Bernice Moore
-
Posts
3,556 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Bernice Moore
-
-
I am not a Garrison admirer, but it strikes me that, if Garrison wanted to keep attention away from Marcello, the last thing he would have done is draw attention to New Orleans, which had heretofore been largely ignored by Warren Commission critics.
Garrison was no doubt a hard man to like, even by those who believed in what he was doing. That does not matter. The man was on the right track early on.
Sabotaging the Garrison Enquiry
'Even at this later hour (1968) Lyndon B. Johnson could effectively wash his hand of the Kennedy murder. All he would have to do is to let the new enquiry into the assassintation that has been launched by Jim Garrison of New Orleans , take its normal course. Would it not the duty of the President of the United States to assist investigating the assassination of the murder of a President of the United States?" Joachim Joestin
Garrison was an official in a Parish of the United States. I do not accept any nonsense that discredits this man which was obviously done because he was on the trail of the assassins. Garrison was an American hero, who "caught" the murderers of an American President and then was persecuted for it.
Peter you may be interested in this..it was from a post some years ago on the web..sorry there was no author at the end so i cannot GIVE a name any credit..but to whomever sometime in the past a thank you..now testimonies documents etc are available on the web re the mary ferrell site and others but back some years ago that was not how it was...i found this one night while digging through old web sites, as far as i can recall that is where i have found with a crawler some interesting information..over time...this below was about and DR.PIERRE FINK'S TESTIMONY IN THE SHAW TRIAL AS QUESTIONED BY DA ALVIN OSER ..FOR YOUR INTEREST...I THINK WITH ALL THE INFORMATION BECOMING AVAILABLE FROM DOUG HORNES BOOKS AND DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THREADS IT MAY BE OF INTEREST..to you and .TO HAVE IT'S INFORMATION AVAILABLE ..showing some of the the incredible deception that had taken place and was still ongoing.....TAKE CARE B..
''One of the many lacunae in the literature on the
Garrison case is the transcript of the Shaw trial. It is
not available to the public. At the trial, both sides
demanded overnight typed transcripts to use on
cross-examination. Regular court staff could not comply,
so a private stenography firm ~ Dietrich and Pickett ~ was
engaged. Writers like John Davis in Mafia Kingfish list
the transcript at Southeastern Louisiana University in
Hammond. When I called there in January of 1992, I was
told it was not there. They had only the preliminary
hearing and the trial testimony of Perry Russo. The tran-
script, some of which remains in the form of unreadable
stenotype notes, remains the property of Helen Dietrich,
and she informed me that the only copies she had provided
were to the HSCA and to Oliver Stone, the latter for use
in his film.
In my view, the transcript should be published, and
perhaps it soon will. But until then, writers and
researchers are left with two alternatives. One can
journey to New Orleans and read the daily transcripts in
the States-Item and the Times-Picayune, which are not
always verbatim. Or one can rely on the summaries
presented in books. Until 1988 and the publication of On
the Trail of the Assassins, both responsible writers like
Henry Hurt and irresponsible ones like Robert Sam Anson
had to rely on two volumes: Milton Brener's The Garrison
Case (1969) and James Kirkwood's American Grotesque
(1970). Brener was a New Orleans attorney who defended
both Layton Martens ~ a friend of David Ferrie's whose phone
number was found in Clay Shaw's address book ~ and Walter
Sheridan. Brener is not above attacking Garrison
personally, once referring to him as a "witch hunter"
(p. 267).
But Kirkwood's book is by far the lengthiest treatment
of the Shaw trial that I know of. Unfortunately, it can be
read only with great caution. The author begins his work
by comparing Garrison to a Klansman (p. 7). A few pages
later the preliminary hearing is likened to the Spanish
Inquisition (p. 13). Sure enough, towards the end,
Garrison's assistant DAs are equated to guards at the Nazi
death camps (p. 595). Kirkwood's animus toward Garrison is
matched only by his sympathy for Shaw. In the last 616 of
the book's 657 pages, the accused is never called Shaw or
Mr. Shaw; only "Clay" or "Clay Shaw."
This bias seriously colors the depiction of the trial.
In a rather voluminous book that centers on a court
proceeding that took 39 days, the reader would never know
that the following witnesses appeared: Wilma Bond, Mr. and
Mrs. Philip Willis, Billy Joe Martin, Carolyn Walther,
James Simmons, Mr. and Mrs. William Newman, and Mary
Moorman. In a book that supposedly centers on the
possibility of a New Orleans-related conspiracy, one
searches in vain for the name of Gordon Novel.
The list could go on, but perhaps Kirkwood's greatest
slighting is to Assistant DA Alvin Oser. With help from
Vincent Salandria, Oser conducted the Dealey Plaza portion
of the trial. Kirkwood refuses to concede that the
prosecution shredded the Warren Report, something the jury
agreed had been done. He writes about Oser in otiose,
condescending, disparaging terms. He even derides his
voice. But Kirkwood fails to note that, in his
cross-examination of Dr. Pierre Finck, Oser was making
history.
This was the first and only time one of the three
Bethesda autopsy doctors was exposed to informed,
aggressive, relentless questioning. In my view, it is a
milestone in the depiction of the autopsy as not only
hapless but sinister. This theme has been furthered in the
work of Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone (High
Treason) and David Lifton (Best Evidence), so much so
that, today, the autopsy evidence is one of the most
questionable aspects of the official story. In the
following excerpts, I have chosen those that show who
really controlled the autopsy and those that reveal some
of the dubious practices employed. It should also be noted
that Oser concentrated on the shifting location of the
head wound, which, to Dr. Finck's dismay, Ramsey Clark's
panel had raised four inches, and on the location of the
back wound, which, Oser felt, made for a rather dubious
trajectory in exiting through the throat.
The transcript appears as typed, with misspellings of
names intact. Berkley should be Burkley, Kinney should be
Kenney. My thanks and appreciation to Helen Dietrich, with
whose kind permission this material is reprinted. (The ex-
cerpts are from pp. 46-49, 51-52, 54-57, 92-95, 98-118,
138-141, and 152-159 of the first day, February 24, 1969;
and pp. 2-8, and 30-32 of the second day, February 25,
1969.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q When did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital?
THE WITNESS:
Dr. Pierre Finck, A Are you asking me if I contacted a Dr. Parker?
Q No, I asked you when did you all contact the doctors at Parkland Hospital in
Dallas, Texas.
A Oh, I did not contact them, Dr. Humes did.
Q And did Dr. Humes relate to you what he learned from these doctors at
Parkland?
A Definitely.
Q Do you know when Dr. Humes contacted these doctors at Parkland?
A As far as I know, Dr. Humes called them the morning following the autopsy,
as far as I know, Dr. Humes called Dallas on Saturday morning, on the 23rd of
November, 1963.
Q Doctor, can you tell me why the delay in contacting the doctors that worked
on President Kennedy in Dallas until the next morning after the body was
already
removed from the autopsy table?
A I can't explain that. I know that Dr. Humes told me he called them. I cannot
give an approximate time. I can give you the reason why he called. As I have
stated before, having a wound of entry in the back of the neck, having seen no
exit in the front of the neck, nothing from the radiologist who looked at the
whole
body X-ray films, I have requested as there was no whole bullet remaining in
the
cadaver of the President, that was a very strong reason for inquiring if there
were
not another wound in the approximate direction corresponding to that wound of
entry in the back of the neck, because in the wound of the head with entry in
the
back of the head and exit on the right side of the head, I never had any doubt,
any question that it was a through-and-through wound of the head with disinte-
gration of the bullet. The difficulty was to have found an entry in the back of
the
neck and not to have seen an exit corresponding to that entry.
Q This puzzled you at this time, is that right, Doctor?
A Sorry, I don't understand you.
Q This puzzled you at the time, the wound in the back and you couldn't find an
exit wound? You were wondering about where this bullet was or where the path
was going, were you not?
A Yes.
Q Well, at that particular time, Doctor, why didn't you call the doctors at
Parkland
or attempt to ascertain what the doctors at Parkland may have done or may have
seen while the President's body was still exposed to view on the autopsy table?
A I will remind you that I was not in charge of this autopsy, that I was
called~
Q You were a co-author of the report though, weren't you, Doctor?
A Wait. I was called as a consultant to look at these wounds; that doesn't
mean I
am running the show.
Q Was Dr. Humes running the show?
A Well, I heard Dr. Humes stating that ~ he said, "Who is in charge here?" and
I
heard an Army General, I don't remember his name, stating, "I am." You must
understand that in those circumstances, there were law enforcement officials,
military people with various ranks, and you have to co-ordinate the operation
according to directions.
Q But you were one of the three qualified pathologists standing at that
autopsy
table, were you not, Doctor?
A Yes, I was.
Q Was this Army General a qualified pathologist?
A No.
Q Was he a doctor?
A No, not to my knowledge.
Q Can you give me his name, Colonel?
A No, I can't. I don't remember.
* * *
Q How many other military personnel were present at the autopsy in the autopsy
room?
A That autopsy room was quite crowded. It is a small autopsy room, and when
you are called in circumstances like that to look at the wound of the President
of
the United States who is dead, you don't look around too much to ask people for
their names and take notes on who they are and how many there are. I did not do
so. The room was crowded with military and civilian personnel and federal
agents, Secret Service agents, FBI agents, for part of the autopsy, but I
cannot
give you a precise breakdown as regards the attendance of the people in that
autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
Q Colonel, did you feel that you had to take orders from this Army General
that
was there directing the autopsy?
A No, because there were others, there were Admirals.
Q There were Admirals?
A Oh, yes, there were Admirals, and when you are a Lieutenant Colonel in the
Army you just follow orders, and at the end of the autopsy we were
specifically
told ~ as I recall it, it was by Admiral Kenney, the Surgeon General of the
Navy ~ this is subject to verification ~ we were specifically told not to
discuss
the case.
Q You were told not to discuss the case?
A ~ to discuss the case without coordination with the Attorney General.
* * *
Q Doctor, can you tell me how many photographs were taken of the President's
body?
A Some of the photographs were taken in my presence in the autopsy room. I
can't give you the exact number, but this information is available.
Q To who, Doctor?
A To you.
Q It is?
A It is a public document.
Q Go ahead. How many?
A I can't give you an exact number of photographs taken or X-rays of the body
of the President.
Q Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an
occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken?
A Yes, I did.
Q Doctor, I direct your attention to a report allegedly signed by you on 26
January, 1967.
MR. DYMOND: What part are you talking about?
(Conference between Counsel.)
BY MR. OSER:
Q (Exhibiting document to witness) Doctor, I direct your attention to a
report,
which I mark for identification "S-67," and I ask you to take a look at this
document. Would you take a look at this particular one that I have marked
Doctor,
and let me know whether it is the same as the one you have before you.
A (Comparing documents) It is.
Q Your answer is that it is, Doctor?
A Yes.
Q And it contains your signature? Am I correct, sir?
A Yes.
(Whereupon, the document referred to by Counsel was duly marked for identifi-
cation as "Exhibit D-67.")
BY MR. OSER:
Q Doctor, I direct your attention to the first page, the bottom of the last
line of
the fifth paragraph, which states, "Dr. Finck first saw the photographs on
January
20, 1967," and I ask you if you would explain your answer to me, sir, just
made,
that you saw the photographs prior to writing your autopsy report in 1963.
A I did not say that I had seen the photographs before writing the autopsy
report
of 1963.
MR. OSER:
May I have my original question read back to the Doctor, please, and his
answer.
(Whereupon, the aforegoing passage was read back by the Reporter as follows:
"Q Doctor, prior to your writing your report on the autopsy, did you have an
occasion to view these photographs of the President that were taken?
"A Yes, I did.")
THE WITNESS:
No, I did not, I did not see those photographs before signing my autopsy
report.
I may have answered "I didn't" and it was transcribed as "I did."
BY MR. OSER:
Q Doctor, did you hear what the stenographer just read you back? That is my
question that I propounded to you. Now the question is: Did you see the photo-
graphs of President Kennedy before signing your autopsy report.
A That is correct.
Q That is correct?
A I was there when the photographs were taken, but I did not see the
photographs
of the wounds before I signed the autopsy report. I did not see those
photographs
in 1963.
Q So what you said before, that you did see the photographs, that was wrong?
Is
that correct?
A I never said that. It was misunderstood. I said "I did not" or "I didn't." I
am
very firm on this point that I did not see~
Q Is it, doctor that fact that I showed you the report~
THE COURT:
I think you have covered the matter now.
* * *
Q Can you tell me how the final draft of the autopsy report which you signed
along with Commander Humes and Commander Boswell came about? How was
that put together?
A We signed that autopsy report, as I remember, on Sunday the 24th of
November,
1963, in the office of Admiral Galloway, who was one of the Admirals in charge
of the Navy hospital. I had reviewed with Dr. Humes his draft of the autopsy
report prior to that time, and, as I recall, the three of us, that is Humes,
Boswell
and myself, were present at that time in the office of Admiral Galloway on that
Sunday, to the best of my recollection.
Q Doctor, I show you from Volume 17, Page 30 through Page 47, and ask you if
you would view the contents of those pages.
A Yes, sir. This is Volume 17 of the hearings before the President's
Commission
on the assassination of President Kennedy. I don't recall seeing Pages 30
through
44. What Dr. Humes and I did, we were discussing the wording of the final
autopsy report based on a report he had prepared through the night, I should
say
through Saturday, in the course of Saturday, the 23rd of November, and he
worked
on this, and he read over to me what he had prepared. Is Page 45 included in
your
question?
Q Yes, sir, 45 through 47.
A On Page 45 I recognize the drawing which I see now in the room, and which
is labeled in this volume Commission Exhibit 397. I don't recall the timing of
seeing this. I have seen this at some time. I don't recall exactly when.
Q The exhibit you are talking about right now, Doctor, Exhibit 397, is this
the
same exhibit you are talking about reproduced here in State 68, as best you can
recall, Doctor?
A As best as I can tell, Page 45 of this volume is a reproduction of the
exhibit
shown in the courtroom as 68, except that at the bottom it doesn't say "Commis-
sion Exhibition 397." I remember that these drawings had been made, and you
realize now I am referring to Page 45.
Q Which is the same thing as Exhibit 68, is that right?
A Yes, sir, it is. You will realize the drawings are made ahead of time on
work
sheets to be used at the time of the autopsy, and that wounds are added to
these
schematic representations of the front and back of a human body. I know this
was
involved in the discussions, in the testimony, but I can't give you any timing.
As
I recall, Dr. Boswell did those and discussed them but I can't recall exactly
when
I saw them.
Q In other words, when an autopsy descriptive list or sheet is used at an
autopsy,
it is either used at the time of an autopsy or shortly thereafter as a work
sheet
somewhere in the autopsy room, is that right, Doctor?
A If State 68 is an autopsy work sheet ~ well, when it was done by Dr. Boswell
I
don't know.
Q In referring to State Exhibit 69 and 70, Doctor, these two exhibits were not
done then until sometime in March of 1964, is that correct, Doctor?
A I wouldn't know the exact date. The first time as I recall that I saw these
exhibits was in March 1964, to the best of my recollection.
Q But you do know, Doctor, you can testify that the photographs and X-rays
were
not available, to the best of your knowledge, to the illustrator of these
exhibits
as they were not available to you in March, 1964?
A To the best of my knowledge the X-rays and photographs were not available to
the illustrator. I know for sure that they were not available to me, the X-rays
and
the photographs.
* * *
Q When was the first time you saw the Zapruder film, Doctor?
A As I recall, it was in March 1964, when I returned from Panama and was told
I had to testify before the Warren Commission.
