Bernice Moore

James:

Not his face but could be the same man, and a very good

photo of his back......

B........

The following is excerpted from Palamara's section on Clint Hill:

Despite riding on an automobile that was only a scant five feet away from JFK's slow-moving car (less than 12 mph) at the start of the shooting, Hill could only arrive in time to "protect" Mrs. Kennedy, the person to which he was assigned to protect. Mrs. Kennedy thought highly of Hill, regarding him as the brightest agent on the White House Detail and "one of us." In fact, "Hill had not been scheduled to make the Dallas trip, but came only after Mrs. Kennedy made a personal request." Although Hill was the only agent to overtly respond to the shooting of JFK, and in spite of the award he received for this action, the agent had much survivor's guilt. Mike Wallace asked Hill in 1975: "Is there anything that the Secret Service, or Clint Hill, could have done to keep that [the assassination] from happening?" After a long pause, Hill answered: "Clint Hill, yes." Wallace: "’Clint Hill, yes?’ What do you mean?" Hill, speaking somewhat in the third-person, responded: "If he had reacted about, oh, five-tenths of a second faster, maybe a second faster, I wouldn’t be here today." Wallace: "You mean you would have taken the shot?" Hill: "The third shot, yes, sir." Wallace: "And that would have been alright with you?" Hill: "That would have been fine with me." Wallace: "…you surely don’t have any sense of guilt about that?" Hill: "Yes, I certainly do. I have a great deal of guilt. It was my fault…if I had reacted just a little bit quicker, I could have, I guess…[sigh]…and I’ll live with that to my grave." Hill added: "[The doctors said] I have a severe neurological problem…they recommended psychiatric help…they trace it all back to 1963."

The year 1993 saw a renaissance for Agent Hill---as previously mentioned, the movie "In The Line of Fire" ( starring Clint Eastwood ) was released, which was a somewhat veiled ‘tribute’ to Hill (and, in the movie, he gets to redeem himself for his failings on 11/22/63). In addition, Clint Hill did an "update" of sorts for the 25th anniversary special for "60 Minutes" during November 1993. Like his appearance on the 1995 documentary "Inside The Secret Service," Hill mentioned that he struggled with guilt for almost 30 years. It was here that Hill picked up the story, the same one he revealed in November 1993 to "60 Minutes": he and his wife went to Dealey Plaza in 1990 (straight from a nearby annual Secret Service reunion, according to Agent Sam Kinney). He walked it for about 2 hours, studying every angle and every possibility. Hill let everything run through his mind. He then came to the conclusion that he did the best that he could, and that he didn't have a chance. Well, regardless of Hill’s newfound feelings on the matter, the real question is: what about agent John Ready’s actions, responsibilities, and feelings? He was unnamed---he was the one responsible for JFK, NOT Hill, assigned to Jackie. The song remains the same.

Many people have empathy for Hill, including many of his colleagues. Agent Lawson wrote to the author: "The thing I am confident of is that, although there were no more shots, Clint saved Mrs. Kennedy’s life by vaulting up on the back of the car using the steps and hand holds and keeping her from falling off. I’m still amazed at how quickly he got up there, didn’t fall and get run over by the heavy Cadillac follow-up car and, more amazingly, how he managed to hang on during that frantic high speed race to Parkland Hospital." However, through photo analysis of the Zapruder film and the Altgen's photo, the author has discovered that Agent Hill was looking directly at JFK upon the moment of the first shot: his guilt is well-founded, for he let several crucial seconds (at least five) go by before belatedly coming to the President's "aid". As author James Hepburn wrote: "Clint Hill, who was later decorated, was the first to move, and it took him 7 or 8 seconds to react. In eight seconds, the average sprinter can cover 80 yards." In addition, photo analysis reveals that Hill did not even push Mrs. Kennedy back into the limousine—she crawled back into the backseat on her own. Also, like Agent Ready, Hill was involved in the drinking incident the night before.

However, in Hill’s defense, at least he tried to do something, Roberts and Boring notwithstanding, and on more than one occasion: 1) his four brief appearances on the back of JFK’s limousine, on Jackie’s side, albeit well before the motorcade reached Dealey Plaza and 2) his attempt to help Jackie and, by extension, JFK, by running to the limousine on Elm Street. Also, Hill later wrote shortly after the assassination: "As I lay over the top of the back seat I noticed a portion of the President's head on the right rear side was missing and he was bleeding profusely. Part of his brain was gone. I saw a part of his skull with hair on it lying in the seat…[during the autopsy] I observed a wound about six inches down from the neckline on the back just to the right of the spinal column. I observed another wound on the right rear portion of the skull." In addition, Hill later testified to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter on 3/9/64: "The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car…one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head…[later, during the autopsy] I saw an opening in the back, about 6 inches below the neckline to the right-hand side of the spinal column." From Hill’s description of the wounds, it would appear that a shot from the front killed JFK (entrance wounds make small holes while exit wounds make larger holes) AND that a wound too low to come from Oswald’s rifle hit the president in the back, not the neck.

That said, Hill later said on national television: "There were only 3 shots---one gun, 3 shots." Interviewer: "Are you satisfied that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone?" Hill: "Completely."

Hill’s White House Communications Agency (WHCA) code name was Dazzle.

**********************

Agents who believed in Conspiracy.......

http://www.geocities.com/zzzmail/palarma.htm

B.......

National Archive Release

See The Documents........

The CIA's Family Jewels

Agency Violated Charter for 25 Years,

Wiretapped Journalists and Dissidents

CIA Announces Declassification of 1970s "Skeletons" File,

Archive Posts Justice Department Summary from 1975,

With White House Memcons on Damage Control

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 222

Edited by Thomas Blanton

Posted - June 21, 2007

Seymour Hersh broke the story of CIA's illegal domestic operations with

a front page story in the New York Times on December 22, 1974.

In the news

"CIA to Air Decades of Its Dirty Laundry"

By Karen DeYoung and Walter Pincus

Washington Post

June 22, 2007

"CIA Kidnapping, Wiretapping of '60s, '70s Revealed"

Morning Edition (National Public Radio)

June 22, 2007

"C.I.A. to Release Documents on Decades-Old Misdeeds"

By Scott Shane

New York Times

June 22, 2007

Chronology of the CIA's record on declassification

CIA Proposed Rule on FOIA Fees Would Burden Requesters and the Agency

February 7, 2007

CIA Had Single Officer in Hungary 1956

October 31, 2006

CIA Claims the Right to Decide What is News

June 14, 2006

Secret Understanding Between National Archives and CIA Exposes Framework for Surreptitious Reclassification Program

April 19, 2006

CIA Wins 2006 "Rosemary Award" for Worst Freedom of Information Performance by a Federal Agency

March 13, 2006

Declassification in Reverse

February 21, 2006

PDB News - The President's Daily Brief

January 27, 2006

Judge Refuses In Camera Review of CIA Estimate on Iraq

October 21, 2005

Public Interest in Hidden CIA Operational Records Is High

January 21, 2005

Professor Sues CIA for President's Daily Briefs

December 23, 2004

Archive Calls on CIA and Congress to Address Loophole Shielding CIA Records From the Freedom of Information Act

October 15, 2004

CIA Whites Out Controversial Estimate on Iraq Weapons

July 9, 2004

Dubious Secrets

May 21, 2003

The Secret CIA History of the Iran Coup

November 29, 2000

Lawsuit calls CIA secrecy claims "facially incredible"

August 2, 2000

Archive Sues CIA

May 13, 1999

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIA's Broken Promises on Declassification

What Others Say about CIA's Promises

"C.I.A., Breaking Promises, Puts Off Release of Cold War Files"

By Tim Weiner

New York Times (Select)

July 15, 1998

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB222/index.htm

B.......

Hi Fellas :

Here you go Jack......

Best B......

Harvey & Lee page 539 & 582....3 cars..

Ruth Paine described her car to FBI agent Bardwell Odum as a 1955 Chevrolet 4 door: 2 toned Green station wagon.

WC: Ex.2125: 2/29/64.

Lee Oswald may have driven this car to New Orleans in early September, while Mrs.Paine drove to the east coast in a Brown station wagon...- the same car was seen by Lillian Murret May 11/ 63 and by two FBI agents parked in front of 4907 Magazine in Aug.63..

WC 3119.

A man who identified himself as Lee Harvey Oswald , with a photo ID, had a 1955 station wagon serviced in New Orleans at A.R.Will's Service Sation about Sept.10th, 63......

********************

LHO Last Words...

Paines 3 cars.....

10:30 A.M.-1:10 P.M. Interrogation, Capt. Will Fritz's Office

"I said I wanted to contact Attorney Abt, New York. He defended the Smith Act cases in 1949, 1950, but I don't know his address, except that it is in New York. . . . I never owned a rifle. . . . Michael Paine owned a car, Ruth Paine owned two cars. . .

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html

B............

Hi Jack:

I have corrected the Johns......?? I will check to see if the book was in error, but more

than likely I could have been thinking of someone like a John Travolta....

Will make sure....and also check in Marrs...

Thanks..

Thanks, Bill. You beat me to the punch. When I saw this, I couldn't wait to whip out a reply. The book is called "Eyewitness." It was published back in 1997, ten years ago! No mention of the book by either of these men. Must not have been aware of it. They owe it to the research community to read it before "going off" any further on this rather repulsive thread. Raising the questions is one thing, but the tone and the slams I would think is beneath these men. Reminds me of a Bugliosi rant. This book was co-written by Ed's pastor, Ron Friedrich, who has also functioned as a sign language interpreter for Ed. The introduction by Ron (with Ed) indicates that the very complaints these two men have registered will be addressed. What more can I say? Read the book.

Well said, Ken. If people like Scull, if that is who he really is, would spend a fraction of the time he wastes trolling the forum and would actually read all the evidence before posting, then perhaps one could at least take him seriously rather than just some kook looking for attention.

_____________________________

Bill, I agree.

Although I don't condone the tone and tenor of your past "exchanges" with Jack White, they do tend to pale in comparison to the vitriol vented on you recently by a certain individual, who seems to relish posting silly, mocking emoticons like this-- -- over and over again as if he thinks they somehow "put you down" or somehow buttress his hard-to-follow "arguments" in the "Close-up of Duncan McRae's Knoll Shooter" thread. How juvenile to post silly faces like that over and over again. One can only wonder if he didn't learn such behavior from some of his more immature students. You know, the ones who sat in the back of the room and shot "spit wads" at each other....

Like you, I believe Hoffman. I think that a deaf person like Hoffman would be a more believable/credible eyewitness than a "normal" sighted person simply because a deaf person, in order to survive on a day-to-day basis in a world of fast-moving cars, etc, must hone his or her visual skills to compensate for his or her inability to hear. It is obvious to anyone who watches TMWKK on http://www.youtube.com that Hoffman raised a family, and a fairly well-to-do-looking family at that, which is a lot more than be said for a lot of people who have all of their faculties, so he must have been a pretty darn normal guy psychologically.... But for some reason, certain people on this forum (and others as well, I suppose) want to make him out as some kind of weird, yarn-spinning miscreant. All I can say is that I trust Hoffman much more than the people who attack him and his testimony/statements....

Keep up the good work,

--Thomas

_____________________________

I agree with you Thomas. Ed is very credible. Much has been made of him being about a hundred yards

from the scene he describes. But consider, a football field is 120 yards long, and spectators have no

problem with seeing a person catch a pass that far away. Also, in 1963 there were no trees to obscure

the view as is the case today.

Thanks.

Jack

****************************

The Ed Hoffman Site..

This is from "Triangle of Fire" the Bob Goodman story....and what became a friendship

with Ed Hoffman.

One afternoon, Bob was on the steps of Dealey Plaza, near where Zapruder had made

the film, and he saw a man standing behind the stockade fence watching him.

In looking in his direction the man, smiled and waved as if he knew him.

Since Bob felt he could not be sure about anyone at the grassy knoll, he ignored him

at first. Then glancing over his shoulder the man waved again..So Bob walked up closer

to the fence, thinking he may want to ask him something.

The man nodded and smiled, and Bob felt there was something different about this

man..and was drawn towards him..as Bob approached him the man looked over his

bifocals, and pounded his index finger on his chest, he then slowly moved his finger

the the corner of his eye and pointed to Elm St...He spoke not a word, and they stared

at each other .Ed wrote on Bob's notepad his name, and that he had seen what had

happened the day of the assassination. Bob had heard about him....

Ed had seen someone behind the stockade fence on the grassy knoll with a rifle when

the President was shot. Through sign language and written notes they communicated,

and Ed told John his story.

On the afternoon of Nov.22/63, he had been on his way to a dental appointment when

he remembered the President was coming to town. As he drove he had seen people

waiting alongside the motorcade route in Dealey Plaza. He passed over the overpass

and pulled his car to the shoulder of the road. He waited near the Stemmons Freeway

overpass bridge. His location was west of Dealey Plaza where the freeway bridge crossed

Elm St.

From this position, he has a good view, not only of the street, but also of the area behind the

stockade fence on the Grassy Knoll. Ed said he had seen a man in a dark blue suit coat and a

fedora-style hat with a rifle behind the fence. He said the man had run with the rifle and had

pitched it to another man who appeared to have broken the rifle down or to have taken it apart,

behind a large, silver-colored railroad switching box located near the corner of the fence, near

the railroad overpass bridge. The man wearing the black fedora had then run back along the fence

for a short distance, and then he had started to walk casually across the parking lot.

As the President's convertible limousine drove down Elm St. and toward the freeway just seconds later,

Ed saw the aftermath of the assassin's bullets. He saw the blood and the agony and the damage to the

President’s head. He knew that something terrible had happened.

Ed communicated with his close friends and family what he had witnessed and had even reported it to the

authorities. The results were a lack of interest and a warning to forget about what he had seen. His story

remained fairly well secret until the summer of 85 when he shared his eyewitness account to veteran researcher

and writer Jim Marrs, who also, on occasion visited the Dealey Plaza area.

Mr. Hoffman explained that there now is a large billboard that now blocks the view that he had on Nov.22/63

and this created a problem. It was impossible to take a photograph

of the view that he had seen that afternoon from the overpass area. The billboard was twelve to fifteen feet

lower and almost at ground level on the day of the assassination.

Every two or three weeks, Ed would drop by Dealey and visit Bob Goodman , and it was on one of these visits

that as they walked over to the train tracks, ,as they stood looking at the back of the billboard, he showed John

where the metal posts that supported the sign had been extended. The metal beams had indeed been welded

and lengthened thus raising the billboard twelve to fifteen feet from it's original position. It was frustrating to Ed

to try to explain his story without showing him his direct viewpoint. Later John discovered a photo taken the day

of the assassination showing the billboard at ground level.

It confirmed Mr. Hoffman’s claim of the position as being a fact..

The photo below was taken on a day, when the sign on the billboard was being replaced, and as can be seen when

removed....The view of the area that Ed saw can be seen quite clearly.....

B..........

again duhdelete.....

Bernice,

Thanks so much for the time and effort it took to transcribe such lengthy, critically important passages from Palamara's published research.

These revelations and similar discoveries by Vince are what allow me to write (yet again) the following with conviction:

There is not a scintilla of valid evidence to suggest that President Kennedy prevented the Secret Service from providing full protection.

Reliance upon any evidence presented or conclusions drawn by the Warren Commission without multiple, independet corroborations from impeccable sources doesn't pass the laugh test.

Best,

Charles

*****************

Your welcome Charles, Mike..

Though I did not do this recently, I have been following and posting on the SS for quite some time

around....

Vince's SS work is self explanatory I do believe...I have found no research better by far..on this

particular subject...he has it covered ..

Carry on fellas...

B....

The Policy of “No Agents” on the President’s Limousine

Information from Vince Palamara’s “Survivor’s Guilt” 2005

The Evolution of the Myth.

The Warren Commission was curious apparently, along with members

of the media and the public, why there were no agents protecting

the President Kennedy during the Dallas motorcade on 11/22/63. by

being posted on the back of the Limo on either side. Or why no

agents were not walking or running along side of the car.?(1).

Agents had performed these duties since the days of FDR. In

response, and only because they demanded an answer, Secret

Service Chief James J.Rowley had agents , Jerry Behn, Floyd

Boring, Emory Roberts, John Ready, and Clint Hill write their

reports in relation to their experiences with JFK on the matter

of security,(why Roy Kellerman, the agent in charge of the Dallas

trip , and the other Texas agents weren’t asked, is not known.)

Most interesting is that nothing is mentioned specifically by the

WC about 11/22/63..as requested by them. On first glance all five

reports support the notion that the President did not want agents

on or near the rear of the limo. However that is at first glance.

Special Agent In Charge (SAIC) of White House detail (WHD)

Gerald. A “Jerry” Behn, not on the Texas trip, stated

unequivocally in his report 4/16/64 that JFK “told me that he did

not want agents riding on the back of his car.” This came from

the man who was the leader of the WH detail, “the man who was the

direct pipeline to the President, this alleged presidential edit

seems to be an authoritative and conclusive fact.

However, during the course of three separate interviews with

Vince Palamara, Mr.Behn let out a most unexpected bombshell: “I

don’t remember Kennedy ever saying that he didn’t want anybody on

the back of his car”. He went on to further add” that newsreel

footage from that period will bear him out on this point.” One of

many examples being the June 63 trip to Berlin (and many others

from 61 to 63). “I think if you watch the newsreel pictures

you’ll find agents on there from time to time.” Behn said.

Brehn’s reputation was and is impeccable. Agent Maurice

G.Martineau told Palamara on 9/21/93.. “No one that I can think

of would have been better positioned to give you the information

than Jerry Behn…( he was ) as well informed as anyone I can think

of that you could contact”. Behn garnered the utmost respect from

his colleagues that the author spoke with”.

Mr.Behn however ended his report by stating..” As late as Nov.

18(63)… he (JFK) told ASAIC Boring the same thing (or so Boring

claimed). Assistant Special Agent Boring was also not on the

Dallas trip, he had dealt primarily with the 11/18/63 Tampa,

Florida trip in his report ( dated 4/8/64) while also he

mentioned the 7/2/63 Italy trip, alleging that President Kennedy

made this request for both stops. Boring made the Florida trip in

place of Mr.Behn.

