Bernice Moore

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....

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...

Hi John. Email me a copy and i will upload it to my site. That's great, Robin. Again, your site comes up aces! This map is remarkable. Somewhat startled that you & John have not got it. Hence my not bookmarking where I found it some weeks ago. If you have any trouble uploading it let me know. ********** Hi Miles : Great looking map, may I throw a but in here... One point jumped out at me, there is far too much distance shown between the Presidents 100X, and the SS Queen Mary..........it was approx 5 feet, not approx 25 ft, behind...and from what I see on that map, it appears in error... I do not know if these would come in handy but here are a couple....for now, if interested.... B..... Bernice, That map you are talking about is mine. I was done a number of years ago and I can't remember what it was for. If I remember correctly the position of the Queen Mary was a gestimate and as you point out it is not at all acurate. It is best to disregard those positions. James. Thanks James : Some of we members have been into the Secret Service Thread, and I recalled what Roberts said in his statement, and of course it certainly did not comply with the films and photographs.....taken that day... Thank you for your reply....and clarification..... B

Hi John. Email me a copy and i will upload it to my site. That's great, Robin. Again, your site comes up aces! This map is remarkable. Somewhat startled that you & John have not got it. Hence my not bookmarking where I found it some weeks ago. If you have any trouble uploading it let me know. ********** Hi Miles : Great looking map, may I throw a but in here... One point jumped out at me, there is far too much distance shown between the Presidents 100X, and the SS Queen Mary..........it was approx 5 feet, not approx 25 ft, behind...and from what I see on that map, it appears in error... I do not know if these would come in handy but here are a couple....for now, if interested.... B.....

Hi Gary: Here is a document that may be of some use to you, in your research.....? B

Hi Miles : Check the photos I just posted, I had trouble attaching them.. Keep in mind please, just how much was fabricated within all.. the evidence, imo.. .Especially have a look at CE 351.. No, not away, just on the search, and reading....we women you know come and go at our own whim. B

Hi Robin: Yes the front seat was all one...

""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."" 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 Below FBI CE 351 ......and FBI 307 Photographs & FBI Document released.. Bernice..

Hi Robin, the rear seat was built to be moved up or down as suits the occasion. Perhaps Pamela can say whether the fold down foot platforms were on Kennedy's Continental? *********** John you may be interested in these...The 100 X was delivered June 15/61..as seen with the SS on the side....but it went back to the "shop" for changes and updates....in Sept..something is niggling, but will not say positively, that the fold down foot platforms were removed...at that time...below is Baughman with the back seat raised... B... Bernice, yes, theank you. There AFAIK was a contionuous runningboard that was removed. Whether the little fold down steps replaqced that or not I don't know. The color photo there with the guy standing on what looks like one of the fold down steps, when is that from? Miles, I agree that one can't see a hole or cracks in A6. There may be reasons for that, lighting directions etc, or there was no hole or crack at that time. One thing though is that there is an account of the cracks spreading beween then and till back at the airport as the Limo was being driven. ie, the initial damage was less than after the stressing caused by the limo being driven. At the same time the bullet or fragments could conceivably cause the dent and the bend in the central visor mount and then a fragment ricochet back to Kennedy and the hole/crack is from another shot. I don't know. John : That photo was taken upon the day of delivery.....June 15/61........I had a look but cannot find what I am after of course....Seems to me and I will keep looking, that those steps ? were removed in Sept..as they thought they would be a danger for people tripping over, some such as that....like I say it is not a given.... B......

Hi Myra, None that have been proven to my knowledge....though there were statements made by some that it was hit, there is no proof..that I have ever seen.There are photos enlarged of what some thought could be, but ? I have been reading about him since before he became President, my Dad was Irish. And after the assn it continued, the reading and studying, the papers, magazines,books and connecting, what was available back then and it was not much. The following through on the evidence as far as possible..as for the photos, and docs... from the web, and scanning so many from the books..and information found. Building your own library.. Now with the videos and the DVDs available and the WC report, and the other reports on the web and studies, as well as all else, it is like Christmas every day to many....plus the radio programs etc...it is like a damn burst with a flood of information, and has been of great benefit to all..but studying is about it.... You can read what many say but you must do your own and follow through...and that is where the studies comes in..imo. B

Thanks Kathy it is segment 3.....great...appreciated. Myra: I have to say it girl, you have a long, long way to go, and are a beggar for punishment....in finding destroyed evidence, like have you got say the next ten years anyway or so... to try to run it down...well good.....and a tremendous amount of reading time, along the way......there is only so much on the web, most of all is within the books...and then what is real and was and what was not.. is another question... Certainly not meaning to throw any cold water on your enterprise , please do so, and keep it going....But with your site and all, you are busy with......it just hit me as funny, like biting off, 3/4rs of a cake...and all at the same time, but I certainly wish you the best of luck with your compilation....you go to it....girl.. BTW: the woman that runs the site is Pamela McElwain-Brown.. Dougs bio is also below... http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKweldonD.htm I think there is info on the clothes in the "Murder"series Dr.Jim's..within those 3 books....there is so much ..see they are a compilation of the works of many, who have studied separate areas and wrote their information and is presented as a chapter within the three, it is not all there ...there certainly is also a great amount of information on many areas within other books as well.. ..such as within Armstrongs Harvey & Lee, a ton of it..and David Lifton's BE...and many others The Tague curb hit, is covered by Harold Weisberg and the curb has been destroyed, along with the analysis, they did not have enough room to store it, a wee tiny piece of film the size perhaps of a postage stamp,containing that analysis.. not enough room, you ought to hear Harold go on about that one...on tape.....and if memory serves he does have that analysis information within his books......so what he did gather for us at the time, what was available, and through his many suits, to the Gov. yeah Harold... for the documents, as well as a helpful soul working within the archives, is perhaps all we shall ever get on that subject.. hopefully not, but ?? The Weisberg books BTW are available through Horn College and at a very good price..compared to many.... They are published for and taught as a course for the students, so are in a type of paper back form, medium sized,but it is all there.. The Stemmons Freeway sign, the earliest I have read is that it was removed within 30 minutes but I doubt that imo, but what do I know.? .....However in Weisberg there is information by the groundskeeper, who stated that it was gone by Spring, Penn Jones also states that when they went back the next Spring the sign had been replaced...but no one knew when exactly. Now some time ago someone did contact the Dallas Works Dept....I kind of think they went to see them, ??anyway who takes care of such things...hoping the within the records, the information would be found, but they were told no, there were no records kept when such things as the signs were replaced??? and certainly none going back that far..perhaps gobbleygook.?? We shall never know, as they have been changed about on a regular basis it seems, as well as the light poles and with the addition of others...down though the years..so...?? So all the best within your research.. B..

Hi Robin, the rear seat was built to be moved up or down as suits the occasion. Perhaps Pamela can say whether the fold down foot platforms were on Kennedy's Continental? *********** John you may be interested in these...The 100 X was delivered June 15/61..as seen with the SS on the side....but it went back to the "shop" for changes and updates....in Sept..something is niggling, but will not say positively, that the fold down foot platforms were removed...at that time...below is Baughman with the back seat raised... B...

