Daniel Gallup

Non - issue??!!?? I'm sorry if I differ with you, Pam, but it makes a great deal of difference whether the limo stopped or not. It highlights the problem of "fraud in the evidence." And if the limo did stop, what happened during the stop that needed to be hidden? Indeed, what happened on either side of the limo stop that needed to be hidden? With all due respect, I think you are missing my point. There is no question Greer slowed the limo and/or stopped it while he was facing JFK. That is even evident on the Z-film(s). Why did he do that? As he was the driver, supposedly taking orders from Kellerman, it seems difficult if not impossible to put a benign spin on that. What more do you think 'needed to be hidden'? It was impossible to miss your point, since you made it so clearly. And thankfully, you asked a good question: what more needed to be hidden? For one, forward splatter exiting the back of Kennedy's head, which, given the Parkland description of the back of the head, had to have been considerable. Massive forward splatter would have indicated a shooter from the front, Naturally, a stopped limo would have made a mockery of the extant Z-film, and made the government's collusion in the crime obvious. And whatever happened during the stop (see officer Bobby Joe Dale's strange comments) might be of considerable importance in understanding the true nature of the crime.

The fact that many researchers/readers presume on the authenticity of the Z-film despite Doug Horne's work does tend to discourage, and indeed, boggle the mind.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing. I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing. And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes! Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished. With all due respect, as I have mentioned before, 'the limo stopped' is a non-issue. The actual issue is to ask how fast the limo was going during the time Greer was facing JFK. Needless to say, it was not going anywhere at any speed during that time. Non - issue??!!?? I'm sorry if I differ with you, Pam, but it makes a great deal of difference whether the limo stopped or not. It highlights the problem of "fraud in the evidence." And if the limo did stop, what happened during the stop that needed to be hidden? Indeed, what happened on either side of the limo stop that needed to be hidden?

I don't believe a single one of the "witnesses" you've named has ever said they thought the film was fake. Most of the officers, in fact, have at one point or another said they believe the official evidence and think conspiracy theorists are loons. The Newmans and Moorman are non-committal as to the question of conspiracy, but have never once stated that they thought the film was fake. P.S. Where did Chaney say the limo stopped? (Taped interview of Chaney with researcher Gil Toft, 1971-1973, as transcribed by Josiah Thompson and posted on the Education Forum, 1-4-12) (When asked if Kennedy's limousine came to a stop during the shooting) "I don’t know whether the lead car ever stopped or not. I know that... I mean Kennedy’s car. The one behind them apparently did because an officer could run from the left hand side in front of me. I know I stopped. Whatever happened there. I know Hargis, one of the officers riding escort on the other side, run across in front of me...Whether or not the lead car stopped... I don’t believe that it did. It slowed down though. What was this agent’s name? Clint Hill?" (Continuing his thought) "Slowed down enough that he did get on that car. Now whether he was on there or not on... Several different times during the procession there he would run up and jump on those little steps and ride there for a couple of seconds and jump off. It all depended on how fast it was going along and where we were at. So whether... I don’t believe that it actually stopped. It could have but I just don’t... The second car... cause I recall it was Officer Hargis jumped off his motor and run across in front of me... I don’t recall myself stopping but as I stopped--to think of it I must have come almost to a stop for Hargis to have got off his motor over on the left-hand side and run between those two cars and run in front of me. Apparently, I did too. I don’t recall stopping but I must have." (When asked if Kennedy's brain matter sprayed everywhere) "Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything." If the motorcycle officers said the limo stopped, it is up to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions about the integrity of the Z-film. The reference to Chaney is from MIDP p. 121, item #13. The reference there is to the Houston Chronicle and Chaney's statement to them to the effect that the limo stopped. If that's what he told the Houston Chronicle 11/24/63 that certainly trumps anything he told Gil Toft in the early 70s.

