Bernice Moore

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..

THANKS DON YOUR INFORMATION IS VERY APPRECIATED..TAKE CARE B..

DEAN HERE IS SOME INFORMATION RE THE W/C FINDNGS TC FROM GERALD MCKNIGHT'S VERY GOOD BOOK I BElIEVE MAY INTEREST YOU AND OR FIT IN SOMEWHERE...TAKE CARE...B

MAY BE OF INTEREST VIDEO OTHER SHOTS Helmer Reenberg's site, in Europe... He has other information posted, http://www..youtube.com/user/HelmerReenberg B..

A BIT MORE FOR NOW..BILL..B

SOME FOR NOW BILL.....B

THERE MAY BE SOME INFORMATION WITHIN THIS THAT MAY AID RE THE SIGNS HUDSON AND RECREATION..??.B The Dealey Plaza Signs : Emmett E Hudson "Whitewash ....The Report on the Warren Commission".1965.......page 44.. Harold Weisberg. ""Six months and a day following the assassination.( May.23/64 ) the Warren Commission had the FBI photographic agent, Lyndal L.Shaneyfelt ( 5 H 138 ) do a photographic re-enactment. The report indicates no reason for such a prolonged delay. The Secret Service had completed it's re-enactment by Dec. 5. 1963. It is difficult to imagine that the Commission could have loaded Mr.Shaneyfelt with more invalidating conditions.. His re-enactment could only serve one purpose...to try and make credible a reconstruction under which the Commission's thesis, that all the shots came from the sixth floor window, might be possible..In fact, he attempted nothing else…..In order to accomplish this, he had to show that no shot was fired before the frame numbered 210 on the Zapruder film.. To begin with, Shaneyfelt had to work with a black-and-white copy of the original Zapruder colour film. Necessarily, the copies were less clear. Then the reenactments began at 6 am as a concession to traffic. Between the time of the year and the time of the day differences between the mock-up and the real thing, al the values of shadows in photographic intelligence were forfeited, For the precise placing of the camera, mounted on the rifle, and other measuring devices Shaneyfelt had the information supplied by the Commission. He was working in fractions of degrees, yet he had to bade everything on "information furnished us by the Commission, photographs taken by the Dallas Police Department immediately after the assassination....." 5H145....... ..see Tom Alyea..Information.) Snip: None of the photos of such are or were in agreement with each other nor the facts, as the testimony also shows...."which none of them at the moment of the assassination showed, this was an immediate and total disqualification of anything he might try... No matter how fine and expert Shaneyfelt, no matter how excellent his equipment or how careful his associates, his testimony and reconstruction could have no validity".. “For example, Example Exhibit 887 ( R99) is a camera mounted atop the rifle pointing westward from the sixth-floor window. The window is raised several inches higher than it was shown in the Dillard photograph. Of necessity the rife is mounted on a photographic tripod. But there can be only one necessity for fudging on the window--- to make the whole reconstruction possible where otherwise it would not have been. The tripod is adjustable. The rifle is inside the window. With such an obvious flaw, the exhibit is invalid as is any testimony based on it..Another photograph of the re-enactment printed on page 41 of Life Magazine for Oct. 2,1964, shows that part of the reconstruction was made with the window entirely open...This picture shows the ballistic expert resting his arm on a box incorrectly positioned . It is much too far to the west.... Worse, the rifle is without it's telescopic sight. Can any testimony based upon this reconstruction have any value ?" Snip...page 45... "" In addition, the experts “duplicated certain frames of the Zapruder film" and of two others available to the Commission. These appear in the Report on pages 100-8 and are readily available for inspection. Not a single on can be called a duplication, as the most superficial inspection, even without instruments, will show. The angles are grossly different. The elevations are radically wrong. Even the backgrounds are not the same. One of the best examples is the critically important frame 210 (R102) . These are printed side by side and it will be no problem for any doubting reader to satisfy himself. This particular illustration is also proof of another inexcusable fault: The landscaping in the background has been altered..... Valuable intelligence was thus lost........ In other cases trees which served the same purpose were removed and even the vital signs that figure in all of this identification and testimony were both moved and removed..It is no longer possible to make the most precise photographic reconstruction of the assassination because of this destruction and mutilation of evidence.........."' Continued.. "Whitewash 11..The Report on the Warren Commission"........Harold Weisberg 1966.. Page 4...... "The Commission staff was not unaware of this, for although there is no indication it ever heeded it's own unavoidable proof or wondered why anyone would dream of destroying evidence in the assassination of an American President, the whole story was blurted out by Emmett E.Hudson, ( witness to the killing )groundskeeper of Dealey Plaza, in his belated testimony of July 22,1964, almost two months after the Commission had originally scheduled the end of it's work..( first mentioned page 45..WhiteWash.) . Not only were the hedges and shrubbery trimmed, thus destroying all the projection points essential to photographic analysis, but all the road signs absolutely vital in any reconstruction had been moved-------All Three Of Them--------Zapruder had filmed over the top of the center sign ( Stemmons) ..Two of the signs were entirely removed. The one over which Zapruder filmed was replaced, and there is no reason to believe it's replacement is in exactly the same location in the ground or at exactly the same height above it. Unless both of these conditions, plus the angle of the sign toward Zapruder's lens , were exactly identical with conditions when he took his pictures, no precise reconstruction is possible.. All this funny business with the signs got on the record by accident, not through the dilligence of the Commission or it's counsel. Wesley J.Liebeler was questioning Hudson. Not until eight months to the day after the assassination, but finally Hudson was being questioned. He volunteered this testimony: "Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved that R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign ".....It was this "Stemmons" sign over which Zapruder photographed. "They have? They have moved it?" Liebeler asked, his cool nonchalance preserved in cood type. "Yes, sir." replied Hudson. "That might explain it", Liebeler then said. at the same time, without even seeming so to intend, preserving for both the Commission and history the certain knowledge that the two photographs about which he was interrogating Hudson, one taken at the time of the assassination and the other after it, were not in agreement. ....And here the accidental interest of the Commission in the destruction and mutilation of the most essential evidence ended".................. Page 130: "When Hudson reaffirmed his testimony ( and the landscaping also was altered, with the destruction of essential photo-intelligence and analysis reference points in the backgrounds of the pictures)..., the complacent assistant counsel replied, ""That might explain it, because this picture here, No 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time----No. 1.."" The "after" refers to the official reconstruction of the crime!.....Hudson's unanticipated blurting out of what is obvious from the most cursory examination of the photographs evidence marks the beginning and the end of the Commission's interest." *--------*-------*--------*-------* Here is some info from Jack ..... ""in the sixties all such highway signs were 3/4 inch marine plywood, not aluminum like today. In fact, some of the very old plywood signs are still in use in a few places where they have not needed updating. One thing very odd about the Stemmons sign is that it has NO ANGLE IRON BRACING on the back. Back in the 80s I checked a lot of the plywood signs, and virtually all I could find had angle iron braces, especially if larger than four feet by eight feet, because any splices had to be braced. I have never been able to get exact dimensions anywhere on the size of the Stemmons sign. Does anyone know?"" Jack ""the sign was 4-feet X 8-feet"", ........I have read on the web.....? Current Section: Exhibit CE 875 shown to Emmett Hudson.. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...bsPageId=139712 Mr. LIEBELER - There are two signs in picture No. 18, one says, "R.L. Thornton Freeway, keep right." and the other one says, "Fort worth Turnpike, keep right." Mr. HUDSON - There were two of them that wasn't too far apart right through here - them signs was - one was right along in here and the other one was either further up, I guess. It's not in that picture - I don't believe. Now, they have moved some of those signs. They have moved the R.L. Thornton Freeway sign and put up a Stemmons sign. Mr. LIEBELER - They have? They have moved it? Mr. HUDSON - Yes, sir. Mr. LIEBELER - That might explain it, because this picture here, No. 18, was taken after the assassination and this one was taken at the time - No. 1. http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/hudson.htm Below, Emmett Hudson, in Muchmore…frame….White Hat on the middle left on steps and then sitting on the ground after the assassination… WC recreation photos…shown to Hudson….Signs.. Hudson.an..in.Muchmoore.. The Dillard photo….re the Alyea…information. Hits to Dealey.... How many shots could there have been ? The SS called them a “flurry “ of shots..that came into the limo.. Roy H. Kellerman- Possible hits and misses… A hit to Elm street behind the motorcade, sounded like a backfire..fireworks.... A hit to the south side sewer cover..DSD Eddie (Buddy).Walthers…..DMD Ed Brewer.. Two furrows in the grass south side, across from fence.. Edna & Wayne Hartman A hit to the north sidewalk..Aldredge, .reported to FBI….DMNews Carl Freund ..photo.. Not mentioned in WR.. A hit to the curb south side, Tague hit. A hit to the Stemmons Freeway sign ..no reports rumours.. A last missed shot , after President hit…… Royce G.Skelton, puff of concrete off right fender also DSD Eddie (Buddy) Walthers.. Possibly Tague hit…hit pavement in the left or middle lane..concrete knocked to the south away from the car… Mrs. Caroline Walther..and possibly more shots,,..not called by W/C..name not within.. but statement made available….WC Vol 24 Hit to the President entrance front neck.. Hit to the President’s back. Hit to the President front temple Hit to the President left temple Hit to John Connally in his right side back. Hit to John Connally to the wrist. Hit frontal…to the X100 windshield.,,could be neck entrance shot. Hit to limo dash board.. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ From the Warren Commission section 9...Paragraph H.. Summary and Conclusions.. “”(h) After careful investigation the Commission has found no credible evidence either that Ruby and Officer Tippit, who was killed by Oswald, knew each other or that Oswald and Tippit knew each other. Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission. “” Had they not possibly known there was, or been so positive that there had not been a conspiracy……They would not have had any reason to have made the above statement, and in some way left it open ended.. in the first place….. This was admitting to such, some would say…. http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wcr/page22.php “Pictures don’t lie, unless they are made to “.. Harold Weisberg….. Page 1,,”Whitewash 2 “ ***************************************** B..