That said, in yet another contradiction that caught the author

off guard Boring exclaimed: “No, no that’s not true..(JFK) was a

very easy going guy…he didn’t interfere with our actions at all”,

thus also contradicting his report.

Assistant To the Special Agent in Charge (ATSAIC) Emory P.Roberts

(on the Florida and Texas trips) the commander of the SS follow

up car …the late Mr. Roberts (he died in the 60’s) deals

exclusively with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip in his report (

dated 4/10/64): Boring was Roberts sole source, via radio

transmission from the limousine ahead of his follow-up vehicle,

for JFK’s alleged request.

Special Agent (SA) John David “Jack” Ready (on the Texas trip)

..Ready’s very brief report (dated 4/11/64) dealt exclusively

with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip. However, Ready was not on

that specific Florida trip. Boring was, once again, his source

for JFK’s alleged request .Ready would not respond to written

inquiries from the author. The author phoned Mr. Ready on 6/13/05

and asked him if it was true that Boring said this, based on

JFK’s request. After confirming he wasn’t on the Tampa trip,

Ready stated : “Not on the phone (will I answer you ).I don’t

know you from Adam. Can you see my point ?”.

SA Clinton J,”Clint” Hill (on the Texas trip) …Hill also deals

with the 11/18/63 Tampa, Florida trip and Borings second-hand in

his (strangely undated) report: Mr. Hill was not on the Florida

trip either. Mr. Hill’s brother is former agent David B. Grant, a

former advance agent who worked on the planning of the Florida

and Texas trips with none other than Mr.Boring.

So of the five SS reports, four have as their primary source for

JFK’s alleged request Agent Floyd Boring, including one by Boring

himself, while the remaining report, written by Mr.Behn, mentions

the same 11/18/63 trip with Mr. Boring as the others do.Both Behn

and Boring totally contradicted the contents of their reports at

different times, independent of each other, to the author. In

addition, agents DID ride on the rear of the limousine on 7/2/63

and 11/18/63 anyway, despite these alleged Presidential requests,

as the film and photo record proves.(2).Needless to say, with

Boring joining Behn in refuting the substance of their reports ,

the official SS ‘ explanation’ falls like a house of cards.

Brehn’s, Boring’s, and Hill’s reports are not even on any SS or

Treasury Dept. stationary, just blank sheets of paper. Also

Hill’s report is undated, an unusual error to make in any

official government that has been requested by the head of the

Secret Service.

Yet, all are supposed to be evidence of JFK expressing his desire

to keep Secret Service agents off the limousine, particularly in

Tampa, Florida..? Importantly ,no mention is made of any alleged

orders via President’s Staff. And, again, there is nothing about

what JFK said or “requested” on Nov.22/63.The critical day in

question.

Above from page 4-5.

Notes: p.210

(1) Vol.18 WC: p.803-809 “From now on , this designation, the

standard one used in the literature, will be adopted as follows:

However, the hydraulic side steps which swung out were rarely

used because of their narrowness and their potential lethal

capability to unknowing spectators on a motorcade route : “The

Death of a President,” p.36 ( All references to Manchester’s book

are from the 1988 Perennial Library edition) “Presidential

Limousines” video by Rick Boudreau .1996. When Kennedy’s

specially-designed Lincoln Continental limousine was delivered to

the White House in June 61, detachable rear grab handles were

included ( Press statement ,Ford Motor Co. June 61).In early 62

,grab handles were permanently added to the rear of the car. It

should also be noted that President Eisenhower’s limousine (and

even one of the two 56 Cadillac convertible follow up cars) was

also, out of necessity, used from time to time. (2) Regarding

Italy: See also “Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye” by O’Donnell, Kenneth

P., David F .Powers, and Joseph McCarthy, (Boston: Little Brown &

Co. 1972) page 433 (Note: All references to this book are from

the Pocket Book paperback edition published in 73).

The Myth…

Floyd Boring and quite a few of his SS colleagues denied to Vince

Palamara what William Manchester reports in the best seller “The

Death of a President”: “Kennedy grew weary of seeing bodyguards

roosting behind him every time he turned around, and in Tampa

Nov.18/63 just four days before his death, he dryly asked Agent

Floyd Boring to ‘keep those Ivy League charlatans off the back of

the car’ Boring wasn’t offended .There had been no animosity in

the remark”.(3)

But incredibly Boring told Palamara that “I never told him that”.

As for the merit of the quote itself, Boring said “No, no—that’s

not true”. Thus contradicting his own report in the process.

Incredibly, Boring was not even interviewed for Manchester’s

book! We may never know the source for this information as

Manchester told the author on 8/23/93 that “ all the material is

under seal and won’t be released in my lifetime”, and denied the

author access to his notes. Manchester has since passed away. (4)

Interestingly Manchester did interview the late Emory Roberts,

his probable but also very questionable source.(5) As a result

Manchester left his mark on the issue.(6) In Jim Bishop’s “The

Day Kennedy Was Shot”, he simply repeats the written record of

the WC and the previously mentioned five reports all taken at

face value. Mr. Boring was not interviewed for the book. Mr.

Bishop,also now dead, his information rests with him. But he did

sum up the situation the best. “ No one wanted to weigh the

possibilities that, if a Secret Service man had been on the left

rear bumper going down Elm Street, it would have been difficult

to hit President Kennedy” he also noted “The Secret Service men

were not pleased because they were in a “ hot” city and would

have preferred to have two men ride the bumper of the President’s

car with two motorcycle policemen between him ( JFK) and the

crowds on the sidewalks”. Thanks to the SS reports above ( and,

in large part to Agent Boring himself ) three massive best

sellers still in print ..The Warren Report…Manchester’s “The

Death of a President”….and Bishop’s “The Day Kennedy Was

Shot”…have created the myth that JFK was difficult to protect and

had ordered the agents off his car..and like a ,dangerous myth

that endures to this day in classrooms and in the media , thus

doing great damage to the true historical record. The Secret

Service Myth..Blames the Victim.

Clint Hill: “I never personally was requested by President John

F. Kennedy not to ride on the rear of the Presidential

automobile. I did receive information passed verbally from the

administrative offices of the White House Detail of the Secret

Service to Agents assigned to that Detail that President Kennedy

had made such requests.”

“This would have been between Nov. 19/63 and Nov 21/63 “.He could

not recall at the time what specific agent had given him JFK’s

alleged desires….note the dates.

But during his WC testimony, he revealed it on 3/9/64 under oath

to the future Senator Arlen Specter, then a lawyer for the WC.

Specter: “Now had there been any instruction or comment about

your performance of that type of duty (moving to the rear part of

the limo) With respect to anything President Kennedy himself had

said in the period immediately preceding the trip to Texas ?”

Hill” “Yes Sir, there was. The preceding Monday, the President

was on a trip to Tampa. Florida and he requested that agents not

ride on either of those two steps”.

Specter: “ And to whom did the President make that request?”

Hill: “Assistant Special Agent in Charge Boring”.

Boring was also in charge of planning the Texas trip for the

Secret Service..

From p: 6, 7, 8. ***********************************************

Notes p.210

(3) Manchester p.37-38 .He also wrote “It was a good idea, for

example, to have agents perched on the broad trunk of the

Presidential Lincoln when crowds threatened to grow disorderly.

The trouble was they were always there.” (4)Author Walt Brown

mentions Palamara’s controversial contact with Manchester in his

book “Treachery In Dallas”. 95. P.338. (5) Manchester p.667 Of

the 21 agents /officials interviewed by Manchester, only Roberts,

Greer, Kinney and Blaine were on the Florida trip. Blaine was the

advance agent for Tampa,( riding in the lead car), Greer drove

JFK’s car, Kinney drove the follow-up car, and Roberts was the

commander of the follow-up car. Roberts is Palamara’s main

suspect of the four being Manchester’s dubious source for this

quote.: he was asked to write a report about JFK’s so-called

desires, citing Boring as the source for the order via radio

transmission. The others Greer, Kinney and Blaine ..were not

asked to write a similar report. In addition, Manchester had

access to this report while writing his book.

Also unlike the

others, Roberts was interviewed twice and while Greer never went

on record with his feelings about the matter ,one way or the

other, Kinney denied the veracity of Manchester’s information ,

while Blaine denied the substance of the information, although

he DID mention the ‘Ivy League charlatan’ remark coming from a

second source .Finally, of the 21 agents interviewed by

Manchester .Blaine is the only agent ---save two headquarters

Inspectors ( see next note)---whose interview comments are not to

be found in the text or index. In addition two other agents

Lawton & Newman mention the remark as hearsay, it is likely that

Manchester seized upon the remark and greatly exaggerated its

significance ..AND attributed it to Boring, while his actual

source was probably Roberts (and or Blaine). Again since Boring

was not interviewed the comment had to come second hand from some

other agent, who in turn received the remark second hand from

Boring. In the end the question is: Did Boring really give out

these orders on instructions from JFK.? (6) Interestingly

Manchester having interviewed 21 different agents/ officials for

his book (p.600-669), chose to include interviews with SS

Inspectors Burrill Peterson and Jack Warner...What’s the problem?

These men who were not even associated with the Texas trip in any

way, were interviewed more than any other agents, 4 times each

(Peterson 10/9/64..11/7/64..11/18/64..2/5/65. Warner

6/2/64..11/18/64..2/5/65..5/12/65. Only Emory Roberts, Clint

Hill, Roy Kellerman, and Forrest Sorrels had two each. While all

other agents/officials had one.

More importantly, unlike all

other 19 agents, save one Gerald Blaine (a Texas trip WHD agent).

These two Inspectors are not even mentioned in the actual text or

index? Their comments are invisible to the reader. It appears

that Manchester’s book was an officially sanitized book more so

than we thought (as most everyone knows the book was written with

Jackie Kennedy’s approval, it was her idea. Manchester had early

access to the WC itself. Warren appointed him an ex-officio

member of the Commission. He approved an office for him in

Washington’s VFW building. Where the commission met, and where

copies of reports and depositions were made available to him.(p:

XIX) Inspector Peterson was prominent in the post-assassination

press dealings. Sorrels testified “I don’t think at any time you

will see that there is any statement made by the newspapers or

television that we said anything because Mr.Kelley ,the Inspector

,told me “Any information that is given out will have to come

from Inspector Peterson in Washington”.(7H359). Burrill Peterson

became an Assistant Director for Investigations in 1968.(20 Years

in the Secret Service “ by Rufus Youngblood. 1973 p: 220. Jack

Warner went on to become Director of Public Affairs till in the

90s Acting as a buffer to critical press questions during

assassination attempts on President Ford and other related

matters.(The Secret Service :The Hidden History of an Enigmatic

Agency 2003:Phillip Melanson and Peter Stevens: p

101,201,224,237. Jack Warner would also later become a consultant

to the 1993 Clint Eastwood movie “In The Line of Fire” .Which

dramatized the life of Clint Hill.

Hills testimony:

Clinton J.Hill WC Testimony

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hill_c.htm

His original report.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sa-hill.htm

B.....

Go to site to open links that are attached to this article.........B

J.F.K.

Published: June 17, 2007

To the Editor:

Bryan Burrough’s laudatory review of Vincent Bugliosi’s book on the Kennedy assassination (May 20) is superficial and gratuitously insulting. “Conspiracy theorists” — blithe generalization — should according to Burroughs be “ridiculed, even shunned ... marginalized the way we’ve marginalized smokers.” Let’s see now. The following people to one degree or another suspected that President Kennedy was killed as the result of a conspiracy, and said so either publicly or privately: Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon; Attorney General Robert Kennedy; John Kennedy’s widow, Jackie; his special adviser dealing with Cuba at the United Nations, William Attwood; F.B.I. director J. Edgar Hoover (!); Senators Richard Russell (a Warren Commission member), and Richard Schweiker and Gary Hart (both of the Senate Intelligence Committee); seven of the eight congressmen on the House Assassinations Committee and its chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey; the Kennedy associates Joe Dolan, Fred Dutton, Richard Goodwin, Pete Hamill, Frank Mankiewicz, Larry O’Brien, Kenneth O’Donnell and Walter Sheridan; the Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, who rode with the president in the limousine; the presidential physician, Dr. George Burkley; Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago; Frank Sinatra; and the “60 Minutes” producer Don Hewitt. All of the above, à la Burrough, were idiots.

Not so, of course. Most of them were close to the events and people concerned, and some had privileged access to evidence and intelligence that threw doubt on the “lone assassin” version. That doubt remains today. Bugliosi himself this year joined us, Don DeLillo, Gerald Posner, Robert Blakey and two dozen other writers on the assassination in signing an open letter that appeared in the March 15 issue of The New York Review of Books. The letter focused on a specific unresolved lead, the discovery that a highly regarded C.I.A. officer named George Joannides was in 1963 running an anti-Castro exile group that had a series of encounters with Oswald shortly before the assassination.

This is obviously pertinent, yet the C.I.A. hid the fact from four J.F.K. investigations. Since 1998, when the agency did reluctantly disclose the merest outline of what Joannides was up to, it has energetically stonewalled a Freedom of Information suit to obtain the details of its officer’s activities. Here we are in 2007, 15 years after Congress unanimously approved the J.F.K. Assassination Records Act mandating the “immediate” release of all assassination-related records, and the C.I.A. is claiming in federal court that it has the right not to do so.

And now your reviewer, Burrough, seems to lump together all those who question the official story as marginal fools. Burrough’s close-minded stance should be unacceptable to every historian and journalist worthy of the name — especially at a time when a federal agency is striving vigorously to suppress very relevant information.

Jefferson Morley

Washington

Norman Mailer

Provincetown, Mass.

Anthony Summers

Waterford, Ireland

David Talbot

San Francisco

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/books/re...ters-t-1-1.html

Gaeton Fonzi, author of "The Last Investigation", & update on the Bug Book

If anyone wants to read a I,696-page

crock, we recommend Reclaiming

History by the noted lawyer, Vincent

Bugliosi. It says Lee Harvey Oswald

alone killed President Kennedy. In making

his case, he questions - and distorts - the

work of Gaeton Fonzi, my former editorial

partner and the author of The Last Investigation,

the increasingly influential book

which makes the strongest case in print that

Oswald did not kill Kennedy. When Bugliosi

challenges Fonzi's book, he challenges

this magazine, for Fonzi's work originally

appeared here and in The Washingtonian in

1980. That was l4 years before it became a

book which is a must reading for students of

the assassination.

Bugliosi's book is just being released,

but Fonzi read parts referring

to his work. Fonzi particularly was annoyed

by being labeled "a conspiracy

theorist." Writes Fonzi: "Bugliosi is

wrong. I was never a 'conspiracy theorist.'

I went from an agnostic to a conspiracy

believer."

Fonzi goes on to describe how he

became a believer. It stemmed from interviewing

Arlen Specter (the same U.S. senator

we see on TV all the time) back in 1967.

Specter had returned from working for the

Waren Commission and coming up with

"the single bullet theory." Fonzi had just

met with a lawyer named Vincent Salandria,

and surprised Specter by knowing in detail

the contradictions to that theory. Fonzi

was amazed that when confronted with

inconsistencies Specter could not explain

them.

Normally articulate, he stumbled and

fumbled. Fonzi's article in Philadelphia

Magazine caused a local sensation. It resulted,

some years later, in Pennsylvania Sen.

Richard Schweiker hiring him as a field investigator,

here in Florida, when Congress

reopened the investigation into JFK's death.

In three years on the government payroll,

Fonzi developed links between Oswald and

the CIA. He discovered the agency had lied

to the Warren Commission, and 15 years

later was still stonewalling him and others

trying to solve the crime of the century.

He wrote all this in these pages. And

not long ago he followed up with a story

detailing how recently declassified CIA

files have reinforced the impression that if

intelligence figures did not kill a president.

they surely did their best to frustrate the doc

attempting to find out who did.

June2 007

By BernardM cCormick

As for Bugliosi's assertion that Fonzi

came to his investigative work with a bias,I

rise to support Fonzi. I was there that day in

Wildwood, N.J., when the two of us, while

working on a light piece (the title was "The

Working Man's Riviera") were diverted to

meet a Philadelphiala lawyer who was insisting

the Warren Commission was a cover

up. Vincent Salandria was unusual at that

time in that he had actually studied the 26

volumes of evidence. Neither Fonzi nor I

had even read the official report, a summary

which had been praised by the New York

Times. But no one at the Times had read the

26 volumes of evidence, because they had

not yet been released. Such endorsements

made the commission's work accepted by

the public, including Fonzi and me. We did

not know enough to have any bias.

THE

ANSWER

Salandria wanted to meet Fonzi

because of his reputation as an investigative

reporter. Fonzi invited

me along for the fun. Both of us

expected to meet a nut case. And initially

I thought we had. My first impression was

of a man unnervingly intense and obsessive.

But when he began running us through

the evidence, we were startled at the blatant

contradictions.Keep in mind, this was just

the initial physical stuff - the position of the

holes in JFK's shirt, the wounds, the pristine

"single bullet" that had to wound both Kennedy

and Gov. John Connolly to limit the

deed to a single shooter.

This was before it became known that

dozens of witnesses thought shots came

from the grassy knoll, and it was a decade

before investigators, including Fonzi.

discovered that the CIA had concealed its

huge involvement in anti-Castro activities

in South Florida from the Warren Commission.

It was even longer before it was

learned that the CIA set up President Kennedy

for failure at the Bay of Pigs, figuring

he would have to use our military to save

the operation,and his butt. It was before the

truth of the Cuban Missile Crisis came out.

When Kennedy, after a secret agreement

with the Russians tried to shut down CIA

efforts to kill Castro and stage attacks in

Cuba.

That resulted in CIA agents and their

Cuban-American operatives hating Kennedy,

considering him a traitor. And it was

nearly 40 years before we would learn that

in faking cooperation with Fonzi's investigation.

the CIA assigned as liaison a retired

agent who was, had been deeply involved

in coordinating anti-Castro activities in

Miami. Of course, he didn't bother to mention

that. And when asked to identify the

specitic CIA man who headed the anti-

Castrcl work in South Florida, he could not

find him. It turns out the man government

investigators wanted so badly to question

was /rillsef.

