Al Fordiani

Mr. Caddy, Thank you for this fascinating piece. Always great to read something by someone who was there. I hope there is more to come.

How are you, Mr. Prudhomme, Keep up the good work.

Please, Mr. Speer, I get it just fine. I have never suggested that you are a newbie, in fact my first post acknowledges that you have spent considerable time studying the head wound. It seems you feel that you are the only one here who "gets it" and the rest of us are spinning our wheels. I have read your chapters 18c and 18d. You make your arguments. I get your arguments. I just disagree with your analysis and conclusion. You say: "some witnesses said they saw something so we should believe them, even though a number of other witnesses including the autopsy doctors and autopsy photographer said they saw something else, and even though the bulk of those witnesses claiming they saw something later admitted they didn't get a very good look and said they must have been wrong" argument is ludicrous, and will never withstand the judgment of history." And this all sounds all fine and good. But we all know that in the Kennedy assassination, a researcher can find witnesses who said just about anything. So we are forced to critically evaluate the witnesses. That is just the way it is. And the most qualified people with the best view, save for the autopsy doctors, agree that the main wound on the head was occipital-parietal in nature. In spite of your protestations, you do not "prove" anything. You are forced to resort to supposition. Here is your "proof" that the Parkland doctors were incorrect: "It seems likely that one or two of the primary physicians confused the back of the head when laying on your back (the top of the head) with the back of the head when standing, and that the others just saw a mass of bloody hair and repeated what Clark later told the nation." Hmmmm. The doctors confused the back of the head with the top of the head because Kennedy was laying on his back. Yet here is sworn testimony from Dr. McClelland (ARRB): "So I was standing where I was looking down intently in the wound and really had nothing to do but that because I -- it didn't take much attention to pull the retractor, And so I could clearly see what the wound looked like over a good period of time.....It was a very large wound and I would agree that it was at least seven or eight centimeters in diameter and was mostly really in the occipital part of the skull. And as I was looking at it, a fairly large portion of the cerebellum fell out of the skull, There was already some brain there, but during the tracheostomy more fell out and that was clearly cerebellum. I mean, there was no doubt about it, and I was that far from it (indicating).....Twelve to 18 inches. [emphasis added] Does that sound like one of the primary physicians was confused and the confusion was just repeated? And the examples go on and on as pointed out in numerous posts on this thread. The credible witness testimony that you must ignore or somehow explain away is enormous. Higher on the head or lower, how many credible witnesses place the wound in the back of the head, where the autopsy photo should show it? 10? 20? 30? So which seems to be a better explanation: numerous Parkland doctors change there testimony from their initial observations after being visited by and pressured by the Secret Service (who they witnessed brandishing their weapons in the seizure of Kennedy's body); or the doctors couldn't tell the top of the head from the back of the head? So which seems a better explanation: LNers FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill just decided thirty years later to contribute to the conspiracy talk by making up that they thought the autopsy photographs were not authentic; or the photos are faked? Same with Dr. Canada, head of Bethesda Naval Hospital? He just decided that it would be a great joke 25 years after his death to throw out there that JFK' wound was in the back of the head! Ha, ha, there's a good one to play on history. To Mr. Hancock's point: Which seems to be a better explanation: the autopsy was legimate, but that there are ZERO photos taken which gives a clear picture of the head wound because everyone is incompetent; or someone in high authority didn't want us to have a clear picture of the wound. Which seems more likely: Humes burned his notes and the first draft of the autopsy report because it had blood on it; or he had to sanitize the result? And seriously, how can anyone trust Humes. His testimony is at all times evasive. And we know that Finck wrote a CYA memo to his superior as he recognized that the autopsy was so much garbage, and testified to limitations placed on the procedure by an army general. Mr. Speer begins with the premise that the autopsy photos are legitimate. Look at the lengths he has to go to maintain that premise. In my mind, it just doesn't hold up.

