Don Jeffries

Josiah,

I'm starting to get a complex- you seem to respond to everyone on this forum but me. I'm cordial with everyone here, and I cartainly haven't done anything to offend you. My question is a legitimate one. Why do you describe the evidence for an entry wound to the throat to be lacking, yet respond with a "don't know" regarding the possibility of an exit wound in the throat? No insinuations here about anything, but to me that is a very telling and inconsistent stance.

I'd love to hear an explanation.

One should really be able to see, with your own eyes, that the Zapruder Film, the Backyard Photos are faked; and that the Secret Service did nothing when the shots rang out.

Very well put, Peter. Many things in this case are quite simple. One of them is the total failure of JFK's Secret Service detail on November 22, 1963. It is indisputable that none of them did their job that day. Now, you can rationalize why they didn't react, argue that "they're only human," etc., but you can't deny the reality that they didn't respond to the sound of gunfire. To many of us, that has always been one of the single greatest indicators of conspiracy.

I also grow weary of hearing "we'll never know." This sounds much like the old LN line about "no new evidence," to which critics like Mark Lane replied, "What's wrong with the old evidence?" There are some important things we DO know:

- All available evidence indicates Oswald was not a good shot

- No one places him on the sixth floor window, and eyewitness testimony places him on another floor 10-15 minutes prior to the assassination.

- No one can establish a motive for him- on the contrary, the available evidence indicates he liked JFK

- The only legal affidavits attesting to the weapon found on the sixth floor identify it as a German Mauser

- The weapon alleged to be owned by Oswald was an Italian Mannlicher Carcano

- Serious discrephancies exist about the order of this weapon, as well as the A. Hidell alias allegedly used by Oswald

- There are astonishing problems with the chain of possession for all official evidence in this case, as well as the Tippit case

- Most eyewitnesses claimed the shots came from the front, grassy knoll area, and this is bolstered by the existing photographic evidence showing people rushing towards that area in the aftermath of the shooting

- The holes in JFK's coat and shirt, buttressed by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's FBI report, all place the non-fatal wound some 5 inches down on JFK's back, far too low to have caused an exit wound to the throat

- The bullet allegedly causing all the non-fatal wounds in JFK and Connally was virtually undamaged, while the Commission's own evidence showed identical test bullets as severely deformed when hitting merely a wrist bone

- As Harold Weisberg noted, JFK received an autopsy "unworthy of a Bowery bum," and because of that virtually everything about the medical evidence is suspect

- Oswald was killed while in police custody, in spite of being "guarded" by over 70 police officers

- Oswald's public comments indicate he was frustrated over not being represented by a lawyer and what he termed unfair police lineups, while he maintained a steadfast claim of innocence

- The official "investigation" was laughably bogus; the FBI and Dallas Police failed to identify crucial witnesses like the Umbrella Man and the Babushka Lady and the Warren Commission failed to call some of the most important figures imaginable to testify, while padding its mostly meaningless record with page after unncessary page of irrelevant blather from "witnesses" like Oswald's infant babysitter

I could go on, but you get the point. This has always been a classic, textbook case of conspiracy. As Vincent Salandria has deftly noted, this was not an intricate coverup- on the contrary, a ten year old child can see through the holes in the official story. This was also not a "benign" coverup- from Bundy's assurance to the cabinet members flying back from Hawaii that there was no conspiracy, on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, when the "investigation" hadn't even begun, to Katzenbach's plea to censor the inquiry issued moments after Oswald was shot by Ruby, to Hoover purposefully seeing that copies of documents released by the FBI were photocopied over and over to decrease their clarity, powerful figures of that time were intent on covering up the truth about what happened in Dealey Plaza. The only "confusing" aspects are due to the glaring omissions and destruction of evidence in the official record.

Josiah,

I asked you earlier in this thread a very simple question. Once again, it appears you are ignoring me. Not sure why- I've never been uncivil with you.

I'll try one more time- how can you state that the evidence indicates the throat wound was not of entrance, but merely say "I don't know" in regards to whether it could have been of exit? That seems awfully inconsistent to me. If you're going to be agnostic about this issue, intellectual honesty demands that you be consistent.

Just curious, Josiah- you "don't think the evidence sustains the view that JFK was hit from the front in the throat" but "don't know" if the "evidence sustains the view" that the wound in JFK's throat was one of exit. Isn't that just a bit inconsistent?