Q So at the time you signed and co-authored the autopsy report, which has been
marked as S-71 for identification, you had not, as of that time, seen the
Zapruder
film, is that correct?
A I had not.
Q Doctor, are you familiar in this particular report, S-71, which you
co-authored
with Commanders Humes and Boswell, with all the evidence upon which the
report was based?
A Please repeat your question.
Q Are you familiar with all of the evidence upon which this report was based?
A In the general sense, yes.
Q Doctor, I call your attention to Page 2, under the heading of "Clinical Sum-
mary," and ask you to tell me the basis for your statement as part of your
clinical
summary that three shots were heard.
A Where do you see that, that three shots were heard?
Q The first sentence in the second paragraph of Page 2, the first four words.
A This is the information we had by the time we signed that autopsy report.
Q The information from whom, Doctor?
A There were a lot of people who were asked, I wouldn't know their names. I
couldn't list all the people by name.
Q Who told you that three shots were heard? Who told you that?
A As I recall, Admiral Galloway heard from somebody who was present at the
scene that three shots had been heard, but I cannot give the details of this.
Q I ask you, did you have an occasion to interview any of the witnesses that
were
present in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, you yourself, before you wrote
this?
A During the autopsy of President Kennedy there were Secret Service Agent
Kellerman in that autopsy room. I asked him his name. Admiral Berkley, the
personal physician of President Kennedy was present, and there was a third
person whose name I don't recall who said to Admiral Galloway, who was there
during the autopsy, that three shots had been fired. At the time we wrote this
we
had this information obtained from people who had been at the scene to the best
of my recollection.
Q Did you have any information available, Doctor, from people at the scene who
heard four shots?
A From the assassination on I heard conflicting reports regarding the number
of
shots.
Q I am talking about at the time you all prepared and signed this report,
Doctor,
before you affixed your signature to this, did you talk to anyone or have any
reports available from people who heard four shots at Dealey Plaza on November
22?
A I don't remember any.
Q Did you have any statements or reports available to you from people who
heard
two shots in Dealey Plaza on November 22 at the time you made this report?
A At the time I made the report I don't recall having a report of two shots.
Q Going further, Doctor, in your autopsy report, it states, "Governor Connally
was seriously wounded by this same gunfire." From where did you receive this
information?
A I knew it at the time of the autopsy because of the news media who reported
the President had been shot and the Governor of Texas had been wounded, as I
recall.
Q What did you mean, that Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the
same gunfire? What did you mean when you said the same gunfire?
A This is the information we had at the time of the autopsy ~ correction, at
the
time we signed the autopsy report, and because the information in the autopsy
report may be obtained after the autopsy, and again I can't pinpoint the source
of
that information.
Q Doctor, I now show you State Exhibit 64, and ask you if you recognize what
is depicted in this particular photograph, as being similar to something you
have
seen before during the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy?
A This black-and-white reproduction is similar to a bullet that, as best I can
remember, I saw for the first time in March 1964.
Q Doctor, speaking of your statement in the autopsy report that Governor Con-
nally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire, is it not a fact that when
testifying before the Warren Commission you stated that in your opinion it was
impossible for Commission Exhibit 399 to do the same damage to President
Kennedy as was done to Governor Connally because there were too many
fragments in Governor Connally's wrist? Did you not so testify, sir?
MR. DYMOND:
I object to that question. Nobody has stated the same damage was done to
Governor Connally as was done to President Kennedy, and that is what this
question asks.
THE COURT:
I think the question was put to the Doctor, did he not make a prior
contradictory
statement, which is legitimate cross-examination.
Let the question be read back.
(Whereupon, the pending question was read back by the Reporter.)
THE COURT:
I am permitting the question. I overrule your objection.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Will you answer yes or no, Doctor, then you can explain.
A This is a difficult question to answer because there were two bullets
striking
President Kennedy. I have examined the wounds of President Kennedy and I
would say that the bullet seen here is an entire bullet.
Q Is what?
A Is an entire bullet. By an entire bullet, I mean a bullet that did not
disintegrate
into many fragments.
Q Let me ask you about that in this way~
THE COURT:
Let him finish his answer.
MR. OSER:
I thought he had finished.
THE COURT:
Had you finished your answer?
THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Colonel, let me ask you this way: Speaking of State Exhibit 64, the bullet,
I
ask you whether or not you testified in front of the Warren Commission that
that
particular bullet could not have done the damage to Governor Connally as there
were too many bullet fragments in Governor Connally's wrist. Did you or did you
not answer that in front of the Warren Commission in answer to a question by
Mr.
Specter? It appears on Page 382 of your testimony of the Warren Report about
the middle of the page.
A It reads as follows: "Could that bullet possibly have gone through President
Kennedy in 388," Mr. Specter's question. "Through President Kennedy's head~"
what is 388?
MR. WILLIAM WEGMANN:
The one on the right.
A (Continuing) "and remain intact in the way you see it now?" "Definitely
not."
"And could it have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor
Connally's right wrist?" "No, for the reason there are too many fragments
described in that wrist."
MR. OSER:
Thank you, Doctor, that is the point I am talking about.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Now, referring back to that same paragraph in the clinical summary, in the
next
sentence you said, "According to newspaper reports (Washington Post November
23, 1963) Bob Jackson, a Dallas 'Times Herald' photographer, said he looked
around as he heard the shots and saw a rifle barrel disappearing into a window
on an upper floor of the nearby Texas School Book Depository Building." Can
you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your attention?
A Are you referring to Page 979 of the Hearing?
Q No, sir, I am back on your original autopsy report, Page 2.
A I have it.
Q The sentence right after you said that Governor Connally was wounded by the
same gunfire.
A What was that sentence?
Q Right after "gunfire."
A "Governor Connally was seriously wounded by the same gunfire." This is part
of the autopsy report I signed.
Q Can you tell me who called that particular newspaper article to your
attention,
and why?
A As I recall, it was Dr. Humes who mentioned this article to me.
Q Colonel, do you customarily take notice of newspaper articles in an autopsy
report?
A At times it is done.
Q Therefore, Doctor, am I correct in stating that particular autopsy report
signed
by you was based partially on hearsay evidence, is that correct? By that I mean
evidence received by someone other than you having actual personal knowledge
of the thing?
A Having not been at the scene I had to get information from somebody else.
Q Did you have occasion to read a newspaper article of November 22 or 23,
which
reported there were four to six shots fired and they came from the grassy
knoll,
being stated by Miss Jean Hill? Did you read that before you made your report?
A I don't recall reading that before I made the report. I may have been aware
at
that time of conflicting reports as regards the number and the difference in
the
direction of the shots, but I cannot pinpoint the time.
Q Since you are referring to the Washington Post~
A Would you repeat that?
THE COURT:
Mr. Oser, speak into the microphone, it may help a little bit.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Since you are dealing with the Washington Post article of November 23, 1963,
in your autopsy report, I wondered if you had an occasion to either read the
article
or have it brought to your attention, that one Charles Brehm, one of the
spectators
close to the Presidential limousine, saw material which appeared to be a
sizable
portion of President Kennedy's skull~
MR. DYMOND:
Objection, that is not in evidence.
THE COURT:
This is not a prior contradictory statement, Mr. Oser, is it?
MR. OSER:
I am asking if he took this into account when he~
THE COURT:
Where are you reading from?
MR. OSER:
An article taken out of the Washington Post on the same day as the article by
Bob
Jackson.
MR. DYMOND:
Your Honor, that has no place in this trial at all.
THE COURT:
Mr. Oser, I think you are enlarging the scope of the prior contradictory
statement
unless you can allege it was made in the report.
MR. OSER:
I am trying to ascertain what hearsay they used to arrive at in their report.
MR. DYMOND:
If you permit that you will have to permit Counsel to go through every
conflicting
report that was reported by every alleged eyewitness to the assassination and
ask
this witness whether they were taken into account. It certainly has no place in
this trial and is completely irrelevant to the issues and irrelevant to the
credibility
and qualifications of the Doctor and irrelevant to the material on which he is
testifying.
THE COURT:
I believe that the witness did state a few moments ago that he was not there
personally and they did have to accept what Mr. Oser termed as hearsay. I
believe
the question being put by the District Attorney is to find out what other
hearsay
evidence they received.
MR. OSER:
That's right.
THE COURT:
Can't you ask a specific question instead of reading the article?
MR. DYMOND:
The thrust of my objection is that we have nothing before The Court to show
this
was even a bit of hearsay without even asking the Doctor whether he heard it.
This is something that is purely out of the files of the District Attorney.
MR. OSER:
Your Honor, the State is attempting to ascertain from the Colonel whether or
not
he based his conclusions or his autopsy report on any type of hearsay other
than
that type of hearsay that backed up what the Warren Commission wanted it to be,
or the Federal Government. Strike Warren Commission and make it Federal
Government.
MR. DYMOND:
Your Honor, what I'm trying to impress on The Court is you have nothing before
you to even show there is hearsay evidence to the effect of this statement that
has
been made by the District Attorney. That is completely outside the scope of the
evidence in this case. We don't know any such contention was ever made by
anybody.
THE COURT:
If the witness signed part of a three-man report and you referred to the
report
without using exact words, I would permit it, which you did previously. I think
a general question can be asked, did they interview any other person, without
saying what those persons said.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Colonel, besides what you referred to in paragraph 2 of the report, were you
furnished with any other alleged statements by any of the witnesses in Dealey
Plaza, namely the witnesses to the assassination of President Kennedy on Novem-
ber 22?
MR. DYMOND:
Is this question restricted to before he signed the autopsy report?
MR. OSER:
I am asking about at the time he signed the report.
THE COURT:
It is restricted to that period.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Were you furnished statements by anyone else?
A We based the statement on the people who had been at the scene.
THE COURT:
Let me interrupt you a second. You say "we," I presume you mean you and the
other two doctors?
THE WITNESS:
Yes, sir.
THE COURT:
Mr. Oser's question is, did you and the other two persons personally interview
these people or get it from another source?
THE WITNESS:
I personally talked to Secret Service Agent Kellerman. I personally talked to
Admiral Berkley, the personal physician to President Kennedy. I personally
talked to Admiral Galloway, who was referred to a third witness present at the
scene. There may have been others leading us to the statement that to the best
of
our knowledge at that time there were three shots fired.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Doctor, speaking of the wound to the throat area of the President as you
described it, after this bullet passed through the President's throat in the
manner
in which you described it, would the President have been able to talk?
A I don't know.
Q Do you have an opinion?
A There are many factors influencing the ability to talk or not to talk after
a shot.
Q Did you have an occasion to dissect the track of that particular bullet in
the
victim as it lay on the autopsy table?
A I did not dissect the track in the neck.
Q Why?
A This leads us into the disclosure of medical records.
MR. OSER:
Your Honor, I would like an answer from the Colonel and I would ask The Court
so to direct.
THE COURT:
That is correct, you should answer, Doctor.
THE WITNESS:
We didn't remove the organs of the neck.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Why not, doctor?
A For the reason that we were told to examine the head wounds and that the~
Q Are you saying someone told you not to dissect the track?
THE COURT:
Let him finish his answer.
THE WITNESS:
I was told that the family wanted an examination of the head, as I recall, the
head
and chest, but the prosecutors in this autopsy didn't remove the organs of the
neck, to my recollection.
BY MR. OSER;
Q You have said they did not. I want to know why didn't you as an autopsy
pathologist attempt to ascertain the track through the body which you had on
the
autopsy table in trying to ascertain the cause or causes of death? Why?
A I had the cause of death.
Q Why did you not trace the track of the wound?
A As I recall I didn't remove these organs from the neck.
Q I didn't hear you.
A I examined the wounds but I didn't remove the organs of the neck.
Q You said you didn't do this; I am asking you why didn't [you] do this as a
pathologist?
A From what I recall I looked at the trachea, there was a tracheotomy wound
the
best I can remember, but I didn't dissect or remove these organs.
MR. OSER:
Your Honor, I would ask Your Honor to direct the witness to answer my
question.
BY MR. OSER:
Q I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track
of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of
the
autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that
question.
A As I recall I was told not to but I don't remember by whom.
Q You were told not to but you don't remember by whom?
A Right.
Q Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room?
A I don't recall.
Q Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time?
A Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that
doesn't
include the removal of the organs of the neck.
Q You are one of the three autopsy specialists and pathologists at the time,
and
you saw what you described as an entrance wound in the neck area of the
President of the United States who had just been assassinated, and you were
only
interested in the other wound but not interested in the track through his neck,
is
that what you are telling me?
A I was interested in the track and I had observed the conditions of bruising
between the point of entry in the back of the neck and the point of exit at the
front
of the neck, which is entirely compatible with the bullet path.
Q But you were told not to go into the area of the neck, is that your
testimony?
A From what I recall, yes, but I don't remember by whom.
* * *
Q In referring once again, Colonel to S-67 for identification, the five-page
report
signed by you in January 1967, can you tell me why this report was prepared?
A Please repeat your question.
Q Can you tell me why this report was prepared, the one you signed in January
1967.
A The purpose of this, as I recall, was to correlate our autopsy report of
November
1963, and the X-rays and photographs of the wounds, because we has seen the
X-rays at the time of the autopsy but we hadn't seen the photographs in
November
1963 or in March 1964, so in 1967 we were asked to look at those X-rays and
photographs.
Q By whom were you asked to do this?
THE COURT:
Are you waiting for an answer?
MR. OSER:
Yes.
THE COURT:
I thought you were referring to your notes, Doctor.
MR. OSER:
I asked the witness~
THE COURT:
I heard your question. I was just wanting to know if you were waiting for an
answer.
THE WITNESS:
I think I went first to the ~ I saw these photographs and X-rays to the best
of my
recollection at the archives of the United States in January 1967, the
photographs,
for the first time.
THE COURT:
He didn't ask you that question. He wanted to know who asked you to do this.
Was that your question?
MR. OSER:
Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS:
As I recall it was Mr. Eardley. There are many names involved in this. I think
it
was Mr. Eardley at the Department of Justice and I had the authority to go
there
from the military.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Can you tell me whether or not you were asked to do this summary in January
1967 in regard to a panel review that was going to be done by Mr. William H.
Carns, Russell S. Fisher, Mr. Russell H. Morgan and Mr. Alan R. Moritz.
A In January 1967 when I signed S-67, to the best of my recollection, I was
not
aware of this panel review which took place in 1968, if you are referring to an
independent panel review.
Q I am.
A It was composed of W. H. Carns, Russell H. [sic] Fisher, Russell H. Morgan
and
Alan R. Moritz.
Q That is correct, Colonel.
A I don't remember knowing in 1967 that these four names were reviewing the
evidence to the best of my recollection.
Q Are you familiar with their work?
A I have read this. I was made aware of this panel review, I had received this
panel review in February 1969.
Q Colonel, can you give me the measurements of the wound in the area of the
front of the President's neck that I am pointing to here on State Exhibit 69?
A As I recall, it was given by the Dallas surgeons as approximately five
millime-
ters in diameter.
Q Can you convert approximately five millimeters in diameter to a part of an
inch
for me, please?
A Approximately three sixteenths of one inch corresponds to five millimeters.
Q Referring, Colonel, to your Summary Report, State-67 for purposes of identi-
fication, which you signed on 26 January, 1967, can you tell me why you did not
list the size of the wound that you say is the exit wound in the throat of the
President?
A Because I did not, I did not see that wound in the front. I did not, I don't
know
why it is not there.
Q You say you did not see it?
A I did not see the wound of exit in the skin. I saw a hole of exit in the
shirt of
the President.