SOME INFORMATION ON DALLAS AT THE TIME BY Warren Leslie: Dallas: 1964.FROM AN OLD POST I HAD MADE ..B -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Information from...HIS Book : “Dallas Public & Private” It was an extraordinary thing when an American city did not trust itself to receive the President of the United States in dignity. Dallas did not so trust itself . It is a Texas story but also an American story .To have placed a local guilt and exonerate the rest of the country was as naïve as some of the people of Dallas had been during the years when the storm clouds were banking. The forces of violence existed and do everywhere. Unchallenged, unrepudiated, they grow and fester, gaining in confidence attracting new strength. The assassination focused the world’s attention on Dallas and its dreary history of political extremism and violence. The author wrote the book in the hope that the general implications of the particulars would be obvious and he wrote in a strange mixture of pain and love which many people in Dallas were feeling. For the city not near as black as the world press had painted it, was nevertheless not innocent in these matters. It was not innocent. The world had indeed treated Dallas and Texas harshly.”Do not bring your children to this city was the lead paragraph of a news story in Lord Beaver-brooks“London Evening Standard”, written by his Grand daughter . “Giants 27, Assassins 21”, somebody said, and it was a shock to understand that the “Assassins” were the “Cowboys”, Dallas professional football team. “Where are you living now?” a bartender asked at the St.Regis in New York of an old customer, a former New Yorker .” Still in Dallas”---“I'd have thought you'd be coming home by now.” The bartender said. “Or going somewhere”.. In Los Angeles, not too long after the assassination a fashion writer for the Dallas News commenting that it was impossible to get room service, “Seems to take a little longer for the people from Dallas”, a waiter explained. In New York, a visitor on his return from Europe, spent less time than usual in Customs, “Dallas, hell don't stick around here. Just go on home,” stated the customer officer. A visiting journalist commented “If I were a Liberal in Dallas, I might feel I had to shoot the President just to get attention.” The familiar remark, among thousands that were made about the DPD “I don't think the Dallas police force is so bad, look how quick they caught Ruby.” But the citizens of Dallas after the assassination also heard expressions of sympathy. In some ways the sympathy though was more humiliating than the scorn. Hard to deal with…So many words were written, so much sorrow and anger had risen up against Dallas that even the thoughtful people thought in Headlines. Some of the cities leaders also fought back, the emotional, predictable reactions that resulted from the death of the young President, perhaps better loved that even he knew .They had difficulties facing up to questions such as, “Why were there three murders in Dallas that week-end, instead of just the one?. Why was Ambassador Adlai Stevenson struck and spat upon in Dallas?. Why was LBJ nearly mobbed?. Why did General Walker choose Dallas in which to live?. Why did Dallas have to take such elaborate precautions to insure President Kennedy a welcome normal to any President of the United States?. Why did the “Dallas News” run a right wing extremist advertisement on the day Kennedy arrived?. Why did so many Dallas leaders keep saying, “It was not our fault. It could have happened anywhere .Dallas is a great city?. Is Dallas a part of the United States? Or is it some savage country of it’s own?.” Dallas was indeed a part of the U.S. but there were many, including a good many Texans, who believe the city had become disturbed psychologically and confused morally, and while such was scarcely unique in Dallas alone, they did become upfront because of the local factors which were unique. Professor Reese McGee, head of the sociology department writing in the “Nation” shortly after said,” Barring Mississippi, in a doomed and fated way it had to be Texas and in Texas, Dallas”. His reasons he stated were,” the absolutist nature of local thought. The institutionalization of personalized violence. The proliferation of firearms and the habit of carrying them. The political respectability of the radical right; and the nonexistence, publicly, of a radical left.” But of the several thousand of people the writer knew, at the time none carried fire arms, but the Professor’s other points seemed to be sound to him. After that terrible November, there were several meetings throughout Dallas to consider what action, if any, that the city should take. Some discussed what kind of memorial would be fitting to the President, but at others some tried hard to get at the roots of the cities problems. One group even had Dr. Robert E.Stolz, the chairman of the department of psychology at Southern Methodist University; prepare a professional report for them on the aspects of Dallas. It was confidential but eventually was leaked to the press, and many of the citizenry within Dallas, felt it gave validity to the uneasiness they felt about their city at the time…..shortened below. That there were elements in the city that encouraged irresponsibility in the conduct of civic, political and personal affairs. The best organized and most vocal were the extreme right wing groups. Evidence suggested that they were the most numerous and best financed. This was by no means unique, as it could be found throughout the country, but that influence in Dallas was greater there than in most cities. Violence was a means of settling disputes and was accepted and condoned in the community. This was a long standing problem in the area and particularly in the south. While some groups did not direct acts of violence or lead them, irresponsible words could lead to irresponsible actions. There was no organized or vocal opposition to these groups. Without restraints on what was required as logic and evidence there was a tendency to try to exceed the other member in attracting attention or controlling. In the absence of organized opposition, individuals, citizens with less education, less self control, or less stability, could get the impression that certain actions would be desired or supported by the general community, and was quite likely that the outcome would be violent. Witnessing such as had occurred in the Deep South, when public leaders had taken either no stand or supported a stand with regard to aggressive action. As a contrast consider the success of the Dallas effort to integrate peaceably. Leadership within Dallas had given lip service to humane and moral values, but showed that it valued the physical and economic aspects of the community primarily. Obviously there were a few exceptions. A strong emphasis on materialism was evident in the community. Dallas tended to define “goodness” to physical terms, such as the breadth and height of buildings, and expressways, the number of churches, and the low frequency of incidents of corruption and vice. But it ignored other statistics of “goodness” which were available but less flattering---homicide rates, vehicular deaths, poverty, medical care for some types of patients, quality of education, evidences of real culture etc. The citizens of Dallas were beginning to associate any claim of doing something for the public good with latent and hidden economic gains for the sponsors of some mysterious group known as “they”. Therefore it was no surprise that many citizens developed a “what-is-in-it-for-me? Attitude…when they felt it was the philosophy of their leaders. Again, there were exceptions, but they were hard to find… Many leaders in Dallas had taken the position suggesting that they viewed men as basically evil and controllable only by economic forces rather than appealing to their moral principles. Witnessed he felt by their recent pay raise for Police Officers in order to “keep them from becoming corrupt” .It was difficult to know what the moral effect would be of views such as this on the police department at large. Obviously, he felt it could not be positive. The lines of communications in the city were inadequate they had developed a climate in which groups did not experience a mutual exchange of views and situations where rational and reasonable evaluation of facts and hypothesis was impossible. Many one sided debates were going on, with only their prior views being discussed with slight additions and no contradictions. The newspapers in the community had contributed heavily to this condition. Dallas was frustrated and it would have liked to have escaped its responsibilities and all blame. But it was finding that difficult, it wanted to believe it could have happened anywhere, but was having trouble convincing even itself. As all recalled the string of incidences that proceeded this one and all their too obvious effort to control incidents on the day of the assassination. He agreed that Dallas was not the only place this could have happened, but that it was one of the places where it was liable to have occurred . In such a situation the citizenship would attempt to do one of several things, to escape the feelings of frustration and guilt. 1; Deny any responsibility for the events of Nov, 22-24/63. Some would deny by emphasizing this could have happened anywhere and see no association with the events of preceding weeks. 2; Seek a scapegoat…which would have the following characteristics. Be easy to identify, have lower status and less power than the group seeking the scapegoats, likely to be political leaders, police officials, foreign elements, or minority groups. 3; Some would make an effort to atone for guilt in a physical way. Such as the naming of a street, giving money, erecting a memorial, in short, a way which will look like a costly change but which will avoid a real change within themselves. Any group attempting to enter into a power vacuum and to enlist the support of the community would have to do the following. Speak with authority; appear to have the support of some known power figures, the community and a following. Its program would have the appearance of a moral and/or patriotic basis for its foundation. It would have a way of continuing communication with the community, aided by mass media or its own publications and spokesman. It may have done both. It would have a central theme that was simple in construction, in phraseology and conceptual level. Nothing complex at first. It would promote a program of action, quite specific and simple. To encourage support it would ask a public commitment of agreement of the beliefs and purposes of the organization, it may have been simply signing a membership, a card or as elaborate as an initiation. It would develop a distinct symbol or label so that the member is immediately recognizable by members and public. It would be quick to attach negative labels to those that were not members. In its formative stages, it would not accept non activity, complex planning and sluggish activity would be avoided. The groups that appeared to meet these criteria most closely were the right wing extremists groups. It was not unlikely that they would benefit most from the present situation. Competing groups are non existence at present or, judging from their past actions and leadership will wait for the norm to return. Religious leaders would fail because of lack of organization, limited total community involvement and or appeals that were too vague, and involved no specific direction or unable to coordinate their efforts. The Dallas Citizen’s Council did not extend far into the community and it was likely to delay action, did not have the fundamental moral mental base and had little internal unity with regard to the tasks at hand. Studies of previous similar situations indicated that unless some efforts toward change occurred, the problems they now had would continue to be with them and were very likely to increase. This was not over yet. It could get worse… The act of assassination itself, was a demented act....the city was not the inevitable site for a Presidential murder, but which was a logical place for something unpleasant and embarrassing to happen. So logical that a group of Dallas citizens nearly warned the President not to visit their own town. So logical that the shock and horror of the first hours were reactions to the enormity of the act, not because a violent act had taken place. Information from pAGES: 8-20