I don't know for certain that JFK was struck in the throat by a shot from the front, but there are strong indications he was. On the other hand, the only "evidence" that a bullet exited from his throat is the entrance wound in his back, which we know for a certainty was far too low to have come from the 6th floor window or any other elevated point from behind. In other words, the single bullet theory, in your view, warrants a "don't know," but the indications JFK's throat wound was one of entrance isn't sustained by the evidence?

First, let me say that I am honored to be able to discuss this subject with the likes of Josiah Thompson, David Lifton, Jim Fetzer and Jack White. I also bear no animosity towards anyone here. Although I have strongly disagreed with J. Raymond Carroll on this forum, he makes his points well and we are on the same side regarding the crucial question of conspiracy. The same goes for Pat Speer; he's done great research himself and I respect his views. This has been a very interesting discussion and lots of good people have contributed to it. All that being said....

The essential question here is- if the Zapruder film is legitimate, why does it show what doesn't appear to have happened (i.e., the massive damage to the right front of JFK's head) and not show what numerous witnesses testified to (limo coming to a stop and swerving to the left, massive blowout to the back of JFK's head)? All these threads, all the debates about what is seen or not seen in which sprocket, are exercises in futility if we don't address the big picture. While there is abundant evidence of conspiracy outside of this area, I don't understand the passionate attachment that so many seem to feel to Zapruder's home movie. There is nothing sacrosanct about it. Numerous people (some almost certainly still unknown to us) were filming that day. The authorities seemed to have little interest in most of the films that were taken (which is a curious attitude for those who are supposedly investigating the assassination of a sitting U.S. President). Zapruder certainly seemed to warrant special attention from the authorities, and he profited tidily from the experience.

How do anti-alterationists account for the medical testimony in Dallas? How do you explain all the witnesses who reported the limousine stopped? Zapruder made a ton of money from his home movie- I think it's fair to ask why so much attention was immediately turned his way, while the mysterious Babushka Lady- with a closer and probably better view of what really transpired during the shooting, was never identified or mentioned by anyone until the early critics noticed her. There are other questions that should be asked; the Zapruder film- in whatever condition- was being developed, viewed and sold for a tidy sum (for the express purpose of suppressing it from the public) within hours of the assassination. I think it's fair to compare what happened to Zapruder vs. what happened to the Babushka Lady. Why did the Secret Service seek out Zapruder's film, but have no interest (or knowledge?) of the potentially even more valuable Babushka Lady's film?

The research conducted by White, Fetzer, Lifton and others have shed new light on all these matters. I think the entire critical community is better off because of their efforts.

It's great to see David Lifton contributing here. We all owe you a debt of gratitude for your many years of research.

I think that this thread points out once again how fractured the critical community is. Strong personalities and large egos seem to be attracted to this case; as such, intense disagreements over minute details are inevitable. However, much of this is patently ridiculous. Josiah Thompson is indeed attempting to deflect attention away from Doug Horne's very real, important new research, which may well convince a lot of the undecided that the Zapruder film was altered in some way by someone.

I think the strongest argument for film alteration is the overwhelming eyewitness testimony, especially the unanimous observations of the medical personnel in Dallas. What you see on the Zapruder film strongly contradicts all those witnesses who described the limousine stopping (and even swerving to the left), as well as the doctors and nurses who all stated there was a massive blowout to the back of the head. None described seeing the damage to the right front, which is so prominent in the Zapruder film.

I respect Pat Speer's opinion, but must respectfully disagree with him here. While it's undeniable that notions of flim and body alteration are sure to be lampooned by the usual suspects, we also have an obligation to honestly pursue the truth, even when it's more difficult to "sell" it to the general public. I also don't understand why it's so hard to believe that a group of powerful conspirators, who were able to successfully assassinate the President of the United States and enlist officials of the Dallas Police, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, members of the U.S. Congress and every mainstream journalist in the country in a massive coverup (that is still ongoing nearly 50 years later), would or could alter film footage of the actual crime.

I haven't read Doug's work yet, but I intend to. Thus, I really can't evaluate his claims, but if he has proven that the chain of possession for Zapruder's film is suspect, I think that not only fits in with virtually all the "evidence" in this case, but goes a long way towards validating what Fetzer, White, Lifton and co. have been saying for quite a while now. However, given how much Josiah and other passionate anti-alterationsists appear to have invested in this one particular aspect of the case, I suspect he will find Doug's efforts wanting.