Q But in speaking of the throat area, or skin area of the President, relative
to his
throat you said it was approximately five millimeters and you later said that
Commander Humes received this information from Dallas.
A The wound that was in the front of the neck I obtained that information from
Dr. Humes.
Q Therefore would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of the neck as
you describe it is larger than the wound in the throat area?
MR. DYMOND:
We object to this. First of all, the Doctor testified that these are
approximate
measurements on wounds in the skin. Secondly, the doctor testified that he
never
saw the front bullet wound and consequently an answer on that would have to be
based on measurements made by someone else, told to someone else, and then
included in the report.
MR. OSER:
All the results, if The Court please, from two autopsy reports signed by this
witness stating that ~ I believe he said everything in here is true and correct
when
I asked him, then I asked him if he wished to change anything in here at the
beginning of his testimony and he said no. I'm trying to ascertain what he told
Defense Counsel on direct examination, he stated this was an exit wound and I
am trying to find out whether the hole in the back is larger than the front and
whether or not it is compatible with a wound from this type of bullet.
MR. DYMOND:
If The Court please, the Doctor testified what he based his conclusions on and
further testified that he never did see the front wound in the neck and conse-
quently the question is impossible of answer.
THE COURT:
He has testified he is familiar with the information received from Dr. Humes
from
the surgeons in Dallas, Texas and he knows it was in the report and that the
information was communicated to him and he was aware of it. I understand that
Mr. Oser's question is whether the entrance wound from the rear was larger than
the exit wound, which was the information given by the surgeon in Dallas,
Texas.
MR. DYMOND:
Your Honor has consistently ruled throughout the trial that a witness cannot
relate
what someone else related to him.
THE COURT:
Ordinarily I agree but it was advised to him and he was made cognizant of it
when
he signed the original report, when he signed the report he either knew that as
a
fact which was received it from Commander Humes who received it from Dallas.
I will permit the question.
You are asking Dr. Finck if from the information he had whether or not the
measurements of the alleged entrance wound as you wish to call it, alleged, is
not
larger than the information received from Dallas of the entrance wound in the
front. I will permit you to ask it.
MR. DYMOND:
To which Counsel respectfully objects and reserves a Bill of Exception on the
grounds this is hearsay evidence making the entire line of questioning,
particu-
larly this question, the answer to the question, the objection and ruling of
the
Court and the entire record parts of the bill.
MR. OSER:
Could I have the witness answer my question. Will you answer the question.
THE WITNESS:
Please repeat the question.
THE REPORTER:
Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of
the
neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area?"
MR. DYMOND:
Your Honor, that is not the question you stated you were ruling on. You said
you
were ruling on the question whether it was larger than the information
indicated.
MR. OSER:
I will ask that question.
THE WITNESS:
Whether or not it was larger?
BY MR. OSER:
Q Than the information you received from the doctors in Dallas.
MR. DYMOND:
Object now on the ground that he didn't receive the information from the
Doctor.
THE COURT:
I just ruled that he signed his name to the report and under that exception I
will
permit the question. Do you understand the question?
MR. OSER:
Let me ask you again, Doctor~
THE COURT:
No, because then I will have to be ruling on different things if you change
the
question each time.
MR. OSER:
Then I'll ask that the Court Reporter read the question I asked.
THE REPORTER:
Question: "Therefore, would you say, Colonel, that the wound in the back of
the
neck as you described it is larger than the wound in the throat area" ~ then he
added the second part of the question, Your Honor, which says, "than the infor-
mation you received from the doctors in Dallas?"
THE WITNESS:
I don't know 'cause I measured the wound of entry whereas I had no way of
measuring the wound of exit and the wound could have been slightly smaller, the
same size, or slightly larger because all I have is somebody saying it was
approximately 5 millimeters in diameter.
* * *
Q Colonel, I direct your attention to Page 4 of your autopsy report of
November
1963, and to the fourth paragraph which states, "The complexity of these frac-
tures and the fragments thus produced tax satisfactory verbal description and
are
better appreciated in photographs and roentgenograms which are prepared." Now,
Colonel, can you tell me and tell the Court how you refer in your autopsy
report
that the fractures and the fragments are better appreciated in the photographs
when you did not see the photographs until January 1967?
MR. DYMOND:
We object to this unless Counsel says better than what. This report indicates
a
photograph would show them better than they could be described in words.
THE COURT:
You are coming to the aid of a witness unsolicited.
MR. DYMOND:
You cannot compare something to nothing, Your Honor.
THE COURT:
Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS:
Yes. When there are so many fractures in so many directions producing so many
lines and fragments in the bone, a photograph will be more accurate than
descrip-
tions. The photographs were taken but turned over undeveloped to the Secret
Service at the time we performed the autopsy, and the photographs were taken,
we did not know when these photographs would be processed, this was beyond
our control because they had been turned over, exposed, taken in our presence,
but the Secret Service took charge of them.
BY MR. OSER:
Q And you didn't see the photographs until January of 1967. Is that correct,
Colonel?
A That is correct.
Q Also in your autopsy report on the same page, Page 4, I direct your
attention
to the last paragraph, the last paragraph under "2," where you said in your
report,
"The second wound presumably of entry," and now you state in Court that you
are positive it was of entry.
A As I recall, it was Admiral Galloway who told us to put that word
"presumably."
Q Admiral Galloway?
A Yes.
Q Told you to put that word "presumably"?
A Yes, but this does not change my opinion that this is a wound of entry.
Q Is Admiral Galloway a Pathologist, to your knowledge?
A Admiral Galloway had some training in Pathology. He was the Commanding
Officer of the Naval Hospital, as I recall, and at that time, in my mind, this
was
a wound of entry, it just was suggested to add "presumably" this was.
Q Did he suggest you add anything else to your report, Colonel?
A Not that I recall.
Q Can you give me the name of the General that you said told Dr. Humes not to
talk about the autopsy report?
A This was not a General, it was an Admiral.
Q All right, excuse me, the Admiral, can you give me the name of the Admiral?
A Who stated that we were not to discuss the autopsy findings?
Q Yes.
A This was in the autopsy room on the 22nd and 23rd of November, 1963.
Q What was his name?
A Well, there were several people in charge, there were several Admirals, and,
as
I recall, the Adjutant General of the Navy.
Q Do you have a name, Colonel?
A It was Admiral Kinney, K-i-n-n-e-y, as I recall.
Q Now, can you give me the name then of the General that was in charge of the
autopsy, as you testified about?
A Well, there was no General in charge of the autopsy. There were several
people,
as I have stated before. I heard Dr. Humes state who was in charge here, and he
stated that the General answered "I am," it may have been pertaining to
operations
other than the autopsy, it does not mean the Army General was in charge of the
autopsy, but when Dr. Humes asked who was in charge here, it may have been
who was in charge of the operations, but not of the autopsy, and by
"operations,"
I mean the over-all supervision.
Q Which includes your report. Does it not?
A Sir?
Q Which includes your report. Does it not?
A No.
Q It does not?
A I would not say so, because the report I signed was signed by two other
pathologists and at no time did this Army General say that he would have
anything
to do with signing this autopsy report.
Q Can you give me the Army General's name?
A I don't remember it.
Q How did you know he was an Army General?
A Because Dr. Humes said so.
Q Was he in uniform?
A I don't remember.
Q Were any of the Admirals or Generals or any of the Military in uniform in
that
autopsy room?
A Yes.
Q Were there any other Generals in uniform?
A I remember a Brigadier General of the Air Force, but I don't remember his
name.
Q Were there any Admirals in uniform in the autopsy room?
A From what I remember, Admiral Galloway was in uniform, Admiral Kinney
was in uniform, I don' t remember whether or not Admiral Berkley, the
President's
physician, was in uniform.
* * *
Q Do you know whether or not all of the X-ray films came out or not, to your
knowledge?
A To my knowledge, they came out all right.
Q Now, if, Colonel, you viewed the X-ray film of the head or had been viewed
by a radiologist, can you tell me why there was no mention in your report of a
three-quarter by one-half inch rectangular shaped object in the President's
brain?
A No.
Q Can you tell me why there is nothing in your report making mention of
metallic
substances in the track?
A Before you go to that second question, if I may say something, in that panel
review of 1968 there was a rectangular structure and they say it is not
identifiable
to this panel.
Q If it was there, Colonel, in the X-rays, would you say it was there in the
brain
at the time of the autopsy?
MR. DYMOND:
What page are you referring to, Doctor, what page are you referring to?
MR. OSER:
The panel of 1968, the pages are not numbered.
THE WITNESS:
That is "S-72."
MR. OSER:
Page 8, Mr. Dymond.
THE WITNESS:
"There can be seen a gray-brown rectangular structure measuring approximately
13 by 20 millimeters, its identity cannot be established by the panel." I don't
know what this refers to.
BY MR. OSER:
Q Did you see such at the time of your autopsy, did you see such a substance
in
the brain of the President?
A I don't remember.
-
Doug Horne's later version of events is contradicted by his own notes of his interviews with MacMahon. No here in them was there any mention of Smith using a secret codeword for a secret lab only that they were developed at Kodak in Rochester.
The notes were published in TGZFH on pages 456 - 60
Of course if Len Colby had read the book(s) he would know that the CIA ordered the removal of the word "Hawkeye Works" from the published notes and report that Horne filed, but it is still in the audio taped interview with McMahon, one of the few interviews the ARRB "allowed" Horne to record.
Horne, as a 20 year Navy veteran and a miliary records analysist who was investigated, certified and approved to read classified material, dutifully excised the word the CIA wanted to keep classified, and has maintained his status, - if he was in the Mafia, as "a Stand Up Guy."
As for the recorded interview with McMahon, they wouldn't let him record most interviews or even let him talk to some of the lab technicians who were then still alive but are now dead.
And do indeed consider the intellectual honesty of the writer, and compare that to what we know about Craig Lamson's intellectual honesty, as well as Colby, for writing all that junk without bothering to read the book they are trying to tear apart.
And also consider the intellectual honesty of those who claim Doug Horne is a pot head, is writing a book on UFOs and failed to conduct himself himself as a responsible, professional Senior Analysist of Military Records.
The best part of Horne's book is that he answers almost every objection that has been raised thus far.
Read the book, and then come back and try to argue.
And for those who don't want to follow the lead to "Hawkeye Works," at the Kodak plant in Rochester, New York, then just be happy knowing that there is no such place.
Bill Kelly
bill posted with david's permission..
From:
Subject: LIFTON 1999
To:
Date: Wednesday, December 9, 2009, 3:48 AM
Subject: Re: Lifton embarasses himself (again)
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 1999 08:21:19 GMT
From: dlifton@earthlink.net <http://ca.mc881.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=dlifton@earthlink.net>
Organization: Deja..com - Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk
TO ALL:
Clint Bradford was disinvited from a gathering of Southern California
researchers last year because of the same behavior he repeatedly shows in
his
posts.
As I have said before---and will say here again---there is a very top secret
lab connected with Kodak up in Rochester; the Zapruder film went there
(according to CIA officials interviewed by Doug Horne at the ARRB); and when
the CIA found out that the existence of this lab was revealed in the ARRB
interviews, they insisted that the ARRB redact the tape, so as to eliminate
this information.
When Doug Horne requested that there be followup at Rochester to find out
whether the Z film went to the lab in question (which I have called "Eagle
Eye" so as not to be in technical violation of any security law), it was
made
clear to Horne that his job was on the line.
BRADford repeatedly lies in his posts by mistating the facts about all this.
So, in this area at least, both is website and his posts are nothing but a
source of disinformation for the gullible.
This is exactly whsy he was disinvited from the group meeting---re the
Zapruder film---at Noel Twyman's home last year.
I seriously doubt that Bradford is anything more than a lone nutter in drag.
But in event, when it comes to the Zapruder film, he's just a plain xxxx.
I'm not saying anyone should believe the Zapruder film went to a top secret
facility because I say so. I'm saying they should believe it to a high
probability because the CIA officials involved said so.
Bradford's attempt to obfuscate this situation is pretty pathetic.
David Lifton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
b
-
mike, paul, bill part of the parkland press conference dr.shaw re governor connally cameras microphones.etc.....b
www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OyI0P6WYIY
-
Bill, Since you seem intent on demonstrating your incompetence in relation to JFK research...
Prof Fetzer,
Could I remind you about the requirement of this Forum not to question others abilities with respect to research.
iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=13297
If you dispute data or conclusions, then by all means dispute such... but please do it in a fashion that remains within our rules.
Thank you.
The Political Conspiracies section of the Education Forum has thrived, due in large part to Evan Burton's moderation and consistent enforcement of Forum rules.
Maybe the JFK Assasssination Debate section will experience similar benefits if he decides to play a larger role over here.
GEE MIKE DO YOU THINK EVAN IF... MIGHT EVEN ATTEMPT TO REMIND ANOTHER WHOM REGULARLY CALLS OTHERS STUPID AND INSULTS THEM ON THE JFK THREADS IMO IT DOES APPEAR THAT NONE OF THE OTHERS SEEM TO MAKE AN EFFORT OR REALLY CARE ABOUT THE RULES BEING FOLLOWED NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE SPECIFICALLY BUT IT APPEARS SO TO MYSELF AND OTHERS WHOM HAVE MENTIONED SUCH....BUT HE CONTINUALLY INSULTS MANY ON A DAILY BASIS AND THEIR RESEARCH REGULARLY..HE HAS NOT BEEN SO FAR T ENDED TO AND YET CONTINUES TO CARRY ON.....HE REMINDS ME OF A TERMITE...I KNOW ANYONE CANMAKE A COMPLAINT TO THE ADM BY EMAIL...TO ME THAT HAS NEVER BEEN THE WAY EITHER POST IT IN AN OPEN THREAD AND SPEAK UP OR SHUT UP...THANKS FOR YOUR POST..AND BRINGING THE SUBJECT UP FOR DISCUSSION..TAKE CARE....;B
-
Doug Horne's new 5 Volume Book Now Ready for Shipping............
http://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/
go to archived shows, see 2009 for dougs show on thursday..b
doug horne on black op...http://www.blackopradio.com/
b...
-
Gary Mack sent me this emailI don’t think there were ANY recordings of the press conference other than the short hand transcript. Here’s why:
I have seen nearly 20 still photos of the 11/22 press conference and many show wide angle views. Guess what? NO cameras or microphones in sight!
At the time of the conference, Jackie, the body, and the White House photographers had already left for Love Field. I know in his testimony, Perry said there were, but he was mistaken or possibly thinking of Sunday, when there were plenty of both. Several reporters were present, of course, but they apparently were all print people, not broadcast.
The only reason I can think of is that the bigger stories had moved to other locations: Love Field, Dallas Police Department, Oak Cliff, Dealey Plaza, and the TSBD. There simply weren’t enough people and cameras to cover it all.
Having known and worked with reporters for several decades, it would have been an easy decision to leave the press conference to the print reporters, since the comments likely wouldn’t make for compelling broadcast images or sound bites.
Here’s an example of how primitive things were in 1963 compared to today: the local NBC station had a grand total of two sound film cameras – one in their Dallas office and one at their Fort Worth studio.
Gary
Weird, GM, but I could have sworn 1) there were cameras (and film - with sound) when Kilduff spoke in exactly the same room a short time before; and 2) that CBS claimed, in 1967, to have film of Perry/Clark conference, only minus the sound (how very convenient). In order for your version to be true, we must persuade ourselves that the cameras present for Kilduff were removed by the time of Perry and Clark; and that CBS was hallucinating. Now, I can just about buy the latter, but the former...nargh, like a cheap soap, it just doesn't wash.