It is thought most of those involved

in the murder of JFK are dead. Certainly

the most suspicious CIA types are. And

) ct those books supporting a long dis-

credited idea that Oswald acted alone

.()ntinLrc to be published. It is strange.

\n.i indt-'c'd.. it is stranger that Fonzi, who

started out as an agnostic and became a believer

criticized or finding and revealing

tirc t i ' L r t l r .

IIERE}

g u lfst reo m m e d i ag ro u p.co m

PUBLISHER'S LETTER

that the opposite end of this

book, we rise once again to defend a work which

appeared in these pages 27 years ago, and which

has grown into something of a landmark in the

history of the Kennedy assassination. If you have

a day to devote, Google the name Gaeton Fonzi

and see the multiple references to his book The

Last Investigation which first appeared here as two

long magazine articles in 1980.

In retrospect, the book had the wrong name,

but only because it has had such an impact that

many researchers have been inspired to investigate

the crime of the century, uncovering additional

information to corroborate crucial details

that Fonzi developed during five years as a government

investigator.

Fonzi's initial assignment for Pennsylvania

Sen. Richard Schweiker was to look into CIA connections

with anti-Castro Cubans in South Florida.

Fonzi, in his own phrase, "stumbled" across

a connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and a

high ranking CIA officer. Fonzi never accused the

CIA man of particpating in JFK's murder, but he

did open a door that subsequently cast light on

the elaborate efforts of the intelligence community

to sabotage the quest for truth.

And the truth continues to come out, almost

45 years after the tragic day in Dallas. Even Fonzi's

CIA man, David Atlee Phillips, when near death,

said he thought the intelligence community was

involved in the killing. He did not admit a role,

but that may have been one last bit of spycraft,

a disinformation specialist's final wink at history

- kill a president and get away with it. And a dying

E. Howard Hunt, the famous Watergate burglar

and longtime CIA figure, named the intelligence

community figures he said were involved, including

David Atlee Phillips. Hunt modestly described

himself as "a bench warmer" in the actual event.

Another deathbed confession of sorts has

been the gradual declassification of documents

which show the extent to which the CIA stonewalled

the congressional committee for which

Fonzi worked. For more on that, go to the last

page. This magazine is not known as hard hitting,

but it is an immense satisfaction to know

that a former editorial partner in this publication

has made history, and that we had a part in

helping him.

>F >F >F

Some years back we interviewed the late ]im

Moran and he revealed Jim Moran's 10 rules of

business.1 . Be there 2 Be there.3. Be there 4. Be

there 5. Be there. 6. Be there 7. Be there 8. Be there

9. Be there 10. Be there.

First at Courtesy Ford in Chicago and later

when he built fM Family Enterprises into a giant

network of dealerships and distributorships in the

south, Jim Moran was there - for his customers

and for the communities he served.

- BERNARD McCORMICK

1 2 June 2007 gulfstreammediagroup

Beow is how it originally came through, I tried to make it

more readable........but for correct procedure...as sent from the

author....here it is below...

f anyone wants to read a I,696-page

crock, we recommend Reclaiming

History by the noted lawyer, Vincent

Bugliosi. It says Lee Harvey Oswald

alone killed President Kennedy. In making

his case, he questions - and distorts - the

work of Gaeton Fonzi, my former editorial

partner and the author of The Last Investigation,

the increasingly influential book

rvhichm akest he strongesct asei n print that

Osrvald did not kill Kennedy. When Bugliosi

challengesF onzi'sb ook, he challenges

this magazine, for Fonzi's work originally

appeared here and in The Washingtonian in

1980. That rvas l4 years before it became a

book which is must readinsf or studentso f

the assassination.

Bugliosi's book is just being released,

but Fonzi read parts referring

to his work. Fonzi particularly was annoyed

by being labeled "a conspiracy

theorist." Writes Fonzi: "Bugliosi is

wrong. I was never a 'conspiracy theorist.'

I went from an agnostic to a conspiracy

believer."

Fonzi goes on to describe how he

became a believer. It stemmed from interviewing

Arlen Specter (the same U.S. senator

we see on TV all the time) back in 1967.

Specter had returned from working for the

Wanen Commission and coming up with

"the single bullet theory." Fonzi had just

met with a lawyer named Vincent Salandria,

and surprised Specter by knowing in detail

the contradictions to that theory. Fonzi

was amazed that when confronted rvith

inconsistenciesS, pecterc ould not explain

them. Normally articulate,h e stumbleda nd

fumbled. Fonzi's article rn Philadelphia

Magazinec auseda local sensationI.t resulted,

some years later, in PennsylvaniaS en.

Richard Schweiker hiring him as a field investigator,

h ere in Florida, when Congress

reopenedth e investigationin to JFK's death.

In three years on the government payroll,

Fonzi developedl inks betweenO srvalda nd

the CIA. He discoveredt he agencyh ad lied

to the Warren Commission, and 15 years

later was still stonewalling him and others

trying to solve the crime of the century.

He wrote all this in these pages. And

not long ago he followed up rvith a stor)'

detailing how recently declassified CIA

files have reinforced the impression that if

intelligencefi guresd id not kill a president.

they surely did their best to frustratct-h osc

attempting to find out who did.

June2 007

By BernardM cCormick

As for Bugliosi's assertion that Fonzi

camet o his investigativew ork with a bias,I

rise to support Fonzi. I was there that day in

Wildwood, N.J., when the tlvo of us, while

r,vorking on a light piece (the title was "The

Working Man's Riviera") were diverted to

meet a Philadelphiala wyer who was insisting

the Warren Commission was a cover

up. Vincent Salandria was unusual at that

time in that he had actually studied the 26

volumes of evidence. Neither Fonzi nor I

had even read the official report, a summary

which had been praised by the New York

Times. But no one at the Times had read the

26 volumes of evidence, because they had

not yet been released. Such endorsements

made the commission's work accepted by

the public, including Fonzi and me. We did

not know enough to have any bias.

I' THE

RlISWER

alandria wanted to meet Fonzr

becauseo f his reputationa s an investigative

reporter. Fonzi inr ited

me along for the fun. Both of us

expectedt o meet a nut case.A nd initiallr

I thought we had. My first impression w'as

of a man unnervinglyi ntense.g aunt,o bsessive.

But when he began running us through

the evidence. we were starlled at the blatant

contradictionsK. eep in mind, this rvasj ust

the initial physical stuff - the position of the

holes in JFK's shirt, the wounds, the pristine

"single bullet" that had to wound both Kennedy

and Gov. John Connolly to limit the

deed to a single shooter.

This was before it became known that

dozens of witnesses thought shots came

from the grassy knoll, and it was a decade

before investigators, including Fonzi.

discovered that the CIA had concealed its

huge involvement in anti-Castro activities

in South Florida from the Warren Commission.

It was even longer before it rvas

learned that the CIA set up President Kennedy

for failure at the Bay of Pigs, figuring

he would have to use our military to save

the operation,a ndh is butt. It was beforet he

truth of the Cuban Missile Crisis came out.

when Kennedy, after a secret agreement

with the Russians.t ried to shut down CIA

efforts to kill Castro and stage attacks in

Cuba.

That resulted in CIA agents and their

Cuban-American operatives hating Kennedy,

considering him a traitor. And it was

nearly 40 years before we would learn that

in faking cooperation with Fonzi's investigation.

t he CIA assigneda s liaisona retired

agent who was had been deeply involved

in coordinating anti-Castro activities in

Miami. Of course, he didn't bother to mention

that. And when asked to identify the

specitic CIA man who headed the anti-

Castrcl rvork in South Florida, he could not

lind him. It turns out the man government

inrestigatorsw anted so badly to question

u as /rillsef.

It is thought most of those involved

in the murder of JFK are dead. Certainly

thc rnost suspiciousC IA types are. And

) ct thcse books supporling a long dis-

.rc!litcd idea that Oswald acted alone

.()ntinLrc to be published. It is strange.

\n.i indt-'c'dit is strangert hat Fonzi, who

.t.rrtcrl r)ut as an agnostic and became a be-

Irer er . r. criticizedf or findinga ndr evealing

tirc t i ' L r t l r .

IIERE}

g u lfst reo m m e d i ag ro u p.co m

PUBLISHER'SL ETTER

t the opposite end of this

book, we rise once again to defend a work which

appeared in these pages 27 years ago, and which

has grown into something of a landmark in the

history of the Kennedy assassinationI.f you have

a day to devote, Google the name Gaeton Fonzi

and see the multiple references to his book The

Last Investigation which first appeared here as two

long magazine articles in 1980.

In retrospect, the book had the wrong name,

but only because it has had such an impact that

many researchers have been inspired to investigate

the crime of the century, uncovering additional

information to corroborate crucial details

that Fonzi developed during five years as a government

investigator.

Fonzi's initial assignment for Pennsylvania

Sen. Richard Schweiker was to look into CIA connections

with anti-Castro Cubans in South Florida.

Fonzi, in his own phrase, "stumbled" across

a connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and a

high ranking CIA officer. Fonzi never accused the

CIA man of particpating in |FK's murder, but he

did open a door that subsequently cast light on

the elaborate efforts of the intelligence community

to sabotaget he quest for truth.

And the truth continues to come out, almost

45 years after the tragic day in Dallas. Even Fonzi's

CIA man, David Atlee Phillips, when near death,

said he thought the intelligence community was

involved in the killing. He did not admit a role,

but that may have been one last bit of spycraft,

a disinformation specialist'sfi nal wink at history

- kill a president and get away with it. And a dying

E. Howard Hunt, the famous Watergate burglar

and longtime CIA figure, named the intelligence

community figures he said were involved, including

David Atlee Phillips. Hunt modestly described

himself as "a bench warmer" in the actual event.

Another deathbed confession of sorts has

been the gradual declassification of documents

which show the extent to which the CIA stonewalled

the congressional committee for which

Fonzi worked. For more on that, go to the last

page. This magazine is not known as hard hitting,

but it is an immense satisfaction to know

that a former editorial partner in this publication

has made history, and that we had a part in

helping him.

>F >F >F

Some years back we interviewed the late ]im

Moran and he revealed Iim Moran's 10 rules of

business.1 . Be there 2 Be there.3. Be there 4. Be

there 5. Be there. 6. Be there 7. Be there 8. Be there

9. Be there 10. Be there.

First at Courtesy Ford in Chicago and later

when he built fM Family Enterprises into a giant

network of dealershipsa nd distributorships in the

south, |im Moran was there - for his customers

and for the communities he served.

- BERNARD McCORMICK

1 2 June 2007 gulfstreammediagroup

Thanks Frog.....

B...

Thanks Robin, that's the one....

B..

Four days before Dallas, in Tampa, this is what the SS was doing during the motorcade.

Two men riding the bumper AND there is a 3rd man sitting in the front seat.

Any shot through the windshield would have nailed this guy and JFK would not have been a viable target.

The photo won't upload right now. I will try to edit it in later.

Any luck with that photo, Chuck? I believe it DOES matter what the arrangement was on other days.

And I would like to take this opportunity to welcome Vince to the forum. I really appreciate your groundbreaking work on the Secret Service's actions that day. Their actions are a bitter pill to swallow. I believe that is why they got away with it for so long. Who could believe they would do such a thing?

But Vince, take it easy on Ms. Baker , ok? Her story does not make or break this case and it would only serve to exonerate Oswald.

************************

In case you could not find the photos Chuck, ...Peter.....

Here are a couple from Tampa, Florida, taken 4 days before Dallas....

Full protection......

And Vince as always, you are the SS extraordinaire....

B....

Robin:

I believe this may be yours....?? showing Lovelady's white T shirt.......that had been posted some time back..

on the F..

Now if someone could post his GIF......? not yours, anothers....

I am also posting the comparison of the facial features, side view......Lovelady and man seen in the doorway..??

B.........

1. Tramp - Curly

2. Tramp - Moe

3. Tramp - Larry

4. Tramp [Jack Beers photo] Shemp?

5. Name escapes me - the guy that turned himself in for outstanding warrants in another state. Robin Unger brought that one up once.

6. The unknown hispanic individual in the squad car photo - possibly Ronald Ponce de Leon. James Richards posted that photo before.

7. Lonnie Ray Wright - RR Tracks

8. John Elrod - RR Tracks

9. Lee Harvey Oswald

10. James Braden

11. ARTHUR ALVIS MCDUFFIE, DOB February 6, 1944, date of arrest November 25, 1963. Doesn't count for 11/22 however [tnx to Bernice Moore]

12. Russell McLarry - not 11/22 [tnx to James Richards]

13. Larry Florer

14. There is the youth coming out of Fritz' office when Oswald was being taken in. I think Greg Parker said that this individual may have been associated with the Indignant White Coucil.

15. There is Donald Wayne House - but that is Fort Worth.

16. So is the other individual, Kenneth Glenn Wilson - Fort Worth. Tnx to Duke Lane's Cowtown Connection.

17. Then there is the man who appears to be under arrest, being taken off the knoll. I don't have this frame handy. Robin posted that one someplace.

Let's eliminate the 'protective custody arrests' for the time being...Euins, Brehm and son, TSBD workers including Givens and Arce, etc.

18. There is also the odd Boyscout story, which can be found in Walt Brown's stuff - and the incident with a toy gun that allegedly took place higher up on Main st. If Robinson saw this boy at the station - wouldn't he have been under arrest as well?

19. In the John Elrod account, the man whom he believes may have been Lee Harvey Oswald is also thought to perhaps by JT Masen. Was Masen arrested that day?

20. There is also the arrest made by Craig - of a woman in her 30s, in a brown Chevy, trying to leave the parking area. Is that part of his 12? No records on this one, unless she was one of the 3 TSBD employees that Lewis claimed to have talked with. Only one [simmons?] was close in age to the description provided by Craig.

21. We have the Garrison photo shown to Craig, of an individual that 'yelled in Spanish' and was released.

22. As per Torbitt, "Meanwhile, the Dallas Police were arresting a goodly number of Permindex agents at the assassination site. An important figure, James Powell of Army Intelligence on assignment through the DIA to the Defense Industrial Security Command of Columbus, Ohio and Muscle Shoals, Alabama, was trapped and arrested in the School Book Depository Building shortly after 12:30 pm. He was later released along with the others by Captain Will Fritz in charge of Homicide for the Dallas Police Department." Was Powell actually placed under arrest?

23. But we need to add this one, which I found very curious - Billy Lovelady! He wasn't just put under protective custody, he was apparently locked up for several days and not allowed visitors. He was also made to surrender his shirt, which he got back later. When incarcerated, he was interrogated every few hours or so. How had he managed to be in two places at once?

Well - this doesn't belong on the thread about suspicious vehicles anyway...

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Hi Lee:

Re number 6......

That photo of the hispanic individual comes from the Marsh collection, it was found some years ago.......and passed along..

It is said to be from the Jim Garrison files.......now the connection is, or could be...?

In the Roger Craig information......

When Craig was suppoened to New Orleans and became involved with the Garrison Investigation, Jim showed

Roger that photo, of that man.......[seen below....].

...and Roger Craig stated to him, that is the man that was driving the station wagon, he had seen that day, in Dealey.....

The car that the young man, LHO?, or look alike ?, who had run from behind the area of the TSBD, down the grassy slope, and entered into..

The station wagon is seen in a Jim Murray photo, .[below]......this was also witnessed by three others I believe, at 12/40.pm...

Also, a thought, keep in mind many were taken in that afternoon, but not put under arrest, only for questioning, as for instance, Jim Braden was..

......but that there were reports that 10 to 12 were put under arrest...and all released..

May help within the research of your station wagon....B...

humbugdouble.....

James :The shirt comparison photo is from Jack......thanks...

From Gary Shaws "Cover-Up" 76 & 92... page 41..

"Lovelady likewise told independant researcher Jones Harris ( who specialzes

in photographic aspects of the President's murder) that on Nov.22 he was

wearing a red and white striped shirt buttoned near the neck.WC XXII H 794.

***************

WXXII page 794.. Hearings

New York Herald Tribune...Article May 24/64..clip

"Ten days ago, still brooding over the picture Jones Harris flew to Dallas, met with Lovelady and talked to him for about quarter of and hour. Lovelady told him yes, it was he standing in the doorway.. Lovelady also told him that the FBI has taken several pictures of him , presumably to compare with the AP picture of the assassination scene. Lovelady also said that on November 22 he was wearing a red -and-white striped sports shirt buttoned near the neck.."..

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol22_0412b.htm

I am in a rush, so if I have doubled any previously posted photos ,sorry......so be it..

B......

Hi James:

But according to Lovelady's WC information, he states he was on the top step.......also wherever he placed

the mark, for the WC showing where he stood that day, is also and has not been seen...He and Truly also changed their information

after their first statements.....about their immediate actions...after the assassination at first they ran to the area towards the parking

lot, after that info changed to how they immediately went back into the TSBD...??

Here is the photo you requested of Lovelady taken by the FBI, when asked to wear the shirt he wore that

day for a photograph..and a few others in comparison...the doppleganger perhaps raises his head , in the side views.......

.....there is much more, on the saga of the doorway..as I am sure you are

well aware of.........

No I have never made up my mind....too many differences found along he way....He had problems after and they moved from Dallas...

.....she also at one time tried to

sell the supposed shirt for $5,000.00.........He died very young from a heart attack, not sure but I am thinking he was around 42 .

though the family did say that such did run in the family..and there had been early deaths from the same problem...his daughter apparently

did also....

For now...FWIW..

B......

Duh.......

Hi Miles:

We are very aware there were some within Dealey that called themselves SS, and presented ID,

By why try to confuse, them with the SS White House detail report of Nov 27/63...report..

With what was related after the Assn in Dealey Plaza...on Nov.23/63...to what may have been,IF they were SS men

that is, they were not the White House Detail officers of the SS....in charge of the 100X...

The SS that were continued on to Parkland, and then took custody of it immediately, drove it back to Love, where

it was flown back, and driven to the WH garage....

Nothing to do with Craig nor the "supposed" SS men of Dealey..

B....

Credit Bernice:

This is the first time i have actually seen a Secret Service report which mentions a " HOLE " in the windshield.

The two blankets on the left and right rear doors were removed, inspected, and returned to the vehicle. The trunk of the vehicle was opened and the contents examined, and nothing was removed. A meticulous examination was made of the back seat to the car and the floor rug, and no evidence was found.In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion.