Btw, I was startled to read Josiah refer to Craig Lamson in glowing terms. Why would you admire someone whose credo here is that he "doesn't care" about this case? Don't you find it just the least curious that someone who "doesn't care" about a historical event spends so much time haunting a forum devoted to that subject? That's like someone who hates auto racing posting non-stop on an auto racing forum, and bragging incessantly that he "doesn't care" about it. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but that is the strangest rationale that I've ever heard, and I was really surprised that you approve of it. You do realize that, despite his protestations of impartiality, Craig has never, to my knowledge, posted anything where he doesn't defend the official version of events, don't you?

Considering your previous posts about such things as the backyard photos, hole in the windshield, etc., I think it's a fair question, Josiah, to ask you where you stand now on the overall question of conspiracy. What's your view now of what happened on November 22, 1963? I realize you can't actually know the answers- neither can I, or anyone else. All we can do is speculate, and that's pretty much what we spend a lot of time doing on this forum. I'd be very interested in your speculation, and if it can be done without mentioning Jim Fetzer, that would be wonderful.

Kerry Thornley is one of the most intriguing characters connected to this case. If any of you have read the classic 1970s sci-fi trilogy Illuminatus, (which deeply influenced my own novel The Unreals), written by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, you may not realize how important Thornley was to the authors. The whole concept of discordianism-a baffling political philosophy invented by Thornley-permeates this award-winning book. Author Wilson later wrote several more books on the Illuminati and conspiracies in general, and mentioned Kerry Thornley often. Wilson grew very friendly with LSD guru Timothy Leary, and I believe Thornley was close to him as well.

I don't necessarily share Wilson's favorable view of Thornley. I'm quite skeptical of his WC testimony, which was so different from the testimony of the other marines who served with Oswald. You also have to be deeply suspcious of anyone who was writing a book about Oswald BEFORE the assassination. Whatever his motivation, whatever his connection to Oswald and the events in Dallas, Kerry Thornley was unique and fascinating.

Kathleen,

I agree with you about that phone call. I've listened to the whole nauseating thing, and you are right- it is very perplexing in light of her alleged disdain towards LBJ. Jackie does indeed use a little girl voice, and appears to be overtly flirting with him.

If I recall correctly, there is another call, this one between LBJ and RFK, at the height of their seemingly bitter feud, where RFK appears incredibly friendly and respectful to his sworn enemy. It's been awhile since I heard it (they used to play the LBJ tapes on C-SPAN radio, and I listened to them while driving), but in all honesty it kind of sounded like he was really kissing LBJ's butt.

There are so many things about the post-assassination behavior of the Kennedy clan that make little sense to me. Thanks for spotlighting one of the most obvious examples.

Great post, Mike. In the last email exchange I had with Gary, I explained that since he is now really the only critic who has a public forum (as witnessed by his extensive on-air involvement with so many t.v. specials over the past few years), he has a responsibility to question some of the more impossible tenets of the official story, since he has spent so much time questioning various aspects of "conspiracy theories." Gary still maintained (at least then) in private that he believed there was a conspiracy. As I told him then, if that's the case, why does everything you utter on air dismiss "conspiracy theories" and support the official version of events?

This latest television fiasco should remove any doubt from anyone's mind that Gary Mack is now a full-fledged lone nutter, with a clear agenda to defend the lone assassin fairy tale. As Jim D. pointed out so well in his review of the program, how can a documentary about the shooting of Oswald ignore all the countless indicators that Ruby acted in order to silence him? Is the "Ruby acted on impulse, not on orders" theory now going to become part of the neo-con platform?

Thanks for ressurecting this thread, Bill. I look forward to Josiah's reaction to Doug Horne's research.

The problem here is, again, that the inference in Josiah's question is obviously- why don't critics admit their mistakes. I've said it before, and I'll say it again; you can take all the alleged errors and distortions in the works of pro- conspiracy researchers and add them all together and they won't approach the errors and distortions of the official "investigations." I don't blame Jack White, or any other private citizen, when he makes an error. We all are human, and are prone to honest mistakes. The difference is that neither Jack, nor Jim Fetzer, nor any other private researcher is distorting data or purposefully misinterpreting anything because they are covering up for the real forces behind the crime(s). Those of us who have studied this case for decades recognize that the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, etc., have all engaged in a willful coverup designed to protect the interests of the real assassins of Kennedy.

