Todd W. Vaughan

"the lack of a real attempt a full photographic reconstruction of the motorcade" Let me post that here: http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/acoustics.htm

Jim, On what basis did you make the claim to me that "You don't even know how many manuscripts Weisberg wrote." What facts did you have that support that claim? Of did you just make that up? Because if you just made that up out of thin air (as we both know damn well you did) then you're no better than anyone else that you accuse of making things up. So step to the plate, Jim DiEugenio, explain yourselve. Todd

Jimmy, What shall we call it when you make stuff up about me, you know, like when you claimed I knew NOTHING about Harold Weisberg's unpublished manuscripts. What shall we call that? How about DisEugeniuous. Todd

Jimmy D., You wrote... QUOTE ON: Let me continue with a history lesson. Three shots from the rear comes from the DPD, and it was adapted by the WC based on the evidence allegedly found by them: 1.) Three cartridge cases near the sixth floor window. 2.) A rifle allegedly purchased by Oswald on the sixth floor. 3.) A so-called sniper's nest set up. 4.) Fragments found in the car allegedly matched to the rifle. 5.) A bullet found at Parkland allegedly matched to the rifle. Now, this is elementary stuff to anyone who knows anything about this case. QUOTE OFF: Here’s a little history lesson for YOU. The DPD had absolutely NOTHING to do with 4.) Fragments found in the car allegedly matched to the rifle and, 5.) A bullet found at Parkland allegedly matched to the rifle. They didn’t find the items, as you claim, and they did they match the items as you claim. It was the SS who found or in the case of 399 took possession of the evidence and it was the FBI who did the matching. “elementary stuff to anyone who knows anything about this case.” I agree. Why exactly is it that you continue to spread phony crap like this? Todd P.S. Are you ever going to answer my other question. I’ve asked you what, five times now and STILL no reply. What gives?

Jimmy, you're here, are you EVER going to answer my question?

"You're right. As the memo was a correspondence among WC members, it would have a higher probability of being in the Weisberg Archives than in the Mary Ferrell Archives, which focuses mostly on official WC documents." I was being facetious for Jimmy D's benefit. Buy I agree with everything else you said. Jimmy, you gonna answer my question? Well, Jim, maybe it’s with the Harold Weisberg manuscripts that a few weeks back you flat outright claimed I didn't know anything about (when in fact I most certainly did). You know Jim, exactly why was it you made the flat statement that I knew nothing about the Weisberg manuscripts? I mean, how would you have known one way or another? Did you just make it up? Thanks, Todd, for your offer of assistance. You're right. As the memo was a correspondence among WC members, it would have a higher probability of being in the Weisberg Archives than in the Mary Ferrell Archives, which focuses mostly on official WC documents. The problem is, as you no doubt discovered, that the Weisberg Archives are pretty difficult to navigate. I did find a number of gems there, however, when I spent a few weeks going through them online. I also found, to my dismay, that the acrimony and distrust among the CT crowd is nothing new, not even remotely. The Armstrong papers now available confirm this. The CT crowd has, almost from the beginning, been almost as interested in accusing each other of misdeeds as it has in uncovering the truth about the assassination. If one were to break it down, it wouldn't surprise me if as much as 20% of Weisberg's letters were complaints about other researchers. At least it felt that way. Oh well.

Well, Jim, maybe it’s with the Harold Weisberg manuscripts that a few weeks back you flat outright claimed I didn't know anything about (when in fact I most certainly did). You know Jim, exactly why was it you made the flat statement that I knew nothing about the Weisberg manuscripts? I mean, how would you have known one way or another? Did you just make it up?

Pat, I have a copy of the Liebeler memo that I found in Gerald Ford's files at the Ford Library in Ann Arbor Michigan (remember, the memo was sent out in 1966 to the past WC members, among others). To save David the trouble I'll see if I can find my copy, but I have to warn you, my files are bit of a mess from my last move and I can't promise anything. Todd