Good point, Robin. The characterization or description of the hole ("small hole" "from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed") doesn't seem to suggest a through & through bullet puncture. "Small" would suggest a hole smaller than a bullet hole. Otherwise why not just call it an "apparent bullet hole?"

>>>>>>>>>>

Hi Miles:

I have to say and ..I will admit I found what you said hits me as being very funny..thanks......according to the

.."Dictionary.....a.Hole.....1. an opening through something; gap; aperture: a hole in the roof; a hole in my sock. ""

A hole is a hole through ,which means a hole is a hole.....

I do not believe the SS were that backwards not to know, what a hole was, do you really ??

""Otherwise why not just call it an "apparent bullet hole?"" Simple, they did not use your wording....they used their own..you were not there to advise them..

Have you seen the thickness of a standard pencil of late, I am sure none of the witnesses who mentioned such in reference to the diameter of the hole, was thinking of such as a carpenters thick pencil.....any shot through the windshield would have created fragments on the opposite side......Bullets make small entry wounds, unless you have an elephant gun.....

Here again is the SS Agents Charles Taylor & Harry Geiglein report..

Record Number 180-10099-10390 Agency File Number 002528

Originator-WC

From: Taylor, Charles E.

To:

Date: 11/27/63

Pages: 4

Subjects: Kennedy, John, Autopsy

Evidence, Medical

Wound Ballistics

USSS

Date of release: 12/16/93

Contents: Secret Service Report dated 11/27/63 by Agents Charles E. Taylor, Jr. and Harry W. Geiglein on investigation of clues found in the Presidential limousine.

Document follows in full.

ORIGIN: White House Detail OFFICE: Washington, D.C.

FILE NO.: CO-2-34,030

TYPE OF CASE: Protective Research STATUS: Closed

INVESTIGATION MADE AT: Washington, D.C.

PERIOD COVERED: November 22-23, 1963

INVESTIGATION MADE BY: SAIC Harry W. Geiglein

SA Charles E. Taylor, Jr.

TITLE OR CAPTION: Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

SYNOPSIS

This report relates to the measures employed to effect security of the President's car, 100-X, and the follow-up car, 679-X, on return from Dallas, Texas, following the assassination of President Kennedy.

DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION

This investigation was initiated on November 22, 1963, following receipt of instructions from ASAIC Floyd M. Boring, White House Detail, that steps be taken to effect security of the President's car (100-X) and the follow-up car (679-X) on their return from Dallas, Texas. President John F. Kennedy occupied the rear seat of SS-100-X when he was assassinated, and SS-679-X was directly behind the Presidential limousine at the time of the assassination. There two vehicles were driven to Love Field, Dallas, Texas, for immediate transportation to Andrews Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.

Following the arrival of President Lyndon B. Johnson and the remains of President Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base, the reporting Special Agents conferred with Captain Milton B. Hartenblower, Duty Operations Officer, and Lt. Colonel Robert Best, Provost Marshal, Andrews Air Force Base, to arrange for landing instruction of the Air Force cargo plane transporting the subject vehicles and to escort these vehicles from Andrews Air Force Base. Also, arrangements were made with the U.S. Park Police for motorcycle escort of these automobiles to the White House Garage.

DISTRIBUTION: Chief Washington

COPIES: Orig. & 2 cc 2 cc

REPORT MADE BY: /s/ Charles E. Taylor, Jr. DATE: 11/27/63

Charles E. Taylor, Jr.

APPROVED: /s/ Harry W. Geiglein DATE: 11/27/63

Harry W. Geiglein

SPECIAL AGENT IN CHARGE: Harry W. Geiglein

CO-2-34,030

Page 2

At 8:00 P.M. on November 22, 1963, SS-100-X and SS-679-X arrived at Andrews Air Force Base on Air Force Cargo Plane No. 612373 (C-130-E), which plane was assigned to the 78th Air Transport Squadron from Charleston Air Force Base and piloted by Captain Thomason. The plane was taxied to a point just off of Runway 1028, approximately 100 yards from the Control Tower at Andrews AFB, and a security cordon was placed around the aircraft while these vehicles were being unloaded.

On the plane accompanying these vehicles were Special Agents Kinney and Hickey.

The Presidential vehicles were driven under escort to the White House Garage at 22nd and M Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C., arriving at approximately 9:00 P.M. SS-100-X was driven by SA Kinney, accompanied by SA Taylor, and SS-679-x was driven by SA Hickey, accompanied by Special Agents Keiser and Brett.

On arrival, SS-100-X was backed into the designated parking bin and SS-679-X was parked a few feet away. A plastic cover was placed over SS-100-X and it was secured. The follow-up car, SS-679-X, was locked and secured. Special Agents Keiser, Brett, and the reporting Special Agent effected security, assisted by White House Policemen Snyder and Rubenstal.

At 10:10 P.M., Deputy Chief Paterni, ASAIC Boring, and representatives from Dr. Burkley's office at the White House, William Martinell and Thomas Mills, inspected SS-100-X.

At 12:01 A.M., November 23, 1963, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Paraschos and Kennedy and White House Policeman J. W. Edwards.

At 1:00 A.M., as per arrangements by Deputy Chief Paterni, a team of FBI Agents examined the Presidential limousine. This team was comprised of Orrin H. Bartlett, Charles L. Killian, Cortlandt Cunningham, Robert A. Frazier, and Walter E. Thomas .

Mr. Orin Bartlett drove the Presidential vehicle out of the bin. The team of FBI Agents, assisted by the Secret Service Agents on duty, removed the leatherette convertible top and the plexi-glass bubbletop; also the molding strips that secure the floor matting, and the rear seat. What appeared to be bullet fragments were removed from the windshield and the floor rug in the rear of the car.

CO-2-34,030

Page 3

The two blankets on the left and right rear doors were removed, inspected, and returned to the vehicle. The trunk of the vehicle was opened and the contents examined, and nothing was removed. A meticulous examination was made of the back seat to the car and the floor rug, and no evidence was found.

In addition, of particular note was the small hole just to the left of center in the windshield from which what appeared to be bullet fragments were removed.

The team of agents also noted that the chrome molding strip above the windshield, inside the car, just right of center, was dented. The FBI Agents stated that this dent was made by the bullet fragment which was found imbedded in the front cushion.

During the course of this examination, a number of color photos were taken by this FBI <"FBI" inserted in longhand with an arrow> search team. They concluded their examination at 4:30 A.M. and the President's car was reassembled and put back in the storage bin.

At 8:00 A.M. on November 23, the security detail was relieved by Special Agents Hancock and Davis and White House Policeman J. C. Rowe. SA Gonzalez relieved SA Hancock at Noon and at 4:00 P.M., Messrs, Fox and Norton, Protective Research Section, photographed the Presidential limousine. At 4:30 P.M., SA Gonzalez contacted SAIC Bouck and Deputy Chief Paterni and, at their request, the flowers, torn pieces of paper, and other miscellaneous debris were removed from the floor of the car (SS-100-X) and taken to the Washington Field Office. At that time, the special detail securing the Presidential limousine and the follow-up car was discontinued.

DISPOSITION

This case is closed with the submission of this report.

CET:mkd

************

Here also is a post by Ron Ecker Dec.04 on Kellerman's information....to the WC..

It is apparent from the WC testimony of SS agent Roy Kellerman that the damaged windshield was switched, not once but at least twice, between the shooting and the time that a windshield was brought into the WC hearing for Kellerman to examine.

It should be noted, to begin with, that Kellerman believed there was a conspiracy, as is evident from his testimony that there had to be more than three shots. (And Senator Cooper obviously couldn’t believe what he heard.) I think that this would eliminate Kellerman as a conspirator.

Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen.

Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say?

Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman?

Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots.

Representative FORD. Is that why you have described--

Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry.

Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir.

Arlen Specter then gets Kellerman to admit that he didn’t actually remember hearing more than three shots.

On to the windshield:

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir. (“That day” refers to Nov. 27, in the White House garage, the first time Kellerman noted the damage.)

Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth.

Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield?

Mr. KELLERMAN. I did.

Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you?

Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car.

Several witnesses saw a through hole in the windshield. This is discussed in detail by Weldon in "Murder in Dealey Plaza." The windshield with no hole that Kellerman saw in the White House garage and described to the WC was therefore not the original windshield, but a replacement windshield that had been damaged by hitting it with something on the inside, making no hole and leaving the outside smooth.

After the windshield is admitted into evidence:

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman. I would like for you at this time to actually touch the outside (of the windshield) and tell me, first of all, if it is the same or if it differs in any way from the sense of feel which you noted when you touched it on or about November 27?

Mr. KELLERMAN. As I touch the outside on the impact, it would be the same as I noticed on the 27th of November.

Mr. SPECTER. What do you notice, if anything?

Mr. KELLERMAN. It is a smooth surface without any--

Mr. SPECTER. Without any--finish your answer.

Mr. KELLERMAN. On the inside.

Mr. SPECTER. No; before. It is a smooth surface without any what?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Without any crack lines.

Mr. SPECTER. On the outside?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That can be felt.

Mr. SPECTER. On the outside?

Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; on the outside of the windshield.

But now Specter makes a mistake similar to the one the prosecution made in the O.J. trial by having O.J. try on the glove (it didn’t fit!):

Mr. SPECTER. Feel the inside and tell us, first of all, whether it is the same or different from the way you touched it on November 27?

Mr. KELLERMAN. On November 27, when I felt the inside of this impact area, I was convinced that I could - that I felt an opening in one of these lines, which was indicative to me that the blow was struck from the inside of the car on this windshield.

Mr. SPECTER. Does it feel the same to you today as it did on or about November 27?

Mr. KELLERMAN. As a matter of fact, it feels rather smooth today.

Mr. SPECTER. It feels somewhat differently today than it felt before?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; it does.

Kellerman had to know at that moment that the windshield had been switched. And this was the second switch (at least) that had been made. (Having gotten rid of the hole with the first switch, why was a second switch made, to have both sides of the windshield smooth? I don’t have a clue.)

Ron

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2731

Thanks......B.........

This second of two reviews (that I'm aware of) by the editors/authors of Assassination Science, et al., compels me to make a couple of observations that may be unwelcome, but nevertheless (IMO) bear discussion.

You are entitled as all are….as yours also compels me….though some also may not be welcomed…..

First and foremost is a question of the need for or, indeed, the wisdom of such reviews. Am I the only person who's noticed that, whenever a "popular" book is published that essentially re-writes the Warren Report, analyses by disbelievers in the original fairly abound, attempting to refute the regurgitated insipid pabulum in intricate detail nearly ad nauseum, largely read and circulated by those whose views are in accord ... while, whenever a "conspiracy book" is published (and is "popular" only in the sense that Grateful Dead LPs were ever "best-sellers"), nary a sound is heard above that of a pin dropping from those who subscribe to the WC mythology?

That is the game, they do not and will not bring to the forefront to any degree new information re the Assassinations, it is called Media control…Though they are discussed, and dismissed on such as the LNr..alt….forums…and many other sites on the web..such as McAdams...

Have we not yet learned that the time and effort we put into - once again - attempting to eviscerate the theses of these WC hangers-on is all for naught, fodder only for the choir? Is it a great surprise that what the Report got (or made) wrong or overlooked (or avoided) or simply misrepresented, is equally wrong, overlooked or misrepresented when presented in fresh prose by a Gerald Posner or Vincent Bugliosi? Is it a revelation to consider that we don't need to rehash the arguments against them again? When is enough attention simply enough?!?

Never enough until……,all these crimes have been brought out to the people, and admitted.. Yes I guess I live in that dream world, where one day I hope the control of the government will return to it’s people….and the Coup exposed….What would you have us do, pack up all our books, get rid of all information, and walk away like a dog with it’s tail between it’s legs, and simply give up…….I do not think so…you seem to disregard the will to know of the peoples….Those who do not wish to, needn't bother......

When has a "mainstream" reviewer ever done more than simply shrug off a new "conspiracy theory?" Was there ever a page-by-page analysis of the errors, real or imagined, in, say, David Lifton's Best Evidence or Mark Lane's Plausible Denial ... or even Drs. Fetzer and Mantik's works? At another end of the spectrum(?), there has never been such an effort to "debunk" any of Harold Weisberg's analyses, no defense of any of the charges he made in millions of self-published and (IMO) highly efficient and effective words: at best, the only criticism I have read of Weisberg addressed his writing style ("inundating" and "shrill") and background ("chicken farmer," but one of his many endeavors in life), but never, ever what he said, line-by-line, page-by-page or otherwise.

As I have mentioned this is done, on the L.Nr sites, and continues…on the web, on other sites...The “Mainstream” is controlled, as all else is…we cannot expect much from such, and our expectations always seem to be fulfilled…

Had such things occurred, the public might have gone off in search of such books, if only out of curiosity over what the ado is all about. Don't we create the same environment by our endless, in-depth analyses? And when the public buys and reads those things we so vehemently and vociferously disagree with, haven't they become familiar with - some might say "indoctrinated to" - those things we would that they not believe, not trust as fact, not swallow whole?

Amazing though isn’t it, that the pubic has searched out such information on their own and the last I read 87 % of that public believe in a conspiracy…..within the death of their President J.F.K..

Today, dozens of "WC critics" are penning thousands of words critical of Reclaiming History just as they did some 14 years ago in response to Case Closed. The result is, in part, more copies of each being circulated and read and accepted, for it is a simple fact that no ten-page essay can possibly refute hundreds of pages of seemingly sensible palaver, and what portion it may have achieved is greatly overshadowed by the sheer volume of additional argument. Is it any wonder that the Warren Report has sold and continues to sell more copies than most if not all "conspiracy books" combined?

I do believe the last I checked the condensed version of the “W.C” was sold for .50 cents, too much….on the book sites,......... a 26 volume set of which only 80 thousand were printed, is going for approx $5,000., and I might add, for a population at the time I believe around 200 milion, not enough were printed for a set for every Library within the U.S, never mind the rest of the world that were certainly interested. Perhaps with all this a condensed version, single book... may now be a couple of dollars?? Who knows….? But do not forget the people do not read ,so said Dulles.......

As far as “Case Closed” Posner’s, it is regarded as it should be, go to the web and do a search, another bin book…..it was proven on the web, that it had at least 100 errors within it, why do you suppose the media no longer have that “Darlin” on the telly………? Why do you think Bugs and his has been brought forward? Why they did not wait till the 50 th I have no idea, what is coming down the road, some new admission, evidence, proof?……perhaps..?.....Recently there has been the Hunt book, possibly could be one of several reasons…??.....Plus the new bullet fragment studies that have created more questions???? Look back at how much Mainstream attention this all received, very little, same old….shenanigans…..”Mockingbird”…

You seem to be forgetting that today, the media is the “Web”..that is the where the most are getting their information from, not the 6 O’clock news, and not the newspapers…though there are inevitably some still in “La La Land”….they are not in the majority any longer….

We help to create our own uphill battles.

Who else is going to fight the peoples battles, the Government the LNrs...????

Secondly, I note with chagrin that both doctors in their reviews choose to denigrate the law profession as being all but superfluous, a motley assortment of half-truths, smoke and mirrors designed to arrive at nothing more than the truth of the moment as defined by the more persuasive purveyor of perception before a short-lived jury of disinterested dimwits?

I did not see their critiques that way........I felt that what was needed and mentioned was that Bugliosi even though he did have and could have had access to all the studies and researched information made available to him ,including the most recent medical information, ignored such….After all he had in years past been receiving the monthly news from “”He subscribed to Probe magazine for several years. So I know he’s not ignorant of the facts. He’s just incredibly biased in many cases, and in some, he’s flat out dishonest.”” Lisa Peasse.. http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

As well as Peter Dale Scott’s..critique on….

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

For that I see no excuse…If after 21 years, this book by Bugliosi was suppose to be, an honest study of all available information as well as evidence new and old, such as what came to light after the WC had been published,....... plus what had been deliberately withheld from them, and has come to light since..which was available to him....then it would have, could have been perhaps an honest report within it's own, but ..it simply is not....even the HSCA he dismisses, therefore he really did not have to deal with the information within such...anything he has not and did not want to deal with he has dismissed.....same old...as the WC...

This is, to me, as grave an error as an attorney faced with open-heart surgery deriding medicos as being no more than "experimenters" who, while certainly advances have been made, have no more reached a pinnacle of knowledge than the man in the moon: after all, what was "state-of-the-art" in 1982 when Dr. Robert Jarvik and Barney Clark first met, is today passe and antiquated ... and so will today's "cutting edge" be dull twenty-five years hence.

Will the heart surgeon - even absent the advance that have yet to be made - not still save the life of the derisive attorney? And is not the attorney of considerable importance to these good doctor-researchers, for unless their goal is simply proof without accountability or punishment, publication and peer review in JAMA will do little to bring the perpetrators of the assassination and its attendant myth to justice. After all, when has any of us ever heard the phrase "convicted in a court of medicine" or "sentenced to 10 years at hard surgery" or "confinement in a maximum security hospital?"

IMO……Why did he not take advantage of both.....??.imo..His was a grave error on Bugs part, that he did not access himself, nor want, comes to mind, the latest medical studies…nor information, he simply disrehards all it seems, after all, his book was written on the presumption that the “WC is correct…and LHO was guilty, now that is exactly the Governments findings.………

He it seems has relied upon his old tired and true lawyers Prosecution tricks, and apparently it has worked with some….That is what he is and that is how he has written his book, and has disregarded what would either prove or question why he was not…

.He did so with his Trial of LHO, the 10 part T.V series, and of course the on screen jury found LHO guilty…..But on the “ phone in decision”, when the public spoke…….which you do not and probably will not find on the web sites that tout his series, the overwhelming majority that called in, found him not guilty, but could have been a part of a conspiracy….The people spoke, the fixed jury spoke as expected ..Bugliosi lost......The W.C itself did not find LHO the lone killer, they got around it, their words were, very carefully stated, to the effect, that they could find no proof of a conspiracy…and left him to hang out and dry......as the only.

It is all well and good to conclusively demonstrate by densinometric determination within .001 inch that one's science is well-founded and accurate, but if that's all that one hopes to achieve, why bother? To what end: posterity? A "theory of assassination relativity" that withstands disproof for a hundred years or more? Meanwhile, the question of "who shot John?" remains unanswered (except by Bugliosi and Posner!) and relegated to the dust heap.