I'm sure it's not disinformation, at least on Dean's part. It's MISinformation (if it is that -- misinformation). Nothing deliberate on Dean's part one way or the other. Kathy C HEAR HEAR KATHY WELL SAID..I AGREE...THOUGHT CAN ANYONE PROVE ALTGENS DID TAKE #8//WHERE HE STATED SUCH AND OR ANY INFO ON WHEN HE DENIED DOING SO..?? B

HERE IS SOME INFORMATION FROM DR.WECHT'S '' TALES FROM THE MORGUE A POST I MADE LONG TIME PAST...B FYI.. Dr.Cyril Wecht Information from…. “Tales From The Morgue”. 2005...Prometheus Books In February 1965 Dr .Cyril Wecht was asked by the American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS) to present a “critical view” of the Warren Commission Report (WC), in Chicago. The only access to the report was at the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh. No one could check out copies, so he spent each evening for two weeks reading the key portions of the 26 volumes. They were based largely on, three sources, the Zapruder film, the FBI investigations, and the autopsy. The Film was of the uppermost importance as the report repeatedly pointed to the film being the decisive evidence, in that it determined the number of shots fired, the sequence of injuries to the President and the Governor, the trajectory of those bullets, and the number of gunmen. It contained 486 frames, ran about 18.3 frames per second, meaning that the film caught the reactions every 1/8th of a second. The WC created on Nov.29, 1963 by President L.B.Johnson, executive order #11130, reported that “Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds.” The report also stated that the second bullet that struck President Kennedy came from the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). In 1965, Dr.Wecht had no reason to question the Zapruder film. He had believed the WC findings …..After all it stated that the Zapruder film had proved its findings that Oswald had fired the shots, and acted alone, they were agreed to by the Chief Justice Earl Warren, and six other respected commission members, the FBI, and beside all that, the physical evidence that connected LHO to the killing was overwhelming. In other-wards it was a slam dunk. “Pretty damning evidence, or so it seemed at the time.” “My intent was not to question the findings of the Warren Commission, but to review how the autopsy and other medicolegal aspects of the inquiry were conducted. In doing so, I became simply astonished.” The first problem was that the Secret Service had removed the body, from Dallas to Washington. At this point in time LHO was still alive, arrested, in the city jail, and if not murdered would have been put on trial in Dallas, because the 6th Amendment of the Constitution requires people to be tried where the crime takes place. The authorities within that state retain all evidence, as that guarantees its authenticity. In removing the body from control of the Dallas County coroner, federal officials probably destroyed the admissibility of any evidence gained through the autopsy held in Washington. At Bethesda, Dr.James Humes, and Dr.J.Thornton Boswell, not forensic pathologists and Dr.PierreFinck who was, but had not functioned in that position in any coroner'’s office. Neither the military officers nor any person in the autopsy room, in charge, had either the education, training, or experience for the task. Seemingly, Humes and Boswell started before Finck arrived, and they missed the fact that there was an entrance wound in the front of the President’s neck, the path of the wound was not traced, and they did not dissect nor trace the wound in his back, also Humes burnt his early autopsy notes. Dr.Wecht found that the brain, which is soft and cannot be examined immediately, had been placed in a fixture of formalin, which then allows it to harden. But he discovered that two weeks later they had not performed an adequate examination by not serially sectioning that brain. This would have allowed them to trace the path of the bullet(s) that struck the President in the head. They said this was what killed him, yet they did not dissect the brain…He was needless to say, flabbergasted, and is as appalled today as he was then back 1965. After researching the medical and autopsy findings, he was disturbed and critical, also of the police investigation .The crime scene was not protected, witnesses were allowed to leave, without being questioned .The limousine was not properly quarantined nor examined for forensic evidence; the Governor’s clothes were laundered before examination. However at that time in 1965 he concluded his report without questioning the basic findings of the WC. That was not his charge, and neither did he have sufficient evidence or reason to believe they were wrong in deciding that Oswald was the lone assassin. He was though, quite critical of the autopsy and the forensic investigation. He did announce that had LHO not been murdered and put on trial for the murder of President Kennedy, the prosecutors would have lost. “ The medical and forensic evidence was so screwed up, so incomplete, and so tainted that it would not have held up in a court of law.”.. After the lecture, at a breakfast meeting, Dr. Pierre Finck approached him and extended his congratulations on his report. Dr.Wecht could have told him he was wrong in his conclusions but did not. Dr.Finck instead stated to him, and he has never forgotten, “You cannot believe what it was like, it was horrible. Horrible. I only wish I could tell you about it.” He regrets in not pushing Dr.Finck a little more for some details, but he did not and he thought at the time that would be all he would ever say publicly about the assassination of President J.F.Kennedy. As we know Dr.Cyril Wecht was so very wrong. ****************** On the morning of Aug.24, 1972, in Washington D.C, where Dr.Cyril Wecht had flown from Pittsburgh, the previous evening, he was ready and waiting at 8 am for a cab to be flagged, so he could begin his trip through the National Archives (N/A) having finally been given access to the Kennedy assassination materials. In 1965 an unheard of event had taken place, the federal officials in their maddening wisdom, had chosen to turn over to Jacqueline Kennedy, all physical and autopsy materials ,and it is unacceptable to this day. This was evidence in a crime, plain and simple, the fact that it was evidence in an assassination of the President made it all the more horrific. In 1966 she turned it over to the National Archives, a request to the court being that the materials not be made public until after the death of her children. She did however say that recognized experts in the field of pathology would be allowed to apply to review the materials “for serious historical purpose.” Dr.Wecht in 1971 was president of the American College of Legal Medicine, and he had applied for over a year to the N/A, and Burke Marshall, the executor of the Kennedy archive materials, seeking the access to review them. His letters and phone calls went unanswered. Then in 1971 when New York Times investigative reporter, Fred Graham, called him, having heard that he had applied to the N/A, he told him he was being stonewalled and so Graham made a few phone calls to find out why? Within a few days of Graham’s call, he was contacted by Burke Marshall and the wheels began to turn. He was given two days of exclusive access to all the physical evidence, autopsy materials and crime scene photographs. When he arrived that morning and entered, he was still somewhat skeptical of the official version of the investigations into the assassination. Dr C.Wecht: “What I saw during those two days convinced me that the truth still remains unknown. Those two days changed my view about the honesty of my government”.. Within the National Archives building he was directed to a Mr. Marion Johnson, an affable man who shook his hand, and told him he was there to help him in any way he could, and led him to a large private room, containing a table, chair, an x-ray viewing machine and a projector. He had brought his own microscope, as none was available for him. As he scanned the list of materials connected to the assassination he noticed the item, an original copy of the Zapruder film. Mr. Johnson had set up the projector to review the film, if he wished. “He added that the film was only about thirty seconds long .He said that while more than five hundred photographs and pieces of film recorded portions of the assassination, only the Zapruder film captured the entire event on tape. When he informed me that the film was graphic, I reminded him that I’m a forensic pathologist and used to witnessing the result of violence and tragedy”.. What he did not tell Johnson was that he had seen the Zapruder film; in 1966 he had received a call from Dr.Josiah Thompson, who was working on an article for Life magazine, he had told him. “that the editors at Life had purchased an original copy of the Zapruder film and that they wanted me to fly to New York to watch the eight-millimeter film with them”. The film had not been shown publicly at that time, though some frames had been published in its magazine. He had read about the film seen the few photographs and studied the additional frames that had been printed in the WC. Report. He was acutely aware of how important the film was. Wecht watched the film in N.Y with Thompson and the Life editors, Thompson explained to him that the film had been taken with a Bell & Howell Model 414D Zoomatic Director Series camera. The film 8mm Kodachrome color but recorded no sound, it consisted of 486 frames played at 18.3 frames a second. Taken approximately, by Abraham Zapruder, on a pedestal, assisted by Marilyn Sitzman, his receptionist some 70 feet from the middle of Elm St. where the Presidential limousine passed. He had sold a copy to Life for $150,000. To better examine the timing and sequence, Life had printed each frame into 11 by 15 inch photographs. He sat alone and watched the film, again, that morning at the N/A examining the still enlargements of each frame. As he watched it over and over, and reviewed the still photographs, he felt that the WC was right, that the Zapruder was the best documentary of the assassination, but that it contradicted some conclusions of the WC.. First: It called into question the timing of the bullet that supposedly hit both the President and Governor. If it struck JFK in frame 210 as the WC said, then more than a second elapses before the Governor is hit, and that is not consistent with a bullet that is traveling at speed of two thousand feet a second. Second: Firearms experts had said that it would take 2.3 seconds for the Mannlicher-Carcano to be re-loaded and fired again, far too little time for the President and the Governor to have been shot with the same gun. Third: It called into doubt the trajectory of the bullet. If as the WC had concluded that one missile # 399, had entered the President’s back and coursed through the upper part of his back and neck, striking neither bone nor cartilage, then exited from the front of his neck, midline near the level of the knot of his tie. Then entered the Governor’s back, breaking the right fifth rib, which destroyed four inches of that bone, then exited from the front of the Governor’s chest below his right nipple. The same bullet then re-entering the back of the Governor’s wrist , which caused a fragmented fracture, in what is called the distal end of the radius, that being…one of the two large bones that comes down from the elbow to the wrist…. Then finally exiting the front of the Governor’s right wrist and re-entering his left thigh.. But as he viewed the Zapruder film and the photographs, he realized something was wrong. If a bullet had been fired from the 6th floor of the TSBD towards the President in frame 210, as the WC concluded. It would have been traveling at a downward angle, of about 17 degrees, from back to front, and from right to left as it entered his back…but a bullet travels in a straight line, unless it strikes an object on the way to alter its course..? If the bullet was shot from the TSBD, it would travel from left to right, and if it did not hit any bones, within the president’s body, then JFK would have to have been sitting dramatically forward, his head almost on his knees, for that bullet to have exited through his neck, but the Zapruder film showed him sitting almost bolt upright. As we know for the bullet to have done what the WC stated, it would have had to emerge from the president’s neck, stop in midair, make an acute turn to the right about 18 to 20 inches ,stop again in midair ,turn downward and enter the governor’s back on the right side just behind his right armpit. Because if you draw a straight line from the president’s back at the point of entrance and the front of the neck, at the site of the knot or a tie, as shown in the Zapruder film, the bullet would probably miss the governor, completely or possibly it could have clipped him on the left back or left shoulder area instead of his right armpit. But fours years of medical school, six years of additional education and training, to become a forensic pathologist as well as three years of law school and nearly a decade of experience at the time, had led him to understand one basic principle and common sense as well, that bullets travel in straight lines, they do not change course in mid air, it was a “magic bullet”. This bullet was