Being "genuinely deferential", Daniel, is a contradiction in terms. What you really mean is that you work hard at being deferential. But whether it was sarcasm or deference hardly matters - they're just opposite sides of the same coin - and It's forced. Not your style? You want me to believe that? Inside that Caspar Milquetoast on horse tranks exterior there is a seething sea of suppressed rage. I'd be a tad peeved at the world too, if I'd ever swallowed Best Evidence. As for this forum, I can't say I've read all your exchanges, but from what I've seen, you've been treated pretty gently. Even I bear you no malice as I take aim. Best, greg Greg-- please, is it possible, that I am not as you suppose? "seething sea of suppressed rage?" "Peeved at the world?" I could tell you quite a lot of the joy of being a simple Christian, but that would perhaps best be done in private correspondence. It is enough here to say my hope is not in this present life-- let's leave it at that. Yes I do want you to believe that I am as I say I am. Yes, I have been treated gently on this forum; and yes, there is always a time to be "genuinely deferential." I have made all the points I can make on Bowron, and Lee Farley had made his points, so there was nothing more to be said. I can leave Lee and the topic because until I hear from Wallace Milam (which doesn't appear to be going to happen) I am too much in the dark to write more. Sometimes, Greg, being at peace is a really good thing, and I intend to stay there, even though I admire Best Evidence and David Lifton. The two ideas --being at peace, and admiring Best Evidence --are hardly contradictory. Make of that what you will--that is my firm conviction. Best, Daniel Dan, For Wallace, have you tried Dyersburg, TN? Todd

They weren't performing the autopsy. I'm sure if they thought that the body was going to be hijacked by the Secret Service and for the next 50 years people would have been arguing the toss over whether the wound on the back was there or whether it wasn't then maybe they would have taken much more notice and documented it somehow. But I'm sure they believed that the trained professionals involved would have followed the procedures and United States/Texas laws once they had finished washing the body. The expectations that certain members have of these two nurses is quite simply astonishing. It's very easy to sit here at our computers and say this should have been seen and this should have been mentioned, when we have never and will never be in that situation. But Lee, that's precisely the point, Bowron does claim she saw the wound, albeit in the 1990s, to Livingston Harrison, when up to then not a peep about it, and Henchcliff telling Wallace Milam she didn't see it. The expectation by most readers would be that if the wound was there, it would be seen, since, as has been mentioned before, the area around the wound would have to be cleaned, and more: they wrapped the head to keep blood and fluids confined as much as possible; if the nurses and orderly were in any way cooperating in the washing, it is hard to imagine otherwise than that someone saw the need to put some bandage over it for the same reason they wrapped the head. Certainly I agree with you: they may not have felt at the time the need to write down their recollections and trusted that the US Government would handle the case properly. That too is a reasonable expectation; and there is no way they could have imagined all the controversy that would follow. But controversy has followed, and the US Government has handled the case most improperly. So now, like it or not, their recollections are important, and that we have them accurately. So it is most proper to scrutinize Bowron's late claims, and make a judgment on their credibility. After all, this is one small piece of the puzzle, and, it seems to me, quite an important one. Regards, Daniel Daniel, QUOTE and more: they wrapped the head to keep blood and fluids confined as much as possible; if the nurses and orderly were in any way cooperating in the washing, it is hard to imagine otherwise than that someone saw the need to put some bandage over it for the same reason they wrapped the head. QUOTE That's an excellent point. Todd

Well then Jim, we'll all be expecting you to support your claim to the contrary and post the CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence of a wound in JFK's back at Parkland Hospital right here for eveyone to read. Otherwise you're just spreading disinformation.

Gil, You wrote... "The significance of this film is in the timing of the event, showing that Baker arrived at the building 5-10 seconds BEFORE the Warren Commission said he did." I'm curious, what time did the Warren Commission say Baker arrived at the building? Todd