Your welcome.. I came to correct my error on which Tape on TMWKK..unfortunately Doug Weldon is on the final chapter which is not available for purchase.. The Smoking Guns....the last of that video series..... though I am wondering if it is on one of the sites such as Gil Jesus and John has been enabling for us...? Doug is finally writing a book, on this subject......when it shall be out I have no idea. Hopefully soon..He has been researching this subject since 78 thereabouts, I believe and it is the study of the SS + the Limo....and what shenanigans occurred surrounding it.. The story is not straight forward as some would seemingly have us believe, nothing is within the subject of the assn.... and it was the prime evidence, the murder scene in otherwards.....and was destroyed..... as so much else has been... It is one of the subject areas though there has been some work done, there has not been a complete deep study. That is what he has done... The SS certainly by Vince Palamara, but not the 100X....so we await... You and or some may be interested in his article at Mary's site.... Kennedy Chronicles , Volume 5 Issue 1..1999 A study of the Presidential Limousine, by Doug Weldon.. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=226698 B...

Hi Myra: Re the below information on the Limo that you have brought forth, from Pamela's site...........to get up to date.....within the studies of that area the SS & the 100..X... There is much further information, re the Limo and the "windshield" investigation in particular, by Doug Weldon.....within Dr.Fetzers books.......see "Murder In Dealey Plaza"...as well as the other two in the series... Also in the Videos TMWKK, though I believe it could be in "The Guilty Men"..not sure right now, perhaps someone will know positively......? There is newer,research by Mr.Weldon that has been done.....if you are leaning in that direction..I believe by your post.. FYI.. ""The WHITE HOUSE GARAGE kept logs for two days after the assassination, because SS-100-X and SS-679-X had been given a security detail. The logs were used to record the entry and exit of those who did not have White House Garage credentials. Those who did have credentials, such as SS agents, and FMC Liaison Vaughn Ferguson did not have to log in. According to the White House Garage Logs which consist of two pages that go together sideways the windshield was replaced by two men from the Arlington Glass Company on 11/26/63. This is verified by DC Ford Employee and White House Garage liaison F Vaughn Ferguson who was present when the windshield was replaced. Check out pages one and two of the fascinating12/18/63 internal Ford Company memo of Vaughn Ferguson (from the Ford Motor Company Washington, DC office, NARA RIF 180-10105-10086), to R.W. Markley, the White House contact. This memo was originally sent to me by NARA by mistake, as its status was 'postponed'. On realizing this error, it was then released, minus the date of December 18, 1963. This memo is valuable in that it places the limo in the White House Garage following the assassination. It, along with statements by Rowley, Taylor, Kinney and Hoover give insight into what happened to 100-X after it was returned to DC; that it was cleaned, windshield replaced, back carpeting replaced and ready for the road by early December, 1963. The "Ferguson Memo" was also the catalyst for the January 6, 1964 letter from Chief Rowley (CD-80) to the Warren Commission.Page One two three fourfive (Support documents to be added soon). .." Some of the SS Agents from that time period......originally from the Anthony Marsh collection... Clint Hill was presented with an award for "Extraordinary courage and heroic effort in the face of maximum danger." Gif by Mr.Aqbat...(spelling...sorry?)....Zapruder & Nix film comparisons.. Thanks...all.......B

Oh goodie, and now I get to bump it again...hotdogsaway.. B.. PS :BTW...I am not editing again on the previous, scared to see what it may turn into.. but did want to let you know, the single photo, is of SSA Lem Johns. Thanks.. B

