Don Jeffries

Thanks, Pat, for a typically well thought out and reasoned piece of work.

Glen, While I think this is a well-reasoned and persuasive post, I wonder about the above quote regarding Bugliosi's response to "conspiracy theorists." Imho, there is nothing to applaud about his gargantuan collection of lies. He was dishonest in his assessment of the critics, just as he was dishonest in his assessment of the evidence in this case. You're much more magnanimous towards this guy than I would be.

Bill, Why is the autopsy photo of JFK's back wound any more legitimate than the one of the back of his head? Don't both of them contradict the other evidence? The holes in JFK's clothing, corroborated by Boswell's autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, provide the strongest clarification imaginable about where that back wound was located. The autopsy photo cannot possibly be legitimate.

Bill, I've never really been interested in all the hypothetical debates concerning Oswald's route to the murder scene, its always seemed a rather pointless exercise IMO, whats importaint is that its been shown, by independent researchers from both camps, that Oswald could indeed make the journey inside the time frame, I belive it was Gary Mack that showed if LHO followed a certain route (which bad memory stops me from quoting) he actually had 3/4 minutes to spare. As for the actual shooting, I'm sure your more than aware there are at least 12 eyewitness which identified LHO. The ballistics are also very convincing, not so much the bullets, but certainly the shell casings found and handed over by the Davies sisters. These were positively proven to have been fired from Oswald's revolver to the exclusion of all other revolvers. That is to say the weapon that was found in Oswald's possession when arrested at the theater. And yes, I am aware of the claims that the revolver was planted on LHO but I dont see a scrap of evidence nor sensible argument to support that claim. Perhaps you have one ? Denis. Denis, The reason why Oswald's route to the Tippit murder scene is important is because courageous citizen researchers like Harold Weisberg and Sylvia Meagher proved it was impossible for him to be there. I don't care about Gary Mack's ridiculous attempt to buttress a long discredited theory- every witness Oswald supposedly encountered along his fantastic post-assassination journey was completely uncredible, and every one of his alleged movements make no sense, regardless of what his role that day was. The fact remains that no one-not the Warren Commission, not Dale Myers and not Gary Mack-can offer a single shred of evidence to show what time Oswald left the TSBD after the shooting. They all just follow the official story that he left at 12:33. There is nothing to corroborate this- not even a laughable witness like Markham or Whaley. I asked Dale Myers about this on another forum years ago, and he responded by demanding I buy his book and then left the forum in a huff. The best evidence for Oswald's whereabouts after the assassination are the handful of unconnected witness reports of him running from the TSBD and entering a Rambler. These witnesses all told the same basic story, and presumably would not have had the comedic quality of those Oswald allegedly encountered along the fairy tale-like flight postulated by the Warren Commission. Unfortunately, this promising lead was never investigated, much like nothing else about this crime was ever investigated, so what happened from that point until he was apprehended at the Texas Theater is unknown. What logic tells us, however, is that no one- neither fleeing lone nut assassin nor unwitting conspirator nor innocent patsy- walks a distance from the scene of the crime, then takes a bus back towards it, then hails a cab again away from it, and tells the hilarious driver to drop him off past his rooming house, so he can waste more time walking back to it. As Fidel Castro once said, "that does not happen even in your worst American movies." So 12 witnesses identified Oswald as the killer of Tippit? Hmm. Are you including Warren Reynolds, who initially couldn't identify Oswald but changed his mind after he was shot and subsequently recovered? How about Domingo Benavides, who had a similar change of perspective when his brother Eddy was shot and killed? Are you aware of the circumstances of the lineups under which witnesses "identified" Oswald? William Whaley's testimony is entertaining in several respects, but his somewhat unwitting description of the way the lineups were conducted, and Oswald's loud and angry protests about that, provide a pretty clear picture of what was going on. I would hope that anyone concerned about civil liberties would dismiss any "identification" obtained under such circumstances as totally dubious. As is the case with the assassination of JFK, none of the "evidence" against Oswald in the murder of Tippit would even have been able to be introduced in an honest court of law, on chain of possession issues alone. Oswald shot no one on November 22, 1963.