Nice try, though.
-
I think we should get all the record before we debate what is in them.
The Z-film that "bill smith" brought to the NPIC from the Hawkeye Works at Rochester was processed there, while the original Z-film was developed at Dallas. - BK
Bill, this is helpful. Presumably, if there were an uninterrupted chain of custody--an authentic uninterrupted chain of custody--then it would have been impossible for the film to have been altered. An interrupted chain of custody is therefore a necessary condition for film fakery. (I have no doubt that this is why, instead of confronting multiple proofs of anomalies, Thompson has focused on the alleged "uninterrupted chain of custody".) That Horne has now established that the chain of custody was actually broken--that there IS no "authentic unbroken chain of custody"--is therefore valuable in refuting his argument. But there is a difference between HOW it might have been done and whether or not it WAS done. Your lack of interest in the anomalies that prove it WAS done has therefore been a reflection of your failure to distinguish HOW IT WAS DONE from WHETHER IT WAS DONE. David Lifton, Jack White, David Mantik, and John Costella--not to mention Rich DellaRosa--have established THAT IT WAS FAKED. Notice, in particular, that even if there were a broken chain of custody and two more teams were working on physically different kinds of film, as you have previously described, that is not enough to prove that they were working on TWO DIFFERENT VERSIONS of the film. That is a question of content and no end of research on the chain of custody can replace PROOF IT WAS ALTERED. I am willing to grant that this new information completely destroys the argument that Thompson has pushed (of there having been no opportunity for it to have been faked). But those of us who understand the anomalies have always KNOWN IT WAS FAKED, where the residual question was HOW IT WAS DONE. This question, I am delighted to say, now appears to have been resolved. But notice that, if the film restoration experts who reviewed the film for Doug HAD NOTICED NO ANOMALIES, the whole matter would be moot. In fact, it was SPECTACULARLY OBVIOUS to them that the film had been faked. No one would care if the chain of custody had been broken, because, given an absence of anomalies, IT WOULDN'T HAVE MATTERED. I think your heart is in the right place--I do not question your sincerity!--but you have to see through Thompson's phony argument. Now that you have, I hope you can appreciate why the anomalies matter. There is a basic difference between proving THAT SOMETHING HAS BEEN DONE from proving EXACTLY HOW IT WAS DONE. You have been preoccupied with the latter, we with the former. Both matter, but in different ways. I hope that this clarifies where I stand and that you now agree to the importance of both. I hope so.Was the Zapruder Film at the Hawkeye Works? By William Kelly"The research community, I argued, should get the records first, and debate what the data meant after we got the records." – Doug Horne (Page 1365, Chapter 14, Volume IV, Inside the Assassinations Records Review Board – IARRB, 2009)
The very week that the first large batch of previously secret government JFK Assassination Records were released, Gerald Posner's book Case Closed was published, clearly provoking the message that the files were released and the case was closed.
When the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) ceased its operations after releasing millions of pages of documents, one of the former board members, confident that the released records would confirm the government's official version of events, said that it would take at least ten years before the board's work could be seriously evaluated. It would take that long for people to read all the information that was released.
Well now it's been over a decade since the ARRB closed up shop and said its work was done, and in retrospect with the publication of Doug Horne's Inside the Assassination Records Review Board, we know their work, identifying and releasing the government records, is not done, and neither is ours.
While each of the five volumes of Horn's IARRB addresses important subjects, the one issue that has raised some of the most intense debates is whether the Zapruder film gives an accurate account of the assassination.
For the most part, those who claim the film has been altered, and now branded "alterationists" by those who believe in the film's authenticity, have based their claims primarily anomalies in the content of the film - whether Jean Hill was standing on the curb or in the street, cuts and splices here and there, reversed frames in publications, and certifiably false descriptions of the content by Dan Rather and the Life correspondent Paul Mandel.
In comments to reviews of his book at Amazon.com, Douglas P. Horne wrote:
"…Although I did not set out to write a book about the Zapruder film, during my final year of writing it became a subject of intense focus for me, and the evidence I found of its alteration was astonishingly persuasive. I write about new evidence of the Zapruder film's alteration not yet presented elsewhere, so I encourage everyone who has not read Chapter 14 yet to keep an open mind and decide what to believe about the film's authenticity themselves, AFTER READING IT, and not to defer to the opinions of others. For decades I believed the film was authentic, because it was the natural assumption to make. Now, I am convinced it could not possibly be. I kept an open mind and went where the evidence took me on this issue, just as I did with the medical evidence."
Jack White, Professor James Fetzer, David Healey, Harry Livingstone and others have focused on the anomalies and discrepancies in the film in an attempt to prove that it has been altered, while Josiah Thompson, Bob Groden, Gary Mack, David Wrone, Rollie Zavada and others have tried to dismiss their clams and maintain the Zapruder film is an authentic rendition of the assassination as it happened.
While I have followed the debate from a distance, I was persuaded that the film was authentic by Thompson, who points out that three copies of the film were made and all four films would have to have been altered and that other films and photos that were taken at the same time and place would also have to be manipulated for the alterationists' theory to be true.
I was also against the alterationist theory because I thought the extant Zapruder film was itself proof of conspiracy in exhibiting the appearance of a shot striking JFK in the head from the front and driving him "back to the left," as Jim Garrison famously said.
While I thought it would be great if it could be proven to have been tampered with because that would constitute tampering with evidence and obstruction of justice - crimes that individuals could be indicted for, the anomalies themselves didn't point to any particular person who could have altered the films.
I was also against the alterationist theory because I didn't think the Z-film was the best evidence of conspiracy, and didn't lead to anyone specific – a new witness who could shed more light on the case or a suspect who could be indicted.
In Chapter 14 of IARRB Volume IV, Doug Horne does get into the micro analysis of anomalies, describing each one in detail, and adding a new one to the mix – the edge of the Stemmons Freeway sign, which was recently uncovered by Sydney Wilkerson, who works on Hollywood movies. Sydney bought some first generation large 35 mm stills of the Z-film from the NARA and with a team of professional Hollywood special effects producers, has examined the film closely. They are preparing a yet to be released report on their study which could include positive scientific proof of tampering, or at the very least will show how the film could have been tampered with, - eliminating the brief stop that over 50 witnesses claim they saw, fudging up JFK's head wound to indicate a large frontal exit wound, and eliminating the blowout of the back of the head.
But more significantly, without regard to the content of the film, Doug Horne went back to where the first enlargements were made of the original Z-film still frames at the National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) and interviewed some of those who made the enlargements. From their reports, he determined that two different enlargement sessions were held at two different times and using two different types of film. This inquiry into the Zapruder film trail leads to where the film could have been tampered with – at the CIA's secret Hawkeye Works plant, and who there might have done it.
While Doug Horne's Chapter The Zapruder Film Mystery contains details of the debate over the anomalies in the content, the new Stemmons Freeway sign anomaly and the study being done by the Hollywood special effects team, the rest of this review will deal strictly with the disputed provenance of the hard copies of the celluloid film, and if this leads to new records that weren't covered by the JFK Act, or new witnesses and/or suspects.
One way to gage the value of evidence or the veracity of witnesses is to weight it by how much can be independently verified and whether it leads to new records, new documents, new witness and new evidence.
In addition, if one's approach to a subject has repeatedly run into a dead end wall, as the debate over the anomalies seems to, sometimes it is best to stop the head banging and try a different approach to the problem.
[bK Notes: The Z-film chapter 14 in Volume IV runs 193 pages, from P 1185 to P 1378, and the quotes are sourced by the page number at the end of the quote.]
In Chapter 14, The Zapruder Film Mystery Doug Horne writes:
"No one would greet with equanimity being told that his approach to researching a subject has been incorrect—based on a false foundation—and that his life's work has essentially been a waste of time. This characterizes all fields of scientific and historical research, and explains the virulent passions aroused within academia whenever a new paradigm is introduced which calls into question the accepted research methodology for a given discipline. The more central the subject matter, the more those emotions are on display whenever the fundamental bases for a given approach are challenged. Thomas Kuhn's seminal 1962 work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, readily reveals this."
In order to determine its authenticity the ARRB brought in a specialist, Rollie Zavada of Kodak, who studied the film and issued a report shortly before the termination of the board.
At that time, Horne writes, "In late September of 1998, when the authenticity study was completed, I was simply grateful that Kodak had agreed to perform this task for the ARRB, and that we had been successful in getting them to do it on a pro bono basis. Physically and intellectually exhausted at the end of my frenetic three-year ARRB experience, I placed my copy of the report on the shelf, and didn't even begin to study it in any detail until May of 1999.2 What I began to find then, and continue to find today, is evidence within the report itself that casts doubt upon the film's authenticity…" P. 1186
"At one time in 1998, as the report was nearing completion, and as I was receiving frequent status reports from Rollie (Zavada) about his progress (on the Kodak report), he almost had me convinced that it was authentic. But since I began to study his report in detail in May of 1999, I have modified my position and now firmly suspect the extant film in the National Archives is a forgery, created from the true original in a sophisticated CIA photo lab at the Kodak main industrial plant in Rochester, New York."
"That's right: I just said that I believe that the presumed 'original' of the Zapruder film in the National Archives today was not exposed inside Abe Zapruder's Bell and Howell movie camera, but rather was created in a photo lab run for the CIA by Kodak, at its main industrial site and corporate headquarters, in Rochester, New York (using Abe Zapruder's camera-original film, of course, as the baseline). Astronomer Carl Sagan once said: 'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.'"
"Fair enough. I intend to provide that evidence in this chapter. Before I proceed I wish to make one thing perfectly clear: during the period 1996-1998, I had the highest respect and admiration for Rollie Zavada, and I did not believe, at that time, that he was part of any attempt by Kodak to 'cover up the truth.' The Rollie Zavada with whom I worked so closely for over two years, from 1996-1998, was in my judgment at that time a man of sterling integrity, and an honest actor in all respects. We just happened to disagree about whether or not the Zapruder film was likely authentic, I reasoned, because each of us honestly and independently imbued selected aspects of the evidence with differing levels of importance." P 1188
"While I believe the film certainly does indicate that shots were fired from in front of, as well as from behind the limousine — and thus proves conspiracy — I believe that it cannot be used as a 'time clock' of the assassination, and that because of its alteration, it is worthless in this regard, and will lead anyone who attempts to use it as a 'time clock' to formulate invalid conclusions. Before I begin to present my case for these assertions, it is necessary to review the film's provenance prior to 1997." P 1194
"The Bell and Howell camera shot what was called 'double 8' film: each roll consisted of 25 feet of useable film that was 16 mm wide, with approximately 4 extra feet of 'leader' on each end, for a total of about 33 feet of 16 mm wide, double perforated film (i.e., with sprocket holes on both sides of the 16 mm film strip) on the spool. As a new reel of film was exposed in the camera, only one half of its width (8 mm wide), known as the "A" side of the reel, was exposed to images coming through the lens. When each 25-foot (actually, 33-foot) reel of film had been completely exposed on one side, the camera operator would open up the camera, move the full take-up reel at the bottom of the magazine to the upper position where the supply reel had been, and place the now-empty original supply reel where the take up reel had been at the bottom of the film magazine. Once this was done, and the film had been manually re-threaded in the camera, the camera operator was ready to expose another 25 feet of useable film, called the
"B" side of the 16 mm wide reel of film. After each roll of double 8 film was completely exposed on both A and B sides, it was developed while still a 16 mm wide double perforated reel of film. After developing, the 16 mm wide reel of film contained two adjacent 8 mm wide image strips going in opposite directions; this necessitated slitting the 16 mm wide film down the center of the entire reel, and then joining together the two 8 mm wide film strips (sides A and
with a physical splice. The result was a developed home movie product that consisted of 50 feet of useable film, with varying amounts of leader attached at the heads and tails ends, and with perforations on only one side—the left-hand side (when the image is viewed correctly). The finished product was now only 8 mm wide, and was a 'single perf' film that could only be played in an 8 mm movie projector." P 1195"Zapruder had already exposed a home movie of family scenes on side A of his reel of film, and had flipped the full takeup reel over and placed it in the supply position in the film magazine prior to the motorcade, so that he could expose side B when President Kennedy's motorcade passed by on Elm Street. Prior to filming the motorcade on side B, he exposed about 177 frames of test footage [about 60 frames of a close-up of a green chair, and about 117 frames of people — apparently Marilyn Sitzman and the Hesters —near the white cement pergola west of the Book Depository], to ensure his film was threaded properly and that his camera was operating as it should be…" P 1196
"Without prejudice regarding whether the film in the Archives is authentic or not, it can be described as follows: the assassination portion of the Zapruder film in the Archives is now 480 frames in length (6 frames of the extant film—155-156, and 208-211—were damaged and removed by LIFE, but are still present on the two Secret Service copies); it is about 26 and one half seconds in duration when played at 18.3 frames per second; and the image content is only about 6 feet, 3 inches in length..."
Zapruder, accompanied by others, including a Secret Service agent, took the film to the Kodak lab in Dallas to be developed, but because that lab cannot make copies, special arrangements had to be made with the Jamieson lab where three copies were to be made.
Horne reports that, "…Since they knew that the Jamieson lab's contact printers could only accommodate 16 mm film, Kodak initially did not slit Zapruder's 16 mm wide, 'double 8' film down the center to create an 8 mm wide home movie, as they normally would have. His camera original film, as developed, was 16 mm wide, and had image strips on both sides (his home movie and the assassination sequence from Dealey Plaza), running in opposite directions."
"Following their return to the Kodak lab at about 8 PM, the three Kodachrome IIA contact prints were developed by the Kodak staff and the 'first day copies' were then slit lengthwise, down the middle of the entire length of each film, per normal practice, and reassembled as 8 mm 'single perf' movies (presumably with the home movie shot on side A first, followed by the assassination film shot on side that could only be viewed in normal circumstances thereafter on an 8 mm home movie projector. The assassination film—either the slit original, or one of the 'first day copies'—was then viewed at the Kodak plant in its 8 mm configuration."
"Whether the original film was slit or unslit on the day of the assassination, the record shows that it was retained throughout Friday night and into Saturday morning by Abraham Zapruder, along with one of the 'first day copies.' The only Zapruder film to leave Dallas on November 22, 1963 was the 'first day copy' that agent Max Phillips put on an airplane to Washington, D.C." P 1199
"The official record shows that Zapruder went home late Friday night with his original film and with one of the three 'first day copies'—the other two 'first day copies' had been loaned to the Secret Service. Zapruder would never see them again." P 1200
"Trask writes that the original was sent to LIFE's Chicago printing plant in preparation for the publication of still frames (the black-and-white images) in LIFE's November 29 issue, and Trask implies, but does not specifically state, that this occurred on Saturday. Although Richard Stolley told Esquire magazine in 1973 that the sole remaining first day copy went to LIFE's New York office on Saturday, Trask notes that this cannot be true because the film was viewed by various persons in Dallas throughout the weekend, and by others (including CBS news reporter Dan Rather) on Monday, November 25. The only film in Dallas available to be viewed on Sunday and Monday — since the Secret Service had two copies and LIFE reportedly had the original—was the third of the three 'first day copies'made by Zapruder, thus proving that it did not go to New York on Saturday as Stolley incorrectly recalled in 1973. The transfer of the original to the LIFE publishing plant in Chicago, which Trask assumes occurred on Saturday (simply because of the language in the Saturday contract and because Stolley shipped it to Chicago on Saturday), is by no means certain." P. 1201
"Richard Stolley approached Abe Zapruder Sunday night about renegotiating the contract signed on Saturday, in order to give LIFE full rights, rather than the limited print rights
negotiated on Saturday—and that on Monday morning, LIFE publisher C. D. Jackson called Stolley and formalized what had been set in motion the night before, giving him official permission to acquire all rights to the film,…" P 1202
If any shennagans with the Zapruder film went on, those who claim it was altered point to the National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington D.C., run by the CIA, which turned hand written notes over to the ARRB that had been given to the Rockefeller Commission and indicated the Zapruder film was at the NPIC at some point during the weekend of the assassination.