Again .double...deleted.....???? Andy this is continually happening the....Attachments not taking the first time ?? and now they appear in the deleted post but not the first???? Full edit.... scrambledeggs.... Hillarious now the attached photos appear in the first deleted post LOL... I am leaving well enough alone....you get the photos first but who knows it may have changed again ,when I click the "submit modifed post" again, me thinks the Gremlin is active..... it did LOL......sorry but it is funny...... well to moi... Thanks.... B. The Politics of Protection An Informal Review and Partial Rebutal by Vince Palamara Although known mainly for his impresive work in the RFK and MLK assassination cases, Prof. Phil Melanson published a little known and largely overlooked work on the Secret Service, The Politics of Protecton. This book places much emphasis on the JFK assassination and the post-Warren Commission changes made to it. It was highly regarded and had the full cooperation of the Secret Service's own Public Affairs Department --- which tells you something of the thrust of the book: it attempts to follow the beaten path of the Warren Commission and the HSCA by praising the agency's accomplishments, and glossing over its profound (deliberate?) failure in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. In other words, the old "JFK-as-scapegoat" theme, one also adopted by previous authors such as William Manchester and Jim Bishop, is alive and well in this work, which originally appeared in 1984 (Orwell, please take note). This article is distillation of a full review that was written several years ago, and circulated privately. Despite my strong views on his book, Melanson liked my review so much he sent me a letter THANKING me for the in-depth study! In the interest of sharing this with the research community, I feel it is appropriate to here detail the JFK-related portions of my full review, in the hopes of demonstrating how important it is to take the next step in one's research: using primary sources and interviews with the principal people themselves (in this case, the former Secret Service agents) and always questioning "official" history, especially that which arises from the "public affairs" departments of the FBI, the CIA, and the Secret Service. The chapter and page references herein refer to Melanson's book. Quoted passages, of course, indicate verbatim parts of the book, while unquoted passages and/or section heads indicate issues Melanson raises. My comments follow. * * * Chapter 3 (pp 38-52) "The organization's resources have grown impressively in the past two decades [1984]. Its budget has risen faster than inflation: from a mere $8 million in 1963 to $27 million in 1970, to $98 million in 1975, to its present [1984] level of $180 million. The Secret Service of the early 1960's had only 350 special agents and 170 uniformed officers, compared with today's [1984] 1800 agents and 900 uniformed officers. The White House detail which protected President Kennedy had 36 agents; the one protecting President Reagan has nearly twice that many [70]". Whether this could be construed by some --- and it has --- as being a motive for Secret Service complicity and/or cover-up is for the reader to decide. Agent Marty Venker said that this growth would make the Pentagon envious, while agent Rufus Youngblood said that, because of the assassination, the Secret Service is more appreciated by the taxpayers. p.41- Clint Hill retired in 1975 as SAIC of the White House Detail (at age 43) --- this was due to much survivor's guilt regarding the tragic events of 11/22/63. Hill is, without a doubt, the most publicized of any Secret Service agent, past or present. He is also a "poster boy" for survivor's guilt --- he is, more or less, a victim of the assassination (he has stated that it was his fault and that he should have reacted faster!). So, while the organization has grown remarkably since 11/22/63 ($, equipment, personnel), their "star" agent, Clint Hill, the one they decorated on 12/3/63 for bravery, took the fall: emotionally, physically, and publicly, covering for every other agent that served under JFK. CIA "As with personnel, the Service often borrows from other agencies"; "Traditionally, though secretively, the Service has received training and equipment from the CIA"; i.e. color-coded lapel pins ... [p.42] ... has received 'briefing/training' of a classified nature from the CIA." (CIA memo of 6/5/73.) "Although the precise nature and extent of Secret Service dependence upon CIA remains top secret, it is surely important given the Service's limitations of personnel and resources". p.49-" Agents study movies of assassinations and attempted assassinations --- the Zapruder film of President Kennedy's assassination, tapes of the two attempts on President Ford. They also study numerous assassination cases, both foreign and domestic, and analyze each one --- Robert F. Kennedy ... Jack Ruby's murder of Oswald..." Beltsville, MD facility- pp. 49-50-" The figures appear for different lengths of time and carry a variety of objects --- briefcases, UMBRELLAS, guns". p.67- "...tensions between the White House staff and the Service's White House detail were running high that year (1973), culminating in the REMOVAL of Agent Robert S. [sic-H.] Taylor as head of the detail. Taylor's departure was prompted by a rift between his detail and the Nixon staff [read Haldeman] concerning political priorities versus protective priorities". Dr. Melanson discusses a plot to assassinate Nixon in New Orleans (Aug. 1973) --- Secret Service asked Nixon to cancel motorcade; SS cancelled motorcade. Chapter 5 (pp. 74-87) James P. Kelly --- former Asst. Dir. of the SS. Kelly was also an investigator with the HSCA! Chapter 6 (pp. 88-122) p.99- On-the-road procedures; pp. 104-105- in case of attack- defense is the key; Secret Service training manual excerpts --- i.e., "look for persons who are acting unnaturally ... look for unnatural appearance of places, OBJECTS [umbrellas?], and situations". Chapter 8 (pp. 137-159) p.137- ".. there is no tradition of sacking the old Secret Service head when a new President takes office." (?) This is simply not accurate. The record during the JFK through Nixon years speaks for itself: 1961- Rowley replaces Baughman; 1965- Youngblood replaces Behn; 1971- Youngblood ousted by H.R. Haldeman (replaced by ?[boggs?]); 1972- Knight replaces Rowley; 1973- Taylor and Duncan ousted by H.R. Haldeman p.142- "It is an unwritten law in Mexican politics that presidents can never appear in public with any barrier between themselves and their people- no bulletproof shields, no bubble-top cars, nothing" (?) JFK in Mexico, Summer of 1962: agents surround car (Behn punches out a 'beatnik' spectator to boot) [this is NOT the SX100]; using SX100, the bubble-top is ON the car AND agents are to the REAR of the limo... JFK in Caracas, Venezuela and Bogota, Columbia, 1962: using SX100, the bubble-top is on and agents are riding on the back of the limo... p.143-"...the press knows that the president has the political clout to pressure the Service into loosening up (?)" Rowley told the WC that "No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do", and Baughman wrote in his book Secret Service Chief that the President knew that the Chief of the SS could countermand the Chief Executive when it came to security precautions and considerations... Melanson's title, The Politics of Protection, was adopted from Ken O'Donnell's remark to Jerry Behn, "politics and protection don't mix." This is pure moonshine: they CAN and MUST! This title was also adopted by the HSCA for their equally shallow chapter on the Secret Service. Chapter 9 (pp. 160-181): "Losing Lancer: the Secret Service's Worst Crisis" Here, Dr. Melanson relies on documents and Public Relations people, taken at face value. His sources: 1.WC "Memorandum of Conference" 3/13/64, 3 pages; 2.CD3, part 1,12/18/63- memo from Dillon to Warren, Section III; 3.Rowley Report- WC file #22 "Records Relating to the Protection of the President"; 4.other parts of CD3 p.160- Interference of Treasury Department lawyers with WC Report- Melanson writes (albeit briefly) about Treasury Dept. interference in the WC 'investigation', a little known fact that can be interpreted a few ways (like the agency's growth, the CIA help, and the training methods mentioned above). Examples include Fred Smith interfering with Winston Lawson's WC testimony, and the question of why Rowley addressed a report [with subheadings] to G. d'Andelot Belin, who he claimed was the General Counsel of the WC [he was not --- it was J. Lee Rankin, a man who was already in frequent correspondence/communication with Rowley] --- did he mean DAVID Belin, an assistant counsel of the WC [G. d'Andelot Belin was the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, and served as ACTING Secretary of the Treasury when C. Douglas Dillon was out of the country during parts of 1963 and 1964]? [see 18 H 810-815.] In addition, was Belford V. Lawson III (the lawyer in charge of the Secret Service area of investigation for the HSCA) any relation to WINSTON G. Lawson, the advance agent from Washington who was one of the major planners of security in Dallas for 11/22/63? p.161- Melanson's access to WC documents in the National Archives (see above )- This may have been a big deal in 1984, but not in 1998 --- I have these documents! p.162- The ever-popular "JFK-as-scapegoat" theme (ORIGINAL SS statements, Manchester, Bishop, WC, HSCA, etc. [it all originated FROM the SS])- Based on my many interviews/correspondence with 35+ former agents/White House aides, and the ten years passing since this book (more information in public domain, etc.), this theme is absolutely FALSE --- SAIC Behn, ASAIC Boring, Sam Kinney, Bob Lilley, and many others told me that JFK never ordered the agents to do anything and never interfered with their actions at all (the only thing he would do was wade into crowds so people could shake his hand)! In addition, Kenny O'Donnell didn't order them around, as far as security matters are concerned (whether he used them as butlers and 'go-fors', or even lookouts [as JFK's romantic dalliances dictated] is another story altogether...) "During a previous motorcade, Kennedy had made an exception and allowed his limousine to be flanked by police motorcycles, because of a specific threat to his safety discovered in advance by the Service"- What about the quality and quantity of FLANKING motorcycles in San Antonio, Houston, and Fort Worth on 11/21-11/22/63?!?! What about in Berlin and Ireland (June 1963)?! Talk to the agents (who told me JFK never said a thing about motorcycles to begin with!) and look at the newsreels. For what it's worth, the absence of these flanking motorcycles in Dallas on 11/22/63 by the Secret Service's orders was termed by the HSCA as being "UNIQUELY INSECURE". 