Craig's original reply to me on this thread was a bit nastier, Cliff. Don't know if you saw it. At any rate, I guess he thought better about it and edited it. One thing I would ask Craig; you have stated here several times that you "don't care" who killed JFK. That's a curious stance for someone who spends as much time as you do on this subject to take. I don't know that I've heard anyone say that before. Why would you pay so much attention to something that doesn't matter to you? Bill- thanks for the reply. It's nice to know that you trust the testimony of all those medical people in Dallas. However, in another thread, you seem to indicate that you think the back wound is located where the autopsy photo shows it is, which is too high for the bullet holes in JFK's clothing and the numerous references that locate it at that lower point (Boswell, Burkley, Sibert & O'Neill, etc.) I'm curious as to why you are willing to consider that the autopsy photos of the back of the head are fraudulent, but appear to believe the photo of the back wound is genuine. Btw, I was not trying to trap you into an alteration corner- I just wanted to know your opinion about the obvious discrepancies between what the doctors and nurses in Dallas saw and what the autopsy photos show. Still would like Josiah's input on this subject.

And the reason why Boswell, Burkley and Sibert & O'Neill all located the back wound where the holes in JFK's coat and shirt are is....

Let's skip the predictable debates over who is seeing what in a particular photo or film; as the endless threads on film alteration have shown, photo analysis can be very subjective. Answer the simple question- how do you explain why Boswell's marked location on his original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's location on the certificate of death and Sibert and O'Neill's location in their FBI report all matched precisely with the location where we find the holes in both JFK's coat and shirt? Were they all "bunched up" too? The evidence is so clear here that there is nothing to debate.

Bill/Barb/Josiah (if he'd deign to respond), I really can't wade through all the juvenile, name-calling posts that clutter up every thread about film alteration, in search of your views on this, so please answer a simple question for me. Do each of you believe there was a large, gaping wound in the back of JFK's head, as described so consistently by all the Dallas medical people? If you accept their testimony as true, I assume you don't think the autopsy photos-which show no such huge defect in the back of his head-are genuine. If you do accept them as genuine, how do you explain so many medical professionals making the exact same error? Again- this is not about film alteration. I'd just like to know your views on this. Thanks.

Robert, I appreciate your post and do find it encouraging. I also still await Josiah Thompson's answers to the simple questions I asked him earlier. I know I'm not Jim Fetzer, and this is not about film alteration, but it would be nice if he'd participate. I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd value his input.

Craig: Not according to Craig Lamson. According to Craig Lamson my analysis is spot on. Here's what I wrote: Here's what Craig Lamson wrote below: Identical conclusions. Since the jacket rode into the hairline on Main St., but BELOW the collar on Elm St., the jacket dropped. Tweaking twits is a worthy hobby, ain't that right, Craig? What an amazing display of tortured logic there Cliff, you have outdone yourself. Since you are a twit, ans this latest post proves that beyond a shadow of a doubt, and sincey ou are tweaking YOURSELF, well then I guess you do have a worthwhile hobby. I hope it works out for you because your hobby attempting to be a photo analysis is not looking good. The depth of your ignorance is stunning! Anyways carry on, you don't need my help making you look like a fool, you are soing a bang up job all by yourself. I have jus more post for you, to put you out of your misery....keep yor eyes peeled. You might want to dig that holoe just a litle deeper, bucause it will be the final resting place for your argument. Sorry, I usually don't do things like this, but when a person with this many typos and grammatical errors accuses someone else of ignorance, it's hard to resist pointing that out. I understand that we can all make mistakes typing too fast, etc. However, if you are attempting to point out the alleged intellectual shortcomings of another poster, you really should be more careful. Btw, this is on top of the fact that your arguments are ridiculous.

This issue couldn't be simpler. The holes in JFK's coat match precisely the holes in his shirt. This location matches precisely with the location Boswell marked on his original autopsy face sheet, where Burkley described it in the certificate of death, where Sibert and O'Neill described it in their FBI report of the autopsy and where other witnesses located it. There should be absolutely no doubt about where the entry wound on JFK's back was. Magical "bunched up" theories cannot explain all those other "coincidental" pieces of evidence.