very special, it was found on a stretcher by a maintenance man, so the story went, at Parkland Hospital after the President and the Governor had been wheeled in. The federal authorities said initially they did not know about the wound in JFK’s neck ?, so they decided that at Parkland this bullet must have come from his back when they were trying to save his life. When they did learn, (they said the next day), and decided that the bullet must have entered his back and exited his neck. (Without ever dissecting the throat wound at Bethesda.).Under their original theory, the bullet which traveled at a speed of two thousand feet per second, did not have the power to penetrate the President’s starched collar? That was some heavy starch. But then along came the Warren Report with a second theory.. They had to make the facts fit the story that LHO was the lone shooter, so they had to develop a scenario whereby only three bullets were fired, all from the 6th floor window of the TSBD…….and they also had to have it taken place within the time frame of the Zapruder film. So Arlen Specter a young brilliant lawyer serving as one of the junior counsel members on the W/C, came up with a scenario that fit. It required that all the nonfatal wounds from President Kennedy and Governor Connally were caused by the same bullet. (So it fell from Governor Connally’s thigh .If it was to work?.) Dr.Cyril Wecht: “And then there is the business of the bullet just popping out of Governor’s Connally’s left thigh while he was lying on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital. This is a substantial piece of metal that was buried deep in the governor’s thigh near the femur. The entrance hole in the skin was small. There is no way that a bullet that went down that deep would just come back out. A bullet will on rare occasions plop out of an entrance wound, if the wound is a large gaping wound with extensively torn tissues. But in wounds such as the one suffered by Governor Connally in the left thigh, bullets become immediately entrapped in hemorrhagic tissue.. The tissue swells and the skin, which stretches to accommodate the entry of the bullet, becomes elastic like within a few seconds, entrapping the bullet in the tissue”. Mr. Johnson brought him CE 399, in a small case, it rested on a bed of cotton padding, he picked up the bullet and held it against the light. It is in nearly pristine condition, the bullet before it is shot weighs 161 grams….the bullet he held in his fingers weighed 158.6…Impossible. Even the autopsy pathologists agreed with him on this point Dr.Pierre Fink had asked Arlen Specter during the WC if CE 199 “could have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?” “No, for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist,” Dr.Finck responded. “There was practically no loss off this bullet.” The federal government did try to duplicate with an experiment and replicate the magic bullet at US Army’s Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland. They tried Mannlicher-Carcano bullets through goat carcasses and human cadavers, broke one rib in the goat’s chest and also finally they broke a distal end of the radius in the human cadavers to simulate the wounds in Connally. They also fired MC bullets into cotton wadding. The bullets that broke the goats rib were significantly deformed. The bullets that broke the radius bone in the human cadaver were tremendously deformed .Some fragmented and all showed the mushrooming, umbrella-like appearance, seen in bullets that hit dense bones. Keeping in mind that none of the bullets hit and broke both bones as the Magic Bullet did. The WC own experiments failed and proved that the single-bullet theory was physically impossible. As Dr.Wecht looked at the CE 399 bullet, he realized that it was a “magic bullet”..Magic because it accommodated the WCs every wish and desire. “There has never been a bullet like this one in the world”. Among the many documents and such that he came upon was a verbatim transcript of a briefing at Parkland Hospital at 3.16pm., just two hours After the President had been pronounced dead… Dr. Malcolm Perry and neurosurgeon Dr. Kemp Clark discuss what they witnessed. “Reporters: Where was the entrance wound? Dr. Perry: There was an entrance wound in the neck. Reporter: Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? Dr.Perry: It appeared to be coming at him. Reporter: Doctor describe the entrance wound. Dr.Perry: The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat.” He scanned through some of the 500 photos taken that day in Dealey Plaza ..Some that showed the presidential limousine turning from Main onto Houston, directly in front of the shooter? Why didn’t he shoot at the President then? Unobstructed by trees or foliage, a clear shot. Instead the WC claimed that he waited until it was partially hidden and at a more difficult angle to hit the moving target?? It didn’t make sense… He examined the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle and the spent three shells. He is not a gun expert, but can tell us that it is not a very sophisticated weapon; it is weighty, bulky, and not easy to fire or to reload. It is considered by to be a most inferior weapon of it’s genre in existence at that time. He then was allowed also to examine the President’s clothes. “His shirt, pants and jacket, were neatly folded and separated from each by a thin soft paper.” He held up his suit jacket and examined the bullet hole, it is approximately five and three-quarter inches down from the base of the back. This raised another interesting issue to him, where was the entrance wound in the President’s back? The doctors handling the autopsy placed the bullet wound further down on the President’s back initially. About five and three quarter inches from the base of the neck?. The Secret Service agents who had the first contact with the President immediately after the shooting, two Secret Service Agents Glenn Bennett and Clint Hill, who had first contact with the President immediately after the shooting, had told the WC that the bullet hole was four to six inches below the neckline on the right of the spinal column, which is exactly where the autopsy notes indicated it was. Even the FBI agents who had witnessed the autopsy had reported a back wound that “was below the shoulders”. In their report (Sibert and O’Neill), which was sealed till a few years ago, stated they doubted the same bullet that entered the back could have exited the neck, because the bullet entrance was too low on the back. The WC and the Government claimed it was actually four inches higher. That made their theory that the same bullet that entered, and somehow exited his neck, though that was highly unlikely. Also by moving Governor Connelly’s seating farther and farther to the left. It made it all the more feasible to them. Even though in the Zapruder film and in eyewitness confirmation that he was sitting directly in front of the President, if they had edged him over any closer he would have been sitting in Mrs. Connally’s lap. His attention returned to studying frames 312 and 313 of the Zapruder film, he saw that President Kennedy’s head is in a slight chin-downward position as the fatal bullet strikes his head, they showed him that blood and brain matter sprayed on Mrs. Kennedy and the back of the presidential limousine and the Dallas motorcyclists who followed their car. He wondered why, if the bullet was fired from behind, why did the president’s head lurched backwards, instead of forward with the momentum of the bullet, and why did nearly all the blood spray and matter go towards the back of the of the limousine if the bullet was fired from behind? It made no sense. Indeed the size and location of that fatal head wound, which was instrumental in determining the position of the assassin was in dispute. “The truth is, very little about the evidence in this case is not in dispute.” The emergency room Physicians at Parkland and the three autopsy pathologists (at Bethesda) agreed the President died of a massive fatal head wound toward the back right of the skull. The size and location of the head wound, officially changed in 1968. The Attorney General, Ramsey Clark (The Clark Panel) re-examined the autopsy records and determined that President Kennedy’s wound was actually 4 inches higher on his head that either the emergency doctors or the autopsy pathologists had indicated. They said it was a simply and easy mistake and that the higher head wound proved that the fatal shot came from the TSBD. They based their findings exclusively on a review of the autopsy photographs and x-Rays. The problem of course, was that the head wound the Clark Panel saw is so significantly different from the wound described by Parkland and the autopsy pathologists (at Bethesda). The emergency doctors saw cerebellar tissue when they examined the president’s head, (this is a part of the brain from the lower portion of the head, no where near where this new entry site was located.)This intrigued Dr.Wecht. He then turned his attention to the autopsy materials and started with the original autopsy report and photographs. The original autopsy described an entrance point as “just above the external occipital protuberance” which is the bony knob at the bottom rear of the skull, while they did not say how far above, it is certain they were not saying four inches.. The blow out wound was on the back right side of the president’s head, also known as the “parietal-temporal area.” While he was critical of the three autopsy pathologists lack of forensic pathology expertise, he did not believe they could have mistaken the back of his head for the top of the president’s head.. As he examined the autopsy photographs and x-Rays he also found a couple of previously unreported items…the x-Rays showed a very dense 6.5 millimeter object at the base of the skull. It was 9 centimeters above the external occipital protuberance (bony knob at the bottom rear of the skull) And one centimeter below a crack in the parietal bone in the skull.( above the occipital bone right hand side). It was a large fragment seen in the x-Ray that was not mentioned in the autopsy?? Equally as baffling was the fact, that it was so large as fragments go, and why the pathologists had not retrieved it as they had smaller fragments? And in addition why had a small flap on the back of the president’s head, slightly above his neckline, that appeared to be loose tissue, and was it an entrance wound or an exit wound?.. Had also not been reported…? If it was an entrance wound, it would prove the lone assassin theory wrong, and obsolete, because it would mean an additional bullet had been fired at the president, and recall the Zapruder film confines the shooting to six seconds. If it was an exit wound then that would disprove the lone assassin because it shows a bullet from the front. Meaning an accomplice and a conspiracy. Unfortunately the only way to know for sure is to exhume the body, and conduct a second autopsy, but Dr.Wecht knew neither the Kennedy family nor the federal government will allow such within his life time.. Something else seemed odd to him, in the autopsy photographs, there was very short thick hair covering the back spot where the Parkland doctors saw the open gaping wound , the hair is less than an inch long though in an area where the hair would have been much longer. Instead, this was the length of hair normally found at the bottom of the scalp. It made him wonder if the president’s head in the autopsy photos had been tampered with to cover the actual wound. He also examined a roll of film that had been improperly exposed and ruined, he learned that an autopsy photographer (Floyd Riebe ) took a series of pictures at Bethesda as they were starting the autopsy. A military officer seized the camera, and stripped the film from such claiming he was not authorized to take the photographs, it was overexposed. This roll reminded Dr.Wecht of Dr.Finck’s remark regarding how horrible the conditions were that night at the autopsy. Spending time with and reviewing Governor Connally’s X-Rays taken at Parkland that showed bone injuries and fractures to his right fifth rib and right radius above the wrist ,and also showing small fragments embedded in his chest, right wrist, and left thigh..They were never removed, (even after his death ) and could have proven or disproven whether they came from the magic bullet..