'nuff said... The agents-on-the-limo stories- False. JFK NEVER ORDERED THE AGENTS TO GET OFF THE REAR OF HIS LIMO; even Dave Powers told me this! (WHY the SS handed the WC 5 reports stating the opposite is another story --- the originators of these April 1964 reports --- Behn and Boring --- totally refute them, as do many of their colleagues!) The Bubbletop- Although not bulletproof, several agents I spoke to said it WAS a deterent (it may deflect a bullet and/or blind an assassin's view via the sun's glare...just the fact that most people believed it was bulletproof was protection enough --- if someone draws a gun on you, would you say, "How do I know those aren't blanks in that thing?"). Most importantly, JFK DID NOT ORDER IT OFF --- Sam Kinney told me it was his SOLE decision, one that both he and Bill Greer lived with regret for many years afterward (Sam's report of 11/22/63 backs up his admission of sole responsibility). Ken O'Donnell- He did NOT order anyone in the Service to do anything, as far as security measures are concerned (and even if he did, he would have been outmanned, outmanuevered, and outranked, as was the fate with H.R. Haldeman) pp.162-163- "The president's protectors were not informed about the trip until political planning and publicity were well under way. The idea [originated in] ... El Paso". WRONG- Jerry Behn was WITH JFK, LBJ ,and CONNALLY in El Paso on 6/5/63 (as was the SX100 limo and many other agents)! Also: LBJ's April 1963 announcment of the trip which was carried in the newspapers; 9/26/63: official White House announcement (also in the newspapers); 10/4/63: Connally visits JFK in Oval Office- as if the SS wouldn't know about this (they installed and monitored the taping system which was implemented and in full operation during JFK's administration, as well- SAIC of PRS Robert I. Bouck, who I spoke with, installed and monitored the tapes from the EOB); 11/1/63: Connaly press conference; 11/4/63: ASAIC Boring notifies Lawson of the Dallas assignment (and the rest is history...) pp.163-164- Only on 11/4/63, Melanson writes, did SS find out about the Dallas trip (?!) and Trade Mart decision- While it is true that the Secret Service's SAIC of the Dallas office, Forrest V. Sorrels, was directed BY Behn, Connally was not adamant about this building as the site for the luncheon- his itinerary called for the Statler Hilton Hotel, and he is also on record as blaming the White House staff for this decision (O'Donnell). The Secret Service, which admitted that the Women's Building was a better site security-wise, was the likely culprit in making sure that the Trade Mart WAS the luncheon site: Rowley told the WC that Ken O'Donnell was to blame (just as O'Donnell was supposedly to blame for the removal of the bubbletop!!! sure...). For the record, ODonnell denies confirming the Connally itinerary, as confirmed by fellow advance man Jerry Bruno to James Reston,Jr. (He wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING!). O'Donnell was also blamed for LBJ's presence on AF!, but he vehemently denied this- it was a SS decision, as Mac Kilduff confirms; Rowley also stated that fellow advance man Jack Puterbaugh had a hand in (relaying) this decision, an allegation Puterbaugh DENIES-he had no involvement in this matter; Lawson blamed fellow advance man Jerry Bruno for the Trade Mart decision- Bruno steadfastly denies this (He also wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING!); According to Jerry Bruno, based off his 11/5/63 meeting with SAIC of WHD Jerry Behn, Behn also wanted the WOMEN'S BUILDING- when Behn saw the catwalks in the Trade Mart (an excellent perch for snipers) , he said "We'll NEVER go there!"; On the same day that Sorrels conversed with Behn's office on 11/4/63, Lawson also conferred with Behn's office about the Trade Mart decision.However, unlike Sorrels, Lawson wasn't sure he actually SPOKE to Behn [4H337]- he DID receive the Dallas assignment from the man who shared Behn's office, FLOYD BORING, the agent who was in charge of the Dallas trip (and who was the primary source for the reports that went to the WC alleging JFK's "desires" in removing the agents from the rear of the limo, although Boring, as previously noted, joined his many associates in refuting these reports!) Conclusion? - While it's hard to be definitive, due to the inordinate amount of passing the buck going on here (especially by the Secret Service), it appears that, contrary to their knowledge that the Trade Mart was not as good as the Women's Building from a security standpoint, the Secret Service (Boring?) paradoxically gave the green light (to Lawson?) in going forward with the Trade Mart as JFK's luncheon speech site (which thus determined the speed of the route and the specific security of the building) for reason or reasons not totally clear (unless one wishes to invoke a sinister explanation, in light of all the aforementioned buck-passing). Finally, Bruno told the HSCA that he believed that the WOMEN's BUILDING was initially selected as the final choice but, as HSCA Vol. XI pages 517-518 read," Bruno stated that the local agents in Dallas had decided to withdraw their earlier objections to the Trade Mart [sA Steuart, SAIC Sorrels], and instead recommended it. If any local agent did in fact make such recommendations despite Behn's prior decision on November 6 favoring the Women's Building, this would have presented a clear case of a subordinate agent contradicting the SAIC of the White House Detail". "The Trade Mart luncheon site dictated most of the motorcade route [true] , including passing through Dealey Plaza [probably true] and in front of the TSBD". Wrong- what about Main to Industrial?? And there WERE alternate routes (as Sam Kinney and Winston Lawson both told me [Lawson also told the WC the same thing])... "The final route was selected November 14". Wrong- why were the Dallas newspapers still talking about other routes? Why were there ALTERNATE routes, then? Even "officially", the route is usually fingered as being "selected" between 11/18 and 11/19/63 (as the two Dallas newspapers report for 11/19/63), coinciding with the arrival on 11/18/63 of advance agent David Grant from the Florida trip (JFK's final trip before the FINAL trip!). As LBJ aide Bill Moyers told the HSCA, it was AFTER the 11/18/63 meeting with the Secret Service that he gave his associate Betty Harris (who was working WITH the Secret Service, too) the green light to print/publish the motorcade route, which was ultimately based on this authority: what Moyers referred to as "the agent in charge of the Dallas trip"!!! Was he referring to FLOYD BORING? In the end, it doesn't really matter WHO the specific agent was: Chief Rowley told the Warren Commission (who, like some other people, took documents and testimony at face value) that the Secret Service does NOT release selected routes of presidential motorcades to the press and they did NOT in Dallas, a blatant lie: his own people did so! And it gets even better (or worse, depending on which way you look at it)... Also p. 164- "The precise route was published ... on November 19". While this is technically true, there is a devastating other side of the coin (and no, I don't mean the alternate routes): SAIC BEHN TOLD ME THAT THE HSCA ASKED HIM IN EXECUTIVE SESSION 'WHY WAS THE ROUTE CHANGED', AND BEHN TOLD ME IT WAS INDEED CHANGED, BUT HE CLAIMS TO HAVE FORGOTTEN THE SPECIFIC REASON WHY! So, it appears that Gerald Posner and all the other sorry apologists for the Warren Commission and the Secret Service were wrong all along- what a shame... "There was no attempt to exercise any secrecy regarding the President's itinerary or the motorcade route"- Mostly true, but it was the SECRET SERVICE who had a profound hand in these events, which Rowley had the audacity to deny to the WC (see above). 11/18/63 meeting w/Sorrels, Lawson, and the Dallas PD. No mention of Lawson's oft-forgotten partner, David B.Grant (typical). "Police were to be assigned to each of the overpasses along the route to keep spectators off of them and thereby protect the president's open limousine from being hit with any falling objects". This was not adhered to in DEALEY PLAZA, despite Lawson's responsibility to see that it was done! p.165- "Dallas police were shown, and given samples of, the color-coded lapel pins worn by the Secret Service". Apparently they were shown much more than that- illicit Secret Service credentials made their way into Dealey Plaza, as verified by the accounts of 3 police officers and 4 spectators, not including Lee Harvey Oswald himself, who told Secret Service Inspector Thomas J. Kelley minutes before his own murder of running into an "agent" in front of the TSBD ... Gee, I wonder who could have provided this identification in the first place (former agent Abe Bolden confirmed to me that it was widely known in the Service that a 'lost or stolen' I.D. card found its way into Dealey Plaza, the prime motivator behind the redesign of the Secret Service commission books in January of 1964)! Standard line (by Dillon) about not watching the windows or checking buildings in advance or during the motorcades- Lawson told the WC AND the HSCA it was his "usual practice" to have the men watch the windows, as part of their normal scanning duties (DPD Captain Perdue Lawrence confirmed,sadly, that these orders were NOT given in Dallas). In addition, Chief Inspector Michael W. Torina told William Manchester in 1961 that whenever a motorcade must slow for a turn (such as the 120 degree, Secret Service-violating turn onto Elm Street, for example), the entire intersection must be checked in advance. No wonder Dillon got to chair the Dillon Committee of 11/22/64 (to oversee the SS) and the Rockefeller Commission - if you want a face value, superficial examination, he's your man... pp.166-167- doesn't mention the highly, perhaps uniquely, unusual nature of both JFK and LBJ being in the same slow-moving open vehicle parade together (which both Lawson [to the WC] and Bolden [to me] said was unusual), Kellerman's statement to the FBI (later denied, of course), that "the security measures employed were among the most stringent and thorough ever employed for the visit of a president to an American city", or DPD Curry's similar remarks which appeared in the Dallas papers BEFORE the assassination in regard to his men and their coordination with the Secret Service... The drinking incident of 11/21-11/22/63 Very good essay, following the lines of my research, however pp. 167-168-Rowley whitewash- Although the Secret Service manual specifically and unequivocally states that drinking while in TRAVEL STATUS (not even while "on duty")is grounds for removal from the agency, Rowley did not punish the offenders in any way whatsoever and his "claim...