Correct the “who shot John” remains unanswered, that imo is just one of the questions, and though important to some, to others the “who behind the scenes” of the “Coup” is of a more serious nature…..to each their own..

It will take one or more of those practitioners in the black art of law to bring the matter to a final close - perhaps based upon truths advanced by scientists or perhaps not - just as it took so many of them to bring the witchery of the Report into "our" general acceptance in the first place. Knowing that the xrays were undeniably and irrefutably faked does not tell us whose finger was on the trigger or why. Narrow interests and studies, while useful and instructive, are seldom panacea.

I disagree, it will only take the will of the people, as a whole, to continue to stand up for their rights, when they decide to do so…and how do you reach them continually, by not walking away……but by “carrying on”..

Finally - and briefly - with regard to alterations of the Z and Muchmore films and/or other photogaphs: if none can be relied upon, no conclusion other than the inability to reach conclusions can be reached.

And finally and breifly, Lord help those “alterationists”, they it seems by some are not allowed or should not be allowed such ,if others only had their druthers that is..………Like the LHO backyard photos were proven to not be real…..but then that just proved one more time that the “patsy” had been fixed…..

Believe or not, it is anyone’s right….they the “alterationists” do not continually discuss such…It is there in threads and books, for people to read about but no one forces anyone to do so…and that does make me wonder at times…..simply to disagree is one thing, but to take it seems any given opportunity to do so, each time, as some have, only makes more, perhaps, curious as to why ?? but that is alls perogative ....

Each it appears have their own areas, within the studies, the “alterations” is simply one more…..see if it was ever proven that the Zapruder, definitely......in the publics mind, was altered and well there went 16 million plus of their money, why is the next question….to help , cover up a “Coup” the assassination of their President..and that of course, many out there will not and cannot allow such, so they and it continues……

Duke I say this with respect, instead of criticizing those who are trying to help, within the knowledge, why not write your own Critique, within what you do possess… and contribute such as to the “Reclaiming History” site……

http://www.reclaiminghistory.org/

I also will say that I certainly hope that your and Jays replies, will not create a diversion, to the information within Dr.Fetzer's critique....as I am sure they were not meant to.....

B..........

--------------------

Duke Lane

Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi

A Not-Entirely-Positive Review by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD

Memorial Day, 2007

It is surely interesting how intelligent people can differ

in looking at the same evidence…

“Doggedness and the Talpiot Tomb,” James Tabor, May 22, 2007

Biographical Details

Vincent Boo-liosi (no “g” sound) was born on August 18, 1934. According to one web site, he is the third most famous person from Hibbing, Minnesota. After moving to California, he graduated from Hollywood High School.

Bugliosi (simply designated as B hereafter) graduated from of the University of Miami in Coral Cables, Florida (BA, 1956). Eight years later he received his law degree from UCLA (1964), where he was president of his graduating class. As a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney, he successfully prosecuted Charles Manson and several other members of Manson’s "family" for the 1969 murders of Sharon Tate and six others. He lost only one of the 106 felony cases he tried as a prosecutor, which included winning 21 out of 21 murder cases. He later wrote a book about the Manson trial called Helter Skelter. B has been outspoken in the media about the incompetence and/or malfeasance of lawyers and judges in major trials. He wrote a bestselling book, Outrage, on the acquittal of O.J. Simpson, in which he detailed the work of the district attorney, prosecutors, the defense lawyers, and presiding judge and illustrated what he saw as broader problems in American criminal justice, the media, and the political appointment of judges. He also condemned the Supreme Court’s decisions in Jones vs. Clinton and in the 2000 presidential election. He wrote a lengthy criticism of the decision in an article for The Nation titled "None Dare Call It Treason," which was later expanded into a book titled The Betrayal of America. Some of his criticisms are portrayed in the 2004 documentary Orwell Rolls in his Grave.

B is also an expert on the JFK and RFK assassinations. His book, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F Kennedy, was released in May 2007. That book is the subject of this review. It contains 1612 numbered pages, an introduction (xlvii pages), plus a CD of Endnotes (958 pages) and Source Notes (170 pages); it is literally bursting with second-hand information. Its total page count would appear to be about 2786, almost exactly three times as long as the 888-page Warren Report.

B is of Italian ancestry, married, and has two children, Wendy and Vince Jr. Like many characters in JFK assassination research today, he is an agnostic (in matters of religion, but not regarding the assassination) although he is open to the ideas of deism (but not to those of conspiracy).

Though I have not read Helter Skelter (the subject bored me) my wife loved it, while I thoroughly enjoyed And the Sea Will Tell (also a 1991 TV movie with Richard Crenna), which B kindly autographed for my nurse. I have also been a great fan of Outrage and his critique of the Supreme Court for putting us in the Bush leagues. (Everyone knows that our current Bush is a former major league baseball owner.)

A Personal Encounter

On a lovely Sunday morning, I knocked on the front door of B’s corner house, a modest, but charming affair, located very near the Arroyo Seco, home to the Rose Bowl. Because he had written to me about my work, I was curious to meet him in the flesh. While en route to see my son at Occidental College, I decided that the time had come to pay him a personal, albeit unannounced, visit. The door was quickly answered by B. After an initial puzzled expression, he immediately waved me in, with all the old country charm one would expect from a fellow Midwesterner. He was warm, courtly, and gracious, quite unlike his writing. After this encounter I understood why he had been president of his law school class. Following introductions to his wife, we sat together with drinks at the kitchen table, a la Nixon and Khrushchev (July 24, 1959). The conversation was congenial though not substantive. I was able to ascertain that he had indeed received the requested information from me. Most especially he had “Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits,” a summary of my work at the National Archives.

An Immediate Disaster for B

According to Max Holland, B’s stamina for setting the record straight (on the assassination) is unequalled and will probably never be surpassed. After all, who else would be heroic enough—some would say foolhardy enough—to give birth to a book that weighs nearly as much as a newborn? It is likely that this book will stand forever as the magnum opus of this case—though not without serious flaws. Holland implies that its length makes it especially vulnerable to factual errors. I would liken the book to a house held aloft by a multitude of stilts. The more such posts are required, the more likely it is that one of them will fail. Unfortunately for B, that has already happened. I refer, of course, to the neutron activation analysis (NAA) work, which was strongly supported by B in his book. See Dr. Gary Aguilar’s transparent and extremely well-written summary of this subject. Aguilar cites the very latest on this subject, including a statistical paper just published in the Annals of Applied Statistics by former FBI lab metallurgist William A. Tobin and Texas A & M University researchers Cliff Spiegelman, William D. James and colleagues. The first major salvo across the deck had been fired not long before by Patrick M. Grant, Ph.D. and Erich Randich, Ph.D. in the Journal of Forensic Science. I had the great pleasure of hearing Grant and Randich present their findings to a small group in San Francisco last summer at a Saturday seminar arranged by Dr. Aguilar. Their findings left no doubt that Robert Blakey’s so-called scientific “linch pin” of the assassination had totally exploded in his face. If any doubt remained after Grant and Randich, this latest paper has inexorably vaporized that scintilla. Sturdivan and Rahn (B’s favorites) can massage and squeeze Guinn’s original data all they want, using one statistical test after anther, but nothing can save them. It’s a simple matter of garbage in, garbage out. Guinn’s data are the problem—they are simply inadequate to the task, as has now been demonstrated twice over, by well respected, even-handed scientists. The problem now for B, of course, is that when one supporting pillar has been so thoroughly—and immediately—demolished, one can only wonder what other pillars are already infested with termites. Another not-so-minor point is this: After all is said and done,

everyone now knows, totally contrary to B’s repeated expostulations,

that he is sometimes wrong—even if he won’t admit it!

The problem, as we shall amply soon see, is that he wears permanent blinders, particularly when it comes to experts, and especially so for those from science.

How Can the Truth Be Known?

In 1959, C. P. Snow, a physicist and a literary man, gave his brilliant Rede Lecture, which was then published as The Two Cultures (a Second Look was added in 1963). His message was straightforward: a huge, unbridgeable chasm had grown between the scientists and the literati, so much so that neither understood the most basic knowledge of the other. The scientists did not know their Shakespeare and the literati could not even define mass or acceleration, let alone the second law of thermodynamics. Occupying both of these worlds at once, days in physics and evenings in literature (with famous individuals), Snow was acutely aware of this chasm. Lawyers would not usually be classified with the literati, but Snow did raise the possibility of a third culture (or even

more). The point remains—the gap between different specialties in the modern world is still wide, perhaps wider than ever, as Alan Sokal has proven.

As I see it, the fundamental difference between scientists and lawyers lies in epistemology—i.e., how does one define, or even find, truth? For lawyers, steeped in the adversarial system, the answer is clear-cut: use expert witnesses, and then let a jury vote. For a scientist, the very notion of a debate, and then a vote on truth, would be absurd, simply laughed out of court in a nanosecond. Instead, the scientist would set up a controlled experiment, perform multiple measurements, and then publish his results in a peer reviewed journal. But for his work to be accepted as part of the scientific corpus, it would likely be repeated several times over by independent groups. So, how can these two approaches be reconciled? In fact, they can’t. It is surely encouraging, though, that the legal profession has taken seriously the question of who can qualify as an expert. This has been a useful improvement in the adversarial process, though we are not likely at the end of that road. In summary, we remain stuck today with these two widely different approaches to truth. Insofar as B goes, it is surely germane to note here his own confession: he avoided high school physics. In the context of his discussion with his namesake, Dr. Vincent Guinn (about JFK’s head snap), it would appear that B never took any physics anywhere. If he had, this would have been the time and place to say so. On the contrary, silence is all we hear.

A Few Kind Words for B

B’s book represents a massive, even prodigious, outpouring of work. One must be either mad or a genius to wallow for 20 years in such an interminable project. B appears to be a wonderful admixture of both. His writing style is generally lucid. Although I often found his logic jolting, the book was fairly easy to read. I often grumble about authors’ avoidable ambiguities, but B, for the most part, sidesteps these. Also, to his credit, I was able quickly to learn more about several details of the case that I had not previously had time to pursue. A long time ago, I tried Conspiracy of One; I don’t think I ever finished it because it seemed so ludicrous. Posner was another matter. His book is the only one, about any subject, that I have ever stopped reading because honesty did not seem his strong suit. B’s book is totally unlike either. In its own way, it is a masterpiece—a truly brilliant prosecutorial brief. In the end, though, the question is whether that is what we want—or need—at this stage of the case.

And Some That Aren’t So Kind

B’s style is relentless, inexorable, invincible (a pale pun), and ultimately brutal. Scarcely anyone—friend or foe—comes off well. Nearly all, possibly except for the Warren Commission (WC), emerge smelling like sewer rats. Although he defends his right to attack wrong-headed ideas (who would argue?) he never quite explains why it is necessary to fire off one ad hominem salvo after another. Regarding such attacks, Snow himself was blindsided by his share. His response was as follows:

It seems to me that engaging in immediate debate on each specific point closes

one’s own mind for good and all. Debating gives most of us much more

psychological satisfaction than thinking does: but it deprives us of whatever

chance there is of getting closer to the truth. It seems preferable to me to sit back

and let what has been said sink in…

B’s approach reminded me of a bulldozer in a garbage pile. Never mind anything, just plow straight ahead, crunching whatever lies below and ahead, and clear a path to the other side. At this, he is unsurpassed. After he is done, the road is indeed clear, but who would want to follow such a path? As Max Holland insightfully stated, “He is absolutely certain even when he is not necessarily right.” I found that comment a little scary—as most scientific types would. In addition, on a personal level, I found his unrelenting attacks (on just about everyone) quite vexing and distracting, even uncivil, a quality that B in person clearly does not display. I had considered compiling an astonishing list of pejoratives simply for effect, but the reader will find them easily enough. No scientific treatise would permit a single one of these.

Chief among these is the phrase “conspiracy theorist,” which seems to assault one’s eyes from almost every page. (Someone should count them all.) B tries to defend his incessant use of this phrase, though this discussion comes astonishingly late in the book and only as a footnote. He specifically indicates that he uses “WC critic” and conspiracy theorist” somewhat interchangeably, not because they are linguistically so, he says, but because they essentially are (interchangeable). Given his maniacal devotion to this phrase, an explication within the first few pages of his book would have been wise. B admits that it is possible to be a WC critic without being a conspiracy theorist, but he insists that because most critics (almost inevitably, in my view) have some non-WC notion of historical events in this case he is therefore permitted to paint them as theorists. One wonders, in particular, how kindly Harold Weisberg would have taken to such logic and to such a pejorative, particularly in view of B’s direct quote from Weisberg about what his (Weisberg’s) position was. Furthermore, B’s favorite phrase is used in a totally one-sided fashion: a computer search through the entire book yielded not a single use of the corresponding phrase “lone gunman theorist.” In no other way does B so clearly display his hostile—even scornful—attitude toward the critics. (Though the word ultimately does not fit, “screed” often popped into my head as I read.) Those on B’s side are dignified by “assassinologist” or “researcher” or “student of the assassination,” but never as theorists. Only those opposed to him can qualify as theorists. To a physicist, this is a particularly anomalous—even bizarre—use of the word. In general, physicists are divided between theorists and experimentalists. As C. P. Snow notes, the former generally talk only to themselves and to God. I don’t think that such sublime conversation is what B had in mind though.

Some Misgivings about B’s Thinking

B dispenses a few rare, kind words about our three books (edited by James Fetzer) as “…perhaps the only exclusively scientific books (three) on the assassination.” However, nowhere in these three books, or elsewhere in my writing, have I personally indicated who did it. This matters not a whit. I, too, have now been spray painted with this phrase. On the contrary, in these three books my chief goal had been to collect data, including hundreds of measured points on the JFK autopsy X-rays. If B absolutely must describe me with his C-word, perhaps he might creatively have called me a “conspiracy experimentalist.” Instead, we are all indiscriminately lumped together as “conspiracy theorists.” Unlike Old Abe, he is a lumper, not a splitter. I truly doubt that he explored each person’s history to determine whether they truly had an overall theory of the assassination—or even to what degree; he clearly did not do that for Weisberg. It was obviously more important for him to paint one and all with the same broad strokes of his prosecutor’s brush. This, too, reeks more of the courtroom than of the laboratory.

Is This Book Scientific?

If one is looking for a scientific treatise on the JFK assassination, Reclaiming History is not the place to look. To cite the NAA work again as an example par excellence, B disposes of Grant and Randich’s work chiefly by the simple expedient of quoting a long letter from Sturdivan. To a T, this exemplifies the lawyer’s reflexive approach to evidence: introduce your expert witness, and then let the matter rest. B truly has neither the time nor space to address these issues in the detail that they require, though it is unfortunate that Aguilar’s short piece came too late to publish side by side with Sturdivan’s. That would have balanced the ledger a good bit.

So where does that leave B vis-à-vis the science in his book? For a layman he has struggled heroically first to understand and then to explain matters for his readers. And he has done this as well as could be expected of any layman. Though B will feel quite nauseous at reading this, he has already been preceded by two who have shown how well the medical evidence in particular can be mastered by laymen—Douglas Horne and Jeremy Gunn, of the Assassination Records Review Board (AARB). No one before them in any governmental situation had shown such a command of this evidence. Though he would never deign to shake their hands, B has also now been promoted to this group of well-informed laymen. As would be expected, he sometimes misuses medical terms (and even misunderstands what I know), but overall he communicates these issues well, though we often disagree profoundly on interpretation. Whenever possible, though, he prefers simply to quote the experts who side with him, especially those from the WC and House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA). Of course, that’s precisely what we should expect: lawyers are paid for presenting the experts, not for presenting the evidence. B rarely shows much originality or personal ability to analyze the medical or scientific data. In essence, he operates with a crutch virtually all of the time—without these experts at his side he is a near cripple. As for me, coming from a scientific background, and being thoroughly familiar with virtually all of this JFK (medical and scientific) evidence, I found B’s myopic and closed-minded view of this critical data acutely disappointing. How can one dialogue with a lawyer who hides behind his chosen experts? Somehow, from such a brilliant mind, I had hoped for more. It was, of course, unreasonable of me. The gap between the different cultures is simply too large.

He also seems not to understand the nature of scientific argument or proof. A good example of this is the so-called upward bullet trail through JFK’s neck (which cannot be true as he describes it). To his credit, he honestly implies that it took about an hour for him to grasp this concept, but finally, by use of his hand and finger, he got it. In physics, as a first step to a new concept, physicists often resort to what they call “hand-waving” arguments. Quite ironically in this case, B, in every sense of the word, has resorted to just such a finger-waving process—but as a proof, not just as a first step! And that is where he leaves it. Of course, no scientist would do that. On the contrary, a scientist would describe this first step as a heuristic approach, only useful to start in the right direction. Instead, he would estimate the upward angle through JFK’s neck, then estimate the thickness of JFK’s neck, locate the entry and exit levels (in the vertical direction), add a range of error for each of these and then finally calculate whether the numbers made any quantitative sense. Until then our model scientist would proclaim gross ignorance about his conclusion. Not so for B—a qualitative answer is the end of his science. Again, really though, what more should we have expected? This is, after all, the courtroom.

What About That 60-Second Proof?

And what about B’s self-described and marvelous one-minute proof before the crowd of 600 trial lawyers? Did he really make his case that the attorneys were being irrational to have an opinion on the JFK case—merely because they had not read the entire Warren Report? Suppose instead that he had asked how many believed in the atomic theory of matter? Would he likewise have demanded the reading of Einstein’s seminal 1905 paper on Brownian motion? Or what if he had asked whether they believed that FDR had deliberately permitted the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor? If anyone believed either side of this question, would he still have insisted that they must have read all nine official investigations of this controversy before coming to a decision? And if one is required to read the Warren Report before having an opinion, why stop there? Why not also insist on reading at least the initial volume of the HSCA? Where does this end? If he weren’t so unbalanced, B might also have suggested that the trial lawyers read the report of the Church Committee. In fact, both the HSCA and the Church Committee found the WC in serious error on significant points. In his pioneering work on this question of second-hand information, Patrick Wilson of Berkeley emphasized a universal truth: anyone’s own knowledge of the world, beyond his immediate life, is only what others have told him—either personally or via the varieties of the media. In fact, the vast majority of our strongly held beliefs are of that nature. No one has the time or interest to check all of this out. In fact, only the tiniest percentage of our second-hand knowledge is ever cross checked. I wonder why no one among all of those 600 trial lawyers—surely not a bashful group—had the courage to challenge B on this fundamental issue. But I think I know—B was the authority figure, and if trial lawyers have learned one thing it is to recognize such figures, and then genuflect as needed.