(Another deliberate gaffe.) As his time was running out he asked for three additional items. (1: The President’s brain. (2: The Autopsy photographs of the President’s chest wounds. (3: The microscopic tissue slides of the wounds. The brain was removed the evening of the autopsy. It was placed in a container of formalin to preserve it, it is a soft tissue, and the formalin causes it to harden and then the doctors are able to dissect and determine the trajectories of the bullets. However the president’s brain had not been dissected. But he thought it had been preserved for future examination. The microscopic slides included sections of the actual wounds; he would have been able to tell if they were entrance or exit wounds. They would reveal the outer layer of skin called the epidermis, if it was pushed in then it would be an entrance, if out it would be an exit. There are also other differentiating features between exit and entrance wounds. But that is when Mr. Johnson told Dr.Wecht the shocker President Kennedy’s brain. Some X-rays of the chest. The microscopic slides. Were all missing. Gone. Taken. The Warren Report states that the brain was, “removed and preserved for further study”.The brain, x-Rays and microscopic slides were placed in a small metal container for storage amongst other Kennedy assassination materials presented to Mrs. Kennedy ,though there is no evidence she ever received them. Instead they were stored for about a year, by the president’s secretary Evelyn Lincoln, and his brother Robert. Mr. Johnson told Dr.Wecht that when the family decided to turn all materials over the National Archives as a gift, the brain, chest X-rays, and microscopic slides were mysteriously not included. He also said he had no idea whatever happened to them, who had them, nor when they disappeared. These three missing items are the key pieces of the hard physical evidence. So as a result much of the case is based upon subjective interpretation or circumstantial, it is physical evidence that cannot be replaced nor duplicated. Dr.Cyril Wecht left the National Archives late that Friday afternoon, after spending two full days examining the evidence in the President’s assassination. He was met by Fred Graham of the New York Times; he was pleased to discuss his findings with him as he had been so helpful in his being able to gain access to the materials. What he told him about the missing brain and all, as well as his general observations and opinions, in regard to the physical and medical evidence. Was published on the front page of the New York Times on the Sunday Aug 27th,1972 by Mr. Graham in which he detailed the doctor’s findings. His interest did not cease in the assassination then or in the future. In 1975 amid the strong public dissatisfaction of the outcome of the investigation of their President’s murder, President Gerald Ford, who was an original member of the WC, created the Rockefeller Commission, headed by Vice President Nelson Rockefeller. One of the panel’s senior lawyers interviewed Dr.Wecht as to his scientific opinion, and for five hours he walked him through his critique of the autopsy, his analysis of the medical and physical evidence. He testified that the evidence made it clear that the Single Bullet was nonsense, that all bullets were not fired from behind, and that more than three shots were fired at the President and the Governor. That the autopsy was a sham, that he was convinced there was a second gunman, and the case should be reopened and reinvestigated.. Imagine his surprise when he read the Rockefeller’s Commission’s Report stating that he agreed with their opinion that all shots came from behind and most likely the TSBD. The report made clear that this was all the evidence that Dr. Wecht had provided to the commission. He demanded to see a transcript of his testimony, and was told it was confidential, and that by releasing it in full, it would be a breach of national security. He was stunned and dumbfounded .His statement was a matter of national security, he had never realized he was that important. To a reporter from the Associated Press he stated: “It that transcript shows in any way that I have withdrawn or revised my thoughts on the Warren Commission Report, I’ll eat the transcript on the steps of the White House.” Twenty years later the government finally released the transcript of his entire five hour interview. It showed exactly what he had said.. Two years later the Government created the House Select Committee on Assassinations in1977 they were charged with reopening investigations into the assassinations of President John F Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King. To help it acquire, organize and analyze the medical and physical evidence in the Kennedy case, they appointed a 9 member pathology panel, and Dr.Wecht was surprised when he was asked to be a member on the panel. He learned later from personal friends that pressure had been applied to have him not appointed. So for several months they discussed and reviewed the evidence. All agreed that the autopsy was woefully substandard, and all nine agreed the forensic investigation was equally tragic. The other 8 pathologists were well qualified and very experienced. He simply believes that they had made up their minds long ago that the WC was probably correct, and as a result their eyes were closed to accepting any different explanations. He challenged them to show him another bullet that could match the condition and weight of the so-called magic bullet. “Go back to your respective cities and search through the thousands and thousands of bullets and show me one bullet that has done what you say this bullet and has and looks like this bullet looks,” He implored the panel. Twenty seven years later, he is still waiting. His gut feeling was that the HSCA would only whitewash this investigation as well. He was somewhat surprised when they found in their finally report that there was a high degree of probability that the President’s death was a result of a conspiracy and that there was a second gunman involved. The committee also pointed to the Mafia and that they had motive and means to organize an assassination plot. They also stated that the senior government officials were determined that any investigation would be a finding of a single assassin, Oswald. “It must be said that the FBI generally exhausted its resources in confirming the case against Oswald as the lone assassin, a case that Director J.Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make within twenty-four hours of the assassination.” The committee’s report, turned over all of its findings to the FBI and the US Dept. of Justice for further investigation. Unfortunately, the Justice Dept. was never interested and or willing to continue the inquiry. “So what did happen? Was there a conspiracy? How many gunmen were there? How many shots were fired?” Dr.Cyril Wecht believes there are two elements to consider. He believes that there was a conspiracy, and also that the physical, medical and scientific evidence clearly points to at least two shooters. That under the law if there were two shooters, then there was a “conspiracy”, that there were at least four shots fired, perhaps five. Three were probably fired from behind and probably two from the front. He has never believed that the murder was a result of an official FBI or CIA planned assassination, but that it was a domestic plot, and that there was no foreign power involved. While some members of organized crime may have had a hand and a contributing role, they were not the principals who did orchestrate the overthrow of the government in 1963. CBS anchor Dan Rather asked Dr.Wecht in 1979 if he believed there was a postassassination conspiracy cover-up by government officials or the Warren Commission to hide the truth regarding the assassination, or were the numerous missteps the result of sheer incompetence?. “I think it was both. I think the autopsy and original investigation was sheer incompetence that was in no way meant to be part of a cover-up I have never suggested that these pathologists or even some members of the Warren Commission knowingly engaged in any kind of conspiracy. However I think as things developed, when they began to realize that there were tremendous defects and gaps in their overall investigation and forensic scientific aspects of the case, they felt that they simply had to put it together in some seemingly plausible scenario. I think it started off as incompetence but that it has become an organized effort to ensure that the truth would never be exposed.” “In 1992 Congress did pass the JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, which required the establishment of an Assassination Records and Review Board to review and declassify millions of documents related to the president’s slaying. Approximately five million such records were made public. It was a huge step forward in discovering what happened.” While there have been no” smoking guns” found among the documents such as the CIA admitting that they were behind the shooting, some of the records did contain big surprises. For instances there is a previously confidential memo from the lawyer of Dr. George Burkley, who as President Kennedy’s personal physician was in the motorcade that day when he was shot. Also was present in Parkland and in Bethesda during the autopsy. In 1977, in a letter to the HSCA, Burkley’s lawyer stated “Although he, Burkley, signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald may have participated”. Despite the letter to them, Burkley was never called nor officially interviewed by any government agency, nor the HSCA. The ARRB also exposed another secret problem: the legitimacy of the autopsy photos of the brain. During Wecht’s visit to the NA, he noticed that the brain had appeared in the photographs to be completely intact, which was impossible. The Zapruder film shows that the skull is exploding and spraying copious amounts of brain matter. ( On the back of the limo, towards the motorcycle policemen, and Governor Connally mentions the fact that brain matter flew all over the back of the limo…including himself and Nellie). As well as witnesses to the shooting, who were standing extremely close. Mrs. Kennedy handed a part of the brain to the chief of anesthesia at Parkland, Floyd Riebe a photographer at Bethesda, testified, “Less than half the brain was there”. on and on, many related the information that the President’s brain had been blown out and that there was much missing. FBI agent Francis O’Neill, who was present at Bethesda, for the autopsy was shown the photographs and testified, that they were inaccurate. “This looks almost like a complete brain.” he stated. (Though at Parkland there seems to have been more of the brain present within the skull than when the body finally was given the autopsy at Bethesda?) The official autopsy report documents the weight of the President’s brain to be fifteen hundred grams, which is heavier than the average, complete human brain. In 1998 John Stringer, the lead autopsy photographer also examined the photograph. “He told the Washington Post that the current pictures are not his, and do not resemble anything he saw the night of the autopsy.” This is very important because it shows that the Presidents assassination evidence has been tampered with. “Someone does not want the truth to be told. Who that person or persons are and what their motives may have been, I have no idea”. “When I was a young man I believed that the Kennedy assassination would one day be solved and that the truth would be revealed. As I enter my seventh decade on this Earth, I now have serious doubts. The only way this case will ever be solved is through re-examination of the physical and medical evidence. Every day that goes by, the evidence deteriorates. If the brain does exist I doubt it still has any evidentiary value. And I am willing to bet every dollar that I possess that the Kennedy family and the federal government will never allow the body of President Kennedy to be exhumed for a second autopsy”. When Governor Connally died there was a slight window of opportunity to gain new evidence, and Dr.Wecht along with a group of forensic experts and physicians petitioned US attorney general Janet Reno, to have the bullet fragments removed from his body and tested, they then would have been able to tell if they were from CE 399. Surprising to them Mrs. Reno did write to the Connally family and asked permission. However the family refused, and the bullet fragments along with possibly our last opportunity for finding the truth were buried.. Despite his doubts that he will learn the entire truth in his lifetime. “There are legitimate efforts underway that are utilizing advances in science and technology to shed light on the mystery.” Dr.D.Thomas who is an expert in the study of acoustical evidence, made a dramatic presentation in, Pittsburgh in 2003 at a JFK Symposium, hosted by Dr.Wecht. Using photographs, the Zapruder film, and the Dallas Police audio recording his research and analysis showed that there were 5 shots fired in less than 9 seconds. At least two from the grassy knoll area, he explained to the panel. Stating that the evidence indicates, the bullets that were fired probably came from a .30 caliber weapon. At that time, the most popular weapon available was a .30 caliber Winchester.30-30 rifle. His findings are quite ironic as a Dallas police officer radioed an alert at 12.45 pm stating “The wanted person in this, is a slender white male, about thirty five feet ten, one sixty five, carrying what looked like to be a .30-30 or some type of Winchester.” The evidence, at every turn, does not add up in the Kennedy assassination, to a lone assassin. Everywhere Dr.Wecht looks the evidence does point to an effort to keep the American public from knowing the truth. Evidence missing, witnesses asked to and falsifying affidavits, testimony dramatically altered and documents manipulated. “What happened in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, was an effort by two or more people to kill the President of the United States. What has happened since has been a conspiracy to hide the truth. The result of the two was nothing short of a coup d’e’tet”. B..below in photo HSCA EX 294 CE 399.....CE 572 THROUGH COTTON CE 853 GOAT RIB CE 856 WRIST....

