President, which is technically correct. The precise legal status of The Warren Report (1964) is therefore open to doubt. But how could the interests of the American people—in truth, justice, and fairness— possibly be served by failing to adhere to clear and established principles for the admissibility of evidence? Alas, the question has only to be asked for the answer to be all too obvious. As Harold Weisberg and Bertrand Russell already understood, the Commission was not created to advance the interests of truth, justice, and fairness, but to convince the American people that a lone gunman had assassinated the 35th President of the United States, that the matter had been thoroughly investigated, and that there had been no conspiracy or cover-up. Smoking Gun #13: The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the assassination occurred on the part that had been changed. Think about it. As Chief of Police Jesse Curry confirmed in his JFK Assassination File (1969), which I discuss elsewhere in this volume, it was not until 18 November 1963 that the final motorcade route was settled at a meeting between representatives of the Police Department and the Secret Service, when it was agreed that the motorcade would take a right off Main Street onto Houston and a very sharp left onto Elm en route to the Trade Mart, where JFK was scheduled to present a luncheon speech. At the turn from Houston onto Elm, remarkably, the motorcade was considered over and local security was no longer provided. This appears to be such a transparent pretext for disavowing responsibility for the President’s security by the Dallas Police as to be indicative of what is known in the law as “consciousness of guilt” in failing to take or in taking measures that ordinarily would or would not be taken—save for knowledge of the circumstances of a crime. 12 Murder in Dealey Plaza Indeed, the revised motorcade route was never published in the newspapers, which raises a fascinating question, namely: How did the alleged assassin even know that the President would pass by the Texas School Book Depository in order for him to shoot him? In an interesting study, “The Mathematical Improbability of the Kennedy Assassination,” The Dealey Plaza Echo (November 1999), pp. 2–6, Ed Dorsch, Jr., has calculated that the probability of Oswald and JFK coming within 100 yards of each other at random during his Presidency is approximately 1 in 1 hundred billion! This suggests an encounter by the two was almost certainly no accident, yet Oswald had no reason to know he would only have to show up for work to have the chance to shoot JFK—and his wife even said that he had overslept! A more plausible explanation is that their proximity was not a matter of chance but was coordinated by plans about which Oswald had no knowledge and over which he had no control. Smoking Gun #14: Secret Service policies for the protection of the President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas. More than a dozen Secret Service policies for the protection of the President seem to have been violated during the motorcade in Dallas, including no protective military presence; no coverage of open windows; motorcycles out of position; agents not riding on the Presidential limousine; vehicles in improper sequence; utilization of an improper route, which included a turn of more than 90°; limousine slowed nearly to a halt at the corner of Houston and Elm; the limousine came to a halt after bullets began to be fired; agents were virtually unresponsive; brains and blood were washed from the limousine at Parkland, even before the President had been pronounced dead; the limousine was stripped down and being rebuilt already Monday, the day of the formal state funeral; a substitute windshield was later produced as evidence; and so on—discoveries that are strengthened and extended by Vincent Palamara and Douglas Weldon, J.D., in this book. As an illustration, consider the sequence of vehicles. As the accompanying diagram displays (see Richard E. Sprague, Computers and Automation May 1970, pp. 48–49), the Presidential limousine was the lead vehicle in the motorcade, followed by the Secret Service “Queen Mary,” the Vice-Presidential liousine, the Vice-President’s security, then the Mayor, some dignitaries, Press The Motorcade Sequence “Smoking Guns” 13 Car #1, Press Car #2, and so on, which is completely absurd. A proper motorcade would have the lower-ranking dignitaries early on, then those in between, and finally the highest official, who would naturally be surrounded by the press, who were there, after all, to cover a political event! In this case, however, everything was wrong—even though, as Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain (1994), p. 45, has observed, the vehicles were identified with numerals, where the Mayor’s car, for example, was marked with a number “1” on its windshield. Indeed, the President’s personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was in the very last car! This had to be deliberate, it had to be wrong, and everyone involved with security had to know that it was wrong. In this regard, one of the most remarkable paragraphs in the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board (1998) is the following: Here again we appear to be confronted with one more indication of consciousness of guilt, which we must add to other indications of Secret Service complicity in the death of JFK. Smoking Gun #15: Neither the Mafia nor pro- or anti-Castro Cubans nor the KGB could have done any of these things—much less Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The complicity of medical officers of the United States Navy, agents of the Secret Service, the President’s personal physician, and other representatives of the Pentagon, the FBI, and the CIA provides powerful evidence that can serve as a premise in the appraisal of alternative theories about the assassination of JFK. Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film, to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. From the ARRB Final Report (1998), p. 149 14 Murder in Dealey Plaza The only theories that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government covered up the crime because those same elements of the government committed the crime. For the CIA to have brought these effects about on its own, moreover, would have required medical officers of the U.S. Navy, agents of the Secret Service, and the President’s personal physican, among many others, to have been working for or otherwise under its control. While the CIA has repeatedly demonstrated its abilities in bringing about changes in governments around the world—and no doubt elements of the CIA were involved in planning and covering up this crime—it looks as though it could not have done this one on its own. Smoking Gun #16: Many individuals knew details about the assassination before and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more than a patsy. One of the more amusing events involved in assassination studies occurred when Liz Smith, a syndicated columnist, apprised her readers that, although she had always taken for granted that The Warren Report (1964) was right and that Oswald had been a lone assassin, after reading Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), she was no longer sure. This provoked an outraged response from Jack Valenti, the Hollywood Czar and former aide to LBJ, who proclaimed that there was a simple way to know for sure no conspiracy had been involved, namely: that, if there had been a conspiracy, someone would have talked—and no one has talked! The possibility of a small scale conspiracy or that most of the conspirators might have been eliminated right away to keep things quiet may have escaped him, but for a conspiracy of any magnitude—involving dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of people—what Valenti said may have seemed to be right. Of course, that presumes Valenti knew what he was talking about. On a single page of Bloody Treason (1997, p. 285), for example, Noel lists eight names of prominent persons who have talked, including Mafia Dons Carlos Marcello and Santos Trafficante, Jr.; right-wing extremist Joseph Milteer; mobster Johnny Roselli; high ranking CIA official David Atlee Phillips; his old boss, Lyndon Baines Johnson; CIA contract agent and professional anti-Communist Frank Sturgis; and Sam Giancanna, who confessed the complicity of the mob in collusion with the CIA to his brother, Chuck. If Valenti cared about the truth in a matter of this kind, then he might have wanted to read Twyman’s book before he set out to trash it, or visited his local book store and picked up a copy of Double Cross (1992). Other Sources These are hardly the only persons to have talked about the assassination. Jim Hicks, for example, who bears a striking resemblance to someone photographed outside of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City impersonating Lee Oswald, was photographed in Dealey Plaza with an antenna hanging out of his pocket and claims to have been a communications coordinator for the killing. Charles Harrelson, serving a life term for the assassination of a federal judge with a highpowered rifle, once confessed to having killed Kennedy, by which I take it he meant he had fired the fatal shot. Chauncey Holt, a counterfeiter who worked as “Smoking Guns” 15 a contract agent for the CIA, has told me he was instructed to bring 15 sets of forged Secret Service credentials to Dealey Plaza, which he dutifully prepared, but that, in light of his extensive experience with the underworld, he thought it was not a mob hit but rather a military operation. I now suspect that Chauncey was correct. The role of the Pentagon in this affair certainly deserves further investigation. And there are others. Perhaps the most interesting is Madeleine Duncan Brown, a former mistress of LBJ by whom she had a son, who was not LBJ’s only offspring out of wedlock but was his only son. Among the fascinating details she conveys in a book of their affair, Texas in the Morning (1997), is that Lyndon told her, at a social event the night before the murder at the home of oil baron Clint Murchison, that after tomorrow he would not have to put up with embarrassment from those Kennedy boys any longer. And that, during a New Year’s Eve rendezvous at The Driskill Hotel in Austin, when she confronted him with rumors (rampant in Dallas at the time) that he had been involved (since no one stood to gain more personally), he blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had decided that Jack had to be taken out—which is about as close as we are going to get to the font. Then and Now Having known Chauncey Holt and having talked with Madeleine Duncan Brown, no doubt I have cognitive advantages that Jack Valenti does not enjoy, simply because