According to Horne:
"Six pages of photocopied notes related to the Zapruder film had been retained by the NPIC since 1963. [There are five sheets of paper that constitute the notes; one sheet had information on both sides, yielding six pages of photocopied notes.] The undated notes, in retrospect, describe three different activities conducted at different times within NPIC by different groups of people, but this was not understood at the time by the Rockefeller Commission and indeed, was not understood by the JFK research community until 1998 when the ARRB's office files were released. One
activity was the creation of enlargements—color prints—from individual frames of
the Zapruder film, which were subsequently used in the creation of briefing board
panels. A second activity was the creation of the briefing board panels themselves,
which may have been done immediately after the enlargements were made, but in any
case were created by different persons from the photographers who enlarged the
Zapruder frames. [Three of the six pages of notes refer to the photographic work,
and the organization and content of the briefing board panels.] We now know that
photographic specialists enlarged frames from the Zapruder film by first making
greatly magnified internegatives, and then by making individual color prints from
each internegative; graphics specialists then created three briefing board sets, of four
panels each, using the photos. The third activity was a shot and timing analysis of
the image content contained in the Zapruder frames, which uses dentical language
found in a shot and timing analysis published in the aforementioned article by Paul
Mandel on page 52F in the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE magazine." P. 1207
After buying the print and then belatedly the motion picture rights to the Zap film, and gaining control over the original film, Life then suppressed the film and kept it from being shown to the public, though bootleg copies flourished. Then Life sold the film back to the Zapruder family for $1 and the ARRB had to determine if the film could be considered for inclusion in the JFK Assassination Records Collection at the National Archives. Towards that end the ARRB conducted a rare public hearing on the subject of the Zapruder film, which was telecast on TV on C-SPAN and sparked some interesting investigative leads, or "walk ins," as they say in the intelligence profession.
As Horne describes it, "On April 2, 1997, the ARRB conducted a Public Hearing at the old Archives building on the National Mall in order to "...seek public comment and advice on what should be done with the camera original motion picture film of the assassination that was taken by Abraham Zapruder on November 22, 1963."
"The issue facing the Review Board was whether the Zapruder film was an 'assassination record' under the JFK Act that should be placed into the JFK Records Collection at the National Archives, and whether it should be considered U.S. government property, rather than the property of private citizen…The Public Hearing was aired on C-SPAN television and makes for interesting viewing;…" P 1214
A MAJOR CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY DISCREPANCY
"Until 1997, there were no discrepancies in the film's chain-of-custody that seriously challenged the belief that the film in the National Archives was the same film described in the affidavit trail from the Kodak and Jamieson film labs in Dallas. There was one possible problem: that was the mention in the Rockefeller Commission's 9 page 1978 FOIA release (CIA Document 1641-450) that someone at NPIC had shot internegatives, conducted a print test, and made three copies. Although provocative and worthy of further attention and investigation, the meaning of this single, undated page out of the 9 total pages of released working notes from NPIC was both unclear, and as it turned out, misleading."
"However, in 1997, and again in 2009, very strong evidence was uncovered indicating that while the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) never did replicate or copy the Zapruder film as a motion picture, that it did briefly possess the film, and perform two compartmentalized operations the very weekend of the assassination, in which two separate and distinct briefing board products were created for different customers within the U.S. government. Furthermore, the information obtained in 1997 (by the ARRB) was that the film brought to NPIC for analysis at the second of these two events that weekend did not come from Dallas (where the original film had been developed on Friday, November 22) but instead came from a CIA film lab at the Kodak main industrial facility in Rochester, New York, whose very existence was highly classified not only in 1963, but in 1997 as well." P 1220
"The ARRB's Public Hearing on the Zapruder film that C-SPAN televised on April 2, 1997 was seen by a former NPIC employee named Morgan Bennett Hunter (hereafter referred to as "Ben"), who was still employed by the CIA in 1997 in another capacity. His wife, who was also CIA, relayed to the CIA's Historical Review Group (HRG) that her husband had been involved in events related to the Zapruder film at NPIC the weekend of the assassination, as well as the name of her husband's supervisor at that event, Mr. Homer A. McMahon. HRG (represented by Mr. Barry Harrelson) then
dutifully informed the ARRB staff that the HRG was aware of two witnesses to the handling of the film at NPIC the weekend of the assassination, and provided both of their names to us. In relatively short order, the CIA cleared both men to talk to us." P 1221
"Both men recalled that they were called in to work at NPIC the weekend of the assassination "a couple of days" or so after the assassination, but before the President's funeral, and that they worked throughout the night into the next morning to complete their assigned work on a home movie taken of the assassination (which no one called 'the Zapruder film' at the time, but which they both subsequently identified as that when they saw the surviving briefing board panels in 1997). The essentials of the event they both described are summarized below:
McMahon was the Head of the NPIC Color Lab in 1963, and Ben Hunter, his
assistant that night, was a relatively new CIA employee who had just left active duty
as an enlisted man with the U.S. Air Force at Offut Air Force Base in Nebraska (SAC
headquarters). Hunter began working with NPIC on December 17, 1962, and helped
NPIC relocate from the Steuart Motors building (a Ford dealership used for cover)
in downtown Washington into its new quarters in building 213 at the Navy Yard in
Washington D.C. on January 1, 1963. Robert F. Kennedy apparently had an old
warehouse converted into NPIC's new, more secure location inside the Navy Yard
following a 90-day crash renovation and conversion, following the Cuban Missile
Crisis in 1962. In 1997, building 213 was still a nondescript-looking building with
its windows bricked up, located across the street from the Navy Yard 'Metro' (i.e.,
subway) station in southeast D.C., and it was still dedicated to photography, except
that in 1997 it was the home of NIMA, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency.
In 1963, McMahon stressed, the existence of the NPIC was so sensitive that he was
not allowed to tell anyone that he worked at NPIC—in fact, he was required to use
the CIA as his cover. While the CIA paid his salary, he was secretly an NPIC employee, working for a subdivision of the Agency whose existence was still secret" P 1222
"McMahon made clear that the reason he was so certain about the location where the
film was developed was because the Secret Service agent used the in-house code name for a state-of-the-art CIA-funded Kodak photo lab at Rochester when he described where the film had been developed. The code word had only one possible meaning, and that meaning precisely identified that site as the CIA lab at Kodak's industrial facility in Rochester, New York. [When the CIA's HRG found out that McMahon had used the still-current code name for the facility in Rochester, they demanded that the ARRB excise the code name of the CIA's Kodak-manned Rochester photo lab from the audiotape that was to be released to the public, which I dutifully did. Any researcher who listens to the Archives recording of the July 14, 1997 interview will not hear the name of the facility on that tape, for this reason. However, there is also an unredacted tape in the JFK Records Collection — the original — which does contain Homer McMahon's coded reference to the CIA's Kodak-run lab in Rochester.]…"
"Homer McMahon consistently claimed that he had enlarged individual frames from the original film, and that he recalled it was a 16 mm wide unslit double 8 home movie. During the first McMahon interview, he stated he was "sure we had the original film," because "we had to flip it over to see the image on the other side in the correct orientation." McMahon confirmed this recollection of an unslit double 8 home movie with opposing image strips during his in-person interview which was tape recorded on July 14, 1997…"
"…Although McMahon personally thought he saw JFK reacting to 6 to 8 shots fired from at least three directions, he said that the Secret Service agent arrived with his mind made up that only three shots had been fired, and that they all came from the Texas School Book Depository, behind the limousine." P 1224
"Both McMahon and Hunter said they had never seen the 3 legal-sized yellow pages
of notes related to the shot and timing analysis before. There was only one piece of
paper among the original notes which contained the handwriting of either man—a
half-sized sheet of yellow paper—the piece of paper upon which the handwritten entries 'shoot internegs, proc and dry, print test, make three prints,' and 'process and dry prints' are annotated, along with the respective times required for each step. McMahon recognized some of this handwriting as his own, and some of it as Hunter's. On the reverse side of this sheet of paper is a handwritten organization chart of the briefing board panels, and Hunter recognized two entries on this page as being written in his own hand."
"Analysis: First of all, we can now state with certainty that NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon's rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie—and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester—implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera-original film developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as 'the original.'…"
"…If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated 'original' created with an optical printer at the CIA's secret film lab in Rochester."
DINO BRUGIONI
Dino Brugioni is not new to those who have studied the JFK assassination. Besides writing the book "Eyeball to Eyeball" about the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the role photo recognizance played in that affair, Brugioni wrote a book about the CIA's photo lab and how they uncover fake photos, like the one of Mao swimming is a fake, and the one of Oswald in the backyard with the weapons and commie magazines is real.
In conclusion to his book on photo fakery, Brugioni says that one day photos will not be admissible in court as evidence because they can be so readily altered and manipulated. But it wasn't the ARRB who got Brugioni's acount, it was a tenacious independent researcher Peter Janney.
Doug Horne explains how they got Brugioni's story:
"During the period January 30-June 27, 2009, an extremely curious and energetic researcher, Peter Janney of Beverly, Massachusetts, after being alerted by Gerald McKnight (author of Breach of Trust) to the lead in Wrone's book, contacted Dino Brugioni and interviewed him on seven (7) separate occasions,"
"…Dino Brugioni was the Chief of the NPIC Information Branch, and worked directly for the Director of NPIC, Arthur Lundahl, from 1954 until Lundahl retired in 1973. Arthur Lundahl, as Dino Brugioni explained to Peter Janney, was the western world's foremost photoanalyst during those two decades. And anytime that Mr. Lundahl needed a briefing board prepared, it was Dino Brugioni, working with NPIC's photo-interpreters and graphics department, who oversaw its preparation, and the preparation of the associated notes that Lundahl would use to brief Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy, for example. Dino Brugioni was so closely involved with the briefing boards prepared for President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis that he was able to author an excellent and captivating book about the role of NPIC in that crucial Cold War episode, called Eyeball to Eyeball. Dino Brugioni, therefore, is the ultimate, insider source for what was going on at NPIC during the 1950s and 1960s. He possesses unimpeachable credentials."
"…the event he participated in actually commenced on Saturday evening, November 23rd (rather than Sunday, November 24th, as he had incorrectly estimated for David Wrone in 2003); that it involved the original 8 mm film — not a copy — and that it did not involve either Homer McMahon, or Ben Hunter, or Captain Sands, but an entirely different cast of characters. Furthermore, Dino examined photographs Peter Janney had made at Archives II of the 4 surviving briefing board panels made from the photos developed by Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter, and Brugioni stated categorically that the four panels in flat # 90A in the JFK Records Collection are not the briefing boards he produced while on duty at NPIC;…" P 1230
"…The event began about 10 PM in the evening, when Dino personally met two Secret
Service agents at the entrance to the NPIC, and ended at about 6 or 7 AM the next morning when Brugioni's boss, Art Lundahl (the Director of NPIC), arrived and the briefing boards which Brugioni and the NPIC staff had created were presented to Lundahl, along with the briefing notes Brugioni had prepared. Lundahl then took both sets of briefing boards to the office of CIA Director John McCone,…along with the briefing notes Brugioni had prepared for him; briefed the DCI; and then returned to NPIC later Sunday morning, November 24, and thanked everyone for their efforts the previous night, telling them that his briefing of McCone had gone well. P. 123
"Dino said that Captain Pierre Sands, U.S. Navy, was the Deputy Director of NPIC,
which Peter Janney subsequently confirmed on the internet. Sands' one-page bio states that Pierre N. Sands was born on April 16, 1921, and died on May 26, 2004. He served in the Navy from May 1939-June 1973, and was placed in charge of the Defense Intelligence Agency's Photographic Center after serving at NPIC. His biography on the internet identifies him as a member of the Presidential briefing staff during the Cuban Missile Crisis." P 1232
Horne quotes Brugioni as saying, "'I'm almost sure there were images between the sprocket holes.' During a follow-on interview when Janney tested Dino's firmness of opinion about whether the film was the original or not, Brugioni said definitively: 'I'm sure it was.'"
"…He also said that the Secret Service was vitally interested in timing how many seconds occurred between various frames, and that Ralph Pearse informed them, to their surprise and dismay, that this would be a useless procedure because the Bell and Howell movie camera (that they told him had taken the movie) was a spring-wound camera, with a constantly varying operating speed, and that while he could certainly time the number of seconds between various frames if they so desired, that in his view it was an unscientific and useless procedure which would provide bad data, and lead to false conclusions, or words to that effect. Nevertheless, at the request of the two Secret Service agents, Ralph
Pearse dutifully used a stopwatch to time the number of seconds between various frames of interest to their Secret Service customers. Dino Brugioni said that he placed a strong caveat about the limited, or suspect, usefulness of this timing data in the briefing notes he prepared for Art Lundahl. Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was '...of JFK's brains flying through the air.'" P 1233
"The obvious implications of the two NPIC Zapruder film events prior to the President's funeral are noted below, in what I shall call a working hypothesis, explaining what I believe likely transpired with the Zapruder film the weekend of the assassination:
• First, the camera original Zapruder film really was slit in Dallas at the Kodak
processing plant after the three 'first day copies' were developed the evening of the
assassination, just as the Kodak employees told Rollie Zavada when he interviewed
them for his authenticity study. On Saturday morning, November 23rd, after the Secret
Service in Washington, D.C. viewed the first day copy (that had been placed on a
commercial airplane in Dallas and sent to Washington, D.C. by Max Phillips late on
Friday evening), they no doubt realized an immediate need for the original film, so that
briefing boards could be made from the clearest possible image frames. [No one would
send a copy of an 8 mm film to NPIC to make briefing boards from—one would obtain
and send the original film.]
• Second, Richard Stolley's recollection that the original film went to LIFE's printing
plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing, obviously
requires reexamination ….
. Third, the Secret Service and the CIA, obviously working together on the project, must
have rushed the 8 mm camera original film from Washington, D.C. to the "Hawkeye
Plant" in Rochester by air, immediately after Bill Banfield's photo technicians had run
off the last enlargement prints for the McCone briefing boards, just prior to dawn on
Sunday morning. The CIA's Kodak-staffed lab in Rochester would have had most of
the day (probably about 9 or 10 hours), using an optical printer such as the Oxberry
commonly used by Hollywood's special effects wizards, to remove whatever was
objectionable in the film—most likely, the car stop seen by over 50 witnesses in Dealey
Plaza, and the exit debris which would inevitably have been seen in the film leaving the
rear of President Kennedy's head—and to add to the film whatever was desired, such as
a large, painted-on exit wound generally consistent with the enlarged, altered head
wound depicted in the autopsy photos which were developed the day before on Saturday,
November 23rd by Robert Knudsen at NPC Anacostia. Captain Sands, a Naval Officer
who was the Deputy Director at NPIC, was apparently instrumental to those altering the
film in setting up a compartmentalized operation at NPIC, in which workers who had
not participated in the events which commenced Saturday night (with the unaltered, true
camera original film) would be used to create briefing boards from the now-sanitized,
altered film. The delivery of an unslit, 16 mm wide double 8 film to Homer McMahon,
well after dark on Sunday night, is proof that he received an alteration, and not the same
film processed the night before (which was a slit 8 mm film). Furthermore, if the film
worked on by McMahon and Hunter had been the same film worked on the night before,
there would have been no need for a compartmentalized operation, and the same duty
crew that worked on Saturday night could have been called in again. The fact that the
same work crew was not used on Sunday night reveals that a covert operation was afoot.