Responses in blue (and trying not to just repeat my previous posts.) And as I have been working on this in snippets of time over a few days, I apologize if I am repeating posts made in the meantime. You're cherry-picking, Ray. Seldin specified that he agreed with the official solution to the assassination. This rules out what you apparently would like us to believe he was saying--that he saw an entrance wound on the forehead that went unobserved by all his colleagues. Mr. Speer, I think it is amazing to accuse Mr. Mitchum of cherry-picking. I think that is an apt description of your own tactics. You cite obscure and bit players (and stretch the meaning of their testimony at that) and ignore or choose to downplay the major players that unanamously describe an occipital wound (or occipital-temporal-parietal). Please refer to previous posts on this thread for the testimony/reports of those major players. You're also wrong about Zelditz. Zelditz, as James Curtis Jenkins, specified that there was a wound on the back of the head in that the bone was shattered, but that this wound was covered by scalp and bloody hair. As far as the others...context is everything. I readily agree that the majority of witnesses made statements indicating the wound was toward the back of the head. My argument is, and has been, that it is incredibly dishonest to take from this that they were describing the wound depicted in the so-called McClelland drawing, which is BELOW the top of the ear, or that they were describing an occipital wound from which the Harper fragment was displaced. The size and shape of the Harper fragment necessitates that the wound be in the MIDDLE of the back of the head, not on the right. McClelland drawing attached. The wound as depicted goes above the top of the ear to about the bottom of the ear. And Mr. Speer, your argument is also that the autopsy photos are genuine. I can't see anything that you have presented that truly and honestly supports those photos. In fact, just the opposite. So, to be clear, the Parkland witnesses, on average, described a wound at the TOP of the right side of the back of the head. NOT on the occipital bone, as claimed by many CTs. No. This is not clear at all. And for you to say it is clear exposes your bias. I don't see how you can come to this conclusion. Cerebellum on the table. Wound in the occiput. Is there some variation in the exact location described? Yes. But the wound is consistently described in the back of the head. See again the same-day statements of the attending doctors: they say the wound is occipital! NOT in the location of the wound in the McClelland drawing, as claimed by many others. But how many are willing to admit this? This is 2 plus 2 equals 4 kinda stuff. And yet the vast majority of CTs embarrass themselves by continuing to pretend the Parkland witnesses described an almost exclusively occipital wound, when they did not, or a wound below the level of the ear, when they did not. But, Mr. Speer, even if I accept your conclusion that the Parkland witnesses on average describe a wound at the top right side of the back of the head (which I do not); then WHERE IS THIS WOUND IN THE AUTOPSY PHOTOS? The inability of so many CTs to accept this, and to continue to pretend the witnesses in Groden's photos are pointing out a wound behind and below of the ear, proves to me, and many others, I might add, that there is a cognitive disconnect in the CT community when it comes to the head wounds, much as there is a cognitive disconnect among LNs when it comes to the back wound, which they continue to pretend was at the base of the neck. Mr. Speer, again, I applaud you for thoroughly exploring a different hypothesis, bringing out testimony of some of the more obscure witnesses. But to maintain this hypothesis, we must throw out the same-day observations of all of the major players at Parkland, all those that had the best look at the wounds, as well as the testimony of lone-nutters Sibert and O'Neill (which you never address), who also had a long and up-close look; and instead we must rely on stretching the testimony of more obscure witnesses to fit. For the life of me, I cannot see how you can support the authenticity of the autopsy photos, because I believe that in fact the testimony of some of these other Parkland witnesses strengthens the idea that the autopsy photos have been faked. But again, I do not expect to change your opinion. But for third parties out there just learning, here it all is. I know what my feeling is: the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that JFK had a large wound to the back of the head and that the autopsy photos are faked to hide that fact. Make your own judgment.