The official version of 9/11 is just as ludicrous as the official version of the JFK assassination. I applaud Jack White, Jim Fetzer and all truth seekers, who must do the work that mainstream journalists will not (just as they have never done in regards to the assassinations of the 1960s). Consider the resources that any private citizen has at his disposal, as opposed to those an investigative journalist with a major television network would have. If you can prove Jack or anyone else purposefully distorted the truth about anything, then do so. Otherwise, recognize that you have a difference of opinion. I read many posts about Jack or Jim not acknowledging their errors. As Jack cogently points out, one doesn't admit mistakes if they aren't mistakes. There is a distinct philosophical difference between those who criticize the work of "conspiracy theorists" and those who investigate alleged conspiracies. Some of us believe that our leaders and institutions are basically good, while others believe they are basically corrupt.

It seems to me that every "mistake" discovered these days tends to minimize the size and scope of the conspiracy. That's part of the overall trend in the critical community towards neo-conspiracism, which I've bemoaned in previous threads. I don't think the alterationsts have conclusively proven their case, but the non-alterationists have not conclusively disproven it, either. I look forward to reading Doug Horne's work, and hope that Josiah and co. will as well. The same can be said of the 9/11 truthers, who have many different theories, but have raised enough questions about the official story to show how bogus it is.

Pat- thanks for posting that exchange with Gary Mack. Very illuminating. I don't see how anyone can read Mack's comments and still revere him as an unimpeachable source of information about the assassination. He has a very clear agenda, and that is to support the official lone assassin thesis.

His contention that Ruby wasn't at Parkland is laughable. Not only did Seth Kantor- who knew him well- speak to him, Wilma Tice reported encountering him as well. Maybe Gary now agrees with WC counsel Burt Griffin, who first practically begged Tice not to testify, and then responded most peculiarly to her fears and her reports of threatening phone calls. Her testimony proves conclusively that the Warren Commission was not "investigating" anything, and had no interest in the truth or even the safety of its witnesses. I urge everyone who has not done so to read it. It can be accessed here: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...f/WH15_Tice.pdf

The idea that a lifelong hoodlum, with strong connections to both organized crime and the Dallas Police, would be able to waltz past some 70 law enforcement officers, who were supposedly there to protect their prize prisoner, and get off a point blank shot is absurd. Graves and Leavelle were standing on either side of Oswald- why did none of the other 70 officers in that basement protect his front? What kind of "security" is that? Just about the kind JFK got in Dealey Plaza, I suppose. If there had been a real investigation into the assassination, the Dallas police would have been grilled just as thoroughly as the presidential Secret Service detail would have. Without their incompetence and/or acquiesence, neither murder would have been possible.

Does Gary Mack still maintain that he believes there was a conspiracy?

Chomsky is one of the most renowned leftists in the country, and like so many others, he would like us to believe that JFK was really no different from Ike or LBJ, and his death caused no changes in foreign or domestic policy. If there is such a thing as "false alternative," then Chomsky would certainly fall into that category.

I hope the other moderators on this forum will agree with me that John Bevilaqua's use of the ethnic slur "Krauty" to refer to L. Fletcher Prouty is completely inappropriate. The term itself shouldn't be allowed on this forum, and it's especially offensive to those of us who have great respect for Col Prouty and his work.

This is a typical mainstream media non-story. Nothing new here, just another establishment hack trotting out the party line.

I think it's a mistake for CTers to give ground on this issue, as I've noted before on this forum. The backyard photos were one of the first things to really get my attention- it's obvious to anyone that something isn't right with those pictures. Then we have the question of what motivated them- why would a future assassin pose with everything needed to help convict him of his future crimes? In one fell swoop, the commie literature provided the "motive," the rifle tied him to the assassination and the pistol tied him to the Tippit murder. That's not convenient coincidence, that's absurd and totally unbelievable. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen in even your worst American movies."