While I suspect you are correct, Todd, I also think it's possible that when Bowron testified that she saw no other wounds, she meant she saw no other wounds AT THAT TIME--that is, at the moment she first saw Kennedy in the drive-way. Here is a more complete snippet of her testimony, so you can see what I mean. Mr. SPECTER - And, where did you take your stretcher? Miss BOWRON - To the left-hand side of the car as you are facing it, and we had to move Governor Connally out first because he was in the front. We couldn't get to the back seat. While all the Secret Service men were moving Governor Connally I went around to the other side of the car to try to help with the President and then we got him onto the second cart and then took him straight over to trauma room 1. Mr. SPECTER - Trauma room No. 1? Miss BOWRON - Yes. Mr. SPECTER - And describe in a general way Governor Connally's condition when you first saw him? Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was leaning forward and onto Mrs. Connally but apparently---I didn't notice very much---I was more concerned with the person in the back of the car---the President. Mr. SPECTER - And what, in a general way, did you observe with respect to President Kennedy's condition? Miss BOWRON - He was very pale, he was lying across Mrs. Kennedy's knee and there seemed to be blood everywhere. When I went around to the other side of the car I saw the condition of his head. Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what? Miss BOWRON - The back of his head. Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition? Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know. Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Mr. SPECTER - And what action did you take at that time, if any? Miss BOWRON - I helped to lift his head and Mrs. Kennedy pushed me away and lifted his head herself onto the cart and so I went around back to the cart and walked off with it. We ran on with it to the trauma room and she ran beside us. Mr. SPECTER - And who was in the trauma room when you arrived there? Miss BOWRON - Dr. Carrico. Well then, Pat, that's a problem as well. Why? Because she also told Livingstone that she saw the throat wound while she was at the limousine.

In the 1990’s conspiracy author Harrison Livingstone (High Treason, Killing the Truth) located, corresponded with, and interviewed Former Parkland Nurse Diana Bowron. I happen to have a cassette tape copy of a telephone interview Livingstone did with her. Livingstone published a transcript of that interview in his 1993 book, "Killing the Truth", and he also included a statement that Diana Bowron wrote for him. In both the interview and the statement, Diana Bowron claims that she saw President Kennedy’s back wound at Parkland Hospital when she helped prepare the President’s body for the casket. If true, this would be very significant, as no one else is on record as having seen the back wound at Parkland Hospital. The issue might rest right there. However, as with so many other things in this case, there’s a problem. While Diana Bowron told Livingstone these things in the early 1990's, nearly 30 years after the assassination, and certainly after having been exposed to the controversy, she told a very different story to the Warren Commission in 1964, while she was under oath. Specifically, Diana told the Warren Commission outright that she saw no wounds other than the large wound in President Kennedy’s head: Mr. SPECTER - You saw the condition of his what? Miss BOWRON - The back of his head. Mr. SPECTER - And what was that condition? Miss BOWRON - Well, it was very bad---you know. Mr. SPECTER - How many holes did you see? Miss BOWRON - I just saw one large hole. Mr. SPECTER - Did you see a small bullet hole beneath that one large hole? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Mr. SPECTER - Did you notice any other wound on the President's body? Miss BOWRON - No, sir. Additionally, Diana Bowron, who was originally from England, was interviewed via telephone after the assassination by a British newspaper and told reporters her story. As a result, three articles were published in England detailing her story. In two of the articles Bowron does not identify or describe any wounds to the President. In the third article she mentions the head wound, but mentions no other wounds. In all three articles she mentions the tracheotomy, but remarkably says nothing about the existence of a throat wound. These three articles were published by the Warren Commission in Volume 14 pages 167-170 as Bowron Exhibits 1-4. So, I believe that sometime between 1964 and the early 1990's Diana Bowron apparently decided to change her story - I have no idea why she would do such a thing, and I'm not obligated to explain her actions. But she did change her story. Perhaps the reason why Diana Bowron changed her story lies in the way in which Harry Livingstone handled his witness interviews. He often led his witnesses horribly during questioning. He did this during the Bowron telephone interview a number of times, and we know this was not the first time he spoke with her. He also tainted his witnesses’ memories by exposing them to the literature and controversies surrounding Kennedy's murder. In Bowron's case, Livingstone actually sent her the James K. Fox copies of the autopsy photographs before she wrote her statement for him and did the telephone interview.

What about the Harper fragment? The original description of where it was found, "25 feet south of the spot where President KENNEDY was shot" is infront of the location of the limo at the time of the head shot. And in 1997, Milicent Cranor located Harper and he marked on a map where he found the fragment, again ahead of the limo at the time of the headshot. But the Harper fragment is from the BACK of the head, and not a small entrance but an example of an exit blowout, right? Certainly the Harper fragment is presumably from an exit defect on JFK's skull. Are you aware that a forensic anthropologist, Dr. Angel, a consultant for the HSCA, identified the Harper fragment as being right side parietal?

What about the Harper fragment? The original description of where it was found, "25 feet south of the spot where President KENNEDY was shot" is in front of the location of the limo at the time of the head shot. And in 1997, Milicent Cranor located Harper and he marked on a map where he found the fragment, again ahead of the limo at the time of the headshot.