• Fourth, the three black-and-white, 16 mm unslit versions of the Zapruder film
discovered in 2000 after the LMH Company's film holdings were transferred to the
Sixth Floor Museum, and which both David Wrone and Richard Trask have written
about in their books on the Zapruder film, were almost certainly made from the altered
film after it was manufactured at the "Hawkeye Plant" in Rochester."
. Fifth, three newly minted 'first generation' copies must have been struck from the new
'original' in Rochester before the altered 'original' was flown to Washington, D.C.
Sunday evening for the preparation of the sanitized briefing boards at NPIC. Quite
simply stated, if you are going to alter the original film, you have to manufacture altered
copies as well. [We shall examine the qualities of the three extant 'first generation'
copies later in this chapter to see whether this part of the hypothesis holds up.]
• Sixth, switches obviously must have been made, as soon as possible, with all three 'first
day copies' (which had been made on Friday in Dallas). The FBI, as well, must have
been complicit in this early switchout, since it supposedly made all of its subsequent
second generation copies from the 'first day copy' loaned to it by the Secret Service on
Saturday, November 23rd. Although the FBI may have viewed a first day copy of the
true original film following its arrival in Washington, all second generation FBI copies
in existence today would have been struck after the first day copy was switched out with
its replacement. A Secret Service 'first generation' copy was returned to Dallas by the
FBI on Tuesday, November 26,..."
- Seventh, it is highly likely — a virtual certainty, in my view — that the additional sum of $100,000.00 that LIFE agreed to pay to Abraham Zapruder on Monday, November 25
in a new contract was in reality "hush money,"
- Eighth, and finally, only so much in a film can be altered—there are also things that
cannot be altered. It is my belief that the most damaging information in the film to the
lone assassin hypothesis—the brief car stop on Elm Street in which the President was
clearly killed by a crossfire, by multiple hits to the head from both the front and the rear,
and the frames of exit debris leaving the rear of his skull — were removed at Rochester
when the new 'master' was created. In addition, wounds were painted onto his head
with special effects work which somewhat (but not precisely) resembled the damage
recorded in the autopsy photos after the clandestine surgery at Bethesda Naval hospital.P 1242
Horne concludes: "Because the infamous 'headsnap' back-and-to-the-left could not be removed from the film, the film had to be suppressed as a motion picture, and not shown to the public." P 1244
Kodak's Hawkeye Works – Rochester, New York
"In his 2003 article about the Zapruder film titled: 'Pig On A Leash,' David Lifton
had called the CIA's lab in Rochester 'Hawkeye works.' I am prohibited from directly releasing the term provided to me in 1997 by Homer McMahon, so instead I have used both of these descriptors — obtained from open sources — interchangeably in this chapter. We know that the lab definitely existed in 1963, for Homer McMahon — the former Head of the Color Lab at NPIC — told me about the lab in 1997, and Dino Brugioni confirmed its existence, and its ability to handle the processing of motion picture film, repeatedly in 2009 during his seven interviews with Peter Janney. The name for the facility was still so sensitive in 1997 that the CIA's Historical Review Group had demanded that the ARRB redact from our interview tape the codename used by Homer McMahon during his July 1997 ARRB interview (but not the fact that the facility had existed in 1963). The 'Hawkeye Plant' is of great interest, the reader will recall, because Homer McMahon of NPIC told the ARRB staff that the Zapruder film he handled the weekend of the assassination was delivered to him from that location, where its courier, Secret Service agent 'Bill Smith,' told him it had been developed. Since overwhelming evidence exists that the out-of-camera Zapruder film was developed in Dallas on November 22, 1963 — and not in Rochester, New York on November 24, 1963 — the clear implication of the Homer McMahon testimony (at the present time) is that an altered Zapruder film may have been created at 'Hawkeye works.' The upper management of the ARRB was loathe to inquire with either the CIA or Kodak about the facility…" P 1364
"…In April of 2009. Finally, six months after its preparation began, the AARC's FOIA was mailed.) It, too, requests any and all records pertaining to: (1) the creation of all briefing boards at NPIC the weekend of the assassination; (2) the briefing on the Zapruder film given by NPIC Director Arthur Lundahl to DCI John McCone on November 24, 1963; (3) the processing and/or alteration of the Zapruder film at "Hawkeye works" the weekend of the assassination (if such activity occurred); (4) work done on any and all assassination films by the Federal government outside the city of Dallas, Texas after the assassination of President Kennedy; and (5) those portions of the NPIC history written by Dino Brugioni…" P 1377
While the idea that the Zapruder film was at the CIA's supersecret lab at Hawkeye Works stems from the Secret Service Agent "Bill Smith," likely an alias, this wasn't just any person, but someone with the Secret Service, someone who had access to the equally supersecret NPIC, and someone with the original and/or a first generation copy of the Zapruder film.
Why isn't there any record of this person and this event?
Just as Adele Edisen's story called attention to Col. Jose Rivera and Secret Service Agent in Charge of the New Orleans office John W. Rice, giving researchers years of research that is still incomplete, "Bill Smith" and Homer McMahon give us a lead that if true, will completely rewrite the history of the Zapruder film.
Was the Zapruder film at the Hawkeye Works?
And why is the very name and existence of the Hawkeye Works still a national security secret?
BILL
See also..Philip Melanson, "Hidden Exposure: Cover Up & Intrigue in the CIA's Secret Possession of the Zapruder Film"..The The Third Decade no.1 ( November 84).9. Melanson makes a strong circumstantial case the NPIC received a copy of the Zapruder Film the day after the assassination"...
Also see CIA document 1641-450 for NPIC's analysis of the Zapruder film..of JFK's assassination These results were pried loose from the CIA by a FOIA request in 82 by Harold Weisberg ..or see Wiesberg's "Photographic Whitewash --Suppressed Kennedy Assassination Pictures"...1967..available at Hood College..pages: 302-303.)
There is a record, NPIC's photo analysis of the Zapruder film, see E.H.Knoche, assistant councel to the CIA Director, to Robert Olsen 5/14/75....CIA document No.1641-450, released May 18/1982...Copy can be found in the Harold Weisberg Archive, Hood College, Maryland.
p.374
B
-
---thanks to jim Ostrowski
and geraldven fyi...from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters".
THE WARREN COMMISSION QUESTIONING TACTICS THAT MADE ARLEN SPECTER SENATOR FOR LIFE
An example of Arlen Specter "leading the witness" during his interview of the Parkland doctors is taken from James W. Douglass' book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It matters:
When the government took charge with its official story of a lone assassin firing from the rear. the doctors were pressured by the Warren Commission to change their initial observations of Kennedy's body. The Warren Commission's staff counsel, Arlen Specter, a future U.S. senator,confronted the Dallas doctors with a question that contained the answer the Commission was seeking:
"Assuming... that the bullet passed through the President's body, going in between the strap muscles of the shoulder without violating the pleura space and exited at a point in the midline of the neck, would the hole which you saw on the President's throat be consistent with an exit point, assuming the factors which I have just given to you"(note 551, Chapter 6)
As Charles Crenshaw (who was not asked to testify) pointed out later, Specter had asked the doctors, "If the bullet exited from the front of Kennedy's throat, could the wound in the front of Kennedy's throat have been an exit wound" (note 552, Chapter 6)
The doctors went along with Specter's show of logic: Yes, assuming the bullet exited from the the front of Kennedy's throat, that wound could indeed have been an exit wound. Pressed further by Warren Commission member Gerald Ford, who would later become president, Dr. Malcolm Perry repudiated as "inaccurate" the press reports of his clear description of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound.(note 553)
That was not enough for Allen Dulles, who wanted the Warren Commission to draw extensively on the doctors' denial of their earliest press statements as a way to counteract the "false rumors" of the hole in the throat as an entrance wound. The Commission, Dulles felt, needed "to deal with a great many of the false rumors that have been spread on the basis of false interpretation of these appearances before television, radio, and so forth (note 554)
Dr. Perry's retraction was not only manipulated but given under stress. He had been threatened beforehand by "the men in suits," specifically the Secret Service. As Dallas Secret Service agent Elmer Moore would admit to a friend years later, he "had been ordered to tell Dr. Perry to change his testimony." Moore said that in threatening Perry he acted "on orders from Washington and Mr. Kelly of the Secret Service Headquarters." (note 555, Chapter 6)
Moore confessed his intimidation of Dr. Perry to a University of Washington graduate student, Jim Gochenaur, with whom he became friendly in Seattle in 1970. Moore told Gochenaur he "had badgered Dr. Perry" into "making a flat statement that there was no entry wound in the neck" (note 556) Moore admitted, "I regret what I had to do with Dr. Perry." (note 557) However, with his fellow agents, he had been given "marching order from Washington." He felt he had no choice: "I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we'd get our heads cut off." (note 558) In the cover-up the men in suits were both the intimidators and the intimidated.
With the power of the government marshaled against what the Parkland doctors had seen, they entered into what Charles Crenshaw called "a conspiracy of silence." (note 559) When Crenshaw finally broke his own silence in 1992, he wrote:
"I believe there was a common denominator in our silence-- a fearful perception that to come forward with what we believed to be the medical truth would be asking for trouble. Although we never admitted it to one another, we realized that the inertia of the established story was so powerful. so thoroughly presented, so adamantly accepted, that it would bury anyone who stood in its path... I was as afraid of the men in suits as I was of the men who had assassinated the President... I reasoned that anyone who would go so far as to eliminate the President of the United States would surely not hesitate to kill a doctor. (note 560, Chapter 6)
The above is taken from James W. Douglass book "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters".
Excerpted by Gerald Ven, JFK Lancer, bold type emphasis added, Jim Ostrowski
b..
-
ss elmer more badgered malcolm Perry into changing his informtion on the neck wound,,,
HISTORIC NEW INFORMATION ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION
Michael T. Griffith, 1999
Missing Autopsy Photos, the Large Head Wound, and Other Issues
What follows is a brief summary of some of the historic new evidence contained in recently released autopsy witness interviews conducted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) from 1976-1979 and in interviews of key witnesses conducted over the last three years by the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB).
What do the abovementioned documents reveal? As we'll see in a moment, they contain, among other things, evidence that a bullet struck Kennedy in the right temple, that there was a large wound in the back of the skull (which of course indicates the bullet came from the front and exited the rear of the head), that several important autopsy photos are missing, that there was **not** a straight path from the Oswald window to the back wound to the throat wound (because the back wound was lower than the throat wound and because Kennedy was not leaning off the seat when the back missile struck), that even Secret Service agents believed there had been a conspiracy, and that autopsy photos were altered (obviously in order to give a false impression of the direction of the gunfire that struck the president).
Here are some of the important new disclosures:
* John Stringer reported that the THROAT WOUND was probed. This is key because it proves the autopsy doctors were lying when they testified that they were not aware of the throat wound until after the autopsy when Dr. Humes called Dallas and spoke with Dr. Perry.
* White House photographer Robert Knudsen told the HSCA that the probe went DOWNWARD from the throat wound, that is, the back wound was LOWER than the throat wound. Knudsen assisted with the handling of the autopsy photos, and may have been present at the autopsy. The fact that the back wound was lower than the throat wound destroys the single-bullet theory.
* Dr. Pierre Finck, the only forensic pathologist at the autopsy, confirmed to the ARRB that there was a fragment trail that went from a point near the external occipital protuberance (EOP) UPWARD to the area of the right orbit. This is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound was not in the cowlick but rather four inches lower, very close to the EOP and just a couple inches above the hairline. Why is this so important? Because no bullet fired from the Oswald sniper's nest could have made that wound, unless Kennedy's head was tilted nearly 60 degrees forward, which the Zapruder film and the Muchmore film clearly show it was not.
* Saundra Kay Spencer, whom I have mentioned in previous messages, according to chain of evidence documentation processed the autopsy photos that Secret Service Agent James Fox brought from the autopsy. However, she did not process any black and white photos, only negatives and color positives, and, as I've noted in a previous message, she told the ARRB that she did not process any of the extant autopsy photos. This suggests the black and white autopsy photos were processed elsewhere, and that there were TWO sets of autopsy photos.
* Joe O'Donnell, a White House photographer who worked with Robert Knudsen, told the ARRB that Knudsen showed him autopsy photos that showed a grapefruit-sized hole IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD. This is yet another witness who saw a sizable wound in the rear of the skull.
* O'Donnell further told the ARRB that one of the autopsy photos Knudsen showed him showed what appeared to be an ENTRY WOUND IN THE RIGHT TEMPLE. This is key because there were several reports out of Dallas of a small wound in one of the temples. O'Donnell's account strongly tends to confirm those reports. Also, a defect consistent with a wound of entry can be seen in the right temple area on the autopsy x-rays, according to three doctors who have examined them (one of whom is an expert in neuroanatomy and another of whom is a board-certified radiologist).
* Tom Robinson, the mortician, confirmed what he told the HSCA on this point, namely, that he saw a small hole in the area of the right temple, and that he filled it with wax. Although Robinson speculated the small hole was made by an exiting fragment, the hole is strong evidence of a shot from the front in light of the reports of a large wound of exit in the back of the head and in light of the other accounts of an entry-like wound in one of the temples. Indeed, White House press man Malcolm Kilduff told reporters at Parkland Hospital that afternoon that Dr. Burkley told him a bullet entered the right temple, and Kilduff pointed to his own right temple to illustrate the trajectory. This was all captured on film. One of the reporters who attended that press conference wrote in his notes "bullet entered right temple" (or "entered right temple").
* O'Donnell said that Knudsen showed him other autopsy photos that showed the back of the head intact. This corresponds with the other evidence that there were two sets of autopsy photos, one genuine and the other altered.
* Knudsen's wife, Gloria Knudsen, and both his children, told ARRB interviewers that four autopsy photos were missing and that another photo had been "badly altered" (and "severely altered"). They also reported that he told them that four or five of the autopsy photos he was shown by the HSCA did not represent what he saw during the autopsy.
* Mrs. Knudsen reported that Knudsen told her that the background in the autopsy photos he was shown was wrong. This agrees with the reports of other witnesses at the autopsy that the photos in evidence show things in the background that were not in the autopsy room at Bethesda Naval Hospital.
* Knudsen's son Bob recalled that his father mentioned seeing probes inserted into THREE wounds. The WC said there were only two wounds of entrance, one in the back and the other low on the back of the head. Three entrance wounds means there must have been more than one gunman.
* Knudsen himself told the HSCA that he firmly recalled AT LEAST two probes inserted into wounds and that he believed he recalled one picture in which THREE probes were inserted into wounds. Again, three wounds of entrance equals conspiracy, period.
* Knudsen volunteered in his HSCA interview that there was "something shady" about the third piece of film that he handled. Incredibly, the HSCA interviewer did not ask him to explain his comment.
* Knudsen confirmed that Saundra Spencer processed color autopsy photographic material at the naval lab, and that he was personally aware that the black and white photos were done elsewhere.
* The Secret Service (SS) agent in charge of the Miami SS office told the HSCA he believed some elements of the SS might have been involved in a conspiracy in the assassination.