The backyard photos, imho, represent another strong indication that the conspirators deliberately constructed the flimiest coverup imaginable. While it makes no sense for a future lone nut to pose for a picture like that (especially if he's going to vehemently deny the crime), it's just as senseless for conspirators to use such an obviously faked series of photographs to frame their patsy. Much as no intelligent conspirator would have planted a nearly pristine bullet, unless they wanted to arouse suspicion, they also would have come up with much more realistic forged pictures than these backyard photos, if their intention was to impress independent investigators. I think it's obvious that all the most ridiculous elements of the coverup (confusion about the kind of rifle found, old and damaged condition of the alleged murder weapon, condition of the planted "magic" bullet, promotion of the hilarious single bullet theory, unidentified umbrella man and babushka lady, total failure of the Secret Service to act, etc.), point towards a group of extremely powerful conspirators who evidently wanted to create controversy and ignite debate about their crime.

Jack White and others proved conclusively long ago that these backyard photos are not legitimate. The question of Oswald's guilt or innocence doesn't depend on this issue, but there is no reason to give ground on it and accept some lame unknown's "research" that, shockingly enough, comes to the same conclusion all "research" done by anyone publicized in the establishment press does.

This has been a very interesting thread. I find myself in the unaccustomed position of strongly agreeing with Andy Walker and disagreeing with Terry Mauro.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of the British health system, but it simply couldn't be as bad as ours. I just don't think it would be possible for anyone to devise a poorer one. I worked directly for a huge health care system for decades, and I could tell you countless horror stories about what I personally saw (and I had no real direct contact with patients). The fact is, for more than a decade now, the cost of health insurance has been rising far more rapidly than the average cost of living raise for the majority of American workers. To make matters worse, there has been a simultaneous cutting of benefits- higher co-pays, with fewer procedures covered.

In this country, insurance and pharmaceutical companies, health care administrators and doctors profit enormously from the present system. There is obviously a strong incentive for them to keep the present plan. Our politicians also have one of the best medical programs in the country. They, too, have little reason to push for change. Obama's attempts at reform are tiny and only baby steps in the right direction. We have to have a single payer, government run health care system, like England and Canada. There is no other option, because those who have been getting rich from the present system are not going to willingly give up their profits, and without them doing that costs can never be cut. Without drastic cost cuts, the present system simply cannot endure.

Either we go entirely in the other direction- ala Craig Lamson- and promote the idea that health care is a "privilege" and not a fundemantal right, or we scrap the unworkable present system. Everyone should have access to medical care- I don't know how that can even be up for debate.

Yes, the idea of a sophisticated hit team employing a man with an umbrella as a lookout is ridiculous. However, so are many other things that the conspirators did. Planting a nearly pristine bullet, for instance. Nobody would do that, unless they wanted to draw attention to the obvious incompatability of CE399 with any real bullet on the planet. Or using such an obvious low level mobster like Ruby to silence Oswald in the midst of all those police officers. Even as a seven year old, I instantly realized how absurd that was.

I have independently arrived at the same conclusions veteran critic Vincent Salandria did- those who killed JFK constructed a purposefully sophmoric coverup, one that would instantly be discovered by the first investigators (of course, they knew that those entrusted to investigate the crime-Dallas Police, FBI, Warren Commission-were not interested in truly investigating anything). If the Umbrella Man and Babushka Lady did not exist, would it be necessary to invent them? At any rate, Steven Witt clearly wasn't TUM, and his comical testimony and preposterous Neville Chamberlain explanation only reinforce my point; no one would come up with a rationale like that. If the conspirators were truly interested in absolutely suppressing this stuff, they would have come up with a much more believable tale for him. As to why they'd do this, I can only guess that they wanted to wave it metaphorically in the face of the American people- "Yeah, we did it. So what?"

Whoever TUM was, he was never identified at the time by those whose job it was to do so. Much like the mysterious Babushka Lady (even if she was Beverly Oliver, and many of us have our doubts about that), he vanished into the mists of time immediately afterwards, to be christened with a colorful name and speculated about endlessly for several years. TUM and the Babushka Lady are two of the best examples I can think of that prove how bogus even the initial investigation was. One look at the Zapruder film- which they had in hand that evening- should have led them to search for the lady in the funny scarf who can be seen filming the shooting from a very close and crucial vantage point. They also should have noticed the umbrella, that is so conspicuous when JFK goes behind the Stemmons Freeway sign, and tried to identify and question the person who was holding it up on a clear and sunny day. The fact is there was never any effort to locate either of these important witnesses. No honest investigation would overlook obvious things like that.

I'm truly amazed that any researcher accepts Witt's ridiculous story.