Maybe I missed something. Is this going to be a screenplay? Kathy C Isn't it kind of already? Filming begins tomorrow.

So what part of A L L don't you understand? Wow. Talk ablout taking what I wrote out of context. My entire post was as follows: QUOTE ON "Because if Greer is ducking, then everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking...in unison" Yes, to the debris (blood, brain, skull, bullet fragments) all blown forward of JFK and Jackie and into the car and onto their bodies. QUOTE OFF The "yes" in my reply relates to "everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking", ducking to "debris (blood, brain, skull, bullet fragments) all blown forward...". Put anoter way, yes, everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking to the debris (blood, brain, skull, bullet fragments) all blown forward of JFK and Jackie and into the car and onto their bodies. As for giving you proof that matter was "blown forward of JFK and Jackie and into the car and onto their bodies", maybe you could do some research and come up with this fact. I am assuming that the blood spots seen on the windshield wasn't the result of BACKSPRAY ! I think that's a reasonable deduction.

So what part of A L L don't you understand? Wow. Talk ablout taking what I wrote out of context. My entire post was as follows: QUOTE ON "Because if Greer is ducking, then everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking...in unison" Yes, to the debris (blood, brain, skull, bullet fragments) all blown forward of JFK and Jackie and into the car and onto their bodies. QUOTE OFF The "yes" in my reply relates to "everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking", ducking to "debris (blood, brain, skull, bullet fragments) all blown forward...". Put anoter way, yes, everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking to the debris (blood, brain, skull, bullet fragments) all blown forward of JFK and Jackie and into the car and onto their bodies. As for giving you proof that matter was "blown forward of JFK and Jackie and into the car and onto their bodies", maybe you could do some research and come up with this fact.

Do we have another blind poster here? Blind and ignorant? What did you do, read this? From McAdams site: It's long been touted by conspiracists as evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll. Motorcycle cop Bobby Hargis, riding to Kennedy's left and somewhat behind him (see photo at left), was struck by Kennedy's brain matter when Kennedy was hit in the head by the last of the shots fired in Dealey Plaza. The logic is as follows: if Hargis, riding to Kennedy's left and behind him, was struck by brain matter when the President's head exploded, that must mean that the shot came from in front of Kennedy, and to his right. It sounds plausible, but only if you don't know much about wound ballistics. This claim goes back to Josiah Thompson's book Six Seconds in Dallas. Thompson's treatment of Hargis includes the following sentence: This debris [from the President's head] hit Officer Hargis with such force that he told reporters the next day, "I thought at first I might have been hit." (Six Seconds in Dallas, p. 100) The problem here is that the "force" statement comes from Thompson, not Hargis. No one has ever produced any statement from Hargis saying he was hit with any "force," although he most certainly was "hit." Here is the article Thompson is quoting, from the Sunday News, New York, November 24, 1963, page 21 (courtesy of Steve Barber): Motorcade Cop Tells How It Happened Dallas, Nov. 23 (Special) B.W. Hargis, 31, Dallas motorcycle patrolman who was riding in President Kennedy's motorcade, gave this account today of the Assassination: "We turned left onto Elm St. off Houston, about a half block from where it happened. I was right alongside the rear fender on the left side of the President's car, near Mrs. Kennedy." "When I heard the first explosion, I knew it was a shot. I thought that Gov. Connally had been hit when I saw him turn toward the President with a real surprised look." Splattered With Blood "The President then looked like he was bent over or that he was leaning toward the Governor, talking to him." "As the President straightened back up, Mrs. Kennedy turned toward him, and that was when he got hit in the side of his head, spinning it around. I was splattered with blood." "Then I felt something hit me. It could have been concrete or something, but I thought at first I might have been hit." "Then I saw the limousine stop, and I parked my motorcycle at the side of the road, got off and drew my gun." And They Took Off "Then this Secret Service agent (in the President's car) got his wits about him and they took off. The motorcycle officer on the right side of the car was Jim Chaney. He immediately went forward and announced to the chief that the President had been shot." The best guess about what "something" hit Hargis will be discussed below. But here it's important to note that the "such force" statement has been repeated by a generation of conspiracy books as though it were Hargis' statement. Since nowehere did I even mention Hargis, let alone say that he wasn't spattered by blood, let me ask YOU the same question - Do we have another blind poster here? Blind and ignorant? And does that blind and ignorant poster DENY that matter was blown forward from JFK into the front fo the car and onto the occupants?