Black cars, blue cars, sky blue cars? Mr. Speer, as you admit to Mr. Prudhomme, the very first impressions of the Parkland doctors, made before the autopsy, before anyone knew that there was going to be controversy were basically unanimous in that JFK had a major wound in the back of the head: From (as Mr. Prudhomme points out) WCR Appendix VIII: Dr. Clark (Summary): "...large wound in the right occipito-parietal region...considerable loss of scalp and bone tissue. Both cerebral and cerebellar tissue were extruding from the wound." Dr. Carrico: "...wound had avulsed the calvarium and shredded brain tissue...attempt to control slow oozing from cerebral and cerebellar tissue..." Dr. Perry: "A large wound of the right posterior cranium..." Dr. Baxter: "...the rt temporal and occipital bones were missing and the brain was lying on the table.." Dr. Clark (initial report): "...large wound beginning in the right occiput extending into the parietal region. Much of the skull appeared gone..." So are their recollections "golden"? Here we have the wound described within hours of the shooting, by absolutely qualified doctors, who everyone admits were up-close, first-hand, they-were-there-and-touched-the-body witnesses, before any autopsy was performed, before any controversy erupted. And what do they describe? The wound is clearly posterior. How can anyone dispute that? Personally, I don't see how anyone can. So I ask: Where is this large, clearly posterior wound with missing bone and oozing cerebellum in the autopsy photos? We have two choices to answer that question. Either the Parkland doctors were grossly incompetent or imagined this avulsed occipital wound missing bone and scalp oozing cerebellar tissue; they mistook a large parietal and frontal wound for an occipital one or just made it up. Seriously, how can that be? Or the autopsy photos are fakes. As unpalatable or unbelievable as that may be to some, especially when backed up by the sworn testimony of Lone Nutters Sibert and O'Neill, I know which explanation makes more sense to me. I doubt that I will change the mind of Mr. Speer. He, like many others, is so invested in his hypothesis that it seems that he will not let go of it. So be it. But black cars, blue cars, Harper fragments, Newman testimony, whatever, I just don't think that any other conclusion can be drawn other than the autopsy photos and findings are fraudulent. So for me, now the question is who ordered the deception and how did they get everyone to go along.

Mr. Hancock, I have read two of your books and appreciate your thoughtful approach, your thorough research, and your willingness to share your opinions here. The issue here is not necessarily the exact location or appearance of the wounds (which obviously at this time we will never know completely and exactly for sure), or how they may have looked different here or there. The issue here, in my opinion, is the veracity of the autopsy photos and other autopsy materials and whether already at 7:00 CST the fix was in to the extent of falsifying the autopsy; and who ordered it. To me the last word on this are the two FBI agents, Sibert and O'Neill. These men were true Lone Nutters who believed Oswald acted alone. Yet their personal integrity trumped all when placed under oath. From O'Neill sworn testimony to the ARRB: (see for example: https://www.maryferrell.org/mmfweb/ or many other sources for this testimony.) Mr. Gunn: Okay. Can we take a look now at view number six, which is described as "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region", Color Photograph No. 42 [which we recognize as the back of head autopsy photo: ALF] Q: I'd like to ask you whether that photograph resembles what you saw from the back of the head at the time of the autopsy? A: This looks like it's been doctored in some way... From Sibert sworn testimony to the ARRB: Q: Okay. If we could now look at the sixth view which is described as the "wound of entrance in right posterior occipital region". Photograph No. 42 [same "back of head" autopsy photo: ALF] Mr. Sibert, does that photograph correspond to your recollection of the back of President Kennedy's head? A: Well, I don't have a recollection of it being that intact as compared with these other pictures. I don't remember seeing anything that was like this photo. Remember, these two men were 18" from the body in the Bethesda morgue. They left the morgue around midnight thinking they had seen the entire autopsy, yet there is evidence that work continued on into the early morning. Mr. Speer, I have read your material on the location of the head wounds. Overall, I applaud your efforts to try to think "out of the box" so to speak. But given that, I have to disagree with your analysis. I think you try too hard to fit things into your hypothesis. While I really don't have time for a page by page analysis of your work, here are some general comments: You rely a great deal on the Dealey Plaza witnesses, the Newman's, etc. Yet from my reading of their remarks/testimony for the most part they say the saw Kennedy struck in the temple. It is you who then makes the leap to say that means there was a large wound in the temple area; in my opinion you put words in their mouths. I would make the further comment that these witnesses had a fleeting look at the wound. In my opinion, you put significantly too much stock in the veracity of Humes and Boswell and the autopsy report. Personally, I find them to be evasive at best and purposely misleading at worst. Humes in particular is dismissive of any questioning at all. Humes burned his autopsy notes and the first draft! Humes refused to draw his recollection of the wounds for the ARRB! Are these the actions of a man with nothing to hide? You look at some of the witnesses that I mentioned, those in Groden's The Killing of a President. You make a great issue as to whether these witnesses remember the head wound as above or below the ear; and you disqualify many of them as "back of the head" witnesses based on their memory of the wound as being above the ear. But the issue to me is not how high on the head or how low these witnesses place the wound. The issue is whether the wound that they remember is compatible with the existing autopsy photo of the back of the head; and high on the head or not, these witness place the wound far enough toward the back of the head to be completely at odds with the back of the head autopsy photos. Mr. Speer, you question why if the conspirators were going to forge photos, etc., why would they make forgeries that still leave one with evidence of conspiracy. I think the answer to that is available time and technology. They did the best they could, hoping that no one would see the fakes for 75 years, when they would all be dead and gone. I agree that the waters are muddied by testimony of people who 1) had something to hide; 2) went along to get along; 3) thought they were performing their patriotic duty; 4) were intimidated; or had some other reason. But again, by the sheer preponderance and consistency of the eyewitnesses to Kennedy's wound: JFK had a big hole in the back of his head and the autopsy was faked to cover it up.