(was) based primarily upon the finding that none of the nine agents were in a position to have performed any action that might have saved the president, since none were in the pesident's car but ONLY (!) IN THE FOLLOW-UP CAR. ROWLEY TOLD THE COMMISSION THAT THE AGENTS INVOLVED WERE AWARE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF THEIR BREACH OF CONDUCT AND WOULD NOT DO IT AGAIN"- Clinton J. Hill (later to become SAIC of the WHD during the FORD years), Paul E. Landis, Jr., Glen A. Bennett, and John D. Ready (the CLOSEST agent to JFK from the follow-up car)- none of these men could have prevented the assassination?! What were they, then- merely hood ornaments? Also, who is Rowley fooling- they had a precedent for breaching conduct (as Abe Bolden told me) and agents Marty Venker and Dennis V.N. McCarthy later wrote about drinking on duty and in travel status committed by the agents during the 1970's and 1980's- give me a break! Finally, if not for the Secret Service's own fatal decision in not having agents posted on the rear of the limo, holding the handrails, JFK probably would have lived, having only received the non-fatal neck/back wound- the agents (particularly Ready) would have had 5 to 8 seconds to cover JFK before the fatal/final shot (not to mention what already being posted there would have done to the psyche/confidence of the assassin or assassins).If not for being intoxicated, Hill would not have arrived so damn late (it was Jackie who helped him- close study of the Zapruder film shows that Hill never touched Jackie, the person he was assigned to protect; Ready was assigned to JFK's side of the limo), and Ready would have made it in time. p.169- As stated above, Hill did not push Jackie back into the car! Also, what is perhaps most disturbing of all is the fact that Emory Roberts, the SAIC of 'half-back', the follow-up car, ORDERED THE MEN NOT TO MOVE after recognizing the first shot as gunfire (one of the few Dealey Plaza witnesses to do so- most described the first shot as sounding like a firecracker,NOT a rifle blast)! Sam Kinney strangely confirmed this to me this year, and it's even in the reports of Ready and Roberts that Emory did recall Ready back to the follow-up car when he attempted to aid the striken president, although this was blamned on the speed of the limo [allegedly 20-25 mph] and the distance between both [approx. 25 feet], the limo was actually slowing down to a Secret Service violating 11.2 mph (this is an AVERAGE- it could be even less during the head shot) and the distance was only a scant 5 feet at the most (as verified in films/photos, Clint Hill's WC testimony, and Paul Landis' report). Without proper leadership from commander Roberts-without even so much as a measely shout of alarm or alert- the men on the follow-up car were further perplexed, and Roberts' bizarre order certainly did not help. Nevertheless, Hill took the initiative despite these orders (which could be why he was late) and the early morning drinks (ANOTHER reason why he was so late)- at least he tried (although he was assigned-like Landis- to the First Lady detail); I guess Ready "tried", too. But, please- to give a medal to Hill?! "There is no way to know whether any agent could possibly have reached the president, in the few seconds available [5.6 to 8+,depending on who you want to believe], in time to cover him or to somehow screen him from the final, fatal bullet..." SEE ABOVE; also, what about limo driver Greer who, despite a direct order from his superior sitting in the front seat a few feet away, does not speed up the car out of danger-in fact, Greer turned around not once but TWICE and can be seen in the Zapruder film looking directly at JFK when the fatal, final shot makes its mark (Greer denied looking at the President, slowing down, or turning back around [let alone twice] to the gullible Warren Commission under oath).The second turn around happened AFTER Kellerman told Greer to get out of line; as Kellerman told Manchester, "Greer then looked back in the car. Maybe he didn't believe me". Agent Marty Venker confirms what Mary Gallagher alludes to in My Life with Jacqueline Kennedy (not to mention C. David Heymann's book)-Jackie blamed Greer for not speeding up in time to save Jack! Kellerman, for his part, is no angel- why the hell didn't he at least TRY to get into the rear of the limo, something he admitted to the WC that no obstacle-including those in the limo used as excuses- would have made any difference had he felt he was needed back there (I guess he didn't "feel" the "need"...) Kellerman also claimed that JFK spoke ("My God! I am hit!" to the WC, "Get me to a hospital", the original version to the FBI), something no one else-including medical science- admitted taking place (JFK was shot thru the neck)! Finally, Kellerman claimed to have seen JFK reaching for a part of his back near the right shoulder, an action not recorded on any film, photo, or eyewitness account. It's time to stop making excuses for these clowns... p.170- "Of all the locations along the route, Dealey Plaza (Elm Street) had to rank as one of the most dangerous in terms of possible sniper fire"- No argument here. p.171- "INSTEAD OF THE 20 TO 30 MILES PER HOUR WHICH THE SECRET SERVICE LIKED TO MAINTAIN, the presidential limousine moved at only 11.2 miles per hour"- No argument here, either. But why didn't the Secret Service (Greer) pick up speed? The parade was basically over and they were heading toward the freeway and on to the Trade Mart; Kellerman said he began to relax here, while others conceded that the parade WAS over --- is this why the assassination took place here (food for thought)? Greer "had no special training..." He was trained just fine; also, he had plenty of experience. Finally, who needs "special training" --- even a snot-nosed 16 year old knows how to HIT THE GAS! Keep in mind that Greer DISOBEYED his superior's order to get out of line BEFORE the head shot arrived. More apologies continue: "Secret Service procedure in operation at this time did not allow Greer to accelerate or take evasive action ON HIS OWN INITIATIVE: he was supposed to wait for a command from his colleague seated next to him, Agent Kellerman". Boy, did Melanson set himself up here: Rowley told the WC and Kelley told the HSCA that the drivers WERE given proper trainig and instructions on what to do in this situation: Leave the area at once! Also, as stated above, he didn't need his own initiative- Kellerman DID give him an order-what's the story?! Maybe Robert Snow should have told Melanson that Greer was hard of hearing- he probably would have believed him!Melanson does somewhat redeem himself here, though: "But there was no action of any kind taken by either agent (Greer or Kellerman) during the 6 to 7 seconds that limousine rolled down Elm Street at a snail's pace". No physical, protective action --- right. But they both claimed to the FBI to have manned the radio in order to get the limo to the nearest hospital, among other things they later (conveniently) denied. p.172- Clifton C. Carter was an LBJ aide, NOT an agent! p.178-"In terms of protective performance during the shooting, THOUGH POLITICAL PRIORITIES HAD PREDETERMINED MUCH OF THE SITUATION-AN OPEN CAR WITH NO AGENTS ALLOWED ON THE RUNNING BOARDS-there appear to have been missed opportunities for immediate evasive and protective action that might have contributed to saving the President's life". Since EVERYTHING mentioned above were Secret Service decisions, the buck stops with them as to why THEY failed to protect their charge on 11/22/63... CONCLUSION: Although I have a lot of respect for Philip Melanson's work in general, he clearly dropped the ball here. While the book is well-written and well developed, there is so much of a reliance on secondary sources and/or official documents TAKEN AT FACE VALUE, that if one didn't know better, they would swear they were reading a booklet put out by the U.S. Secret Service's own Public Affairs Department. It appears that Robert did a "snow job" on Melanson; it would be like writing a book on RFK's assassination based on the statements and documents of the LAPD alone! By interviewing many former agents (several of whom were most definitely "hostile witnesses") and by looking at documents with an objective, SKEPTICAL eye, I have achieved in my own book what Melanson fails to do: reach honest conclusions that Public Affairs, personnel Miss Gordon, Mr. Snow, and Jane Vezeris may not like. I guess you can't bite the hand that feeds you, so to speak; by going through the front door ("Public Affairs") in researching his book, Melanson missed the truth sneaking out the back door. BOTTOMLINE: worth it for the other, non-JFK chapters. As I stated, Prof. Melanson loved my review --- here is his response: "Thank you for your exceedingly detailed and knowledgeable review/ rebuttal on The Politics of Protection. It is very precise and thought provoking. Clearly, it would have strengthened my analysis to have critically interviewed agents but I and my publisher [Praeger, the same one that put out his 1990 work "Spy Saga"] decided that for the first organizational portrait of the service, secondary sources would suffice. I was also enmeshed in more important (to me) investigative activities on the MLK and RFK assassinations and did not attempt to get to the bottom of the Secret Service's JFK role but only to raise questions about it. Again, thank you for sharing the impressive breadth and detail of your knowledge of these matters." Prof. Melanson echoed the same sentiments to me at the COPA conference in Washington, D.C., in October 1996. I sincerely appreciate his candor with me. * * * Copyright © 1998, by Vincent M. Palamara http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/VP/0047-VP.TXT &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& From Penn Jones "Forgive my Grief 111"...p..17..pub 1969.. "We first saw the uncropped James Altgens photograph in Harold Wiesberg's book "Whitewash".....which was published in 1965. We were puzzled at that time at the difference in the fast protection given the Vice President as opposed to the lack of action, except possibley a turned head, on the part of the Secret Service men charged with protecting President Kennedy. The Warren Commission cropped the Altgens picture so the American people could not see that Secret Service men assigned to protect the Vice President were leaving their car by the time President Kennedy had received the second shot... In the same picture, only two men guarding the President had even turned to look toward the School Book Depository Building. The Vice President's backup car was driven by State Patrolman Joe H.Rich...Vice President aide Clifton C.Carter sat in the middle of the front seat with Secret Service man Jerry D.Kivett on Carter's right... Agent Len ( Lem) Johns and Warren Taylor were in the rear seat. Taylor on the left, had his door open when Atgens snapped his famous picture...( ** This is also seen in earlier Motorcade photos, and was so they say because there was not another convertible available that day .) Johns, on the right, left the car and raced towards the Vice President, but the motorcade sped away and Johns was forced to hitchike to the hospital .(** after he checked out some of the areas in Dealey). If one include Rufus Youngblood, three agents reacted to protect Johnson, while those charged with protecting the President only turned and gazed.."" For your information... B....