As Cliff points out, any "bunching up" of JFK's jacket was miniscule, and could not possibly explain why the bullet holes were so far down the back. Anyone at this point in time who doesn't acknowledge the back wound was too low to have exited from the throat is either unfamiliar with the evidence or being willfully dishonest. We have the holes in JFK's coat, matching almost perfectly with the holes in his shirt. We have Boswell's orginal autopsy sheet, which "mistakenly" placed the back wound where the holes in his clothing are. We have Burkley's certificate of death, which described the back wound as being located where the holes in his clothing are. We have Sibert & O'Neill describing the back wound as being located where the holes in his clothing are, and also stating that "the distance traveled by this missile was a short distance inasmuch as the end of the opening could be felt with a finger." Echoing this is Roy Kellerman's testimony that Dr. Finck had told him, "there are no lanes for an outlet of entry in this man's shoulder." Here's a good discussion about this subject: http://www.realhistoryarchives.com/collect...lls.htm#Jenkins There is absolutely no question about it; the wound on the back was too low for the ridiculous single bullet theory to work, even ignoring all its other impossible aspects. There are few things more established by the evidence than this point. Researchers should have as much respect and patience for those who continue to ignore this as they do for those who maintian that JFK survived the shooting. This IS a black and white issue.

Tom and Peter, Great points. There is indeed no shame among those who profit sinfully, even if the circumstances that make their wealth possible are dishonest, corrupt or criminal. Witness recently the total lack of embarrassment on the part of the greedy bankers, caught with their hands in the bonus jar immediately after whining to Congress that they needed to be bailed out for the good of the economy. One of the all time unpleasant fellows, long time baseball manager Leo Durocher, made the phrase "Nice Guys Finish Last" popular several decades ago. It appears that all too many in sports, and the business world, have adopted this nasty credo and applied it to the way they conduct their lives. There are many, many allegedly pious people today who have amassed great wealth and quote the Bible freely, while studiously avoiding one particular passage like the plague; "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven." Sorry to go off topic. I tend to do that. But I understand where you're coming from. It does indeed sometimes feel like we're ranting to an audience that isn't there, fighting for a cause that's already been lost, in a war we didn't even realize was being waged.

Gil, I'm glad we're in agreement here. I respect your work very much. You've produced some great videos, which I encourage everyone to check out on You Tube. While I strongly agree with you and Cliff Varnell on the interpretation of the evidence. I think we've debated before about the nature of the conspiracy and the identities of the forces behind the assassination. I've always argued that Cuba and Castro were red herrings, and find it untenable that the removal of Castro was any kind of motive behind the crime, since Cuba literally died as a political issue in this country after the assassination. I also don't think that right-wing extremists had the wherewithal in 1963 to enlist the most influential people in our nation in a massive ongoing coverup that is still going strong over 45 years later. I suspect more shadowy, powerful forces were involved. That being said, I highly respect both of you, and certainly don't demand that others accept my speculations as the ultimate truth. That is where I think we can all engage in a civil debate; none of us can claim to know for certain exactly who was behind the assassination. I bring this up to point out that I'm hardly asking for a coalition to walk in lock step on this issue. There are a variety of theories about just who was the driving force behind the crime, and all but the official one deserve our respect. The official story has been disproven completely several times over, not by investigative journalists whose job it should have been to do so, but by courageous individual citizens who spent the time, money and effort in unearthing the truth. When someone who is aware of their work suddenly rejects it, we all have a right to wonder why. That's all I'm trying to say here.

Duncan, I never suggested that there was anything sinister behind any of the sudden conversions to lone nutterism or the temperance of formerly strong pro-conspiracy views. I do believe they are curious and often inexplicable. Vince Palamara, for instance, was one of my favorite researchers. Imho, he thoroughly documented the failure of the Secret Service to do its job in Dealey Plaza and his work would cause most intelligent people to suspect at least some agents of complicity in the crime. When he filmed his abrupt conversion to lone nutterism and uploaded it on You Tube, I was hardly the only person to be totally flabbergasted. He was questioned by myself and others on this forum, as to what caused his sudden shift of opinion. Like Gary Mack, Dale Myers, Todd Vaughn and so many others, he couldn't give us a single reason why he changed his mind. I think such mysterious conversions are irrational and certainly worthy of discussion on forums like this. As for the Umbrella Man, there is certainly some movement there. I am hardly the first person to describe this as "pumping." The larger issue is why his strange behavior is not even mentioned any more by anyone. Do you believe Steven Witt's ridiculous story, and accept that he was the Umbrella Man? There used to be a general consensus that he was a signal man of sorts for the shooters. This notion appears to have been dropped by nearly everyone. Why? There is nothing wrong with research evolving as new evidence comes to light. That, however, really hasn't been the case here. What evidence has arisen over the past 25-30 years that would cause knowledgable researchers to back off from a strong pro-conspiracy stance? We are under no obligation to respect all opinions. For instance, if someone maintains the grass is red or the sky is brown, he has the right to do so, but no rational person is going to spend a moment considering the validity of what he says. This evolution of opinions that you mention, based on research, is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about. Where is this research that caused so many to discard the well founded doubts that Oswald killed Tippit? That caused some to believe that the backyard photos are "probably genuine?" When someone changes their own well documented beliefs on a crucial aspect of this case, we are certainly entitled to question that on forums like this. The fact that they do so without giving any reasons why is bound to breed suspicion. That's the nature of discussion forums.