THANKS DR.JIM AND PETER LEN AND ALL...INTERESTING THREAD LEN FYI....YOU MAY ALSO BE INTERESTED RE HUMES AND BOSWELL'S NON EXPERIENCE .B...ALSO SUCH AS DR..WECHT IN HIS BOOK MENTIONS THIS AND ALSO THE FACT THAT HE AND OTHER QUALIFIED FORENSIC SPECIALIST AUTOPSISTS IN THE STATES WAITED FOR THE PHONE TO RING THAT DAY TO BE CALLED IN..TO BETHESDA BUT THE CALLS NEVER CAME..B.. Unfortunately, JFK’s autopsy was performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital, a hospital inexperienced in “unnatural death” autopsies, like JFK’s. [JFK’s physician, Admiral George Burkley, advised Jackie that it would be best if the autopsy were performed at “a military hospital for security reasons,” and so she chose the Naval Hospital because of JFK’s prior Navy service.[30]] The surgeon in charge was an anatomic pathologist, Navy Commander James H. Humes, MD. So was his second in charge, Commander J. Thornton Boswell, MD. Lyndon Johnson being sworn in as President aboard Air Force I in Dallas, beside Jacqueline Kennedy, prior to the return flight to Washington and the autopsy of President Kennedy's body at Bethesda Naval Hospital. (White House Photo - LBJ Library) Thirty minutes after the autopsy had begun, a properly credentialed, Army forensics pathologist, Colonel Pierre Finck, MD, arrived from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology to lend a hand. But by that time Humes and Boswell had already removed JFK’s brain, and forensically important evidence may well have been lost. But even Finck wasn’t what the occasion called for. During the previous two years prior to examining JFK, Finck had performed no autopsies. His job at the AFIP was to do armchair reviews of autopsies others had done. Furthermore, his “outsider,” Army status, didn’t enhance his position in JFK’s Navy morgue. Describing his predicament as a lower-ranking Army officer in a Navy morgue, Finck later admitted, “They were admirals, and when you are a lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army you just follow orders.”[31] The famed New York City coroner Milton Helpern, MD, has laid out the problem particularly well: “Colonel Finck’s position throughout the entire proceeding was extremely uncomfortable. If it had not been for him, the autopsy would not have been handled as well as it was; but he was in the role of the poor bastard Army child foisted into the Navy family reunion. He was the only one of the three doctors with any experience with bullet wounds; but you have to remember that his experience was limited primarily to ‘reviewing’ files, pictures, and records of finished cases. There’s a world of difference between standing at the autopsy table and trying to decide whether a hole in the body is a wound of entrance or a wound of exit, and in reviewing another man’s work at some later date in the relaxed, academic atmosphere of a private office … .”[32] So three inadequately prepared pathologists rolled up their sleeves to unravel the complex mysteries of JFK’s murder. The key to the case was to determine from which direction the bullets had come and whether there was evidence of more than one gunman. If the autopsy had proved shots from different directions, the verdict of conspiracy would have been inevitable. The final conclusions, however, were decidedly against conspiracy. Both of the shots that hit JFK, the pathology report said, had come from a single source – above and behind JFK. But how was that conclusion derived? It is likely that the background information the pathologists were given played a role in their decision-making. Search Results How Five Investigations into JFK's Medical/Autopsy Evidence Got it ... Autopsy face sheet prepared during the autopsy by Dr. Boswell. Note the presence of JFK's bloodstains on these notes. The explanation Dr. Humes gave for ... www.history-matters.com/.../jfkmed/.../How5InvestigationsGotItWrong.htm