Bumpers away......

Hi Peter..... Don: Congratulations on your book, Don......much success..with all. SSAIC :Emory Roberts lied not once but twice in his reports as well as covering up the drinking episode, he stated the Queen Mary was 25 ft away from the President and also stated they were going 20 to 25 miles an hour.... Rybka had just completed the SS course was young and sharp as a tack....also they were in charge of all see previous post, evidence flow chart..... ....The President's SS agent who was his personal guard during the motorcade as was Hill to protect Jackie, and I cannot find his name right now, but am still looking, was also left behind at Love by Roberts.... One young and sharp and one directly appointed to take off and protect him...if needed.... The newspaper clipping is very old and a poor copy, but it does make it clear, their knuckles were not even rapped....re the drinking.epsisode..... Makes one pause perhaps and think...... BREAKDOWN OF SECRET SERVICE HIERARCHY/ INFRASTRUCTURE THE TOP TREASURY OFFICIALS: 1) C. DOUGLAS DILLON- Sec of the Treasury (former OSS) : on a Cabinet plane bound for Japan via Hawaii with * 2) ASST. SEC. ROBERT A. WALLACE- with Rowley at a luncheon in D.C.; denied dead agent reports; 3) ACTING SEC. G. d’ANDELOT BELIN- stepped in in Dillon’s absence 1963-1964 (related to David?); 4) [uNDERSEC. HENRY “JOE” H. FOWLER- replaced Dillon in Jan. 1965] THE PRESS SECRETARIES: 1) *PRESS SECRETARY PIERRE SALINGER- code book missing from plane; according to Pierre, only missed “two or three” trips (almost definitely only one: Texas); extremely knowledgeable about motorcade planning/ security- worked with Secret Service on all prior advance work… except for the Texas trip; 2) ASST. PRESS SEC. (#2) ANDREW HATCHER- in D.C. inactive (allegedly because Hatcher was African-American, but a member of JFK's Secret Service detail, Robert Faison, was also African-American and was with President Kennedy throughout the Texas trip); 3) ASST. PRESS SEC. (#3) MALCOLM KILDUFF- first trip on his own: official debut; essentially a non-player out of the loop; THE CHIEF’S OFFICE: 1) CHIEF JAMES J. ROWLEY- with Wallace^; 2) DEPUTY CHIEF PAUL J. PATERNI- member of OSS during WWII- worked with James Angleton and Ray Rocca (liaison to WC); involved in limousine inspection with Boring, beating Rowley and Kellerman---and the FBI--- to the punch (skull particles, bullet fragments, vehicle damage/ windshield); involved in LHO income tax check investigation right after assassination; checked on CIA connections of suspects Mosley and Homer Echevarria for the Chicago field office- matter was summarily dropped by a call from headquarters telling the field office agents who spoke to Paterni to send all memos, files, and notebooks to D.C. and not to discuss the case with anyone!; Thomas Kelley- liaison to WC: assigned by Paterni to go to Dallas and speak to LHO; 3) DEPUTY CHIEF EDWARD WILDY- totally out of the loop;.. THE TOP THREE AGENTS OF THE WHITE HOUSE DETAIL (THE SAIC’S OFFICE): 1) SAIC GERALD A. BEHN- in D.C. inactive: first full vacation in three years under JFK; 2) ASAIC (#2) FLOYD M. BORING- in D.C. at home but IN CHARGE OF PLANNING THE TEXAS TRIP [bishop, 1988 edition, p. 558; Truman Library Oral History, p.63- on all the advance work…assigned to all the advance work; JFK Library Oral History;interviews with Sam Kinney and Floyd Boring 1993-1994]; involved in limo inspection with Paterni, Trade Mart decision, PRS checks, giving Lawson the Dallas assignment, etc.- http://www.njmetronet.com/palamara/boring.html 3) ASAIC (#3) ROY H. KELLERMAN- First major trip on his own in a supervisory capacity without either Behn OR Boring; THE WHD ADVANCE AGENTS: 1) WINSTON G. LAWSON (LEAD CAR)- WHD advance agent (and former CIC agent---still with the Former Intelligence Officers Association!): only did advance work for a short time before Dallas; 2) DAVID B. GRANT (TRADE MART)- Lawson’s oft-forgotten partner from 11/13-11/22/63; physically joined Lawson in Dallas 11/18/63 from Florida trip (manned by ASAIC Boring in place of Behn); Boring’s right hand man for Chicago, Florida, and Texas advances; THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE ADVANCE MEN: 1) JERRY BRUNO- CHIEF DNC ADVANCE MAN: early organizer but not in Dallas---adamantly against Trade Mart/ choice of route (out of the loop); 2) MARTY UNDERWOOD- DNC ADVANCE MAN for Houston and Austin---adamantly against choice of route. Heard rumors of impending assassination---received confirmation of plot from CIA Officer Win Scott shortly after assassination (out of the loop)!; 3) JACK PUTERBAUGH- DNC ADVANCE MAN for Dallas: IN PILOT CAR WITH LT. COL GEORGE WHITMEYER- taught Army Intelligence, not originally scheduled to be in motorcade. As for Puterbaugh himself, he denied any involvement in the Tade mart decision he was subsequently “blamed” for. He is often blamed for the motorcade route change, as well… THE SHIFT LEADERS OF THE WHD (SAIC ASSISTANTS): 1) ATSAIC EMORY P. ROBERTS – in command of FOLLOW-UP CAR in Dallas: ordered agent Henry J. Rybka back from rear of limo at Love Field, ordered agents not to move after first shot on Elm Street, recalled agent John Ready during/ shortly after one of the (head) shots. Usurps Kellerman’s authority at Parkland Hospital; 2) ATSAIC STEWART G. STOUT, JR.- stationed at the TRADE MART (out of the loop); 3) ATSAIC ARTHUR L. GODFREY- stationed in AUSTIN (also out of the loop); THE V.P./ LBJ DETAIL: 1) SAIC OF LBJ DETAIL H. STUART KNIGHT- in D.C. inactive- transfer to become effective 11/25/63 (out of the loop); 2) ASAIC (#2) RUFUS W. YOUNGBLOOD- LBJ’s car: listens to walkie-talkie w/ LBJ---both Dave Powers & Ralph Yarborough denied that Youngblood ever vaulted over the seat the way LBJ claimed; MISC.: 1) PRS AGENT GLENN A. BENNETT- temporarily assigned to WHD: why did he ride in the follow-up car (he was an administrator)---to monitor threat subjects?- http://www.mindcushion.com/jfk/anatomythreat.html 2) WILLIAM R. GREER- LIMO: slows limo, looks back at JFK twice, disobeys Kellerman, etc.; 3) JOHN D. READY- neutralized by Roberts; 4) CLINTON J. HILL (ASSIGNED TO JACKIE)- disobeys Boring and Roberts by riding on rear of limo four times before Elm St. AND by lunging for rear of limo ON Elm Street; PART TWO: FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC TRIPS INVOLVING MOTORCADES 1961-1963: NORMAL SECURITY IN COMPARISON TO DALLAS- 1) agents on / near limo in Dealey Plaza/ Elm Street before/ during shooting (up to/ inc. 11/18/63; Boring tells agents not to mount rear of limo between 11/19 and 11/21, according to Clint Hill)- blamed on JFK!; 2) motorcycles- from upwards of 6 flanking units down to a measely 4 non-flanking units (11/18-11/22 Fort Worth; according to DPD, this occure at the last minute: morning of 11/22+ meeting of 11/21 via SS/ Grant)- blamed on JFK!; 3) The Secret Service was knowledgable about prior/ existing threats of 11/2 [Chicago], 11/9 [Milteer/ Miami], and 11/18 [Tampa/ Miami]: Boring, Grant, Bolden, Martineau, Kinney, etc. Remember PRS agent Bennett’s mysterious placement in follow-up car on 11/22/63; 4) Protective Research Section (PRS): ZERO threats found for Dallas trip, despite three known checks, Stevenson incident, Wanted for Treason photos, and warnings to JFK: Senator William Fulbright, DNC advanceman Marty Underwood, San Antonio Congressman Henry Gonzalez, etc.; 5) Deleted squad car (meeting of 11/21 between DPD and Secret Service/ Grant) 6) Motorcade route: two dangerous turns (90 and 120 degrees) involving slow speeds in a warehouse district (TSBD)- changed between 11/18 and 11/19 in spite of at least two better/ alternate routes; driver- no independent knowledge: had to follow the lead car; 7) Publication of route- by (and denied by) the Secret Service---accomplished with the help of Betty Forsling Harris, Bill Moyers, and “the agent in charge of the Dallas trip”!; 8) Vehicles out of original, numerical order- changed 11/22 at Love Field; 9) Media (press busses), photographers (always in front- cancelled at the last minute at Love Field), Cecil Stoughton ( rode near rear of limo/ in follow-up car July to November 21, 1963), Godfrey McHugh, and Ted Clifton- moved away from JFK/ limousine, against prior protocal / motorcades. DMN photographer Tom Dillard. While confirming this last minute cancellation, said this brought the press/ photographers “totally out of the picture”!; 10) Omissions: Behn, Salinger (Hatcher), Knight, Bruno [Rowley, Dillon]; 11) Trade Mart (VS. WOMEN’S BUILDING)- determined speed of cars, motorcade route choices, and security of building---Secret