Why would anyone believe the ARRB testimony of Sibert and O'Neill over the HSCA panel? Because they were 18" away from Kennedy's body in the morgue. Who from the HSCA panel saw anything first hand? Sibert and O'Neill were not CTers, far from it Yet when faced with the autopsy photos under oath, they refused to perjure themselves and admitted that the photos did not match the actual wounds. It is just the fact, whether Mr. Von Pein wants to admit it or not. You can see for yourself Sibert's depiction of the wound in the back of the head in my previous post. No one will ever convince Mr. Von Pein. That is fine; it is certainly not my goal. I write for the next generation and new people to the case. Kennedy had a hole in the back of his head that was made to disappear in the official record. Even the two FBI agents on the scene, who badly wanted to believe Oswald acted alone, said this under oath.

Attachments.

I know Mr. Speer has invested a lot of time and study into the head wound. Still I must disagree with his analysis. Looking at the overwhelming preponderance and agreement of the eye-witness testimony of those who saw JFK's wounds, I think it is impossible to come to any other conclusion than that Kennedy had a large wound in the back of his head. Attached is a small sampling of available eye-witness depictions of JFK's head wound. There are many more witnesses to this wound. (Including the commanding officer of Bethesda Naval Hospital, Robert O. Canada (see Kurtz, The Assassinaiton Debates)). For a visual of many witnesses pointing to a read-of-head wound, see Groden's The Killing of a President. And for any naive reader who sees Mr. Von Pein's post, Mr. Von Pein relies on the thoroughly discredited autopsy photos (see for instance the ARRB Testimony of FBI agents Sibert or O'Neill. I assume that Mr. Von Pein is familiar with this testimony. What does he say about that?) As well, both Humes and Boswell, while never convicted, clearly lied and evaded repeatedly under oath about JFK's autopsy. (see Horne, Inside the ARRB) So I believe it misguided to base any opinion about the wounds on the words of the autopsy doctors. The hole in the back of JFK's head is the bedrock foundation of proof of the manipulation and falsification of evidence in the JFK murder. While the waters are muddied here and there by medical personnel who, like Humes, went along to get along, or like Parkland Drs. Perry and Carrico in the 1992 JAMA article, changed thier stories under pressure, as stated above the overwhelming preponderance and consistancy of the eyewitness testimony is proof beyond any and all reasonable doubt of the wound in the back of Kennedy's head and the falsification of his autopsy. Of course, veteran researchers all know this. But for anyone new to the study, don't be misled by fake evidence.