http://www.pfaw.org Robin Williams portrays the American flag in "I Love Liberty," a two-hour television special created by Norman Lear and presented by People For the American Way. B

BILL some information from a past critique The following review has just appeared in THE FOURTH DECADE (January 2001), pp. 12-17. _________________________________________________________________________ MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA: A REVIEW www.assassinationscience.com/fourth.html John Delane Williams Murder in Dealey Plaza:What We Know Now That We Didn't Know Then About the Death of JFK [1] is a book of readings about newly developed information. It is edited by Jim Fetzer, who also edited Assassination Science, [2] and convened a conference [3] in Minneapolis with many of the same authors. Fourteen different articles are the meat of this book. Fetzer begins this with "Smoking Guns". Sixteen smoking guns are discussed, many of which are gone over in considerable detail by the other authors. Fetzer chose a logical sequence for presenting the articles. With apologies, the order is changed here, with significance to the overall story dictating order. Two Different Brains A logical starting point for me is Doug Horne's "Evidence of a goverment Cover-up: Two Different Brain Specimens at President Kennedy's Autopsy". I had attended the conference in Minneapolis where John Tunheim, who had directed the work of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), stated that there would be no smoking guns in the released records. [4] Doug Horne has apparently proven his boss wrong. Horne concluded that there were two different examinations of the JFK brain. The first examination occurred on (or about) November 25, 1963. Dr. Pierre Finck was not present for that examination, but was present at an examintion, purportedly of JFK's brain, on November 29, 1963. An autopsy photographer, John Stringer, claimed Finck was not present at the examination. Stringer took several photographs. Yet the archive photographs include several different views that Stringer did not take. This present rendering is but a short outline of the intricate story that comes from the files at the archives that allowed Horne to posit two different brains at the two examinations. A Chronology of 22 November 1963 Ira David Woods III has been working on a chronology of events in Dallas. His chronology, JFK Assassination Chronology, is said to be over 400 pages long and still not completed. The present reported chronology ("22 November 1963: A Chronology",) is 101 pages long. The chronology has its own smoking guns. One favorite of mine is Oswald's wallet. At 7:10 AM, he left his wallet in the dresser with $170 in it; Oswald carried $13.87 to work. Sixty-one pages later, he left wallet #2 at the Tippet murder scene, together with a driver's license. Eleven pages later, wallet #3 showed up at the Texas Theatre where Oswald is arrested. WFAA newsfilm shows the wallet being gone through at the theatre. It should be noted that five wallets of Oswald's have been accounted for; in addition to the three mentioned here, two additional wallets were taken from the Paine residence by the FBI. [5] Also related in this chronology is the Summers [6] story that J.D. Tippit had begun an affair with a waitress who worked at Austin's Barbecue Drive In. Tippit worked at the barbecue in his off hours. The recently divorced paramour of Tippit was taken to the funeral parlor by her ex-husband to see Tippit's body before Tippit's widow and family arrived. The Tippit paramour then revealed to her jealous ex-husband that she was pregnant by Tippit. The ex-husband had on occassion followed the two at night in his car. The couple reunited, with the husband raising the child as his own until their next breakup in 1968. The Secret Service Douglas Weldon has focused on the JFK limousine; this focus has lead directly to the involvement of the Secret Service ("The Kennedy Limousine: Dallas 1963"). Weldon reviews the confusing and contradictory history of the limousine. What is clear is that the Secret Service either destroyed, or had destroyed, evidence of the assassination regarding the limousine. An agent was photographed with a bucket and water and sponge to wash blood and brain matter out of the area where JFK sat. [see 7, p.41] Also, a boy was taking pictures of the limousine outside Parkland Hospital, a Secret Service agent took away his camera and exposed the film. The Altgen's photo [see 8, pp. 30-31] shows the bullet hole in the limousine; the picture was taken at a time equivalent to Z-255. It was rumored that the Secret Service ordered 20 windshields for the limousine. The picture of the windshield produced by the Secret Service a week after the assassination likely could have been one of these substitutes. Weldon hypothesises the windshield damage was caused by a shot from the south knoll, perhaps from the storm drain. Secret Service agent Emory Roberts, in command of the agents in the second car, ordered the agents not to move at the sound of the first shot. Roberts also appeared to take command at Parkland Hospital exercising authority he did not posess. The centerpiece of Weldon's article is the witness from the Ford Motor Company. The Ford employee, who asked not to be named (actually he didn't want his story told during his lifetime; he did partially relent. Weldon played the tape recording of his conversations with the Ford employee at the Minneapolis Conference [9]). The Ford employee was at work at the Dearborn, Michigan plant on 11/25/63 when he was told by a division Vice President to go to the glass plant lab. He and two other employees were to make a template from the limousine windshield so that it could be replaced. The windshield had a bullet through it, eminating from the outside. The carpeting and the interior were completely stripped out. The original windshield was removed, broken up and scrapped, as they were ordered to do. Only two people could have ordered the limousine taken to Dearborn, Lyndon Johnson and James Rowley, Chief of Secret Service. It seems unlikely that Rowley would make this decision except at Johnson's approval. A scathing review of Weldon's article was recently published by Tim Smith. [10] Smith maintains that there was no hole in the windshield, and berates Weldon for not naming the Ford employee. The idea that someone fears for their life if they tell what they know seems to escape Smith. Vincent Palamara, a leading student of the Secret Service's involvement with the assassination, [see 11] addresses three focal members of the Secret Service, Floyd Boring, Assistant Special Agent in Charge of the White House Detail, Emory Roberts and Bill Geer. Dallas Sheriff Bill Decker had promised full support to motorcade security; this help was rejected, presumably by Boring, who was in Washington but in charge of planning for the Texas trip. More stripping of security included removal of flanking police motorcyclists, and without agents sitting on the back of the limousine. Roberts left two agents at Love Field, Henry Rybka and Don Lawton. Both had been involved in protection to JFK in recent motorcades. Roberts also ordered agents not to move toward the limousine. Only Clint Hill, assigned to protect Jaqueline Kennedy, ran to the limousine, but too late for JFK. At Parkland Hospital, Roberts usurped Agent Kellerman's authority. Upon seeing JFK was dead in the limousine, Roberts said to Kellerman, "You stay with Kennedy. I'm going to Johnson". [12] Bill Geer was the driver of the limousine who apparently slowed the limousine down almost to a stop (or did momemtarily stop), allowing a better shot (or shots). The Zapruder film An article that addresses eyewitness statements, Vince Palamara reports (59 Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street, pp. 119-128) on 59 Dealey Plaza witnesses. The witnesses reported that a) either the limousine stopped; or the limosine slowed to almost a complete stop. The Zapruder film shows no such event corresponding to these reports. The eyewitness accounts would cast doubt on the authenticity of the Zapruder film. A second article by Doug Horne involves interviews with two former CIA employees of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC). The existing record says the Zapruder film had three copies made in Dallas. Bill MacMahon of the NPIC says he was told by Secret Service agent Bill Smith that Smith took the film from the person who who exposed it, flew it to Kodak in Rochester, NY to get it developed, and then brought it directly to the NPIC. It was brought there because the NPIC had special state of the art equipment. They could enlarge each frame up to 40 times its original size; then they would produce internegatives which were used to produce multiple colored prints of selected frames. A second NPIC worker, Ben Hunter, recalled that a "Captain Sands" delivered the film. He later amended this recollection to say that a secret service agent brought the film. MacMahon and Hunter were to find the three shots and select frames for reproduction. MacMahon said his opinion was that Kennedy was shot 6-8 times from three different directions. He was told that there were three shots from behind from the School Book Depository; MacMahon concluded they were to make frames, not do an analysis A 16 page inset of photographs are shown and discussed by Jack White in "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, and Other Photographic Frauds Perpetuated by the U.S. Government." White has done considerable photographic work. He served as an advisor on photographic evidence to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, as well as seved as a consultant to Oliver Stone on JFK. White also produced the video Fake! [13] on the Oswald backyard photos. In his present contribution, White casts doubt on whether Zapruder actually did the filming. Several frames from the Zapruder film are compared to other photographic evidence. There are several indications of differences. A comparison of the photos of the Nix film and the Zapruder film are such that that at least one of them is falsified. For example, Z-369 and the equivalent Nix frame show some but not all the same people from the front and the back. The Zapruder figures seem less lifelike. It would appear to me that there is a slight time differential between the Nix and Zapruder films; it appears at least three new people have run into the area. It appears to me that one of the persons has vanished (this person is labelled 4 by White in Z-369, and labeled "S.O.B." in Cicione. [14] Unfortunately, Cicione did not include younger people in his master list of Dealy Plaza witnesses. At least some of the people appearing in the Nix frame, but not the Zapruder frame, appear to be younger (under 21). What White does is show that the Zapruder film and the Nix film are incompatible; at least one of them has been altered. One final note on the White pictures: I was unaware of the the painted yellow stripes in the "kill zone" until my trip to Dallas in November, 2000. White uses the yellow stripe from the Zapruder film to make an exact frame match to show alterations in the Zapruder film. The final essay on the Zapruder film controversy is provided by David Mantik, who is a major contributor to this volume. Mantik had three articles in Assassination Science [15, 16, 17] as well as presenting at the conference in Minneapolis. [18] His presentation in Assassination Science was more a technical explanation of how the Zapruder film was altered. Mantik's essay on the Zapruder film is more of an reasoned approach attempt to show altering the film was not unthinkable. Mantik first reviews the resemblances of the JFK assassination to that of Fedinand in 1914. He makes the point that our knowledge of the Franz Ferdinand assassination is almost entirely by eyewitness testimony. Were we to take the same view with the JFK assassination, we might have a different view; the availability and use of several different recording devices seems to feed a sense that the evidence provided by the still film and moving film would seem to be more reliable than eyewitness recollection; Mantik points out that, from a legal view, for a tape to be introduced into evidence in court, eyewitness testimony needs to preceed the introduction of photographic evidence. For the Zapruder film to be authentic and have an evidentiary base, a chain of posession needs to be established. The work of Horne in this volume would strongly call into question an unbroken chain of possession. A very strong case for film alteration can be inferred from eyewitness testimony, which reports either a complete stop or an almost complete stop of the limousine on Deala Plazy. An alternative interpretation is either the camera was erratic, or Zapruder turned off the recording to exactly coincide with the stop. There are probably technical details that would render the latter argument to be rejected, however, I don't have the expertise to do so. A possibility that Mantik gives is the simple excision of frames in selected places that could achieve a number of aims, including removing evidence on a stop by the limousine. Such an excision could have been directed by the Secret Service for the purpose of eliminating the inappropriate stop (or near stop) by William Greer. The number of anomalies in the Zapruder film are quite numerous. The intersprocket image extends all the way to the left edge, unlike the simulations done by Roland Zavala, a retired Kodak engineer who was re-hired to do work with Kodak for the AARB. The overexposures typical of a beginning filming sequence is missing in the film. The likely interpretation is an excision. Other anomalies include William Greer's rapid head turn, Toni Foster's unusual stop (and her growing to almost seven feet tall [19]), among many others. It should be noted that ther are persons who support a conspiracy approach who argue that the Zapruder film is authentic. Notable among them is Hal Verb [see, for example, 20, 21]. On the other hand, a long term dissenter against accuracy of the Zapruder film is Harrison Livingston [see 22-26]. The Medical Evidence Gary Aguilar, in "The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy in the Death of JFK", makes the point that the available medical evidence grabs the skeptic who searches for a responsible explanation of the conflicting evidence. Witnesses who saw Kennedy's head wounds overwhelmingly describe a wound in the back of JFK's skull that couldn't have been caused by a shooter from behind. Credible witnessess, when shown the autopsy photos, called them 'doctored' because they don't show the rearward skull damage. More photographs were taken by autopsy photographers than are now extant. On the matter of missing photographs, Drs. Humes, Boswell, and Ebersole, together with autopsist photographer John Stringer signed on 11/1/66 a document saying, "The X-rays and photographs described and listed above include all the X-rays and photographs taken by us during the autopsy and we have no reason to believe that any other X-rays or photographs were made during the autopsy". [27] Another false affidavit, signed on 11/22/63 by Stringer and Floyd Reibe, an assistant autopsy photographer, specified the number of autopsy photographs that were taken and surrendered to Secret Service Agent Roy Kellerman. Both Stringer and Reibe stated they were ordered to sign by Captain Stover, the Commanding Officer of the U.S. Naval Medical School. At least the 11/1/66 affidavit was apparently at the command of Lyndon Johnson. [28] David Mantik is uniquely qualified to address the JFK autopsy issues; Mantik holds a Ph.D in physics as well as an M.D. The article on "The Medical Evidence Decoded" is more an integration of his research with the recent efforts of other researchers. From Douglas Weldon, he notes that several witnesses indicate a shot from the left front, probably from the storm drain south of the first overpass. Mantik concludes that this shot is consistent with a shot to the right forehead. A right frontal shot seems likely and consistent with metallic debris found in the X-rays. Mantik systematically attacks the existing evidence. Much evidence is missing. This is garnered from addressing witness testimony. Many photographs taken at the autopsy are missing. Witnesses disagree drastically with existing photographs. Two photographs that seem unlikely to be of the same person are a posterior head photograph that shows an intact head (p.221); when this photograph is contrasted to the one showing a massive head injury (p.297), one's credulity is stretched beyond reason that they represent different views of Kennedy's head. Mantik also explains how a metallic object can later be added to an X-ray, using film extant in 1963. Mantik hypothesises that Kennedy's throat wound was due to glass fragments from the windshield. Mantik concludes that high government officials had to approve, and probably transmit, orders for alteration of critical forensic evidence. Persons who might have warranted grand jury investigations included James Rowley, who led the Secret Service, which held the critical autopsy materials; Robert Knudsen, White House photographer; and Admiral George Burley, Kennedy's personal physician. All three kept their jobs in the Johnson administration. Righting the Record and Epilogue Jim Fetzer addresses the question, "Could Oswald be Convicted?", using material from Jesse Curry's JFK Assassination File. [29] This article uses Curry's evidence to construct a probable conspiracy. The evidence suggests that Oswald was not likely a shooter. It does not address a possible involvement in a conspiracy for Oswald. David Mantik addresses the lack of historians becoming involved in researching the Kennedy assassination. Mantik laments the "Silence of the Historians". I would suggest Barbie Zelizer's Covering the Body [30] as another way to view the lack of historian involvement regarding the JFK assassination. Zelizer maintains that journalists refuse to allow the assassination story be given to historians. Many journalists gain prestige by their relation to the JFK story. Journalists form an interpretive community and marginalize persons and views they oppose. Within the journalistic community, the JFK assasination was a turning point to allow national television journalists to elbow out local and print media for the ascendency. The day that Kennedy died was the most important day in the career of Dan Rather. He went from being a regional journalist to a national corespondent. Rather claimed to be at Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination, but a mile away four minutes later after running the distance, talking to Walter Cronkite later. The importance of "being" at the assassination was important to the carees of other journalists. Life Magazine could "be there" by purchasing the Zapruder film. One might guess that, as the Dan Rathers are gone from the scene, historians may start to assert a claim to researching the story. A final essay by Bertrand Russell, noted British mathematician and philosopher, was previously published in 1969. [31] This essay seems relevant today, and adds a few snippets that have not been widely reported. District Attorney Henry Wade made a statement of Oswald's movements. Oswald took a taxi driven by Darryl Click, who had signed an affidavit to his having driven Oswald. Wade later altered the driver's name to William Wahley. If "Click" was Wahley, then Wahley had signed a false affidavit. If the two were not the same, there is conflicting evidence. In either case, Wade's actions were compromised. "Good showing, Bertrand." Some might fault this book for the lack of inclusion of other information that we now know that we didn't know then. These might include the involvement of LBJ [32, 33, 34], which includes identifying Mac Wallace's (an LBJ henchman) print on the sixth floor of the Texas Schoolbook Depository. This print had long been unidentified. [35] The work of Peter Dale Scott [36] as well as other research deserves mentioning. But a book has to end somewhere. This is an excellent start. Notes 1. Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We didn't Know Then About the Death of JFK. Chicago: Catfeet Press. 2. Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak out on the Death of JFK. Chicago: Catfeet Press. 3. The Death of JFK Conference. (1999, May). Minneapolis. 4. Tunheim, J.R. (1999, May). The AARB Records. The Death of JFK Conference. Minneapolis. 5. Armstrong, J. (1998). Lee and Harvey Oswald; the Mystery of the Wallets. The Fourth Decade, 5,6,20-28. 6. Summers, A. (1980). Conspiracy. New York: McGraw-Hill. 7. Trask, R. (1994). Picture of the Pain. Danvers, MA: Yeoman's Press. 8. Groden, R.J. (1993). The Killing of a President. New York: Viking Studio Books. 9. Weldon, D. (1999, May). Kennedy Limousine. The Death of JFK Conference. Minneapolis. 10. Smith, T. (2001). Windshield Reflections. JFK Deep Politics Quarterly, 6,2,16-21. 11. Palamara, V.M. (1993). The Third Alternative: Survivor's Guilt: The Secret Service and the JFK Murder. Pittsburgh: Author. 12. Manchester, W. (1967). The Death of a President. New York: Harper & Row. 13. White J. (1990). Fake! (Video). Fort Worth: Third Coast Productions. 14. Cicone, C. (1996). Schematic and Master List of Witnesses in Dealey Plaza. Highland Park, MI: Author. 15. Mantik, D.W. (1998). The JFK Assassination: Cause for Doubt. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (pp. 93-139). Chicago: Catfeet Press. 16. Mantik, D.W. (1998). Optical Density Measurements of the JFK X- rays and a new Observation Based on the Chest X-ray. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (pp. 153-160). Chicago: Catfeet Press. 17. Mantik, D.W. (1998). Special Effects in the Zapruder Film: How the Film of the Century was Edited. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (1998). Assassination Science: Experts Speak Out on the Death of JFK (pp. 263-343). Chicago: Catfeet Press. 18. Mantik, D.W. (1999, May). The Zapruder Film. The Death of JFK Conference. Minneapolis. 19. White, J. (2000). The Great Zapruder Film Hoax. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We didn't Know Then About the Death of JFK (ins. 1-16). Chicago: Catfeet Press. 20. Verb, H. (1998). Book reviews: Bloody Treason and Assassination Science. The Fourth Decade. 5,2,12-17. 21. Verb, H. (2000). Livingston's creation science and the Zapruder film. The Fourth Decade. 7,2,12-15. 22. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in deception- part one. The Fourth Decade. 6,4,14-31. 23. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in deception- part two. The Fourth Decade. 6,5,12-26. 24. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in deception- part three. The Fourth Decade. 6,6,25-37. 25. Livingston H.E. (1999). The Zapruder film: a study in deception- part IV. The Fourth Decade. 7,1,17-28. 26. Livingston H.E. (2000). The Zapruder film: a study in deception- part V. The Fourth Decade. 7,2,7-12. 27. Weisberg, H. (1975). Post Mortem. Frederick, MD: Author. 28. Aguilar, G. (2000). The Converging Medical Case for Conspiracy in the Death of JFK. in Fetzer, J.H. (Ed.) (2000). Murder in Dealey Plaza: What We Know Now that We didn't Know Then About the Death of JFK (pp. 175-217). Chicago: Catfeet Press. 29. Curry, J. (1969). JFK Assasination File. Dallas: American Poster & Printing Co. 30. Zelizer, B. (1992). Covering the Body: The Kennedy Assasination, the Media, and the Shaping of Collective Memory. Chicago: U. of Chicago Press. 31. Russell, B. (1969). The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, 1944-67. London: Allen & Unwin. 32. Brown, M.D. (1997). Texas in the Morning: The Love Story of Madeleine Brown and Lyndon Baines Johnson. Baltimore: The Conservatory Press. 33. Brown, W. (1998). TSBD Evidence Places LBJ "Hit Man" in Sniper's Nest. JFK Deep Politics Quarterly (extra edition) 3,3. 34. Williams, J.D. (1999). Lyndon B. Johnson and the Assassination Conspiracies. JFK Deep Politics Quarterly. 4,2,25-28. 35. Sloan, B. (1993). Breaking the Silence. Dallas: Taylor Pub. Co. 36. Scott, P.D. Deep Politics II: Essays on Oswald, Mexico & Cuba. Skokie, IL: Green Archive Publications. John Delane Williams 522 Belmont Road Grand Forks, ND 58201 Home Books Challenge Posner Disinformation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Video Special Cases Terrorism Social Issues Order