I know more about the case than he does. Although many American know that there are excellent books on the assassination—including Harold Weisberg, Whitewash (1965), Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment (1966), Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), Sylvia Meager, Accessories After the Fact (1967), James Hepburn, Farewell America (1968), George O’Toole, The Assassination Tapes (1975), Gary Shaw, The Cover-Up (1976), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy (1976), David Lifton, Best Evidence (1980), Jim Garrison, On the Trail of the Assassins (1988), Jim Marrs, Crossfire (1989), Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, High Treason (1989), Charles Crenshaw, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence (1992), Harrison Livingstone, High Treason 2 (1992), Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993), and Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997)—to mention 16 of the best—they do not realize how much we know now on the basis of scientific findings. In defense of Judge Tunheim, of course, the objection could be raised that he had his hands full with more than 60,000 records and might not have had any opportunity for reading other work on the assassination, even Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up (1998), a work of less than 200 pages that conclusively refutes Warren Commission and HSCA findings. Although he was Chair of the ARRB, it might be argued, he cannot be expected to have read everything ever written on this subject. And, indeed, that is not an unreasonable point to make for any American citizen. Let me therefore close with a recommendation. Start with Galanor’s Cover-Up (1998), as I have done here; then read the book you have in your hands; and finally turn to Assassination Science (1998). You are entitled to know what happened to your country on 22 November 1963. As Charles Drago has eloquently observed, anyone sincerely interested in this case who does not conclude that JFK was murdered as the result of a conspiracy is either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired.

Some will have to agree to disagree! I too have been to Dallas and have my own impressions. I both hunt and load my own ammo. I have never seen any living thing react to being shot move in any direction but directly away from the shooter. I have never seen central nervous system reactions so long after impact. This being a relative description as "long after" in terms of of impact and passage of a round. Living things DO NOT react seconds after impact even if the wounded person doesn't know they are hit. This I know from USMC service. All that take seriously a shot from the knoll would have to explain to me why debris didn't go primarily across the car. Note no exit wound on the left side of Jack Kennedy's head. To some extent this can be explained away, but not the reaction of the President's body. It moved as if struck from more to the front than the knoll and more from below than the knoll. Or the knoll as defined by HSCA and or Mr. Gordon Arnold. This does not discount shooter(s) on the knoll, only the origin of that shot from there. So this page looks good on "paper" huh? Well that's fine for you maybe, it's your right to decide whatever fits your thinking. I base my own opinion not on somebody's pictures or presented overlays, I form my opinion on what I know to be reality for shooting and ammo loads. It should be clear to anyone that examined the Z film we have today that it's fishy. There are clear edit lines in the limousine and around Mr. Greer besides the other oddities of impossibly fast headturns and Mr. Brehm clapping his hands 4 times in one second. Those are the provable points of contention. There are many more. The lack of consistency between witnesses earliest statements and what that forgery of film shows being the most obvious. I wouldn't base much of my opinion on that piece of screwed blewed and tatooed piece of film. I base my opinion on witness statements and their own description of what they saw. To include the medical people at Parkland over the "official" work presented to the world from Bethesda or in that "film". It is my own opinion from working with sintered ammo and filled rounds that a frangible round struck Jack Kennedy in the head. It produced a shock wave through his cranium that blew out the right rear and rear right side of his head as described by the doctors in Parkland. It showered the mystery fragments described in the X-rays, distributed from right temple to the higher and more rear parts of his head. Too often it is overlooked that no exit wound of fragments of the bullet is required if fragible bullets were used, but the momentum of the fragible bullet would require the forces to produce the same kind of hydrodynamic forces as described by the witnesses, i.e. another wound on the left side if the head strike round was fired from the knoll. Oddly the witnesses on Elm Street and the doctors describe the exit as Right Rear, the blood and debris was thrown to the rear and right in a blast cone as I have seen many times in my own experiments. Not on free standing fruit as I have never seen anything but a coconut that had a hard exterior in anyway similar to a human skull. I have not shot coconuts, I have shot at 200 to 300 foot ranges fresh deer skulls, coincidentally and necessarily the already dead deer