Tell me Pat, because my memory falters here: was Bill Newman ever called by a government panel to give his account of the shooting? Tell me again, Pat, because my memory falters here as well: was Bill Newman asked by a government panel if the limo stopped? From the FBI report on Mary Moorman: "and when she heard the shots, and has the impression that the car either stopped momentarily or hesitated and then drove off in a hurry." 22H838-839 as reported on p. 126 in MIDP. Note also experienced motorcycle officers Bobby Hargis, James Courson, Bobby Joe Dale (whose testimony is particularly striking), Earl Browne, James Chaney, Billy Joe Martin, J. W. Foster all testify to the limo stop. I have to think it matters little if Clint Hill or anyone else thinks the film is authentic. There has to be a great deal of CYA going on -- very strong motives to accept the extant film, as it minimizes the culpability of the Secret Service, to which Clint Hill belonged.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing. I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing. And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes! Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished. ??? Sherry says the Z-film proves the shot was taken from the front. So why would they have faked that? As far as the limo stop, oh my, we've been through this many times before. MANY of the limo-stop witnesses did not describe a limo-stop but a limo slow-down, and MANY other supposed limo-stop witnesses described a stop further back in the motorcade, which nobody disputes. The film could not be edited in such a way as to remove evidence of shots from the front. But they did their best to hide the Dallas wound, and excising the limo stop removed any incriminating events associated with it, especially forward splatter that must have dominated the film for several frames near the time of the stop. The limo-stop cannot be evaded by psychobabble or any other subterfuge. Testimony to it from people positioned in different parts of the plaza, but especially those nearest the limo, has to prevail.

My bad -- I meant to convey the idea that DiEugenio saw little of worth in Livingston's Kaleidoscope except Livingston's denial of the worth of the Boyajian document. DiEugenio's animus toward Lifton is second only to that of Livingston himself.

While Sherry made some major mistakes in her book, Mantik's review is much worse, IMO. It is redeemed mainly by his listing of typos and repetitions, which could be of help should Sherry do a re-write or a second printing. I mean, really, to attack her appraisal of the Z-film as being authentic because she failed to accept the possibility government employed "felons" moved the mist from the head shot from one point in the film to another! That's pretty darned silly. He also cites Joe O'Donnell, a man with no proven connection to the case, who was later proven to have had an ongoing obsession with the Kennedys, whereas he told numerous lies about his connections to them, as a witness Sherry should have taken seriously. Ouch. Pretty embarrassing. And that's not even to mention the three head-shot theory proposed by Mantik. Oh my! He refuses to believe people thinking the limo stopped could be wrong, and to have confused the limo's slowing with a stop, and yet he thinks these same witnesses--who only noted one head shot--were wrong--and that there were in fact three head shots (with two of them impacting on the front half of the head). Yikes! Mantik attacks the book in part because of the absurd psychobabble attempt to deny the limo stop, and is to be praised for exposing such nonsense. The lack of forward splatter is also noted, and this too fatally calls the extant film into question. Since her work is founded on the integrity of the film, its value is, well, seriously diminished.

James, I find it interesting that Dennis David and Donald Rebentisch are witnesses to the early arrival of the shipping casket and David is told by Boswell that this is the body of President Kennedy. The Boyajian document corroborates David and Donald Rebentisch's account so it would be rather strange not to believe Boyajian. I find it more interesting, indeed, risible, that James DiEugenio pans Livingston's critique of Horne's Magnum Opus with the exception of one point: the Boyajian document. My oh my, Harrison writes an unworthy book whose only praiseworthy moment is when he attacks the heart of Lifton's body alteration scenario--the unexpected early arrival of the President's body in a shipping casket-- a scenario DiEugenio cannot stomach because he cannot stomach Lifton. This subjective animus is behind the attack on the Boyajian document, no matter how hard Livingston or DiEugenio attempt to sound scholarly. But see for yourself. Read DiEugenio's review of Livingston's Kaleidoscope and other reviews and responses. I'd like your take on them.