I, too, would be willing to make a donation to keep this valuable archive open and available.

Question(s) for David Lifton: Why would/did Marina keep the note? Why hide it at all? Why not just destroy it? Any ideas on that? The whole Walker affair is really interesting. Thanks, ALF

Sorry, Attachment Kennedy Rotational motion.doc

I understand physics. I graduated MIT and have taught physics for 15 years. The difficulty comes in deciding how to model the whole interaction. Just for the sake of it, I did some quick calculations just to get a first-order approximation. To model JFK, I assumed that in reaction to a bullet to his head in front, that JFK's torso would rotate back at his waist with his lower body remaining motionless. I assumed a rifle bullet of 10 grams hitting with a velocity of 1000 meters/second. The result is that one would see a backwards rotation of Kennedy's body about his waist of about 124 degrees per second. The linear speed of his head would be about 1.7 meters per second. (see attached calculations). The calculation works in both directions, that is, that if a shot of similar parameter hit JFK in the back of the head, he would be rotated forward. (You would have to multiply the bullet angular momentum by the cosine of the downward angle, so the rotation would be less.) Now, there is no doubt that my model is a simplification, but the basic idea can't be ignored. Mr. Viklund, I did a similar calculation based on the video you showed. Assuming a rigid rotation about his feet with a standard S&W round, that victim's rotation would be only 4 degrees per second. (I assumed 5' 6" 150 lb man, 10 gram round at 234 meters/second) But regardless of what anyone thinks about the physics involved, Sibert and O'Neill's unequivocal testimony to the ARRB that the photos in evidence do not represent the head or brain of JFK as they saw them at autopsy is certain evidence of conspiracy.

No, you are quite mistaken. Dulles' own basic training was primarily as a lawyer. Even as DCI Dulles did not give orders, he took them. Dulles' experience was primarily as a Nazi operative and financier. And you are worse than mistaken. You ought to be lobotomized. I really do not understand, Mr. Schweitzer. Your post opening this thread seemed intelligent and well-thought out. While I don't necessarily agree 100% with everything that you wrote, it was good reading. I don't always agree 100% with Mr. Burnham, or Mr. Kelly or anyone else. And I think that is probably true for everyone on this forum: everyone probably disagrees with everyone about one thing or another. I happen to agree with you about Allen Dulles in that I have a hard time believing that he was out of the loop. I just do not think that one could be DCI for as long as he was and not maintain serious contacts. On the other hand, I do also tend to agree with Mr. Burnham that the military played a major part, if not the major part, in the overall operation. You resort to name-calling. I find it all so demeaning and childish. To suggest that Mr. Burnham should be lobotomized: what purpose does it serve? It just makes you look foolish, in my opinion. Do you know Mr. Kelly and all the work he does to try to get to the facts and the truth of this whole nasty business? To suggest he is a "mockingbird" also makes you look foolish in my opinion. For sure, you are not the only person here who resorts to name-calling when their opinion is challenged. We have all seen the large number of threads that have degenerated. But you are new here; maybe I am foolishly hopeful that some of the new members could work to raise the standard of discourse. We have a lot of intelligent and dedicated people here, and this forum contains an enormous wealth of information. Unfortunately too many times the valuable information is lost in the name-calling noise. Can't we all do better than that?

I have been wanting a copy of Armstrong's book for some time, but the price of the ones that I find on-line are very expensive. Wondering if anyone knows where I can get a copy for something less than the $100 minimum that I see these days.