Shakespeare (revised) on Lawyers

One commodity was in generous supply for the WC and for the HSCA—lawyers. Lawyers organized the agenda—just look at the Table of Contents for the Warren Report. Lawyers guided the research and they wrote the conclusions. Science, when present at all, played only a consultative role (just like the adversarial system with its expert witnesses). But there is an alternate model. For a later official, presidential investigation (the Challenger disaster), Nobel Laureate and physicist Richard Feynman escaped from the lawyer’s zoo. Almost single-handedly, and with single-minded zeal—a contemporary Sherlock Holmes—he pursued the evidence until that magical denouement on television. With the world watching, he showed how the O-ring would not deform normally after simply being dunked into a glass of ice water. Even after all of this, though, his personal written report was not welcome in the final publication—the lawyers still had their own agenda. Feynman even had to send a telegram to the lawyers in which he threatened to remove his signature from their final report unless his personal report appeared “…without modification from version #23.” In view of C. P. Snow’s literary interests, perhaps Shakespeare deserves his only brief, candle-lit appearance on my stage:

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in our lawyers, that we are underlings.

At Last, to the Evidence

At my suggestion, Jim Fetzer wrote to B (January 23, 2001): “What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK?” And also, “Are none of our major discoveries—our ‘16 smoking guns,’ for example—convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, what would it take?” B’s answer was simple: “Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence.”

Given those booming, opening sentences to this entire section of his book, I naturally had anticipated that B would, at last, address all of our issues in great detail. Was I wrong! Despite these cheery, introductory accolades, it was mostly evasion—authentic discussion of our paradoxes was, by and large, quite off limits. There was a lot of palaver about many other things but little at all about the central 16—or my 20 Conclusions. In one footnote there was more discussion about JFK’s clothing (which I have seen more than once at the Archives), and who had supplied it, than nearly any single one of our challenges to him. There are even 16 pages of desultory discussion of Oswald’s motive.

B’s chief claim for his book appears to be this quote:

… although there have been hundreds of books on the assassination, no book has even attempted to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire [sic] case, including all of the major conspiracy theories.

Although he does not explicitly say that his book meets this description, it is very hard to avoid the implication that that is exactly what he means. And, if not in fact, that is surely the book he wanted to write. This is an overweening claim. In fact, his fellow WC true believer, Max Holland, states: “Some might regard this as a foolish errand because there is no end to it, a fact that B readily acknowledges.” I would have been much more sympathetic had he tried to cover even most of the medical and scientific evidence—even while leaving aside most of the conspiracy theories. In the process of sifting and winnowing his subject matter, rather large mountains in the medical and scientific arena were left unvisited. Surprisingly, among these lie most of the “Twenty Conclusions in Nine Visits,” cited above. This was one particular item that B had requested of me and which had been supplied to him. He does cite it—but we don’t get much further than that.

I turn next to those issues largely left as terra incognita by B. In view of his personal lack of scientific expertise, it was probably wise for him not to venture into these foreign lands. I was more than astonished though that he did not even acknowledge that these paradoxes remained mostly off his map—after all, he did promise from the beginning that he would be honest and thorough.

Central Paradoxes Studiously (and Wisely) Evaded by B

(Note: Many pertinent images for the discussion below are at the website for my

Pittsburgh lecture. Just Google: Twenty Conclusions after Nine Visits.)

“…the Commission’s fiercest critics have not been able to produce any new credible evidence that would in any way justify a different conclusion.”

“One advantage of being a conspiracy theorist is that you don’t need any evidence to

support your charge.”

“…with the allegation of planted evidence, the other main conspiracy argument…is that much of the evidence against Oswald was forged or tampered with by authorities. But not once have theorists ever proved this allegation.”

“I will not knowingly omit or distort anything.”

1. The huge clash between the lateral X-rays and the brain photographs persists. Although I should not expect B to deal with optical densities, this matter can be addressed at a layman’s level, via the obvious blackness at the front of the lateral X-rays. A fist-sized area shows virtually no brain at all. Although the OD measurements confirm this, simple visual inspection clearly supports the same conclusion. Besides the empty bilateral frontal area, though, a great deal of brain tissue is obviously missing on the superior right side as well. The brain photographs, on the other hand, show a nearly intact brain on both sides. Therefore: either the X-rays are wrong or the photographs are of some other brain. To date, as far as I know, no one has yet had the courage to address this central conundrum. B’s usual response at such a juncture is simply to invoke common sense, one of his unwavering allies throughout the book: i.e., such and such is simply impossible because common sense tells us so. (We could efficiently employ minds such as this in science; it would bypass a great deal of expensive research.) This paradox, especially via the OD data, is what prompted me to think that we were dealing with two different brains, a point that apparently made joke of the day for B. (For me, though, the likely fact that someone had substituted a brain in this case did not seem humorous at all.) I would furthermore emphasize, most strongly and contrary to B’s claim, that it was not Horne’s two-brain hypothesis that sent me down this path, but rather the evidence in the skull X-rays, evidence that I had measured long before Horne’s proposal (which I accept).

2. The constraints of cross sectional anatomy on a CT scan still seem insurmountable for the trajectory of the magic bullet through JFK. This paradox is included in Fetzer’s 16 points and has been extensively discussed elsewhere.

3. The pathologists’ bizarre misplacement of the trajectory trail (they claimed it extended from the occipital protuberance to the supra-orbital area, but it’s actually about 10 cm more superior) in their autopsy protocol cannot be explained by B, no matter where he points his finger or what emotional or psychological arguments he uses. The pathologists had their moment with the ARRB to resolve this—and they could not. At the autopsy, in order to avoid two separate head shots, they had no choice but to ignore the obvious, much higher trail on the skull X-rays—in the face of a lower, occipital entry that their fingers and eyes confirmed (and which I accept). While they stared at the X-rays that night, they surely recognized the evidence for two bullets (to the head). Even my son, at age 10, would not have missed this obvious conclusion. But, of course, they had not really misunderstood this basic evidence—instead they intentionally misstated it. They had been thoroughly boxed in.

4. The WC bullet that traversed the skull is another impossible conundrum. According to the WC (and to this same bullet left part of itself on the skull surface near the cowlick area. According to the 6.5 mm object on the frontal X-ray, this had to be a nearly complete cross section from inside the bullet (not from the tip or base—which both were found inside the limousine). Even the HSCA ballistics expert, Sturdivan, insists that, based on his tens of thousands of cases, this cannot be a piece of authentic metal from a bullet. To make matters worse, one large fragment had its metal jacket bent way back. Without striking an object like concrete (e.g., the street) or other metal this is almost unimaginable.

5. No matter how many words, paragraphs, or excuses he employs, B cannot erase the radical disagreement between the eyewitnesses and the photographs of the back of the head. This issue has been extensively reviewed elsewhere, including photographs. To a physician these are overwhelmingly powerful.

6. CE-843. These are two small lead fragments still located at the National Archives. I have personally observed them. They purportedly came from the right supraorbital area, where the pathologists removed some metal fragments. The larger of these two is easy to see on any print of the lateral or AP skull X-rays (it’s about 7 x 2 x 2 mm). In fact, this latter fragment is nowhere near the shape (and probably not the size either) of the supposedly identical fragment now in the Archives. That one is about 2 x 3 x 2 mm (tiny) and shaped like a poppy flower with a large V-shaped notch taken out of the top (wider) end. No interval testing should so have morphed its appearance. No WC supporter has ever successfully explained this anomaly.

7. At the Archives, multiple bullet fragments are clearly visible on the left side of the skull X-rays. One of these is large enough to be seen easily on extant prints of the X-rays. No WC supporter has ever explained these troublesome deviants.

8. The 6.5 mm fragment. By eight separate and consistent lines of evidence, the optical density data show that this object was later added to the AP skull X-ray. This was a simple feat in that era. Furthermore, it could be performed, at a leisurely pace, in the secrecy of the darkroom. B’s only real response to this proposal is to ask why a real piece of metal was not used instead. Either he still does not understand how the darkroom work was done, or he is here imagining some confederate in the autopsy room, at a moment’s notice, running out to find a thin cross section of a 6.5 mm bullet, then running back and sticking it on the back of the skull—at precisely the right spot, all the while no one in the autopsy room noticed. B’s only other response is to quote (only in footnotes) correspondence from two other individuals, neither of whom have ever explained the uncanny spatial correlation between the object seen near the cowlick (on the lateral) and the 6.5 mm object (on the AP). So, in the end, B is left almost empty-handed, with only some baseless speculations and some semantic confusion between “artifact” and artificial.” Here again, of course, is the lawyer at work: merely quote an “expert,” but don’t offer an original idea of your own.

9. A pair of large format (4 x 5 inch) color transparencies (from the autopsy) of the back are inconsistent. Just superior to the fourth knuckle one of them shows a dark area (probably a blood spot), just where the other member of the pair shows a white spot. Although these observations individually mean nothing, the mere fact that they are different from one another means everything! At least one of them cannot be an original—despite what B claims, or what the National Archives claims or what the HSCA concluded. Given a chance, anyone could see this with their own eyes. In fact, no one has even noticed this before! Furthermore, one of the color prints (supposedly descended from the originals) has no parent in the color transparency set! It is an orphan—so how did it get into the set? Despite B’s persistent claims that everything is kosher with these autopsy photographs and X-rays, that cannot be true. Something is indeed wrong, very wrong, with the autopsy photographs. Let me spell this out: if B had really wanted to address these autopsy issues he should have gone to the Archives himself. What good is second-hand information when first hand-information is accessible?

10. Stereoscopic viewing of the back of the head is definitely not all kosher either, despite B’s second-hand claims. There is something very wrong with the back of the head photographs—and it’s precisely where the disagreement between the witnesses and the photographs is at its worst. The shiny part of the hair that looks so freshly washed (it wasn’t according to the autopsy witnesses) is exactly where the image is two dimensional with stereo viewing. Of course, that’s exactly what one should expect if a soft matte insert had been used here to cover the posterior hole that virtually everyone saw, both at Parkland and at Bethesda. I tried looking at this area every which way—switching photos left to right, rotating them, and even looking at pairs of color prints and then pairs of color transparencies and then pairs in black and white. It was always the same—a flat, two-dimensional image inevitably appeared, just where one would expect image alteration. Also quite strikingly, this effect was not seen for any other views of the hair. Although B claims that the HSCA observers established with “…absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs have not been altered…” via stereo viewing, it’s just no good relying on others for such things. That is not the way of science. B really should have looked at this himself.

11. Since he is so highly credentialed and famous (think O. J. Simpson and forensic shows on TV), B likes to cite Dr. Michael Baden, who is indeed a wonderful specialist (and I liked his TV shows). Unfortunately, however, he was quite wrong about the missing bone at the skull vertex, especially anterior to the coronal suture. That missing frontal bone is quite obvious on the X-rays (and even on Boswell’s sketches); even Dr. J. Lawrence Angel, the physical anthropologist, disagreed with Baden’s reconstruction. My point here though goes well beyond that. With John Hunt’s recent, remarkable discovery of the X-ray image of the Harper fragment (in the National Archives) we now know that there was metal at one small site on this bone. The photographs show that this metal was not on the inside, but rather on the outside. If only one headshot is accepted, then that metal debris on the Harper fragment (remember—it’s on the outside) must necessarily derive from the entry that the pathologists identified. Once that is granted, then the Harper fragment itself becomes the missing bone at the rear (or, more likely, just a part of the entire defect), just where the HSCA denied that there was a hole. You can see all of this in my reconstructed skull.

12. B claims that the ARRB found no smoking guns. That is surely open to debate, much of which I leave to other critics. For my part, Humes and Boswell were caught with smoking guns in their holsters. On a related matter, though, my independent discovery of the large T-shaped inscription on the extant, left lateral skull X-ray occurred after the ARRB had expired. (See the image in my on-line Pittsburg lecture.) The fact that the emulsion is intact over this inscription, when it clearly should be visibly absent, is immediate proof that this X-ray must be a copy, rather than an original. I found this observation so direct and so revolutionary that I described it, somewhat tongue-in-cheek for my Jewish friends, as a burning bush rather than a smoking gun. This X-ray also has two other odd features: a) there are no Kodak identification numbers anywhere on it and it is not available to the public. So the question that all of those true believers should pose to me this is: Can Mantik distinguish a duplicate X-ray from an original, in particular when a large area of emulsion (that T-shaped area) has obviously been scraped off the original (but not the copy)? If I can’t, then they should cross this item off my list. However, I am very certain that I can—and no one has suggested that I am so inept that I cannot distinguish an original (with missing emulsion) from a copy (with no missing emulsion). This is the worst possible news for WC supporters. It means that the original has gone missing. More importantly, though, it means that the extant X-ray (the one now in the Archives)—because it is a copy—could have been altered in any number of ways in the darkroom. I have amply demonstrated this possibility with my birdbrain X-rays, skulls with bullet debris added, and one even showing a scissors inside the skull. But, for this simple observation (of intact emulsion), my skills are not even required. Anyone with proper vision could see for themselves that the emulsion (over the T-shaped inscription) is not missing (as it must be for an original) from the left lateral skull X-ray in the Archives.

Now B’s response to all of this might well be that these issues were addressed and resolved by prior experts, which is, of course, nowhere near the truth. Or, perhaps more likely, he would say: I already know from the Oswald evidence that he was as guilty as sin, so I don’t really need to address all of these issues. In fact, he employs that very argument in various guises quite often. I was a bit stunned by this type of logic. Outside of the fields of logic, mathematics and science, I really don’t think I had seen it before—certainly not for evaluating forensic evidence. Are only trial lawyers capable of such magical feats? What if Henri Becquerel had reacted similarly to the first hint of radioactivity in his photographic film wrapped around uranium salts? What if he had said that a lifetime of experience had proven to him that such things were impossible? Numerous, similar stories of unexpected observations have routinely been recounted in the history of science. It is the exceptional fact, the misfit, that ultimately brings the fresh insight, not the routine, humdrum one. That was one reason why I was at some pains to quote Butterfield about the Scotland Yard detective who noted all the obvious clues, but still drew the wrong conclusions. In a very deep sense, B really does not want to look at all the pertinent data—after all, he already knows the answer, so why bother? It’s really just too much trouble. This again characterizes the legal mind, but not the scientific mind. And, more troublesome for him, it totally violates his own best description of his own book—a book that attempts “…to be a comprehensive and fair evaluation of the entire [sic] case…”

So, Where Are We?

So where, in the end, are we after this massive tome? First, I think it is very good to have it as a resource. But it absolutely must be counterbalanced by at least a few open minds. Sometimes common sense does not carry the day. Sometimes even bizarre data are real. Sometimes even government employees under unique pressures do things they never would otherwise do (e.g., missing original X-rays and altered X-rays). Not all cases follow the textbook. As a cancer specialist with many decades of experience, that is the main thing that still keeps me interested. So let’s keep this discussion wide open. Let’s not just talk about looking at the evidence. And let’s not rule out evidence simply because it violates past experience. In the future, unlike B, let’s actually examine all of the evidence, but especially those items that are central—and even the evidence we weren’t quite expecting.

After B describes his amusement at the outright silliness (in his opinion) of the two-brain proposal, he tells us how he really feels:

How, then, can Mantik and thousands like him in the conspiracy community—

many of lesser intellect—end up uttering absurdities like this, as well as countless

others throughout the years?

But the number of well-known persons who have conceded a conspiracy, directly or indirectly, is quite remarkable. Does B truly believe that all of the following individuals have simply “…utter[ed] absurdities…throughout the years”?

MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA: Addendum 5.

Believers in a JFK Assassination Conspiracy

Lyndon Baines Johnson, President of the United States69

Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States70

John B. Connally, Governor of Texas71

J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI

Clyde Tolson, Associate Director of the FBI72

Cartha DeLoach, Assistant Director of the FBI

William Sullivan, FBI Domestic Intelligence Chief

John McCone, Director of the CIA

David Atlee Phillips, CIA disinformation specialist

(Chief of Covert Actions, Mexico City, 1963)

Stanley Watson, CIA, Chief of Station

The Kennedy family73

Admiral (Dr.) George Burkley, White House physician

James J. Rowley, Chief of the Secret Service74

Robert Knudsen, White House photographer (who saw autopsy photos)

Jesse Curry, Chief of Police,75 Dallas Police Department

Roy Kellerman (heard JFK speak after supposed magic bullet)

William Greer (the driver of the Lincoln limousine)

Abraham Bolden, Secret Service, White House detail & Chicago office

John Norris, Secret Service (worked for LBJ; researched case for decades)

Evelyn Lincoln, JFK’s secretary

Abraham Zapruder, most famous home movie photographer in history

James Tague, struck by a bullet fragment in Dealey Plaza

Hugh Huggins, CIA operative, conducted private investigation for RFK

Sen. Richard Russell, member of the Warren Commission

John J. McCloy, member of the Warren Commission

Bertrand Russell, British mathematician and philosopher

Hugh Trevor-Roper, Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University

Michael Foot, British MP

Senator Richard Schweiker, assassinations subcommittee (Church Committee)

Tip O’Neill, Speaker of the House (he assumed JFK’s congressional seat)

Rep. Henry Gonzalez (introduced bill to establish HSCA)

Rep. Don Edwards, chaired HSCA hearings (former FBI agent)

Frank Ragano, attorney for Trafficante, Marcello, Hoffa

Marty Underwood, advance man for Dallas trip

Riders in follow-up car: JFK aides Kenny O’Donnell and Dave Powers

Sam Kinney, Secret Service driver of follow-up car

Paul Landis, passenger in Secret Service follow-up car

John Marshall, Secret Service

John Norris, Secret Service

H. L. Hunt, right-wing oil baron

John Curington, H.L. Hunt’s top aide

Bill Alexander, Assistant Dallas District Attorney

Robert Blakey, Chief Counsel for the HSCA

Robert Tanenbaum, Chief Counsel for the HSCA

Richard A. Sprague, Chief Counsel for the HSCA

Gary Cornwell, Deputy Chief Counsel for the HSCA

Parkland doctors: McClelland, Crenshaw, Stewart, Seldin, Goldstrich, Zedlitz, Jones, Akin, et al.