I had posted elsewhere that I had read that Kellerman had Kennedy by the legs, not the torso, but darn if I can remember where I read it. Someone else has to chime in.

If the body had already been altered by the time Jenkins saw it, which, given the discussion on the other thread, seems to be the case, then all bets are off, and your case is lost.

It is my understanding that at Parkland Kellerman lifted Kennedy out of the limo by the feet, so at that time it is not likely that he got blood all over his shirt. That makes the scenario of Kellerman moving Kennedy's body out of the Dallas casket as soon as it is put aboard AF-1 a possible explanation for the blood on his shirt. I do wonder if there was a time on the flight to Andrew's if Kellerman was missing from the presidential party-- long enough to begin extracting bullets, etc. I know Horne thinks he widened the trach incision in transit and retrieved a bullet, but my memory is he is inferring such due to the blood on his shirt.

Thank you, Bjorn.

I don't know if this is permitted, so I will let the moderators guide me: from Inside the ARRB, and Doug Horne's reading of Dr. Mantik's notes: THE CONDITION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY’S BRAIN: Jenkins stated that the standard incisions in the cranium required to remove the brain---a “skull cap” (his term for a craniotomy)---were not done, because they were not necessary. He thought this might be explained by prior incisions, meaning that some surgery had been done prior to the autopsy. He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual. Jenkins recalled Dr. Boswell asking if there had been surgery at Parkland Hospital. He recalled Dr. Humes saying: “The brain fell out in my hands,” as he removed the brain from the body. Jenkins recalled that at the time Dr. Humes removed the brain, it was not necessary for Humes to resect the spinal cord in order to remove the brain. Jenkins stated that the spinal cord had already been completely severed [not torn] by incisions on each side, in different planes. Jenkins recalled that the total brain volume seemed too small, i.e., smaller than the skull cavity. He recalled that the right anterior brain was damaged, and some brain tissue was missing there, but recalled no damage to the left brain. He said about two thirds of the brain was present (which of course means that about one third of its mass was missing). He recalled that a large amount of posterior tissue---cerebral tissue---was also missing. Jenkins stated that after Dr. Boswell put the brain upside down in a sling in a formalin bucket, he noticed both carotid arteries (at the Circle of Willis) leading into the brain were retracted, which made it very difficult to insert needles for infusion. Jenkins interpreted this retraction as meaning that the carotids had been cut some time before the autopsy. When asked how he interpreted all of this data about the condition of the brain, Jenkins said he had concluded that the brain had already been removed before the autopsy began. In response to a question as to why this might have occurred, he stated quite clearly that the purpose would have been to remove bullet fragments. Pat Speer was there and can verify whether or not these words, or words to this effect, were indeed spoken by Jenkins; and if they were, it is clear he is an alterationist. Please weigh in, Pat.

Thank you for inviting Jenkins; having said that, I'll shut up as well.