Service had a hand in this whole affair; 12) Sheriff Bill Decker (lead car)- order 11/22 not to participate…via a call from D.C.? 13) Overpass crowded 11/22 in Dealey Plaza, against protocal; 14) Windows not watched 11/22, despite Lawson’s “usual instructions” to do so; 15) ATSAIC Roberts: recall of SA Rybka at Love Field; recall of SA Ready in the Plaza (SA Hill delay); order not to move; usurps Kellerman's power at Parkland/ switch of allegiance; 16) Ambulances on standby- gone inc. “epileptic seizure” incident 12:25---five minutes before murder of JFK. Rike said his ambulance was called to the Dealey Plaza area on several false alarms several days and weeks before 11/22/63!; 17) No bubbletop- a protective device (shielded JFK via sun glare, possible deflection, psychological deterrent)---often on car in partial form, as well (just the rear piece, for example). Strange, multiple responsibility [Harris, Lawson, Kellerman, Sorrels, O’Donnell, etc.]; ultimately, blamed on JFK (although it was Kinney’s sole/ regretted decision)!; 18) JFK/LBJ: in same city in slow, open vehicles in close proximity to each other---unique and quite a “no-no”; 19) Umbrella man- presence/ actions not noted about, written or oral (cause for delay, confusion? Signal?). SS manual states that this is one of many things to watch for!; 20) Special ordinance of 11/18 with DPD: permitted action against unruly persons becoming involved with peaceful picketing---was this a loophole designed to give plotters/ SS/ DPD some flexiblity to do certain things, and not to do other things, regarding security?; 21) Greer: slows limo, 2 looks back, disobeys Kellerman; leads race to Parkland ( despite contradictory radio transmissions of SS); 22) Marina captivity by SS; 23) Autopsy related: body, x-rays, photos, skull fragments, bullet fragments---SS firmly in control of these crucial items of evidence; 24) CE399: in SS possession 25) Limo: in SS possession---soon after rebuilt, destroying moving crime scene/ evidence; 26) “dead” agent---many media outlets reported this as fact, at different times and in different ways (inc. location); 27) “SS” agents---phoney or REAL agents in the plaza; 28) drinking incident 11/21-11/22: inc. four agents who rode in the follow-up car: Hill, Ready, Bennett, and Landis!; Vince Palamara 4/11/99 &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& -The "Nashville Banner" from 1/23/92 carried a report that a mortal threat to President Kennedy s life was hushed up by the Secret Service when JFK visited Nashville, TN, on 5/18/63. The information came from Rep. Bob Clement, the son of former Governor Frank Clement, JFK's host during his 1963 visit to the state (both Clements met JFK on this trip [inc. is a photo from the trip depicting both the elder Clement and his son]). At Overton High School, a man approached the president with a gun underneath a sack---he was grabbed by the Secret Service and the incident itself was kept quiet in order to keep from encouraging similar scares [think of all the copycat school shootings there are today because of media hype!]. Bob Clement said: "Back in those days, privacy was easier to accomplish". The paper interviewed the widow of Paul Doster, the former SAIC of the Nashville office who died in 1987)---although Paul did not mention the incident to her, she said: "But, you ve got to remember, he was pretty secretive, even to me." For his part, Agent Doster told the "Nashville Banner" back on 5/18/63 that "a complete check of the entire motorcade route" was done (also, other [police] officers were assigned atop the municipal terminal and other buildings along the route. These men took their posts at 8 a.m. and remained at their rooftop stations until the president and his party passed . In addition, a helicopter was used, similar to its use on 11/21/63 in San Antonio, TX). Agents/ important personnel on this trip inc. Salinger, Behn, Kellerman, Greer, Roberts, DeFreese, Duncan, Chandler, Yeager, Nunn, O Leary, Grant, Sulliman, Lawson, Olsson, Paolella, Burns, and DNC advance man Jerry Bruno; --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DNC ADVANCE MAN IN DALLAS: Jack Puterbaugh, HSCA 4/14/78- [RIF#1801008010069] Advanced JFK in Duluth, Minnesota, Sept. 1963, and when he was a candidate in 1960; "Since the Citizen's Council was footing the bill for the lunch, they felt that they should determine the wheres and the whos"; 11/12/63 w/ Lawson "Puterbaugh met Forrest Sorrels... and drove the alternative motorcade routes with him"; "On November 22, Puterbaugh rode in the pilot car [correct] w/ Agent Win Lawson [wrong!] ... THEY PULLED OVER AND LET THE MOTORCADE PASS." DNC ADVANCE MAN IN HOUSTON (ALSO HAD THE AUSTIN ADVANCE): Martin E. Underwood- In an exclusive interview conducted on 10/9/92, the author obtained thefollowing new information: - Underwood became "an honorary Secret Service agent" and served under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. While with LBJ, he became the "aide in charge of the Secret Service." The advance man confirmed to this author that JFK did not restrict agents from riding on the Presidential limousine. Underwood told Harrison Livingstone: "There were so many things that fell through in Dallas. Any advance man who had any sense at all would never have taken him down that route." When Livingstone commented that the route was changed, Underwood added: "Yeah, I know. You don't take a guy down a route like that."("High Treason 2", by HarryLivingstone, page 442) - FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover had a file on Underwood and, according to the advance man, Hoover hid the Lee Harvey Oswald file from the Secret Service; - Underwood stated that the CIA, the FBI, and the mafia "knew (JFK) was going to be hit" on 11/22/63 - this information came from his direct contacts with CIA officer Win Scott, the Mexico City Station Chief during Oswald's visit to that region! In addition, Underwood stated that, eighteen hours before Kennedy's murder, "we were getting all sorts of rumors that the President was going to be assassinated in Dallas; there were no if's, and's, or but's about it." When Underwood told JFK about these disturbing reports, the President merely said, "Marty, you worry about me too much" (indeed, JFK told San Antonio Congressman Henry Gonzalez on 11/21/63: "The Secret Service told me that they have taken care of everything. There's nothing to worry about"). The reason why Underwood opened up to me is best expressed by him: "Everyone who had anything to do with Dallas in any way - Kenny O'Donnell, the Secret Service -they're practically all dead now. I just think people should know the truth." HEAD DNC ADVANCE MAN : Jerry Bruno, HSCA 12/13/77- [RIF# 180-10117-10264] "advanced the Bogota, Columbia trip and one to Italy in 1963 as well as an 11-state conservation trip which the President took before going to Texas that year"; Bruno didn't like Trade Mart-catwalks... liked Women's Building; before 11/22/63: "Cliff Carter asked Bruno if there was any truth to the rumor that JFK WAS GOING TO DUMP LYNDON IN 1964. Bruno told him he didn't know. The Johnson people were also afraid of the BOBBY BAKER investigation and the effect it would have on Johnson remaining on the ticket."; Bruno at White House, 11/5/63 w/ Behn-" O'Donnell, Behn, and Brunodecided against the Trade Mart... Bruno does not remember talking to Agent Winston Lawson of the WHD; he says he dealt mainly w/ Jerry Behn and to this day he can't imagine what caused Behn to reverse himself on the Trade Mart."; "Kenny O'Donnell told Bruno that a local Secret Service agent in Dallas (Sorrels?) [steuart?] told Jerry Behn that the SS now felt they could protect the President at the Trade Mart."; "Bruno told us there was friction between the FBI and the SS. 'They would never rely on each other. The SS would develop their own local sources', he said... He said there were times when the SS agents were LAX. Sometimes they'd say that they checked out a situation and they would not have done so. Asked to comment about drinking after hours, he said: "They were not 'one beer' drinkers. They could really put it away', he said. He related an incident on the Naples trip where an agent, whom he did not identify[ Berger?, whose name was remembered twice at the Press Club 11/21-11/22/63 and who was mentioned in Bruno's notes], pulled his gun on a hotel keeper who would not open a bar late at night to serve them. This trip was in 1963[June or July] prior to the Texas one." http://www.jfk-assassination.net/palamara/ssrosters.html We can see below how close they were in Willis.... B..