Hi, Jack, If you have the inclination, you can read the entire thread referenced above, titled "The Rifle," for Mr. Purvis's take on the sling mount (and other things -- including the conclusion, reiterated here by Mr. Jesus, that there are numerous Carcanos with C2766 stamped on the barrell). But since my guess is that you've probably got better things to do, let me summarize: Mr. Purvis discovered that the sling mount is adjustable and can mount in different ways. With the sling mounted on the right side of the weapon and with the weapon held at the angle in which it is held in the backyard photos, this leads to the impression in those backyard photos that the sling is mounted on the bottom of the weapon. Mr. Purvis demonstrated this effect (pursuasively in my opinion) in the original post using his own photographs of his own 91/38 weapon. Unfortunately, those photos are no longer part of the thread, having been deleted, I would presume, for Mr. Purvis to create space for himself to post other attachments in other threads. You contemporaneously posted your disagreements with Mr. Purvis in the original thread. So I seriously doubt that my summary here will sway you now. Again, I point this out to Mr. Jesus not to contradict his overall conclusion, for I believe there is ample other evidence that the Carcano in evidence is not the weapon ordered by "Hidell." ALF

Hi, Mr. White, I'm glad I could provide you with a laugh today. We could all use a little laughter in our lives. Rather than getting a laugh, Mr. Carroll seemed unhappy with me the other day for invoking the name of Mr. Purvis. And while certainly I would have disagreements with some of the ideas of Mr. Purvis. And while I am quite sure that Mr. Purvis would make fun of me for believing in "body snatchers." And while I'm sure that we could agree that Mr. Purvis was sometimes less than kind to those who did not share his views. However! (get the Purvis joke) As to Carcano rifles, I think that Mr. Purvis did much credible first-hand research. Since we have never corresponded before, please let me thank you for your years of effort in this case. ALF

Hi, Mr. Jesus, Thank you for this post. I agree with nearly all of your reasons and I do agree with your overall conclusion. However, for the sake of correctness I would like to point out that the sling mount discrepancy, your reason #10 has been debunked by Tom Purvis who purchased several Carcanos and researched this particular aspect: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...purvis&st=0 (Starting with post #42) (It should be noted that Mr. Purvis agreed as well with your overall conclusion.) Of course, you are free to disagree with Mr. Purvis's conclusions, and unfortunately, his photo attachments are now gone from the thread. But I found his argument compelling. But of course, as you well point out, there is ample other evidence that the rifle ordered by "Hidell" is not the TSBD weapon.

Mr. Kelly, I did. I printed one out for my Inside the ARRB set. Great job and thanks for your efforts, ALF

This statement is factually incorrect. (*AF response in bold with an asterisk.) *Well, which hairs should we split? Perhaps I should have said "there was an attempt at a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence that (assuming they weren't in on it) managed to keep the WC, the Clark panel and the HSCA enough in the dark to mislead the American public for 40+ years." I hope that you are not doubting that there was a conscious cover-up in the medical evidence. It's a simple exercise in common sense to conclude that there are two categories of medical evidence in the murder of JFK: 1) Evidence properly prepared, collected, and produced. This would include: Burkley's death certificate, the autopsy face sheet, JFK's clothing, the contemporaneous notes taken by Parkland doctors, the neck x-ray, the FBI autopsy report and the 1978 sworn affidavits of FBI autopsy observers Sibert and O'Neill. 2) Evidence improperly prepared, collected, and produced. The autopsy photos, the final autopsy report, and anything to do with the head wound evidence, especially the head x-rays. *"Improperly prepared" is a bit ambiguous and leaves room for incompetence as an explanation. It is now completely demonstrated that fradulently prepared is the true decription of the autopsy photos, autopsy report, etc. Not incompetence, willful obstructiion of justice. The properly prepared evidence is both internally consistent and consistent with the witness testimony and the Dealey Plaza photo evidence, including the Zapruder film (most importantly!) between frames Z186 and Z255. My beef with Horne isn't the evidence he analyzes (NOT "his" evidence) but the emphasis. *I tend to agree with you on the "not his evidence" comment. While we must all give credit where credit is due, I tend to agree with you that the researcher-centric approach to the evidence can be counter-productive. Ownership of ideas can certainly inhibit free and creative thinking. Like many JFK research heavyweights Horne seems to concentrate on degraded evidence (head wounds) at the expense of credible unambiguous evidence (back and throat wounds). Eliminate any serious study of 2) and 1) leads directly to the perps...or so I'll argue going forward. *Well, I'm not sure what you mean by "degraded evidence." I think that the study of manipulation of the head wound evidence is the clearest indication of evidence tampering, obstruction of justice, and cover-up. So of course it is worthy of attention. And figuring out exactly how the cover-up was implemented is certainly one path (of many) to the perpetrators. Of course my main point is that I believe that now there is no longer any room for debate that the medical evidence was consciously and purposely tampered with.