Craig is partially right about me perhaps not being completely clear about this. My plan is a family option, so my entire family is covered under it (wife and 2 kids). That being said, we still have co-pays (which steadily increase) for everything except cleaning at the dentist, and would have to pay 10% for any hospital stay, surgery or other medical procedures. A co-worker of mine almost died a few years ago, and his medical bills added up to over $500,000. He had to pay 10%, so you figure out what kind of financial devastation that caused.

Craig and others can try to defend the present system, but it is indefensible. Doctors, administrators and nurses alone make far too much money from it for the system to ever be reformed in any meaningful way. It has to be totally scrapped, and a single-payer, English/Canadian style system instituted. Or, we can simply acknowledge that health care is a privilege that we will reserve for a small portion of our most fortunate citizens.

The whole Obama birth certificate thing is just another distraction for the befuddled masses. Now, they do have a point- if he was indeed born outside America, then he is not qualified to be president under the constitution. Considering how bad most of the presidents born in this country have been, perhaps we ought to start importing some.

Like Peter, I strongly criticize Obama from the other side. We constantly hear how he's "trying to do too much" or "going too fast," when in fact he's struggling to take a few baby steps in the direction we absolutely must go at this point. Health care must be addressed, and the only viable solution is a one payer system, run by the government, similar to what exists in Great Britain, Canada, France, etc. The insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospital administrators, doctors and any other person making a huge living in the present health care industry will fight any reform to the death. However, there is no alternative- either the system is scrapped and a cheaper one available to all is instituted, or prices for everything in the present system must be drastically reduced. They aren't going to do that.

To give you an idea of how expensive the present system is, I have what is considered an excellent family health insurance plan. Under that program, I pay about $8000 per year in automatic deductions from my paycheck. Because of "changes" that have been instituted every year for the past decade or so, I also have to pay 10% for any hospital stay, surgery or emergency room visit. Considering that any surgery now costs several thousands of dollars, you can only imagine how catastrophic a lengthy hospital stay coupled with surgery would be. My co-pays on everything else, from office visits to x-rays, have also steadily increased. About the only thing I don't have a co-pay for any more are regular cleaning and checkups at the dentist. So at least we'll all have white teeth.

I defy even the most bureaucratic "liberal" on Capitol Hill to come up with a government run, socialized medicine plan that will increase my taxes $8000 per year. Anything they come up with has to be cheaper. Also, considering how close-minded and incompetent so many of our doctors and nurses are in this country, I also cannot believe that a socialized system could provide any poorer care than most of us receive now. If we do nothing, as it stands now, within a decade you will have citizens literally dying in the streets because they cannot afford to seek medical treatment. The costs keep going up, because there is no oversight under our present system (such things as $10 for an aspirin, for example).

Those at the top of this grossly unequal medical system reap enormous financial profits. Several hospital CEOs earned between 1 and 2 MILLION dollars in compensation last year. Obviously, most doctors make a very nice living. Registered nurses are very well paid, too. With seniority, it's easy for them to make over $100,000. Pharmacists, x-ray technicians, physical therapists and so many more supporting components of the system are all paid a nice salary. To overhaul the present system would mean that they'd almost all have to take a hefty salary cut. Still, it must be done unless we want to make health care truly a privilege and not a right (a notion many of our leaders support).

I've said it before, but the most crucial issue in America (and probably most of the world) is the huge disparity in wealth. The one obvious economic fact is that the vast majority of citizens (probably 80%) simply are not paid enough to meet the ever increasing costs of living. We either have to raise those salaries, or cut prices across the board. Coupled with the coming Social Security disaster (within a few years, the great mass of Baby Boomers will retire, and there will simply not be enough workers to pay their benefits, even if we dramatically increase Social Security taxes), this is a situation we definitely have to address. As usual, our politicians, and our media, are silent. Arguments about birth certificates, prayer in school, gun rights, etc., will not change the economic realities. We need to share the wealth.

This little excerpt from Thomas Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow inspired the title of my own novel The Unreals:

"Look on it as an optimization problem. The country can best support only one of each.

Q: The what about all the others? Boston. London. The ones who live in cities. Are those people real, or what?

A: Some are real, and some aren't.

Q: Well are the real ones necessary? or unnecessary?

A: It depends what you have in mind.

Q: xxxx, I don't have anything in mind.

A: We do."

I admit I'm not an expert on the Apollo hoax issue, but I have done a bit of research. I have doubts that we went to the moon, but am not as firmly in the conspiracy camp as I am on most other issues. I have a question that maybe has been answered before, but I couldn't find any real information about it during a Google search.