* SS Special Agent Elmer Moore "badgered" Dr. Malcolm Perry into changing his story that the throat wound was an entrance wound. This is revealing. Researchers have always suspected that Dr. Perry was pressured into changing his initial (and very firm) diagnosis that the throat wound was an entrance wound.
* Robert Bouck, who was the chief of the Protective Research Division of the SS in 1963, told the HSCA he believed Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.
* Special Agent Fox made black and white autopsy photo prints at the SS lab.
* Dr. Robert Karnei, who viewed and assisted with the autopsy, told the ARRB he clearly remembered that a photo was taken showing a probe inserted into the body. No such photo is to be found in the autopsy photos in evidence.
* Another new witness discovered by the ARRB is John Van Hoesen. Van Hoesen was a mortician who was present when Robinson reconstructed the skull. He told the ARRB he saw an "orange-sized" hole in the back of the head. Incidentally, Robinson himself told the HSCA he very clearly recalled seeing a large wound in the back of the skull, and he even diagrammed the wound for the HSCA interviewer. Robinson, of course, not only saw this wound for a prolonged period of time, but he also HANDLED it. Is anyone going to seriously suggest that Robinson "confused" this wound for a wound that was "really" above the right ear?! (The current lone-gunman theory posits, and the extant autopsy photos show, a large wound above the right ear.
* Yet another new witness is Earl McDonald, who was a medical photographer at Bethesda Naval Hospital. McDonald trained under Stringer, in fact. McDonald told the ARRB that at Bethesda he never saw anyone use a metal brace like the one seen holding the head in the autopsy photos. Other medical technicians at the autopsy have made similar observations, i.e., that the background in the autopsy photos doesn't show the autopsy room at Bethesda.
* X-ray technician Jerrol Custer, who was present at the autopsy and assisted with the autopsy x-rays, testified to the ARRB that he was certain he took x-rays of the C3/C4 region of the neck and that those x-rays showed numerous fragments. Custer added that he suspected the reason those x-rays disappeared was that they showed a large number of bullet fragments. Custer is almost certainly correct. Why else would those x-rays have been suppressed? The missile fragments described by Custer are another fatal blow to the lone-gunman theory, which in turn means there must have been more than one shooter.
* Custer told the ARRB that he saw a large bullet fragment fall from the back when the body was lifted for the taking of x-rays.
* Custer further told the ARRB that he wanted to put his personal marker on the x-rays during the autopsy, so as to be able to identify them, but that he was unable to mark all of them because a senior military officer ordered him to stop marking them.
Interested readers can read this information in the released documents themselves, which are available from the National Archives. Or, they can read an excellent summary of those documents in the appendix to the new edition of Harrison Livingstone's best-selling book HIGH TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK AND THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY. Livingstone quotes heavily from the newly released documents, and provides reproductions of some of them in his appendices.
Some of the sources for the information above include the following::
- HSCA deposition of Robert Knudsen, August 11, 1978
- ARRB deposition of Gloria Knudsen. October 8, 1996
- ARRB deposition of Robert Karnei, May 21, 1996
- ARRB deposition of John Stringer, July 16, 1996
- ARRB deposition of John Van Hoesen, September 26, 1996
- ARRB deposition of Earl McDonald, May 14, 1996
- ARRB deposition of Jerrol Custer, October 28, 1997
Francis O'Neill
We read in the recently released ARRB medical evidence interviews that former FBI agent Francis O'Neill told the ARRB that the large head wound was "a massive wound" that was located in the back of the head (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 69-70). He told ARRB staffer Jeremy Gunn,
O'Neill: . . . you could not miss this wound here in the head.
Gunn: Again, you're pointing to the back of your head?
O'Neill: Yes. It was--it was a massive wound. (Deposition, pp. 69-70).
Agent O'Neill, it should be remembered, got a close-up, prolonged look at the president's wounds during the autopsy.
We now have further evidence that President Kennedy's back wound was well below the neck, much lower than where Dr. Humes placed it for the Warren Commission. The low location for the back wound refutes the single-bullet theory, among other things. The recently released ARRB autopsy witness interviews contain numerous important disclosures and confirmations. Let us turn our attention to Francis O'Neill's comments on the back wound and on Dr. Boswell's relocation of the back wound. O'Neill, of course, got a close-up, prolonged look at the body during the autopsy.
O'Neill was asked about his 1-10-78 HSCA wound diagram, in which he placed the wound well below the base of the neck (the diagram can be seen on page 349 of Livingstone's KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY). He replied that he stood by the diagram, that the location he marked was accurate to the best of his recollection (Deposition of Francis X. O'Neill to the ARRB, September 12, 1997, pp. 104-107). Indeed, O'Neill said the wound was absolutely no higher than where he marked it on his diagram! Here is a part of his exchange with ARRB counsel Jeremy Gunn--O'Neill's HSCA diagram is referred to as Exhibit 86:
Gunn: If you were to make marks today or attempt to indicate where your understanding is of the wounds to the body, would you make them substantially different from the ones that appear on Exhibit 86?
O'Neill: No, no. My recollection would be just as good then. In fact--well, just as good then as it is now. To the best of my recollection, these are [correct]--once again--approximate.
Gunn: Sure, understood.
O'Neill: CERTAINLY, NOTHING UP HIGHER--LIKE THAT, NO.
Gunn: And you're referring to the shoulder wound [when you say nothing up higher]--?
O'Neill: Yes.
Gunn: -- when you say "nothing up higher"?
O'Neill: IF ANYTHING, [the wound was] LOWER. BUT CERTAINLY NOTHING HIGHER THAN THAT. (Deposition, pp. 107-108, emphasis added)
O'Neill was then asked why he had told the HSCA that he disagreed with Dr. Boswell's depiction of the back wound for the HSCA (in that depiction, Dr. Boswell located the wound markedly higher than he had on the original autopsy face sheet). Here's part of the Gunn-O'Neill exchange on this issue:
Gunn: Could you explain to me what your recollection is of that, or to what you were referring with that statement [his abovementioned statement to the HSCA]?
O'Neill: Because I had heard--I had seen, supposedly, drawings from some publication where Boswell made drawings or alluded to the bullet wound in the back not actually in the back, but in the back of the neck. And I disagreed with that thoroughly. (Deposition, p. 111).
So when Boswell claimed the back wound was not in the back but rather in the back of the neck, O'Neill "disagreed with that thoroughly."
O'Neill was then asked to examine Exhibit No. 159, on which Boswell had relocated the back wound to a spot on the back of the neck. O'Neill said in reply, ". . . naturally, I would disagree with that," adding the following:
O'Neill: But I can't understand why he [boswell] would do something like that, really, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE IT WAS IN ANY SIZE, SHAPE, OR FORM-FASHION. (Deposition, p. 114, emphasis added)
So, we now have another very solid, emphatic witness that the back wound was where Boswell ORIGINALLY marked it on the autopsy face sheet. And, as most of us know, this low location, which rules out the single-bullet theory, is supported by the holes in the back of Kennedy's shirt and coat, by the death certificate, by the 1/27/64 WC transcript, by Special Agent (SA) Clint Hill's description of the wound, by SA Glen Bennett's description of the wound, by SA Roy Kellerman's 8-24-77 HSCA wound diagram, by SA James Sibert's 8-25-77 HSCA wound diagram, and by the accounts of medical assistants at the autopsy.
James Sibert
The following is a brief summary of key points from James Sibert's deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). Sibert is a former FBI agent who witnessed the unloading of the body from the casket and who witnessed the autopsy from a distance of a few feet.
* Sibert said he doubted the single-bullet theory (SBT)because the back wound was just too low on the back for it to be possible (Deposition of James W. Sibert to ARRB, September 11, 1997, pp. 161-162). He added that another reason he doubted the SBT was what he saw when the pathologists probed the back wound (Deposition, p. 162).
* Sibert unequivocally placed the back wound BELOW the scapula, i.e., below the top of the shoulder blade (Deposition, pp. 74-75, 114, 161-162).
* Sibert said the autopsy pathologists determined that the back wound had no point of exit (Deposition, pp. 110-112, 118-119).
* Sibert said that the placement of the back wound below the scapula was both what he saw **and that it was "the first location that Humes gave us," i.e., that that was the location Humes gave for the wound during the autopsy (Deposition, pp. 161-162). (It should be noted that that location agrees with the location given for the wound on the autopsy face sheet.)
* Sibert noted that the back wound location's matched the holes in the back of the president's shirt and coat, and he rejected the theory that the shirt and coat bunched-up high enough to account for the location of the clothing holes, observing that the shirt would not have moved markedly even if Kennedy had raised his arm and that the president's back brace would have helped to hold the shirt in place (Deposition, p. 162).
* Sibert said there were a lot of high-ranking military officers at the autopsy, that the autopsy room was crowded, and that it was fairly noisy (Deposition, pp. 76-77, 152).
* Sibert said there was no visible damage on the head forward of the right ear (Deposition, pp. 67-68).
* Sibert said the large head wound was in the right-rear part of the head (Deposition, pp. 65-72). He said his 8-25-77 wound diagram for the HSCA made the wound somewhat too small and that the wound was "a little" to the right of where he placed it in that diagram (Deposition, pp. 70-71). In the diagram he placed the wound squarely in the middle of the back of the head (see Livingstone, KILLING KENNEDY AND THE HOAX OF THE CENTURY, p. 344). Sibert said it was a little larger than that and a little more to the right of the midline (Deposition, p. 71).
* Sibert said the alleged autopsy photo of the back of the head (which shows the back of the head intact) did not "at all" match his recollection of the wound, and he speculated that for this photo scalp had been pulled over the large defect (Deposition, pp. 126-128).
* Sibert said he did not remember seeing the metal stirrup that is seen to support Kennedy's head in some of the autopsy photos (Deposition, p. 122).
* With regard to Humes's statement at the start of the autopsy that it was apparent there had been surgery to the head, Sibert said that was exactly what Humes said, and that at no point during the autopsy did Humes retract or qualify that statement (Deposition, pp. 95-96).
Edward Reed
Former Bethesda Naval Hospital x-ray technician Edward Reed told the ARRB that Kennedy's body arrived in a "typical military, aluminum casket" (Deposition of Edward F. Reed to the ARRB, October 21, 1997, pp. 25-26). When counsel asked Reed if he would describe the casket as a ceremonial casket, Reed replied, "No." Asked what kinds of handles the casket had, Reed said, "Just the normal stainless steel handles." (Some have suggested that two caskets were employed in a sort of shell game at Bethesda. Noel Twyman's examines this possibility in his 1997 book BLOODY TREASON.)
John Stringer
We can add John Stringer, who was a photographer at the autopsy, to the list of witnesses who saw an entrance wound right next to the external occipital protuberance (EOP), near the hairline. We read in the recently released ARRB medical interviews that Stringer told the ARRB (1) that the rear head entrance wound was where the autopsy doctors said it was, i.e., near the hairline, next to the EOP, and (2) that the supposed image of a higher entry wound on the skull was NOT the entrance wound he saw on the night of the autopsy (indeed, Stringer denied this image is that of a bullet wound) (Deposition of John T. Stringer to the ARRB, July 16, 1996, pp. 193-196).
For any newcomers, this is very important because this is further evidence that the rear head entrance wound could not have been caused by a bullet from the so-called "Oswald sniper's window." In other words, Oswald could not have fired the missile that struck the back of President Kennedy's head.
Another point of interest is that Stringer acknowledged to the ARRB that the extant set of autopsy photos is INCOMPLETE (Deposition, pp. 215-216). Surely WC apologists will finally drop their arguments for the completeness of the existing set of autopsy photos.
What It All Means
Some 30 years later, we are finally getting a glimpse into a key phase of the assassination conspiracy, namely, the cover-up. We are also, finally, getting a pretty clear picture of the true nature of the president's wounds. The new disclosures confirm previous evidence of shots from the front.
One wonders what Warren Commission defenders will say to these disclosures. "Human error"? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said Knudsen showed him photos that showed a large wound in the back of the head? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that dozens of other witnesses said they saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was O'Donnell dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a photo that showed an apparent entrance wound in JFK's right temple? Is it just a coincidence, therefore, that initial reports from Parkland Hospital said there was an entrance wound in the right temple? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he said he clearly recalled taking photos showing missile fragments in the C3/C4 region of the neck? Was Custer dreaming or mistaken when he recalled seeing a large fragment from the back? Is it, therefore, just a coincidence that there are several other reports of a large fragment or bullet falling from the back or from the body wrappings at some point after the body arrived to the hospital? Was Von Hoesen dreaming or mistaken when he said he saw a large wound in the back of the head? Was he part of the alleged mass hallucination in which trained medical personnel looked at a wound that was "really" above the right ear but "mistakenly" thought they saw it in the back of the skull? Was Knudsen dreaming or mistaken when he told his wife there were autopsy photos missing and that another photo had been altered? And on and on we could go.
At some point, reason and candor must prevail. The "human error" explanation, if it can even be called such, has long since ceased to be credible. There is now powerful, compelling evidence that there was a large wound at the back of the skull, which means the autopsy photos that show the back of the head undamaged are fakes--either the wound was covered with scalp for the purpose of these photos or the photos were simply doctored after the fact. Furthermore, we now have additional evidence that a bullet struck the president in the right temple, just as the initial reports from Parkland Hospital said was the case. It's now clearer than ever that a bare minimum of one shot was fired from the front, and hence that there was a conspiracy.
Back to Michael T. Griffith
-
Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...
BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...
THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...
Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices.
Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go.
If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there.
The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law.
And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.
BK
I WAS THERE BILL I SAW AND READ ALL..BETWEEN DR.JIM AND the DR.THOMPSON..DEBATES.THERE HAS BEEN MUCH FURTHER WORK DONE AND COMMENTS MADE IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE...ABOUT THE ROCHESTER ZAPRUDER INFORMATION THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STUDIES DONE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM ON JFK RESEARCH .COM RICH'S SITE WHERE THE MAIN STUDIES OF THE ZAPRUDER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS SO SEEING I WAS THERE AND SAW AND READ all at the time of the debates between the two men i could say differently from your opinion...''And if thompson gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.
thNKS...b..
Hi B.,
They won't call a Congressional Oversight Hearing if Professor Fetzer asks them while promoting his ten year old book, but if the former head of Military Records for the ARRB says there is positive proof of two brains, and there's investigative leads worth pursing that indicate the Z-film was processed in any way at a secret CIA lab, then its possible they may investigate why there are records of two brains and two Z-films.
A major breakthrough.
I can't regurgitate the debates, and Fetzer already had his press conference in DC, and if he is the one who makes the case for proper oversight of these issues then we don't have a case. And they are RECORDS issues, not Medical or scientific.
But Thompson's opinion on the chain of custody is important because he is part of the chain of custody when he worked at LIFE, and is the most significant spokesman for the Z film as valid evidence in the case.
I know Rich Delarosa has seen the other film, and that his forum has done work on this topic, but apart from the study of the annomalies, if there has been any new work done at all in the ten years about chain of custody or the Rochester plant I'd like to see it.
I'm especially interested in the names of anyone who worked at the Rochester plant who worked on the Z-film, besides what was done for HSCA and ARRB.