In addition to the individuals listed above, there are a few others whose testimony indicates there was a different or "other" film of the assassination. Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". There is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows JFK being knocked back and to his left. " Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film." Link from a post in another thread by Bernice Moore Abraham Zapruder gave an interview soon after the assassination in which he stated that he started filming as the Limo was turning onto Elm Street. The current film does not include the Limo turning. Ah yes. Young Dan Rather. Young Dan, who could/would never makes a mistake, who could/would never have just been talking out of his ass for more air time and a better story, and who could/would would never inflate his own self worth to get ahead at KRLD/CBS. Nope - instead Dan Rather, hand picked by the conspirators to help with the cover-up. The great COG in the vast conspiracy to kill JFK and then cover-up the truth. DAN RATHER’S MONDAY MORNING MEETING WITH HIS JFK CONSPIRICY CONTACT The scene – the KRLD TV break room. Dan Rather is sitting at a table with another man. They speak in hushed words. DAN RATHER: OK, I go on the air in a few minutes. What’s my next assignment in the big JFK cover-up? CONSPIRITOR 1: Did you see the film the bystander took? DAN RATHER: Yep, I saw it this morning. CONSPIRITOR 1: OK, go on TV and say you saw the film of the assassination. Then say when JFK was hit in the head, his head was driven FORWARD with considerable violence. You can even bob your head forward a bit for added effect. DAN RATHER: OK, got it, no problem. Hey, by the way, what really happened to his head in the film I saw, it all happened so fast. CONSPIRITOR 1: It did happen fast and is hard to see in only a few viewings – JFK’s head is really driven backward and to the left with considerable violence because we shot him from the front, as you know, Dan. But we want to make it look like he was shot from behind, so the CIA is altering the film to show his head driven forward. DAN RATHER: Ohhhh, I get it. And by my saying I say the film and saw his head driven forward it will just add corroboration to the film when it’s done being altered. CONSPIRITOR 1: Exactly. I knew we hand picked you to help us kill JFK for a reason - you’re sharp – you’re going places. Now, hop to it. Rather leaves. Conspirator 1 goes back to drinking his coffee. After a few moments Conspirator 1 can see on the TV monitor in the KRLD lunchroom that Rather is now live on the air. After a few moments Conspirator 2 sits down across from Conspirator 1 with his coffee, unaware of Rather on TV behind him. CONSPIRITOR 2: Hey, Conspirator 1, good thing I caught you. Change of plans, buddy. I just got of the horn with the CIA boys at NPIC and in altering the film, they found that they need to leave JFK’s head being driven backwards and to the left visible in the film. So, bottom line, we now don’t want Rather to say anything about the head going in any direction on the air. At that instant, in the background, Dan Rather can be heard on live TV to say “his head was driven FORWARD with considerable force”. CONSPIRITOR 2: Aghhjh! (as he spits his coffee all over CONSPIRITOR 1)"We're f$%ked!"

In addition to the individuals listed above, there are a few others whose testimony indicates there was a different or "other" film of the assassination. Dan Rather saw the Zapruder film within two days of the assassination and reported that " ,,, the Presidents head went forward with considerable violence...". There is no way to reconcile Rather's observation with the current Zapruder film which shows JFK being knocked back and to his left. " Former FBI official and J. Edgar Hoover aide Cartha DeLoach recently provided further evidence of alteration in the Zapruder film (albeit unintentionally and unknowingly, I'm sure). DeLoach recalls in his book HOOVER'S FBI that he watched the Zapruder film at FBI HQ the day after the shooting and that he saw Kennedy "PITCHING SUDDENLY FORWARD" in the film. No such motion, of course, is seen in the current film." Link from a post in another thread by Bernice Moore Abraham Zapruder gave an interview soon after the assassination in which he stated that he started filming as the Limo was turning onto Elm Street. The current film does not include the Limo turning. duplicate deleted TWV

"Because if Greer is ducking, then everyone else other than Jackie is ALSO ducking...in unison" Yes, to the debris (blood, brain, skull, bullet fragments) all blown forward of JFK and Jackie and into the car and onto their bodies.