Duncan, I'm not sure which mistakes you're referring to, since you weren't specific. As for JFK's head moving back and to the left, it undeniably does. However, there is general agreement that it moves forward first, as you said. It is pretty reasonable to speculate then, as many of us have over the years, that he was hit by almost simultaneous head shots from the rear and then the front. My point about the backwards movement is that there is no question about it, and it clearly contradicts the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the shots from behind. I was just trying to come up with a list of items that are either unquestionable (i.e., the impossibility of the single bullet theory) or solid indications of conspiracy that have seemingly been abandoned by many researchers for no apparent reason.

Let me clarify a few things. First, as a diehard civil libertarian, I believe in everyone's right to state their own beliefs, even if I vehemently disagree with them. In the past, I was almost always against the "banning" of a particular poster on other forums, even though I hardly agreed with anything they said. This is not about demanding that assassination researchers adhere to a certain fixed set of opinions, with no dissent allowed. I think Lamar Waldron's theories are outlandish, but I certainly don't object to John Simkin having him answer questions on the forum. What I've observed over the past several years is a gradual shift in consensus among the majority of JFK assassination critics. Again, if the lone nutters and neo-cons were persuasive with their arguments, and had provided new insight and/or evidence to cause this shift in consensus, I would certainly understand that. Perhaps I'd already be a neo-con myself in that case. However, to my knowledge, no such insight and/or evidence has been produced by anyone to cause passionate conspiracy believers to suddenly convert to lone nutterism or temper their views. A national debate was not held on issues like the Umbrella Man, the unnatural deaths of witnesses, the Tippit murder or the backyard photos, wherein it was dramatically shown that most critics had been mistaken in their beliefs. In other words, there is no logical reason for so many researchers to give ground on these crucial aspects of the case. I could bring up other areas in which CTers seem to have backed off inexplicably; the question of the identity of the rifle found in the TSBD, the question of ownership of the Carcano, the indications that a bullet was found in the grass at Dealey Plaza and many more. Whenever the subject of the Carcano is brought up on this and other forums, it seems to be taken for granted that Oswald ordered it and it was the weapon found on the sixth floor. The fact that the only legal documents, and much of the testimony surrounding the discovery of this weapon identify it as a German mauser doesn't seem to concern many critics any longer. The fact that all the myriad of perplexing questions that critics like Sylvia Meagher raised long ago about the Carcano, from the magazine ad to the p.o. box to the "Hidell" alias, remain unanswered doesn't seem to concern many critics now, either. Why? When a highly respected researcher like Josiah Thompson states that the backyard photos are "probably genuine," and also claims that the Zapruder film doesn't show the Umbrella Man pumping his umbrella up and down, what are we to think? He didn't provide any rationale for his statement about the backyard photos, which he presumably once questioned like the rest of us, and has never retracted his untrue statement about the Umbrella Man. He has also ignored several requests from me on this forum to answer a few questions. Of course, he is under no obligation to do that, but if he is participating on this forum for any other reason than to bicker with Jim Fetzer, he should have no qualms about doing so. This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about; an apparent temperance of belief, without an explanation. Again, neither he nor Gary Mack nor anyone else owes us any explanation, but if someone chooses to participate in a give and take forum like this, one has to expect others to notice such things and question them. The holes in JFK's clothing, supported by Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death and Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, completely, 100% disprove the single bullet theory. That's not even taking into consideration the nearly pristine condition of CE399, and the comparision photos of identical ammunition, test fired into substances like a goat carcass that showed a great deal of visible damage, found in the official records. Thus, there is no reason for anyone to serously engage a poster who still accepts such fairy tales. That doesn't mean they don't have a right to post their drivel, but it does mean that no honest researcher should respect it. While not everything is black and white, some things are. The single bullet theory is impossible. Most witnesses did claim shots came from the front. Oswald was a mediocre shot, and there is no credible evidence he ever shot a weapon again after leaving the marines as such. There is nothing but the fanciful testimony of his wife Marina to tie him to the General Walker shooting. The President's head does go visibly back and to the left, and witnesses like Hargis were sprayed with blood and brain matter. The Secret Service did not react in a competent manner that day, and driver Bill Greer did at least slow down before the shots were fired. The evidence indicates that Oswald wasn't on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting. There is no evidence for exactly what time he left the TSBD after the shooting. Every witness who supposedly encountered Oswald on his fanciful post-assassination journey had severe credibility problems and would have been destroyed in court by a competent defense attorney. None of the "evidence" against Oswald could even have been entered into the record in an honest court of law, on chain of possession issues alone. The best evidence indicates that Oswald entered a Rambler shortly after the assassination, but this lead was never investigated by the authorities. There is abundant evidence of Oswald imposters prior to the assassination. Oswald's "Hidell" alias was obviously not a true attempt at forging a new identity, becasue his Select Service card with "Hidell" on it had a photograph, and would have been useless, since real ones didn't have photographs. Okay, there I go ranting again. But I do feel better.