Well Pat, you were there and I wasn't, so I am in no position to question what Jenkins said. A careful reading of Best Evidence indicates Jenkins had no recollections about a shipping casket or body bag, but you evaded my main point: that the top of the skull was disrupted badly, according to Jenkins, while the brain underneath unaccountably less so. No one at Parkland reported damage to the top of the skull, but principally the right rear. This anomaly has to be explained. Also the phrase "the back of the head was not blown out" would surely be granted by everyone at Parkland as this implies a wound the size of which no one at Parkland attests to. However, "that the back of the head was smashed but intact" is very strong evidence of pre-autopsy surgery, especially when coupled with the apparent dual cuts (not tears) of the spinal cord that Jenkins attested to. Apparently there was no work for Humes to perform to remove the brain precisely because the head was so smashed and the spinal cord cut. But since the majority of the missing brain was in the rear, if I recall Jenkins' comments as reported in Horne's blog correctly, how do you explain the presence of smashed bone in the back, yet it somehow being "intact"? The brain matter lost had to go somewhere, out some hole, and the Parkland accounting is generally consistent with the damage Jenkins describes. So I have to ask: did you ask Jenkins what he thought of the Parkland testimony of a defect in the right rear? A defect consistent with the loss of brain matter in the back of the head? Another anomaly: if you regard the x-rays and photos as authentic, and believe they indicate shots from the rear only, as might be argued from the back of the head photo, then you are not with Jenkins, who assumed Kennedy was shot from the front, if Lifton (p. 610) has recorded Jenkins views in the late 1970s correctly. How does Jenkins square the authenticity of the x-rays and photos with his belief that Kennedy was shot from the front? It might be helpful to know where the loss of bone was that Jenkins observed. According to Jenkins' in Best Evidence, "at least one-third of the skull was gone when Kennedy was brought in." Most of the missing bone would be, presumably, in the top but extending "toward the rear" as Lifton describes Jenkins' view. The one-third would not be from the back of the head because, according to Jenkins, the back of the head was "intact " if I understand you correctly. Then it must be primarily from the top and perhaps the side to some degree extending somewhat (?) toward the rear. Since no one saw such a wound at Parkland, I would say Jenkins strongly cements the case for alteration, whether he knows it or not. So he doesn't have to be an alterationist himself for his recollections to strongly support alteration. It is simple logic, and not desperation, that indicates that Jenkins' recollections strongly argue for alteration. Given the whole of his recollections at the autopsy, the conclusion is inescapable. I believe Jenkins was telling the truth as he saw it; of that I have no doubt. It was the body that was lying, the result of pre-autopsy surgery, and Jenkins could only report on the result of that surgery. I think he did it well, and compellingly.

I must disagree with you Larry; the early depositions of the Parkland doctors, and I am thinking of the WC depositions and even better their contemporaneous notes, do not indicate disruption of the top of the skull. I'm sure you have read all of this upteen times over. What Jenkins adds is this anomaly: considerable disruption of the top of the skull but the brain matter underneath much less affected, by and large: "He recalled that the damage to the top of the cranium was much more extensive than the damage to the brain itself, which he found unusual," is the quote from Horne, who is dependent upon Dr. Mantik's notes of the meeting. What counts in the Parkland presentations is not what they present at conferences but what they said originally -- before memory pollution or enhancement caused them to change their stories to make them fit with the official story line. Give me a consistent contemporaneous description of Kennedy's head by Parkland personnel that the top of Kennedy's skull was disrupted in any way, and then I will concede the value of your point. I use Brad Parker's First on the Scene as a useful compilation of the Dallas views, but also other articles, esp by Dr. Gary Aguilar. Am I missing something important these guys missed as well? And here's another important point: ITEK long ago concluded that no matter is seen exiting the back of the skull; an anomaly I pointed to Miller 10 years ago. His answer was that all the material exiting the wound blew out too fast to be captured by the camera. That would inlcude all blood and brain matter not directly in the bullet's path. Both McClelland and Jenkins estimate that about a third of Kennedy's brain, mostly posterior and including at least part if not most of the cerebellum, was blasted out. See Jenkins on this point. And none of this was captured by the camera? Toni Foster is quite explicit: "the spray went behind him" in an interview with Debra Conway, 2000 KAC. This comports well with McClelland and Jenkins' description of the damage to the brain. Were Tink and Miller correct he would have described the damage to the brain quite differently. That's why I believe Jenkins' observations provide one more nail in the coffin of the supposed genuinness of the Z-film. That's also why I was so surprised Lancer would allow Jenkins a voice on the 50th. Either I am reading Jenkins wrong, or his observations make body alteration a certainty and sink the Z-film in the process.

Of what value would anyone's conclusions on the Bethesda autopsy be if the body at 8:00 p.m. bore little resemblance to the body at Parkland at 12:40 p.m.? See James Curtis Jenkins' comments on the condition of the head, the brain, the cuts to the spinal cord etc. over at Doug Horne's blog Inside the ARRB.