Bethesda witnesses: virtually all of the paramedical personnel

All of the jurors in Garrison’s trial of Clay Shaw76

Bobby Hargis, Dealey Plaza motorcycle man

Mary Woodward, Dallas Morning News (and eyewitness in Dealey Plaza)

Maurice G. Marineau, Secret Service, Chicago office

Most of the American public

Most of the world’s Citizens

In Closing

B clearly wants to destroy every last scintilla of anti-WC evidence. But even he admits that virtually no murder case is ever that clean cut. It is therefore more than a little bewildering that he does not give ground a little here and there—but he simply won’t. That makes him all the less credible. And it certainly does not give him the air of a scientist. But he does not seem to care. He would prefer to appear omniscient.

There is not even a pretense of open-mindedness. His scorn, perhaps even hatred, for the critics comes through page after page. Again, the reader must decide if he can accept such a relentless bias.

Although he describes our books (edited by Fetzer) as the only exclusively scientific books on the case, he mostly avoids the issues raised therein. The 6.5 mm object does get some, rather strange, discussion, but that’s about all. It’s quite fantastic that he would throw such an encomium at us and then leave us largely alone. On the contrary, he should have focused on many of our paradoxes, to the exclusion of JFK’s tailors or Oswald’s motives, for example.

He admits that his book is mainly reinterpretation and reanalysis, as opposed to new evidence. In other words, this is a book absolutely packed with second-hand information. The reader must judge for himself whether that is good enough. That surely befits his role as a trial attorney, but a scientist would not be at all happy with that. For my part, I think it is a great loss for all of us that he did not at least visit the National Archives. He need not even have gone alone. In recent years, at least two individuals, whom he cites favorably, have been there. Why didn’t he tag along?

Despite its occasional references to science, this book is rarely a scientific discussion of the evidence—not even the medical evidence. In fact, this case is so wide and so deep, as B acknowledges, that he really cannot do justice to his opponents on a myriad of issues. The honest researcher absolutely must not take his word on most of these controversies—such an individual has no choice but to read the works of B’s opponents. What is valuable about the book, though, is that these references are usually indicated. For that reason alone it will be with us for a very long time.

Appendix A:

A Small Potpourri of Other Comments and Criticisms

1. B persistently lumps all critics into grassy knoll trumpeters. I am not one—the medical evidence does not go that way. But B is a lumper, not a splitter, so there I sit in his classification scheme.

2. B claims that nearly all critics believe the pathologists were incompetent. I do not. I have previously written that Humes was in charge of the weekly brain cutting conferences at Bethesda. There are many other reasons for believing that he was not merely competent, but probably above average.

3. B claims that critics are stuck with the position that the back bullet (if it did not traverse JFK) vanished into thin air. Nowhere does he acknowledge my proposal that the back wound could merely have been caused by a piece of shrapnel. There is, in fact, an enormous amount of evidence for lots of shrapnel in this case, even visible on the X-rays themselves.

4. He also claims that the throat bullet had to disappear miraculously if the critics are right (that it came from the front). Unfortunately again, perhaps intentionally, he does not mention my alternate proposal that a bullet traversed the windshield, but missed everyone. A fair number of witnesses describe such an event (both the stray bullet and the windshield evidence). So the throat wound might well have been caused by a small splinter of glass, which would actually fit with the wound seen at the top of the right lung (it was localized).

5. B claims that critics routinely place Connally directly in front of JFK in order to destroy the single bullet theory. That is not the case for me. I have performed very detailed reconstructions (via Z-frames and corollary data) with Connally properly placed, but still cannot prove the single bullet theory. As he often does, B likes to simplify things.

6. B notes that all the evidence points toward debris flying forward after the head shot(s). But he ignores the contrary reports of the motorcycle men to the rear and the members of the Secret Service in the follow-up car. Is he truly unaware of their reports?

7. He places great emphasis on the invisible hole at the back of JFK’s head—in those Z frames immediately after the headshot. By doing so, he totally ignores my discussion of a bone fragment like a trap door at the posterior. This is based on the actual X-rays, but also on the comments of Dr. Robert McClelland. Furthermore, Z-374 does suggest the large hole at the rear.

8. The large white patches on both lateral X-rays should at least be mentioned in passing. So far as I know these alterations have not been seriously challenged and even Humes was confused by them in his deposition. These areas, posterior to the ear, show bone virtually as dense as JFK’s petrous bone, the densest in the body. His pre-mortem lateral does not look anything like this.

9. B (more than once) implies that critics believe that the CIA hired Oswald to kill JFK. Surely B’s thinking has become a bit muddled here. Oswald himself stated that he was a patsy. I strongly suspect that most critics would leave it at that—and not, in any way, support B’s depiction of the CIA-Oswald connection.

10. B incessantly beats the drum for the WC’s honesty and open-mindedness. Although B cites Warren’s autobiography, he carefully avoids his eulogy for JFK, while the body lay in the capitol rotunda. On that Sunday, Warren made it transparently clear (at this incredibly early date) that he knew that “…some misguided wretch [singular noun]…” had done this deed. He also used the phrase, “an assassin.” That he recounts this in his autobiography shows that he had not the least embarrassment about having said this, even in retrospect.

11. B wonders what the purpose of substituting and removing autopsy photographs from the collection could possibly be? One can only think he is being disingenuous here. What reason could there be other than to remove evidence of conspiracy, e.g., a large hole at the back of the head?

12. In his Introduction, regarding the life of Jesus, B impulsively says, “Indeed, no one has come up with anything new for two thousand years.” Many, perhaps most, New Testament scholars would leap off their chairs at this eccentric comment. For more information on this subject, see the blog for my opening quote. B seems off-handedly to dismiss all manner of fascinating items: the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Nag Hammadi documents (discovered by Mohammed Ali), the ossuaries of James (still debated) and Peter (not much debated) and Caiafas (not debated), Peter’s house (possibly correct), the Galilean boat, the inscription for Pontius Pilate, the Gospel of Judas Iscariot, the tomb of Herod the Great, the recent resurgence of scholarly literature on Mary Magdalene, and the very recent, hotly-debated Talpiot Tomb.

Appendix B:

Modern Physics and James Joyce

(This is purely for readers who want to close the gap between the two cultures.)

1. Overstreet, David. 1980. Oxymoronic language and logic in quantum mechanics and James Joyce. Substance (University of Wisconsin Press) 28: 37-59.

2. Porter, Jeffrey. 1990. “Three quarks for Muster Mark”: Quantum wordplay and nuclear discourse in Russell Hogan’s Riddley Walker. Contemporary Literature 21: 448-469.

3. Booker, M. Keith. 1990. Joyce, Planck, Einstein, and Heisenberg: A relativistic quantum mechanical discussion of Ulysses. James Joyce Quarterly 27: 577-586.

Acknowledgments

My wife, Patricia L. James, MD, and my son, Christopher (age 21), offered useful insights, which I have incorporated. The latter (at age 15), immediately after my observation of the T-shaped inscription, was able to complete the argument for me (as outlined above) before I could even finish it. James Fetzer, Ph.D., offered wise advice on structuring this essay. I am grateful to Jones Harris, who alerted me to Spy Wars. John Hunt kindly loaned his data tables on the lead fragments used for spectroscopic and neutron activation analysis, while Gary Aguilar, M.D., has persistently attended to numerous critical details and thereby made this review a more robust summary of the relevant evidence.

B...

REVIEW of RECLAIMING HISTORY

A Closed Mind Perpetrating a Fraud on the Public

James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.

Among all the books ever published on the death of JFK, Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F.Kennedy (2007) effortlessly qualifies as the most audacious. Spanning more than 1600 pages in length (with yet another 1000 pages of notes on an accompanying CD), its author claims the moral high-ground, contending that he, unlike the majority of conspiracy authors, would never mislead his readers “by lies, omissions, and deliberately distorting the official record” (xv). If they are confronted with evidence that is incompatible with their fanciful theories, they, but not he, either “twist, warp, and distort the evidence, or simply ignore it, both of which are designed to deceive their readers” (xiv). That is what he tells us.

He also tells us that The Warren Report (1964), The HSCA Final Report (1979)—apart from mistakenly adding a second shooter from the grassy knoll—and even Gerald Posner’s Case Closed (1993), which he faults for sloppy research, got it right: a lone assassin fired three shots from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, scoring two hits and one miss. One shot (the “magic bullet”) entered the base of the back of the neck­—interestingly, Bugliosi describes it as “the upper right part of his back”— traversing it without hitting any bony structures, exiting just above the tie to enter John Connally’s chest, shatter a rib, exit and collide with his right-wrist before entering his left thigh. A second shot hit him in the head and killed him. Oh, yes! He also tells us his name was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Bugliosi lays all of this out in the very first paragraph of his book, except for the identity of the assassin, which he attempts substantiate in the rest of his book! This may not seem like much to report after having devoted 21 years to the investigation of this case, but that is what he tells us. If there were no lone assassin, however, if there were more than three shots or if the “magic bullet” theory were untrue, then (all sides agree) there would have to have been more than one shooter and, therefore, a JFK conspiracy. Indeed, even Michael Baden, M.D., who chaired the Medical Panel for the HSCA during its reinvestigation in 1977-78, has observed that, if the “magic bullet” theory were false, then there must have been at least six shots from three directions! Yet, it is not difficult to demonstrate that the “magic bullet” theory is false.

So how seriously should we take this book? Not very. Having organized a research group consisting of the best qualified persons to ever investigate the case, having chaired or co-chaired four national conferences, published three books (comprising nearly 1500 pages in length), and founded an electronic journal for advanced study of the death of JFK, it is obvious to me that Bugliosi has misled his readers by lies, omissions, and deliberate distortions, where, in particular, when confronted with evidence that is incompatible with his own—official but fanciful—theory, he either “twists, warps, and distorts the evidence or simply ignores it.” His key claims are not merely provably false but, in crucial cases, not even physically possible. How can this be the case?

Science vs. the Law

Vincent Bugliosi is a brilliant prosecutor. His success in the courtroom has resulted from his remarkable capacity to persuade others that what he tells them is true. The capacity to persuade others that what you have to say is true, however, is not the same thing as telling the truth. Truth is a property of sentences in a language (including mathematical statements in the natural sciences), where a sentence in that language is true when it corresponds with the way things are (what there is or what is the case). When what you are being told corresponds to the way things are (what there is, what is the case), then you are being told the truth. Otherwise, you are not. But you may or may not be well-positioned to tell the difference. And therein lies the rub!

The difference between Socrates and the Sophists was that Socrates used his ability to reason for the purpose of discovering truth, while the Sophists used their abilities for the purpose of persuasion. Among those who represent the Sophistic tradition today are used-car salesmen, politicians, and lawyers. In the American adversarial tradition, during criminal proceedings, such as the conduct of a trial, the defense attorneys have the duty to provide their clients with a zealous defense, which means presenting just the evidence that tends to exculpate them from the crime alleged. The prosecutor bears the greater burden of considering evidence on both sides to insure that justice is done. Bugliosi’s zeal to convict Oswald has overcome his commitment to justice.

How is this possible? After the publication of Assassination Science (1998), with eleven expert contributors, and of Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), with nine, which we sent to Bugliosi, David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., with whom I had been collaborting for nearly a decade, suggested that I write to him and ask, “What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK? Are none of our major discoveries—our ‘16 smoking guns,’ for example [published on pp. 1-14 of Murder]—convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, what would it take?” (23 January 2001). His answer was simple: “Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence.” Yet it is rather easy to prove he ignores our evidence, violating his own standards.

Bugliosi is not an historian or a scientist. While he accepts the books I have edited as “the only exclusively scientific books (three) on the assassination” (974) , there can be no room for doubt that he has ignored them. My guess is that, as Mantik suggests (Review, 30 May 2007, assassinationscience.com), Bugliosi commits a blunder in epistemology, confounding a “jurisprudential model” (as some have called it) with a “scientific model” of investigation. Courtroom procedures are useful to resolve conflicts in limited intervals of time using available evidence based upon degrees of subjective credibility, while scientific procedures are intended to establish truths over unlimited intervals of time on the basis of objective measures of evidential support.

The “One Minute” Proof

The differences are several. Practical decision-making requires resolutions in a finite interval using then-available evidence that is both relevant and admissible. These decisions are typically definitive and afford a means for settling conflicts. Scientific knowledge-acquisition, by contrast, does not end after a finite interval but, with the accumulation of new evidence, can lead to the rejection of hypotheses previously accepted, the acceptance of hypotheses previously rejected, and the suspension of belief in cases that were previously assumed settled. The succession of classical mechanics over Aristotelian physics and its subsequent defeat by relativity theory are striking examples having parallels in chemistry, biology, and psychology.

In an earlier book, The Betrayal of America (2001) on the Supreme Court’s decision in the 2000 election, Bugliosi introduces an argument about (what he takes to be) a blunder keeping most otherwise intelligent citizens from thinking intelligently about JFK, elaborating a “one minute” proof he had advanced to a group of 600 trial lawyers. He first asked if they had read criticism of The Warren Report (1964) or seen the film, “JFK”. Many hands rose. He was sure they would agree that, before making up their minds, they should hear both sides. With that in mind, he asked, “How many have read The Warren Report?” Very few raised their hands. Most members of this audience had rejected the commission’s findings without reading its report.

But, as I pointed out in an amazon.com review (29 May 2001), Bugliosi’s argument founders on a subtle fallacy. Suppose you were asked for your opinion about astrology. Would it be a mistake on your part if you had arrived at your conclusion without having read books by astrologers and “hearing both sides”? Suppose you heard that a political leader advocated a program of Aryan supremacy, Jewish eradication and territorial aggression? Would it be a mistake on your part if you had concluded that those views were corrupt and unworthy without actually bothering to read Mein Kampf (1925-26)? Arguments that are logically sufficient to disprove its themes offer an alternative to having to read a book that defends them. But they have to be grounded in good reasons and not merely psychological appeal.

The situation with The Warren Report (1964) is highly comparable. Thus, if its principal conclusions, which Bugliosi embraces, are sorted out as a set of four hypotheses, (h1) to (h4)—including (h1) that the “magic bullet” theory is true, (h2) that the assassin was situated above and behind his target, (h3) that he used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano to hit his target, and (h4) that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter—which can be proven false on independent grounds, then there is surely no obligation to read those flawed studies that “support” them. While he claims to have 53 items of evidence incriminating Oswald, he also dismisses indications that most if not all of them appear to be planted, faked or fabricated. In his enthusiasm to convince his readers of Oswald’s guilt, Bugliosi adopted an uncharacteristically uncritical attitude toward “evidence” he found useful. If the “magic bullet” theory cannot be true, if the weapon cannot have fired the bullets, and if the alleged assassin was not even at the window, the case begins to look very different, indeed.

The “Magic Bullet” Theory

The “magic bullet” requires an entry location at the base of the back of the neck, which, as I have noted above, Bugliosi describes as “the upper right part of his back” (xi). No matter. We have so much evidence about this wound that, if we don’t know where JFK was hit in the back from behind, then we probably don’t know anything about the case at all. Consider that the jacket he was wearing has a hole at about 5 ½ inches below the collar and the shirt slightly below that. The autopsy diagram prepared by Navy Lt. Commander J. Thornton Boswell, USNMC, shows a wound on the back at the same approximate location. Another autopsy diagram by FBI Special Agent James W. Sibert shows the wound to the back below the wound to the throat. The holes in the shirt and jacket align with the two autopsy diagrams.

Sibert and Francis X. O’Neill subsequently submitted an FBI report of their autopsy observations, which included, in part, “Medical examination of the President’s body revealed that one of the bullets had entered just below his shoulder to the right of the spinal column at an angle of 45 to 60 degrees downward, that there was no point of exit, and that the bullet was not in the body.” Moreover, the President’s personal physician, Admiral George G. Burkley, USNMC, in the death certificate he executed on JFK, described a massive wound to the head, while adding “a second wound occurred in the posterior back at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.” Which is a location that corresponds to the same place as the other evidence indicates.

Re-enactment photographs include stand-ins for the President with circular patches for the wounds he is supposed to have sustained, a small one at the vicinity of the occipital protuberance and a large one about 5 ½ inches below the collar to the right of the spinal column. Documents that were released by the ARRB have shown that Rep. Gerald Ford (R-Michigan), then a junior member of the commission, had the location of the wound re-described as having occurred at the “uppermost back”, the exaggeration that Bugliosi adopts. The mortician, Thomas Evan Robinson, confirmed that there was a wound in the back five to six inches below the shoulder and to the right of the spinal column. And Mantik has conducted an experiment with a CAT scan from a patient with chest and neck dimensions similar to those of JFK that demonstrates the official trajectory is not even anatomically possible, because cervical vertebrae intervene. The official account cannot be true.

The demise of the “magic bullet” theory means that the wound to the throat and the wounds to Connally have to be accounted for on the basis of other shots and other shooters. Indeed, Mantik has demonstrated that, given the wound to the back and the wound to the throat combined with two wounds to the head (one from behind and one from in front), JFK was hit at least four times. Since Connally was hit at least once from the side and one shot missed and injured James Tague, Baden is right: the “magic bullet” theory is false and there have to have been at least six shots from three directions! Which means that The Warrren Report, The HSCA Final Report, Posner’s Case Closed, and Bugliosi’s own Recapturing History cannot be sustained!

The Location and the Carbine

Consider (h2), the hypothesis that the assassin was above and behind on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. As Stuart Galanor, Cover Up (1998), has observed, if you juxtapose the diagrams of the wounds that JFK is supposed to have sustained—in particular, the shot to the back of his head (from its purported entry location to its purported exit)—with a frame from the Zapruder film (Z-312) taken immediately before he was hit, if the official account is correct and the film is authentic, it turns out that, given a proper orientation, the shot would have to have been on a slightly upward trajectory, not the downward trajectory the official account requires. Thus, it follows that either the official account is not correct or the film is fake, an uncomfortable conclusion for one who defends The Warren Report (1964).