was motionless and I was without a scope. With jacketed "miltary" rounds of 7.62 mm NATO spec. from an M-14 rifle and with handloads of various projectiles both jacketed, filled and non-jacketed. Why no 6.5 mm Manlicher/Carcano Carbine? Because I wouldn't waste my money on a junk weapon. I substitute a Mauser RIFLE not a carbine for the presumed weapon. Also I would never ever fire ammo as old as Lee Oswald is supposed to have used, for MY SAFETY and the "health" i.e. safety and servicability of my weapons. At that time my primary interest was to test if bolt action rifles leak combustion gases through the bolt to be deposited on the shooter's face. However as subjective as my own experiences and observations are they do not support the WC or the HSCA's version of events. Frangible rounds on impact with deer heads I have seen completely shatter the skull but alway producing an exit "blast out" hole opposite the entrance point. I do not use the word "exit" or "wound" as it is deceptive to compare the exit of a jacketed round to what unjacketed rounds do on exit, and even more so for fragible rounds. I would hope to encourage others to read Mr. Craig Roberts works and the work of Mr. John Ritchson as they are both more experienced and able to document the results I describe from their own knowledge as more ablities as ballasticans and riflemen than I. In all events I did test positive for nitrates after firing the bolt action Mauser a far better weapon than the Carcano using the same paraffin tests as were reported to have been used to test Lee Oswald in 1963. He tested negative on his face, I did not. I tested negative on my hands he did not. The Parkland doctors reported an unharmed face and a right temple entrance and a right rear grapefruit sized blow out to the President's head. As did the witnesses, in particular Mr. and Mrs. Newman and The Willis Family as some may have seen in TMWKK. UNEDITED, non-broadcast versions show even more than the airwaves ever saw, for a reason - to lessen the contrast between the WC and the witnesses. This is not what is presented to us in the Z film. In fact in the "film" everything we see supports the WC version of events and REFUTES the witnesses. This is the exact opposite of the standard rules of evidence, Photographic evidence is SUPPOSED to used only if it is supported by witness testimony, not to refute the testimony of witnesses. This is akin to the obstruction of justice and the manufacture of evidence in the way of ex-LAPD officer Mark Furhman and company. If anything the trunk area of the limousine is "too clean" to my liking in that film. In fact what is depicted in that film fits too well for my liking the scenario the WC had already decided was the official "fable" - that of three shots from the rear fired from a carbine of anything but "hi powered rifle" description. It must be considered also that the President was not facing directly to the front as the witnesses said he was turned slightly towards his wife. Penn Jones Jr. reported that the storm drain had been reworked in the times before now. To make the appearance of impossibility for anyone to use the location as a shooting point. Why so? Also the north knoll drain is altered and cover up. I did take a particular "detour" to look at that point. I DID NOT play the game of the Sixth Floor House of Liars. My money they will never get until they change attitude and accept works that support anything but the 40 year old cry of "Ozzie Dunnit." I never had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Jones, but I do have some of his books and some of his "Continuing Inquiry" magazines? Newsletters? However I would consider his work to be closer to the original witnesses than some later works that on occasion were provable lies. I am not speaking just about Mr. Gerry Posner, many others too. Some have odd past histories in the case, some once served to enlighten but do not do so any longer. It is my position to deny the "absolute" perfection of "truth" to any piece of evidence that I know the US Government has it's filthy mits on before the people had the "evidence." It is my opinion that we MUST apply a standard of higher testing than the US Government ever did. The witnesses original statements, before the WC twisted them and their thinking to "take sworn depositions" must also be weighed. Just for example, for years Ms. Jean Hill was ridiculed because she reported a "little white dog in the limousine", and there by her testimony discounted, but years later it is proven that Ms. Kennedy was given a lambchops stuffed toy at Love Field that could have been mistaken for a little white dog. We if we are to meaningfully examine the events surrounding the assassination, we must consider the reality of long discounted and under-reported aspects of the day. Cameras do lie, and not everyone that once worked for the reality of truth does so today. Consider: the WC said Jack Rubenstein had no "meaningful" connections to organized crime, then the HSCA admitted some ties but none affecting the events of the murder of Lee Oswald. They lie and lie again to suit need. Put nothing past the powers that contrived the Coup. I too wish Mr. Tom Wilson's remaining non public research was released to the public. Before I go, I do want to point out one thing, I know Greg Burnham and consider him my friend and one of the more honest researchers. Seemingly so did Nigel