Doug Horne over at his blog Inside the ARRB has some valuable comments on Jenkins' presence at Lancer in Dallas for the 50th. Of course Jenkins provides very strong evidence of pre-autopsy surgery and this makes him anathema to many. In fact, I would have thought Lancer would be the last group to want to hear what Jenkins has to say, since evidence of pre-autopsy surgery destroys the credibility of the Bethesda autopsy, and if the body is made to lie, one has to suspect the Z-film is also made to lie, for as Tink Thompson noted at the Lancer gathering: it is clear (to him) that in the Z-film the top of the head is missing-- the very place noted by Jenkins as being highly disrupted-- but who also noted the brain underneath was not disrupted there. In other words there is a consistency between pre-autopsy surgery and apparent damage to Kennedy's head as noted in the Z-film. Best to go over to Horne's blog and read his comments.

I think the fact that the body of the President left Parkland in one casket, and entered the Bethesda morgue in a different casket, should have been one of the most talked about issues this 50th, and yet, except for David LIfton and a few others, this anomaly has avoided proper scrutiny. In fact some researchers run to the hills when faced with the casket issues. What a pity, and I believe David Lifton will add to our understanding of the actual events surrounding the removal of the President's body from the Dallas casket, and I hope he is not the only one trying to pierce through this particular fog of deception created by the architects of the crime.

Two great posts, Pat. I had no idea about the suspicious makeup of the HSCA panel . Didn't know that tidbit from Ramsey Clark either. Many thanks.

I'm 62 and remember the first book I read on the Kennedy assassination: Josiah Thompson's Six Seconds in Dallas in the Occidental college library; then Anthony Summers' Conspiracy, and soon after that Lifton's Best Evidence. It was in reading Best Evidence that I was introduced to the unstable tectonics under the CT community. Lifton's thesis met with great opposition with fellow critics as it questioned their long-held animosity toward Humes et al. So rifts within the CT community are nothing new. The rifts take on a new life of their own as time goes on. In the late 90s the Z-film controversy divided many researchers, and does to to this day. Perspectives on Garrison became an occasion for harsh words. Lifton's work has continued to be a lightning rod for venomous condemnation by a few authors. There remain fissures deep within the research community because, as Thompson observed, the case is not converging to a coherent conclusion, and i would argue this is due to fraud in the evidence. The divergence of the case leads to small fiefdoms wherein authors working in a particular area guard that ground jealously, and express contempt if their opinions are not honored as they themselves think it should be. The point is, if the under 60s have their own forum, it will be as contemptuous of civility as sadly seems common to this case. Pride and egos will still take a toll. No, I'd rather we all be together so the CT community isn't fractured further than it already is.

David, it doesn't matter if the whole world authenticated the photos. If the autopsy surgeons couldn't find such an obvious hole in the cowlick after hours of searching, it stands to reason the "best evidence" game is over. You know the story of the entrance wound the autopsy surgeons did find. Dr. Boswell said bones brought in after midnight completed a hole in the lower skull near the EOP. David Lifton in Best Evidence asks the appropriate question that has never been answered: how could pictures taken at the onset of the autopsy show a clear entrance wound when whatever entrance wound the autopsy doctors were able to piece together resulted from bones brought to the morgue after midnight? If you can answer that one, you'll be the first.

For what it's worth, I enjoyed your site very much. Your matching the firecracker sound to a bullet through the windshield has serious implications if true. It means Greer and Kellerman knew immediately they were under fire and did nothing except slow the limo (to a stop, I would argue). So much for secret service protection.

Yes. Almost exactly 4 inches. David, this is an old old issue. Please inform me how the autopsy doctors, who had the body for hours and had every necessary measuring device, could nevertheless miss a hole in the cowlick so obvious that a blind man could read it with braille. The Clark Panel and the HSCA did not have the body in front of them. Nothing smells rotten in Denmark? Kindly explain, and thanks in advance.