To focus only on the medical evidence. I do not think that Horne's work is "same old...same old" theorizing at all. I think that Horne demonstrates once and for all, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that there was a complete and total cover-up in the medical evidence. No longer "theorizing"; now once and for all demonstrated as fact. I think that Horne demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that Humes and Boswell are perjurors and have never told the truth about the autopsy. I also think that he demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the autopsy photographs in the National Archives are fraudulent, meant to deceive rather than clarify, and that the actual autopsy photographs taken are not in the record. He demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt whatsoever that the brain exam on record in the photographic record and in the supplemental autopsy report is fraudulent. He also puts forth a very compelling case that the autopsy report and its conclusions went through revisions based on the need to match the other evidence against Oswald rather than the need to be truthful in describing JFK's wounds, and that Humes must have been cognizant of this. Doug Horne has provided us all with an incredible contribution: he was the driving force in obtaining on the record, under oath statements from several of the major players in the Bethesda autopsy. Especially important are the statements of Sibert and O'Neill under oath that the back-of-the-head autopsy photographs do not match their observations made from one foot away in the Bethesda morgue. A careful reading of Horne's work is necessary by everyone, I think. You and I may disagree with Horne on some of his speculations. And no theory of the assassination will ever tie together every witness statement. However, as to the medical evidence, in my opinion there can now be no disagreement on his basic conclusion: there was a cover-up in the medical evidence meant to implicate Oswald as the only shooter. The cover-up is now established as fact, plain and simple.

Sterling, Thanks for your reply and for your very interesting posts above. I guess that I have a couple of books to put on my Christmas list. This is certainly history that very few Americans know about. ALF

Mr. Seagrave (or anyone else), Fletcher Prouty insinuated that Lansdale's counter-insurgency against the Huks in the Phillipines was, at least in part, "make war," that is, a traveling war of phoney battles where one cadre of men play both sides using a combination of real and fake ammo. The purpose of the ruse was to create a hero among the populace, the commander who "won" battle after battle in the countryside. This hero(Magsaysay, if memory serves) then went on to win the presidency, thus putting someone in America/CIA pocket. Is there is anyone out there who can shed any light on whether there is any truth to this story?

I was born in 1960 and grew up in Connecticut; I graduated from MIT (BS Biology) in 1982; and Harvard (M Ed.) in 1994. I currently teach high school physics and robotics and in Massachusetts. I love climbing, skiing, and baseball and have a beautiful wife, Rita, and two children. My interest (obsession) in the Kennedy assassination began when I was 10 or so years old and home one day sick from school. With nothing to do, I picked up a book off of my parent’s bookshelf: the Warren Commission report. I was absolutely fascinated, a real-life detective story. And my fascination increased ten-fold when on the same day, I picked up the book next to it, Mark Lane’s Rush to Judgment. And my own bookshelf is now full of dozens of Kennedy assassination titles. I am not a primary researcher, but do feel that I have a keen mind to critically analyze. I believe the work that is done to search for the truth has been and continues to be critically important in the battle to preserve some sort of democracy. We must try. We owe our children, and theirs.