Turner. Some may have seen his interview in the newest parts of TMWKK. Greg has reported seeing another version of the film, another 30 year friend of mine reports the same. What they describe as being on that film is the same. It seems they both saw the same NON screwed blewed and tatooed film that devastates the current version of events so many base their opinions on. Both used the same words to describe the reaction of the President: Up and back and to the left, UP and BACK and TO THE LEFT in that "other film. I cannot doubt Greg Burnham's research, and I will not ever doubt a gyrene brother's word. And I do know this will not stand up to some people's standard for proof, but it is good enough for me, more than good enough for me. SEMPER FIDELIS. Someday I hope NBC and CBS that are reported to have the film can see fit to show it to We The People. ABC I know would never show it in any event. The proof to destroy many researcher's stands and reputations is out there! What is lacking is the power and courage to go against the media's masters. The Almighty Corporations that give us torture by corporate "soldiers" and more lies upon lies. The Spooks are everywhere there is any threat to the "party line." Doubt everything, examine afresh everything. Sure it was once common "knowledge" that the world was flat. People were killed for proving that the sun was the center of the universe. People would die to keep that film from being viewed or broadcast publicly. People once believed it when someone from the Government said: "I'm from the goverment and I'm here to help you." It is enough for me to know "we wuz had Again!" For now! Doubt everything, examine afresh everything. ============================================= Lastly it is more my direction in the whole JFK case to not really desire to focus so much effort or time on "who shot what from where" as it shifts focus from the big question: Why was Jack Kennedy killed? Who profited? Who covered-up the Coup? Hence I ask this of any that would seriously consider the James Files story as fact, do you really think an assassin would be asked on the morning of the assassination to "join the hit team?" REALLY?? No folks, the killers were professionals, world class riflemen and in my opinion they all died before the sunset on November 22, 1963. We are talking about Coup D'etat, empowered by the most powerful elite that can cover-up and call off the press and kill witnesses and abort at least 5 major investigations by the US Government, these are not acts the "Mob" could do, nor the gang around LBJ. Why was Kennedy killed? Who profitted? Who had the power to silence the US Press? Who had the power and desire to cover up the events? It is a whole lot bigger than LBJ and Mac Wallace and JE Hoover's FBI although they were willing participants in the cover up, it was bigger than all of them. It still is bigger today than it was then. Quite Sincerely Jim Hackett II

Mr Marvin: I look forward to your return and input. I for one am very glad to have your book Expendable Elite. I would wish you the best and we both know speaking truth can carry a heavy price. As a certain Non com once told me "truth shines bright like a diamond in a goat's Axx." My opnion is only that an opinion about Mr. Pitzer's death. My opnion now holds with what Mr. David said both on TV and in the 2001 Lancer Banquet speech as well as yourself on TV and on Len Osanic's Black Op Radio internet interview. I don't have to rely on opinion to know the reality of what you wrote about in Expendable Elite. I cannot go into why, but I know truth when I read it. I'll be out of touch for a few days, but I hope to see you here in a few. Sincerely Jim Hackett II

Dag gone it. I had a reply worked out and got interrupted and when I came back and finished and tried to post it I was "no longer logged in" and lost it all. Larry: You certainly crank the intrigued factor up and in great ways. I went to NARA's site but didn't find anything in the online part, so maybe in June on a long awaited vacation we can go to Maryland. In the meantime I do want to get your work and the CD with it first. I'll ask and expect she will find this a good idea as she has never seen D.C. I did as an Ironworker when wild and unattached and a TDY month on active duty when also wild and unattached but also young. I went through my sources here and found some detials in MIDP Fetzer's timeline and Bloody Treason and Mr. Twyman's interview with Col Prouty (ret.) No one seems to have owned up to tell me who called the 112th MI group. Also Agreed! about Jones covering up as thats what spooks do. It training and second nature to them. IMHO. Oddly I didn't find any reference to the 112trh MI Group in the WCReport or vols, but I didn't do a very thorough search. I'll have to be out for a few days but I'll be back. Thanks and I'll email in a few days after we discuss it, she would enjoy it as she has never seen D.C. The Smithsonian alone is worth the effort. Jim Hackett II

I appreciate your input Larry: I will be off to NARA shortly. I will be back. Again. It will take an awful lot to convince me that Fletcher Pouty didn't portray events accurately. Too many times the "story" refutes his data but time and further disclosures prove him to have been right all along. Did ARRB disclose who made the call? Or did they refute the idea of a call? Without knowing I bet they tried to obfuscate the issue. Jim