Richard Nixon supposedly telephoned the Apollo 11 astronauts from the Oval Office. My question is: how did he do that? I understand that there was radio contact between NASA and the astronauts, but how could he use a telephone at the White House to call someone on the moon? Maybe I'm stupid, but that makes no sense to me. I apologize if this issue has been covered before on the forum.

Pamela,

Thanks for sharing this. We appreciate your insight.

A question- why didn't Gary Mack ask that the show include a shot from the spot where he thinks "Badgeman" was? After all, Gary still claims to believe in conspiracy, primarily because of the "Badgeman" figure.

Barb,

Thanks for taking the time to share your views in such detail. I do appreciate your time and effort.

I differ with Cliff on one thing- while I do believe there was an entrance wound to the throat, I think it could possibly (not likely, but a slight possibility) have been caused by a bullet fragment. Ironically, this was first postulated by Josiah Thompson in Six Seconds In Dallas. Where I strongly differ from you is that I don't believe the throat wound could have been, under any circumstances, an exit wound.

I've reiterated why I feel so strongly about the location of the back wound (holes in coat and shirt, autopsy face sheet, death certificate, Sibert & O'Neill report, etc.) I'm sure you're sick of hearing that same mantra. Even if I accepted an entrance wound at a higher location (where the HSCA moved it), I still can't see how a bullet could have entered there and exited from the throat. You mention an entrance wound with a slightly elevated angle; where could any shooter have been positioned, for a bullet to enter JFK's back with any kind of upward trajectory? It seems to me that your theory would require a shooter firing from behind at street level somewhere. I don't see how that would have been possible. I believe there was at least one bullet found in Dealey Plaza (as captured in the Murray photos), so I don't dismiss it on that count. However, the trajectory seems impossible, even if we move the entrance wound on the back up to where you want it to be.

I'm glad to know you don't think the shot came from the TSBD sixth floor window, and don't accept the single bullet theory. I respect your opinion, but have to stand with Cliff on this; in my view, the location of the entrance wound on the back was revealed by the holes in JFK's clothing.

Have to rest up now for a book signing tomorrow. For any of you in my area, I'll be signing copies of The Unreals at the Manassas, Virginia Barnes & Noble from 12-4 PM.

Leaving aside all the extraneous stuff that's crept into this thread, it is obvious that Barb's article has not ended the debate about whether or not there was a hole in the windshield. I think that the definitive tone of the article, and the posts supporting it, do not correspond to the cited evidence. The witnesses who claimed they saw a hole were not discredited. The Secret Service and FBI personnel who testified there was not a hole are still considered untrustworthy by those of us who believe in a large conspiracy. As in the debate over film alteration, reasonable people will disagree about what they see in photographs.

I can never disagree with Cliff stressing the location of the back wound at every opportunity- it IS the essential piece of evidence which disproves the ridiculous single bullet theory and destroys the official version of events all by itself. It also is related, at least tangentially, to the hole in the windshield discussion. An entrance wound to the throat might very well be an indication that those witnesses who saw a hole in the windshield were correct. While it certainly doesn't prove that such an entrance wound was directly connected to such a hole, Cliff is right to cite it as an indcator that perhaps there was.

I would be curious to know Barb's stance on the throat wound. Do you believe it was an entrance wound? If you believe it was an exit wound (contrary to all evidence about where the entrance on the back was), where do you believe the bullet exited? I know it's not directly related to this topic, but it would be interesting to know.

I guess the lack of response here indicates how well the press has suppressed this story.

I wasn't aware that Cronkite ever stated publicly that Oswald couldn't have done it alone. Certainly, that contradicts his every action while working for CBS News (and also his particpation in a disinfo piece on PBS' "Nova" series).

Btw, for the true "extremist" conspiracy believers like me, it is interesting to note that Cronkite was not only a regular participant in the yearly, all male gathering of world leaders at Bohemian Grove, he was supposedly the voice of the giant owl in the disgusting occultic ritualistic plays they put on there.

The fact that this guy could be considered "the most trusted man" in America speaks volumes about just how brainwashed and controlled the public is.

Nelected to mention the great work done by John Hankey, including an exceptional video that was long available on youtube, but doesn't seem to be there now. Anyway, here is a link to a more recent online article that has some good info:

The Assassination of JFK, Jr.