Yea, and in 1992 GNC Communications videotaped hypnosis sessions with him, O'Conner, Riebe and others. Does anybody have anything on GNC Communications and what became of these videotaped hypnosis sessions with autopsy witnesses? BK BILL WHY NOT CONTACT DENNIS DAVID IT IS MENTIONED THAT HE HAD COPIES AND OR DR,CYRIL WECHT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP,,AS HE IS MENTIONED AS BEING THERE...BEST B..

I think that the Ventura show is still on:might be ???? b http://www.trutv.com/

comp..b

a friend tells me it is still being advertized really pushing the program in the states.on the telly...?? b

hi otto thanks..aparently the program was to start this wed.evening but has been cancelled now..there is much on the web about it,this is his second show that has been cancelled,,b www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2397255 Skip to comments. (Jesse)Ventura says MSNBC nixed his show for not supporting Iraq War StarTribune.com ^ | 11/30/09 | Eric Roper Posted on November-30-09 4:44:32 PM by ButThreeLeftsDo Conspiracy theorists awaiting Wednesday night's premiere of "Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura" might take interest in a curious comment Ventura made in the Los Angeles Times this weekend. Ventura, who has been doing the media rounds promoting his new venture on TruTV, told the paper that MSNBC cancelled his show "Jesse Ventura's America" in 2003 because he did not support the Iraq War. He said the network "in essence" paid him to be silent, which allowed him to purchase a house in Mexico. This is not your first venture into TV hosting since leaving the governorship. What happened to "Jesse Ventura's America," which ran briefly on MSNBC in 2003? It was awful. I was basically silenced. When I came out of office, I was the hottest commodity out there. There was a bidding war between CNN, Fox and MSNBC to get my services. MSNBC ultimately won. I was being groomed for a five day-a-week TV show by them. Then, all of a sudden, weird phone calls started happening: "Is it true Jesse doesn't support the war in Iraq?" (Excerpt) Read more at startribune.com ...

well that didn't last long....b Ventura says MSNBC nixed his show for not supporting Iraq War | StarTribune.comhttp://www.startribune.com/blogs/78150302.html

Interesting interview with Jesse Ventura - short but good on his t.v series on conspiracy thanks frog..and lisa pease...b http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/20...th_jesse_ventur

Just FYI, there is an NSM, plus audio tapes to back this up. Starts at 2 minutes and 30 seconds. Frog -----Original Message----- From: TOM BLACKWELL Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 5:49 PM To: YOU and a few other TEXAS DEMOCRATS Subject: Video: Prof. James Galbraith-Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam Video: Prof. James Galbraith-Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam Click here: Thanks to John Judge and COPA for this --

kathy i believe he did some fishing while in russia but how deep his interest or extensive a hobby i have no idea... here he is with the zigers his friends,,b..