Pat, Thanks for your reasoned reply. However, I have to disagree with you just a bit. While there was a personality conflict from the very beginning, primarily between Harold Weisberg and his followers, and Mark Lane and his followers, there was no disagreement between the camps on the evidence. I tried, very gingerly, to question Weisberg about this when I had a nice meeting with him back in the early '80s, but got nowhere. They just despised each other, in my opinion out of sheer jealousy. Certainly you are right in pointing out how the critics disagreed over Jim Garrison. However, again, that was not really about the basic evidence- it was simply that many believers in conspiracy felt that Garrison had no case against Clay Shaw. As for Lifton, body alteration was something new, and because of the incredible nature of the theory it was bound to divide even diehard conspiracy adherents. Again, I don't think there was a split on the basic evidence. I don't believe in a litmus test for conspiracy believers, as I've said before. However, those of us who've been involved with this case for decades are naturally going to be suspicious when other knowledgable researchers suddenly change position on a crucial aspect of it. For instance, when some begin to state that the backyard photos are "probably genuine," or that they haven't seen any evidence that they are fake, you can't simply dismiss that lightly. The studies that raised questions about the fraudulent nature of these photos have been around for years. I simply wanted to know what had happened in the intervening period of time, other than predictable rubber stamp "investigations" by government "experts," to show that they are indeed legitimate photographs. Why do so many more critics now believe that Oswald killed Tippit? Again, what has happened in recent years to cause this shift in opinion? The state of the evidence against Oswald in that case has been analyzed for decades; Harold Weisberg alone showed that it was impossible for him to even physically be at the scene of the crime in time to commit it. Why are the Umbrella Man's curious actions that day now ignored, or accepted as the innocuous protests of the thoroughly uncredible Steven Witt? TUM was the closest thing we have to a conspirator captured on film. We've had two highly publicized books written in the last 15-20 years, touting the lone nutter line. Both "Case Closed" and Bugliosi's magnus ridiculotus have been dissected online by knowledgable people and found completely wanting. In other words, there's nothing new in them to covert anyone familiar with the evidence (except, of course, Vince Palamara, who inexplicably claims to have been converted by Bugliosi, although of course he can't tell us specifically why). Those who have converted to lone nutterism are not novices who were swayed by these books and have nothing to compare them to. They are usually former firm believers in conspiracy who obviously know better. Like Vince, they can't explain their conversion. I don't think it's unreasonable at all to wonder what is behind such a huge shift in opinion. I certainly wouldn't be offended if someone asked me why I changed my beliefs about a particular subject. More importantly, I think I'd be able to provide at least a reason why. I appreciate your contributions here, and always read your posts.