Thanks,
BK
BILL I WILL HAVE TO DIG IN THE FILES AND SEE WHAT I HAVE SAVED AND IF PERMSSION TO REPOST IT..WOULD BE GRANTED BY SOME....BUT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD LIFTON POSTED AND COMMENTED ON INFORMATION RE ROCHESTER BACK AT LEAST IF NOT MORE THAN TEN YEARS AGO RE INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROCHESTER FILMS ALSO FROM Moe Weitzman BY EMAIL TO RICH IF MEMORY SERVES ME BACK ABOUT 93 OR 4ISH THEY WERE ABOUT THE ZAPRUDER FILM HE COMPLETED FOR TIME LIFE AND THE NIX FOR UPI IF MEMORY SERVES ME,,,I BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE TO DIG THE INFO OUT GOING BY MEMORY HERE...BEAR WITH ME...NONE OF THIS HAD OR HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANOTHER VIEWED ZAPRUDER FILM BY THE 9 OR SO WHOM HAVE ATTESTED TO VIEWING SUCH...AND ALSO IN DAVID HEALEY'S STUDIES AND IN DR.GERRY MCKNIGHTS BOOK...RELEASED A FEW YEARS BACK, ALSO THE DOCUMENTS RE ALL THAT WERE AND I THINK ARE STILL POSTED ON THE WEB ABOUT ROCHESTER BY DR.FETZER..THE INFORMATION WHICH BECAME AVAILABLE FROM HORNE THROUGH THE HSCA I BELIEVE THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN OUT THERE ON THE WEB FOR SOME YEARS AND NOTHING MOVED THIS APPARENTLY WAS NOT ENOUGH TO OPEN ANY NEW HEARINGS NEITHER WAS THE TWO BRAIN STUDIES INFO DONE BY DR.LIVINGSTON I BELIEVE NOR DR.WECHTS INFORMATION RELEASED WITHIN HIS BOOK..NOR HIS BEING IN ATTENDANCE AT THE COMMISSION...BUT LET'S HOPE NOW WITH ALL THAT DOUG HAS MADE AVAILABLE.AND HIS CONTACTS IT SHALL BE WITH HIS INPUT.....NO ONEI BELIEVE WANTS TO REGURGITATE ANY DEBATES LORDY THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ENOUGH OF THOSE THAT GO NO WHERE..WITH NOTHING MUCH EITHER IN THE WAY OF NEW INFORMATION COMING TO LIGHT OR SETTLING ANYTHING..OPINIOND REMAIN THE SAME NONE WANT TO STAND IN THE OTHERS SHOES IS VERY OBVIOUS...AND THEIR WORD AS GIVEN AND OR WITNESSES IS NOT TAKEN AS A GIVEN...ALL IS DOUBTED NOW IT APPEARS...AND I DOUBT REARLY EITHER WANT TO GO AROUND THAT THORNY BUSH AGAIN...AND SHOULD NOT BE EXPECTED TO UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES...ONLY THEN TO BE CRITICIZED FOR THEIR BELIEFS... THERE MAY BE A COUPLE OF NAMES MENTIONED IN MCKNIGHTS BOOK IN FACT I BELIEVE SO.THOUGH THEY MAY BE THE SAME AS FOR THE HSCA OR ARRB I AM NOT SURE RIGHT NOW.....I KNOW I DO HAVE THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE POSTED ON THE WEB SOME YEARS AGO BY DR.JIM THAT MAY STILL BE UP..BUT IF NOT I CAN POST THOSE EASILY IF YOU HAVE NOT COME ACROSS THEM...THAT IS ALL I CAN TINK OF RIGHT NOW FWIW...THANKS B...
HERE ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT DR.JIM HAD POSTED SOME TIME AGO..IN 1998 FOR THOSE INTERESTED....B
Important documents posted at request of Fetzer
Posted by jack white®(jack white), Nov 27,1998,17:38 Post Reply Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
EXCERPTS FROM ARRB DOCUMENT D-133
Date:
Fri, 27 Nov 1998 16:31:20 -0600 (CST)
From:
james fetzer
The following excerpts are taken from three enclosures in ARRB Document
D-133, which was prepared by Doug Horne. You may obtain the complete doc-
ument from JFK Lancer Productions by calling Tom Jones, (972) 264-2007.
________________________________________________________________________
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
Date: 07/14/97
Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
. . .
Mr. McMahon was manager of the NPIC (National Photo Interpretation
Center) color lab in 1963. About two days after the assassination of
President Kennedy, but before the funeral took place, a Secret Service
agent named "Bill Smith" delivered an amateur film of the assassination
to NPIC and requested that color prints be mde of frames believed to be
associated with wounding ("frames in which shots occurred"), for purpos-
es of assembling a briefing board. Mr. Smith did not explain who the
briefing boards would be for, or who would be briefed. The only persons
who witnessed this activity (which McMahon described as "an all night
job") were USSS agent Smith, Homer McMahon, and Ben Hunter (McMahon's
assistant). Although no materials produced were stamped with classifi-
cations markings, Smith told McMahon that the subject matter was to be
treated as "above top secret"; McMahon said not even his supervisor was
allowed to know what he was working on, nor was his supervisor allowed
to participate. Smith told McMahon that the had personally picked up
the film (in an undeveloped condition from the man who exposed it) in
Dallas, flown it to Rochester, N.Y. (where it was developed by Kodak),
and then flown it down to NPIC in Washington so that enlargements of
selected frames could be made on NPIC's state-of-the-art equipment.
After the film (either an unslit original or possibly a duplicate)
was viewed more than once on a 16 mm projector in a briefing room at
NPIC, the original (a double-8 mm unslit original) was placed in a 10x
20x40 precison enlarger, and 5" X 7" format internegatives were made
from selected frames. A full-immersion "wet-gate" or liquid gate pro-
cess was used on the original film to reduce refractivity of the film
and maximize the optical quality of the internegatives. Subsequently,
three each 5" X 7" contact prints were made from the internegative. He
recalled that a mimimum of 20, and a maximum of 40 frames were duplicat-
ed via internegatives and prints. All prints, internegatives, and scraps
were turned over to Bill Smith at the conclusion of the work.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 08/14/97
Date: 08/14/97
Topic: Processing of Zapruder Film by NPIC in 1963 (Revised August 15,
1997)
. . .
I asked both men [Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter] if they still recall-
ed that their event occurred prior to the President's funeral, and they
both emphatically said yes. Mr. McMahon said he believes they performed
their work the night of the same day the President was assassinated, and
Bennett Hunter said he was of the opinion they did their work on the sec-
ond night after the assassination (i.e., Saturday night).
. . .
Home McMahon remembered again that the Secret Service agent stated
definitively that the assassination movie was developed in Rochester,
and that copies of it were made in Rochester also, and that he personal-
ly watched one of those copies projected at least 10 times that night
prior to making the internegatives of selected frames. Mr. Hunter agreed
that it seemed very likely to him that the copies of the motion picture
film would "probably have been made in Rochester", but did not independ-
ently recall.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 06/18/97
Date: 06/17/97
Topic: ARRB Staff Interviewed Ben Hunter (Grammatical Edits Made on
June 19, 1997)(Final Edit Made June 20, 1997)
. . .
-The Zapruder film was not copied as a motion picture; in fact, Hun-
ter said that NPIC did not have that capability for color movies, since
they were in the business of still, B & W reconnaissance photography for
the most part. He said that the assigned task was to analyze (i.e., loc-
ate on the film) where occupants of the limousine were wounded, includ-
ing "studying frames leading up to shots", and then produce color prints
from appropriate frames just prior to shots, and also frames showing shots
impacting limousine occupants. He recalled laying the home movie out on
a light table and using a loupe to examine individual frames. He does not
recall whether they received any instructions as to number of shots, or
any guidance as to where to look in the film.
. . .
Document's Author: Douglas Horne/ARRB Date Created: 07/15/97
Date: 07/14/97
Topic: ARRB Interviewed Homer McMahon
. . .
Although the process of selecting which frames depicted events sur-
rounding the wounding of limousine occupants (Kennedy and Connally) was
a "joint process", McMahon said his opinion, which was that President
Kennedy was shot 6 to 8 times from at least three directions, was ul-
timately ignored, and the opinion of USSS agent Smith, that there were
3 shots from behind from the Book Depository, ultimately was employed in
selecting frames in the movie for reproduction. At one point he said
"you can't fight city hall", and then reminded us that his job was to
produce internegatives and photographs, not to do analysis. He said
that it was clear that the Secret Service agent had previously viewed
the fim and already had opinions about which frames depicted woundings.
. . .
END
-
Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...
BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...
THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...
Well, while remaining on the sidelines I followed Prof. Fetzer's two year running battle with Prof. Tink, and both of them did nothing but argue about the content of the Zapruder film, and each others virtues and vices.
Doug Horne, while acknowledging all of this in his book, focuses on the possibility that there were two different original Zapruder films at the NPIC at different times, and that is what should be further investigated as far as the disposition of JFK assassination records go.
If you want to hear a rehash of the Fetzer-Tink T. debates you can, but it doesn't and shouldn't belong in a discussion or investigation of where the Z-film was and what it was doing there.
The discussion is not about Fetzer - or his book MIDP, or the disputed conent of the film, it's about it's provenance, the chain of evidence and its admissiblity in a court of law.
And if Fetzer gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.
BK
I WAS THERE BILL I SAW AND READ ALL..BETWEEN DR.JIM AND the DR.THOMPSON..DEBATES.THERE HAS BEEN MUCH FURTHER WORK DONE AND COMMENTS MADE IN THE PAST YEARS SINCE...ABOUT THE ROCHESTER ZAPRUDER INFORMATION THIS CAME ABOUT THROUGH THE STUDIES DONE OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM ON JFK RESEARCH .COM RICH'S SITE WHERE THE MAIN STUDIES OF THE ZAPRUDER STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE DOWN THROUGH THE YEARS SO SEEING I WAS THERE AND SAW AND READ all at the time of the debates between the two men i could say differently from your opinion...''And if thompson gets involved in that discussion it will only muddy the already dark waters.
thNKS...b..
-
Fetzer should just remain silent, as he has been disqualified from engaging in any determination of what did and didn't happen to the Zapruder film...
BILL COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN THIS REMARK WITH DETAILS OF THE HOW IN YOUR OPINION...
THANKS B..THANKS LEN THAT WAS THE NEXT QUANDRY...
-
-
THANKS RAYMOND....GOOD SHOW...
-
It's worth noting that right now, all five volumes are heavily discounted at Amazon.com, down to $16.87 each from the initial $25 price. As many are probably aware, Amazon (those cheeky buggers) go back and forth with their discounts and can pull the rug out from under you if you're not careful, so I'd recommend anyone cashed up in these trying weeks before Christmas treat themselves to as many volumes as they can get. I have to wait till Jan/Feb, doggone it, but I'm looking forward to eventually getting all of these. It may be worth waiting a few extra weeks for forum members to dig into the books before Doug pops up here to answer questions.
As an aside, FAMILY OF SECRETS is now cheaper in paperback on Amazon as well.
THANKS ANTHONY FOR TAKING THE TIME AND POSTING THIS INFORMATION FOR THE MEMBERSHIP..APPRECIATED;...B
-
IS THIS IT...ROBIN...
B.. -
Request.
Approx 2-Years ago i purchased a full size Dillard showing the Limo at Love Field from Corbis.
I then uploaded it to my geocities website image galleries.
Unfortunately Geocities accidently deleted my account wiping out all my photo's.
I was however able to retrieve most of them from friends, who had downloaded the Corbis images to there hard drives as they were surfing my site.
This is the only crop i have of the original FULL SIZE image i purchased from Corbis.
Ignore the square outline on the chrome trim, i did that.
If anyone managed to snag the original "FULL SIZE" image and saved it, i would greatly appreciate a copy.
Thanks.
Robin, it's a great image.
I have exactly this one on my disk already. The same name: 10748.jpg. The date i've downloaded it was august 13, 2009.
Don't ask me where i have it from. I forgot it.
Is your Geocities portfolio erased recently? Did i have maybe more you are missing?
Martin
Hi Martin
My original was a High Quality Version of this image.
Note in the image above, that it doesn't show the cars and people who can be seen in the Corbis Crop in the top right hand corner
Martin my Geocities site was erased about a year ago.
Thanks to Duncan i now have a new site.
robin..is this possibly it...?? b..no it is not i will look further robin for the difference in colour...
-
If Doug Horne's book doesn't open that door, it will never open.
Which reminds me of the nasty attacks that were leveled against Jim Fetzer and Jack White and the other contributors to MIDP and Assassination Science, when the book came out, and how those broadsides should now be expected to be leveled against Doug Horne and IARRB.
The Amazon reviewer already attached a UFO to Horne, and it's been asked by a forum member if he smokes pot, so I guess that's just the beginning of the desecration of Doug Horne.
BK
SORRY TO SAY BILL BUT EXACTLY IT DOES MAKE ONE PAUSE THOUGH THAT THE NEOCONS AS SOME CALL THEM AND OF COURSE THE LNRS APPEAR TO ATTACK SUCH STUDIES WITH SUCH VIGOR..SIMPLE ANSWER IS THEY ARE VERY AFRAID OF WHAT IS WITHIN..IF NOT THEY SIMPLY WOULD NOT BOTHER..AND IGNORE ...IT HAS ALREADY BEGUN AND IT WILL CONTINUE FOR SOME TIME I HOPE DOUG BATTENS DOWN THE HATCHES..AND HAS A THICK SKIN PREPARED I WISH HIM ALL THE BEST WITH HIS COLLECTION AND A HUGE THANKYOU..FOR SUCH A GREAT EFFORT...B CARRY ON...BILL...
-
three more of doug's books are available now at amazon for any interested...jack on what you say how very true...such as Armstrong Weisberg, JONES, .. Maegher for now..
from the mary ferrell site b
Thirteen years in the making, Douglas Horne's five-volume magnum opus is soon to be published, and will be available for sale here at the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.
Doug Horne served as Chief Analyst for Military Records on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board during the 1990s; the ARRB was responsible for the declassification of a great many of the files on this website. Horne played a major role in the Review Board's work on the medical evidence in the JFK assassination, preparing questions for depositions and helping elicit some stunning testimony from medical witnesses and writing several important internal research memos on the issues raised.
much more re doug horne's information and from where and whom...links...www.maryferrell.org/
-
"Howard Hunt's video confession finally available online"
Thu Oct-23-08 04:24 PM
http://www.infowars.com/?p=5488
From the Youtube video:
"In this segment from Alex Jones' widely anticipated upcoming documentary on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, we present never before seen footage of the now deceased former CIA operative E. Howard Hunt, a participant in the conspiracy to kill JFK, explain how the plot was hatched and who controlled it."
B...
-
Just remembering Billy Seymour of alleged infamous JfK fame. He was out from North Phoenix, Arizona, and closely associated
with noted anti-JFK Cuban persons known to me.
The thing now is that all of my people are now out of that sorry state, as of today, where those white bastards have chain gangs
that are made to live in tents on the desert both winter and searing summer, mental retard thinking of the 1920 onward, unbefrickin
believable. They are so-called republicans in that so-called right-to-work-state, thats why I quit being a republican. Arizona
politics are horsexxxx as is the continuing state of affairs in that backward horse-xxxx state. I am willing to fight to the
death anyone who differs with this assesment .
HJDean
hjay1211@gmail.com
HEY HARRY WHY DON'T YOU TELL US HOW YOU REALLY FEEL ABOUT ARIZONA AND THE REPUBLICANS...??
BEST B...LOVE IT...
-
when one is kicked out of the church it is called Excommunication .b
-
some sinister stuff was going on that day.well put there certainly was and you are very welcome...b
-
Cliff Spiegelmanstudy on bullets re second shooter.. b..
B..
NEW GIL JESUS JFK CHANNEL AT YOUTUBE
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
BRAVO FOR GIL AND FOR ALL YOU CONTINUE TO DO FOR THE REST OF US..MOST OF US WHOM SEEM TO DO SO DARN LITTLE...TA...B