Hi Jack: Newly updated version........B 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.

Hardball above: ""TALBOT: The first critics of the Warren Commission were the members of the Warren Commission. Richard Russell, the senator from Georgia said this, he said, I think somebody else worked with Oswald on the planning of the assassination. He said that shortly before he died. And also said the majority of the commission felt the same way I did. BUGLIOSI: No, he did not say that. He did not say that. TALBOT: Yes, he did. BUGLIOSI: This guy attended six of the meetings out of about the 80. TALBOT: He said it on Cox Broadcasting in Atlanta, shortly before his death of lung cancer. You don‘t have your history correct. You don‘t have your history correct, Mr. Bugliosi. You‘re not a historian and you‘re not ."" Vincent Bugliosi does not know the data of the Warren Commission.....and which members disagreed.. with it's findings. As well as President Johnson, yet has written a Tome on the subject, preaching that it is correct... ..Oh My..Duh.....!!. The members : Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States; U.S. Senators Richard B. Russell Democrat from Georgia John Sherman Cooper Republican from Kentucky U.S. Representatives Hale Boggs Democrat from Louisiana Gerald R. Ford Republican from Michigan Allen W. Dulles, former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and John J. McCloy, former president of the World Bank. Former U.S. Solicitor General James Lee Rankin general counsel . and 14 assistant counsels, also an additional staff of 12. The proceedings began Dec. 3, 1963 , the final report was delivered to the President Johnson on Sept. 24, 1964. Despite this public assertion, JFK assassination expert Anthony Summers emphasizes most of the commission's seven members had private doubts about the theory: "John McCloy had difficulty accepting it. Congressman Hale Boggs had ‘strong doubts.' Senator John Sherman Cooper was, he told me (Summers) in 1978, ‘unconvinced.' . . . On a recently released tape, held at the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, (Sen. Richard) Russell is heard telling President Johnson, ‘I don't believe it.' And Johnson responds, ‘I don't either.'" http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=19071 17 Doubts about the Warren Commission's findings were not restricted to ordinary Americans. Well before 1978, President Johnson, Robert Kennedy, and four of the seven members of the Warren Commission all articulated, if sometimes off the record, some level of skepticism about the Commission's basic findings. http://www.fas.org/sgp/advisory/arrb98/part03.htm Documents recently uncovered in the University of Georgia Library show that Richard Russell, the only Georgian on the Warren Commission, had grave doubts about key aspects of the Warren Report on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy but kept silent about his reservations for two years. These documents, located by a university student doing research on the JFK assassination, also reveal that Russell, apparently disgusted with Warren Commission procedures, prepared but never sent a letter resigning from the Commission three months after JFK's death. http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...k_9russell.html http://www.law.uga.edu/academics/profiles/...senrussell.html B.......

Da bump...