The recent spate of film alteration threads between Jim Fetzer and his supporters and Josiah Thompson and his supporters illustrate a disturbing trend in the JFK assassination research community. It has become increasingly clear to me, from participating on JFK assassination forums over the past decade, that many critics have tempered their once fervent beliefs in conspiracy. We also have the curious phenomenon of the converts to lone nutterism; once strong proponents of conspiracy like Todd Vaughn, Gus Russo, Dale Myers, Vince Palamara, Dave Reitzes, Dave Perry, etc., who have become vocal adherents to the official fairy tale for no rational reason. There are no similar well-known converts to conspiracy, which is strange. I've questioned many of these miraculously converted lone nutters (as well as Gary Mack) on forums before, asking them what it was that caused them to alter their opinion. None can give an intelligible response. There a good number of people on this and other forums now who describe themselves as "fence sitters." They are truly incomprehensible to me. Reading even one or two of the best critical works on this subject, and studying the Warren Commission's Hearings & Exhibits, should be enough to push anyone with any degree of intelligence and awareness into a strong disbelief in the official story. I've questioned some of these "fence sitters" in the past, and they haven't given me any intelligible response. Then there are those I call neo-cons. They appear, to me, to have a neo-belief in conspiracy. While publicly stating that there was probably a conspiracy, they appear to accept far too many things that were once considered improbable or even impossible. Gary Mack is the foremost example of a neo-con, in my view. Some of these seeming CTers think Oswald killed Tippit. Almost all of them ignore the ramifications of the Umbrella Man and probably accept Steven Witt's absurd story. Almost everyone now (except David Wrone) appears to accept that it definitely was Billy Lovelady, and not Oswald, in the TSBD doorway in the Altgens photograph. As has recently been discussed here, all too many appear to think that the once thoroughly suspect backyard photos are genuine. As I've stated, nothing has happened in recent years to explain this- there is simply no logical reason for researchers to give ground on any of these issues. At least there are still a fair number of passionate believers in conspiracy on this forum; JFK Lancer has really been taken over by the neo-cons and "fence sitters," which is why I rarely post there now. There are good people on Lancer, whom I used to respect, that now seem to believe the autopsy x-rays and photos are genuine. In light of the gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, described in unison by many different doctors and nurses in Dallas, this is simply impossible to understand. On Lancer, but to a degree here as well, nothing stirs the pot like a film alteration thread. I've tried to raise this point several times before, but it bears repeating; I simply don't comprehend why Jim Fetzer and Jack White raise such animosity from so many, with their particular theories. I don't accept or reject it, but I think it has merit and deserves more respect than the ravings of Tom Purvis, for example. Purvis, however, gets more respect from nearly everyone here than Fetzer or White do. Even the most extreme parts of the film alterationist theory is far more credible, imho, than what Tom Purvis says (or doesn't say, because much of it is unfathomable) in every post. Even the least knowledgable newcomer to the subject, or the most stubborn lone nutter, get far more respect from most believers in conspiracy than Jim Fetzer or Jack White do here (and certainly on Lancer, where I don't think they really have any supporters). Many of us have been fighting this fight for decades. I've been studying this case for about 35 years now. It's become an integral part of my life, and will always be important to me. Thus, it hurts to see how fractured the critical community has become. With internet forums like this, we ought to be able to make some real progress in learning the truth about what really happened on November 22, 1963. Instead, too many threads become predictable and juvenile jousting matches between David Healy, Bill Miller, Craig Lamson and Len Colby. When you throw in the frequent long, rambling contributions of Tom Purvis, these threads become tremendously boring. Even if a newcomer drifting into those threads should find them interesting, he/she is bound to be turned off by the tenor of the discussions. Then when Jim Fetzer posts something, Josiah Thompson joins the fray and they exchange the same insults with each other that we've heard so many times before. Now if only Josiah would deign to answer some the questions I've asked him.... I don't hold out much hope for the future, in terms of the true assassins of JFK ever being known. Those of us that care deeply about this subject can't even agree on basic issues, and large egos and strong personalities clearly dominate the field. I'm starting to understand why Penn Jones became tired of the whole thing before he died (and that was back in the early to mid-1990s), and why Gary Shaw has seemingly retired from the field. We need to remember why we're here and acknowledge that we can do better.

Thanks for posting Christopher Sharrett's piece, Bill. Penn Jones first published some of his writing back in The Continuing Inquiry. I've always been impressed by what he has to say. Do you know when this was written? More importantly, what is Sharrett doing now? It would be great to have a voice like his on this forum.

Craig, I'm not as impressed by your expertise in this area as you are. "Basic photographic principals (sp)" are obviously lacking in these photos, which is why virtually every researcher into the assassination strongly suspected they were faked as part of the effort to frame Oswald. Bill should be proud of what he posted back in 2003.

Josiah, If we can leave aside the issue of film alteration for a moment, would you please answer a few questions? First, do you believe there was an actual hole in the windshield at some point, as reported by a handful of credible witnesses? Second, do you believe there was a huge gaping hole in the back of JFK's head, as reported by numerous medical people in Dallas? Third, do you believe the non-fatal rear entry wound was lccated 5-6 inches down on JFK's back, as evidenced by the holes in his clothing, Boswell's original autopsy face sheet, Burkley's certificate of death, Sibert & O'Neill's FBI report, etc.?