(h3), the hypothesis that the shooter used a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano to hit his target, poses problems of its own. The death certificates, The Warren Report (1964), articles in the Journal of the AMA, and other sources affirm that the President was killed by the impact of high-velocity bullets. Many authors, including Harold Weisberg, Whitewash (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy (1976), and Robert Groden and Harrison E. Livingstone, High Treason (1989), have observed that the Mannlicher-Carcano the killer is alleged to have used is not a high velocity weapon. Since the Mannicher-Carcano is the only weapon that Lee Harvey Oswald is alleged to have used, he cannot have fired the bullets that killed JFK. They were high velocity, the weapon was not; hence, he didn’t do it.

Finally, (h4), the hypothesis that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter, has always been problematical. He was confronted by a motorcycle patrolman, Marrion Baker, in a lunchroom on the second floor within 90 seconds of the assassination at 12:30 PM. Fellow workers had observed him in and around that location prior to the shooting, including William Shelly, who observed him at 11:50 AM when he (Shelly) came down to eat lunch; at Noon, Eddie Piper saw him on the first floor when he (Oswald) told him he was going up to eat; at 12:15 PM, Carolyn Arnold, the Executive Secretary to the Vice President, observed him sitting in the lunch room; and, at 12:25 PM, five minutes before the assassination, she saw him again, but on the first floor near the front door of the building. Some of these witnesses would hesitate to confirm their testimony after visits from the FBI, but they cohere together.

Indeed, Officer Baker confronted him before 12:32 PM and held Oswald in the sites of his revolver until he was assured by Roy Truly, Lee’s supervisor, that Oswald was an employee. For him to have been the shooter, he would have had to have rushed across a warehouse floor, stashed his trusty carbine, raced down four fights of stairs and into the lunch room within a minute and a half. Baker stated that Oswald did not seem out of breath but appeared to be calm, a description that Truly confirmed. If these findings about (h3) and (h4) are well-founded, then Oswald not only did not have the means but also lacked the opportunity to commit the assassination. His wife later testified that Lee admired the Kennedys and bore JFK no malice, which implies the man Bugiosi fingers for the crime lacked motive, means, and opportunity.

“Twisting, Warping, and Distorting”

Bugliosi contends that Oswald was too unstable and insufficiently reliable for the CIA or the Mafia to have depended upon him to carry off the biggest murder in American history. Given the official story, he had defected to the Soviet Union, slashed his wrist trying to commit suicide, behaved erratically in New Orleans, lived the life of a loner, and all that. Why would the CIA or the Mafia have trusted him? Indeed, if Lee had been part of a conspiracy, as soon as he departed from the building, a car would have been waiting to take him to his death. Instead, he becomes the first successful assassin in history to make his escape by public transportation! The author appears unable to appreciate that the same reasons he offers for why Oswald might not have been an appropriate choice to serve as an assassin are excellent reasons why he would have made a great selection in a conspiracy to serve as the patsy!

Perhaps the most disgusting discussion of the entire 1600 pages, however, is Bugliosi’s treatment of the medical evidence. Here he not only takes for granted that two bullets struck from above and behind, one exiting from the throat, the other hitting him in the head and killing him­—describing this account as “incontrovertible”—but characterizes the Parkland physicians as mostly young and inexperienced, when in fact they included Kemp Clark, M.D., Director of Neurosurgery, Malcolm Perry, M.D., and many others highly experienced in dealing with gunshot victims. In what must be the single most dishonest statement in this entire work, he says that conspiracy theorists allowed unfocused observations in a frenzied atmosphere to take precedence over the autopsy X-rays and photographs in their investigations of JFK! That’s what he tells us. Reading this, I was overcome with nausea.

More than forty eyewitnesses—from Dealey Plaza and Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda morgue—have testified to a massive blow-out at the back of the head. They include Beverly Oliver, Phillip Willis, Marilyn Willis, Ed Hoffman (Dealey Plaza), Robert McClelland, M.D., Paul Peters, M.D., Kenneth Salyer, M.D., Charles Carrico, M.D., Richard Delaney, M.D., Chares Crenshaw, M.D., Ronald Jones, M.D., Audrey Bell, Nurse, Aubrey Rike, Ambulance Driver (Parkland Hospital), and Francis X. O’Neill, FBI, Paul O’Connor, Jerrol Custer, Floyd Riebe (Bethesda Morgue). Bugioisi interviews some of them and makes perfunctory efforts to dissuade them, but the crux of the matter has always been that the autopsy X-rays do not show a massive blow-out to the back of the head. From a logical point of view, either the witnesses are mistaken or else the X-rays are not authentic.

Bugliosi’s reliance upon experts should have drawn him to the studies of the autopsy X-rays by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., and of the reports from the physicians at Parkland Hospital by Robert B. Livingston, M.D. Mantik has a Ph.D. in physics from Madison, an M.D. from Michigan, and is board certified in radiation oncology. Livingston was a world authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics. Mantik’s studies of the X-rays, which demonstrate that the right lateral cranial X-ray has been altered by imposing a patch upon a massive blow out to the back of the head, his discovery that a 6.5mm metallic slice was added to the anterior/posterior X-ray, and Livington’s determination that the brain shown in diagrams and photos at the National Archives cannot be that of John F. Kennedy—based on his study of the numerous, consistent reports from Parkland physicians of cerebellar as well as cerebral tissue extruding from that massive defect— are (or ought to be) the starting point for any serious investigation of this crime. But you would think he had never laid eyes on Assassination Science (1998).

Unwarranted Simplifications

Because these results come from technical studies or entail expert judgment, the most easily accessible evidence refuting the official account remains the shirt, the jacket, the autopsy diagrams, the President’s personal physician’s death certificate, the re-enactment photos, the mortician’s report, Ford’s re-description of the wound, and Mantik’s demonstration that the trajectory is not even anatomically possible. This information is not hidden from sight but has been published in many familiar books, such as Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment (1966), Gary Shaw and Larry Harris, Cover Up (1976, 2nd edition, 1992), Robert Groden, The Killing of a President (1993) and Stuart Galanor, Cover Up (1998), not to mention Assassination Science (1998) and Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000). It also appears in “The ‘Lone Nutter’ Refutation” on assassinationscience.com and in assassinationresearch.com, vol. 1/no. We know that there had to have been at least six shots from three directions!

Bugliosi not only misrepresents the medical evidence but also simplifies his case by making gratuitous assumptions about the FBI and the Secret Service, insisting that no one has ever implicated them in these events. That ought to come as some surprise to Vincent Palamara, for example, who authored two chapters about the events for Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), one of which summarizes evidence of a “stop” on Elm Street after bullets had begun to be fired, the other addressing the roles of Floyd Boring, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail, Emory Roberts, Agent in Charge of the Secret Service Detail in Dallas, and William Greer, the driver of the Presidential Limousine during the motorcade. Indeed, these are related, insofar as the stop appears to have occurred when Greer pulled the limo to the left and stopped in the vicinity of the steps leading up to the pergola.

This was only the most striking of more than fifteen indications of Secret Service complicity in setting JFK up for the hit, which include leaving an agent behind at Love Field, arranging the motorcade in the wrong sequence, using an improper motorcade route, not welding the manhole covers and not covering the open windows, ordering the 112th Military Intelligence Group to “stand down” over its Commanding Officer’s adamant opposition, letting the crowd spill out into the street, not responding to the initial shots, calling an agent back when he started to respond, pulling the limousine to the left and to a halt, taking a bucket and sponge and washing brains and blood from the limousine after arrival at Parkland Hospital, forcibly removing the body and transporting it back to Washington, D.C., collecting the autopsy X-rays and photographs during the autopsy rather than allowing the physicians to use them, and sending the limousine back to Ford to be completely rebuilt.

The concealment of the stop, which lasted less than two seconds, but during which JFK was hit twice in the head—once from behind (from a second-story window of the Dal-Tex Building), one from in front (from an above-ground sewer opening at the north end of the Triple Underpass)—has been extensively discussed in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003). Moreover, multiple proofs of film alteration are demonstrated with clips from the film in an introductory symposium by John P. Costella, Ph.D., which is available on assassinationscience.com and assassinationresearch.com. These include the publication of frames with physically impossible features, blunders made introducing the Stemmons Freeway sign into the recreated film, the “blob” and “blood spray” that were added to Frame 313, the occurrence of Greer’s two “head turns” at speeds far faster than humanly possible, the excision of Connally’s left turn from the extant film, and removal of the image of blood and brains from the trunk, not to mention eyewitnesses who have observed a more complete film on more than one occasion, surely ought to have drawn Bugliosi’s attention. He appears to be completely ignorant of the evidence. Frame 374 even displays the massive blow-out to the back of JFK’s head!

A Closed Mind

Indeed, when the Assassination Records Review Board telegraphed that it wanted the Secret Service to provide its Presidential Protection Survey Records for JFK’s trips in 1963, rather than providing them, the Secret Service destroyed them. Most of the evidence that I have described here was easily available to the author of this book. Unlike a recent study of mine, “Reasoning about Assassinations”, International Journal of the Humanities 3 (2005/2006), which lays out the evidence that refutes the “magic bullet” theory, published after undergoing peer review subsequent to its presentation during a conference at Cambridge University in 2005 (now archived at assassinationscience.com for ease of access), the arguments that Bugliosi advances in support of (h1) to (h4) could never pass a peer review. Astonishingly, he has not even come to grips with the most basic evidence!

When I first wrote to Bugiosi asking, “What would it take to convince you of a conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK?” and received the answer, “Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence.”, I simply took for granted that an experienced prosecutor, who was accustomed to bearing the higher burden of justice on his shouders, would appreciate the quantity and quality of the evidence that refutes the “magic bullet” theory and exonerates Oswald as the assassin of JFK. He conveys the impression that it is he who has been most attentive and paintstaking in dealing with the basic evidence in this case—the autopsy X-rays and photographs, the photos and diagrams of the brain, and the Zapruder film—when it is he who ignores our research assessing their authenticity! It just did not occur to me that a person of his standing would perpetrate a fraud on the public in a case of this magnitude.

Ignoring our proofs of fabrication of the most basic evidence, alas, is not his only scientific blunder. He also cites the work of Vincent Guinn on bullet fragments from the limo and allegedly the brain in support of the inference that, because the levels of antimony from them fall into two and only two groupings, this indicates that they all originated from two bullets. Indeed, Guinn says one of those groupings matches the bullet found on Connally’s stretcher, which the government claims to be the “magic bullet” and to have been officially established as having been fired from Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. Yet its observable properties are identical with those of bullets that were fired into buckets of water or wads of cotton by the Warren Commision and the HSCA staffs in conducting their investigations. It exhibits none of the distortion that bullets fired into cadavers’ wrists, for example, display. "They appear indistinguishable, [ Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), p. 411]".

So Bugliosi relies on Guinn’s chemical analysis to prove that Oswald had killed JFK with these bullets, both of which were fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano. But that is very faulty reasoning. Even if the “magic bullet” and the fragments added up to two bullets and both bullets had been fired from the carbine, that shows neither (a) that the “magic bullet” was fired during the assassination nor ( that Oswald fired it—or any other! As very early students of the case, including Harold Weisberg, Mark Lane, and Sylvia Meagher, observed, the evidence strongly suggests the “magic bullet” was a plant. And someone other than Oswald could have used the weapon during the shooting. We have evidence that he was not on the 6th floor and that the the Mannlicher-Carcano cannot have fired the (high-velocity) bullets that killed JFK. That obvious fallacies of these kinds should be committed by Bugliosi indicates that his reasoning ability was adversely affected by his goal, which was clearly not to assess the evidence but to marshall a case against the alleged assassin—the most convincing case he could muster!

“Experts” and Experts

In order to dismiss the HSCA’s conclusion that there was a second gunman on the grassy knoll, Bugioli disputes the acoustical studies on which it was based. Motorcycle patrolman H. B. McLain’s mike was locked in the open position and produced a dictabelt recording that seems to be of sounds from shots fired during the assassination. In agreement with The Warrren Report (1964) that three shots were fired from the book depository, the HSCA Final Report (1979) concluded that at least one additional shot had been fired from the grassy knoll but had missed! While physical evidence should be given precedence over witness accounts, Bugliosi reverses this weighting to find support for the rejection of the acoustic evidence and does not even bother to interview the experts who worked on this issue in his zeal to reject findings contrary to his position, as Donald Thomas, “Debugging Bugiosi”, observes.

Bugliosi should have known better, since Thomas had published a study in Science & Justice 41 (2001), in which he had discussed and refuted most of the objections Bugliosi endorses. As I confirmed in conversation with him at a conference in Dallas, Thomas agreed that the methods used (the specific arrays of microphones deployed) were not sufficiently discriminating to tell if the sounds of shots attributed to the 6th floor of the depository might not have come from the 2nd floor of the Dal-Tex Building instead. The acoustic evidence is therefore consistent with three shots from the Dal-Tex as well as three shots from the book depository. These studies were restricted to shots that could have been fired from only the two locations, depository and knoll, and did not examine the possibility of additional shots from other locations. The graphs and other evidence published in the HSCA Final Report (1979) exhibit other spikes suggesting that even more than four shots could have been fired. But his readers would never know that the acoustical evidence is so interesting and important on the basis of Bugliosi’s slovenly discussion.

That “experts” are not always expert has been dramatically demonstrated by the case of Luis Alvarez, the Nobel Prize winning physicist from Berkeley, who pubished a so-called “jiggle” analysis of the extant Zapruder film that has been used to support the lone assassin theory. In a chapter in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), however, Mantik reports that, when he tried to replicate Alvarez’s “findings”, it was impossible, because a more accurate graph of the “jiggles”, which he provides, resembles a mass of relatively similar variations rather than a small number of striking variations. This suggests that Alvarez may have been employing the technique of selection and elimination (“special pleading”, in informal logic) by selecting data that supports a predetermined conclusion and eliminating the rest. Buglioui, no doubt, must have found that congenial, since it is the very methodology he has used throughout his book. But proof that Alvarez’ work was unreliable should have caused him pause. The subjective certainty with which Bugliosi advances his thesis bears no correspondence to objective degrees of support.

Mantik not only studied the Zapruder film by comparing Alvarez’ and his own “jiggle” results but also compared both “blur” and “jiggle” patterns in the Muchmore film. If they were recording the same shot sequence and if those sound waves induced minor motions in those films, then presumably they ought to exhibit similar patterns of “jigges” and “blurs”. The results of his study of Muchmore yielded a smooth “jiggle” graph, but a highly-varied “blur” graph. If the film were authentic, the results of these analyses ought to converge. Those who have argued that altering the Zapruder film would have required altering others, including the Muchmore film, ought to have been impressed by research indicating the Muchmore film is not authentic. An unexpected benefit of his studies was indications of another shot around Frame 160, which corresponds to the commencement of the Connally left-turn. No one should presume Bugliosi understands the scientific evidence!

Science Will Out

If Bugliosi’s book is viewed as his courtroom brief, which is appropriate in every way, it displays the strengths and the weakensses of the jurisprudential model of inquiry by comparison with the scientific. He has selectively relied on evidence available to him and presented it in psychologically compelling language. But he does not respect science he should have mastered. Before his brief was complete, two scientists from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory had undermined the bullet fragment research upon which his case depends. And a new study with four authors has demonstrated that these fragments could have come from multiple bullets, where the evidence for two shots from one shooter has been severely undermined. As Gary Aguilar, M.D., explains in his article, “Is Vincent Bugliosi Right that Neutron Activation Prove’s Oswald’s Guilt?”, the answer is “No!” But then it never could have.

The findings reported in our three books include extensive, scientific and objective evidence of X-ray alteration, photographic manipulation, and the recreation of the Zapruder film. They demonstrate as conclusively as science can that the alleged assassin was framed using manufactured evidence. If Bugliosi had wanted to discover the truth about the assassination of JFK, it would not have been difficult for him to have done that. Indeed, none of these fabrications of evidence could have been done by the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, the KGB, or Oswald, who was incarcerated or already dead. While they are elaborated in great detail in these books and make an historic contribution to shattering the cover-up and exposing the complicity of the government in the assassination of JFK, none of them has made any impression upon the author of this book, whose mind appears to have been closed by a commitment to build the case for a predetermined conclusion.

This book abounds with other absurdities, such as the claim, often heard from neophytes, that no one has ever confessed, as if that would be proof of no conspirary. Anyone who knows Sam and Chuck Giancana, Double Cross (1992), Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), where Noel identifies eight who have talked on a single page (p. 285), Madeleine Duncan Brown, Texas in the Morning (1997), Barr McClellan, Blood, Money & Power (2003), and Billy Sol Estes, A Texas Legend (2005), has to know better. These sources offer important evidence implicating Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover in the assassination. Billy Sol, for example, discusses the involvement of Lyndon’s assistant, Cliff Carter, and of Malcolm “Mac” Wallace, who may have murdered as many as a dozen at LBJ’s direction. They point toward the involvement of the Joint Chiefs and elements of the CIA and the Mafia in executing the crime, a scenario that more recent revelations also confirm.

In The Zenith Secret (2006), Bradley Ayers, an Army Captain who worked for the CIA at JM/WAVE in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, for example, offers reasons to believe that Richard Helms, William Harvey, and David Sanchez Morales were involved in the assassination of JFK. (He has also identified officials Gordon Campbell, George Joannides, and Morales in photos from the murder scene of RFK.) Today, we must include, “The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt”, rollingstone.com (2007), where the long-time CIA operative points to LBJ, Cord Meyer, Harvey, Morales and others as complicit. It could be argued that some of this evidence came too late for Bugiosi to have considered, which is certainly true. But guilt or innocence is not determined by a prosecutor’s brief. In this case, it is impossible to avoid the inference that he has twisted, warped, and distorted the evidence that was available to him or just ignored it. After appraising what the author has done with what he had at hand, the existence of which he admits, the stunning fact about this massive book he claims to have spent 21 years in preparing is not how much he knows but how little. The interests of justice were not served.

5 June 2007

B.....Have corrected 3 spelling mistooks...