Daniel Gallup

Recall Jackie's words: " But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been, but from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on." Add to this Hill's description of the back of Kennedy's head lying in the seat, and the Parkland observations, and there is little doubt that post mortem damage was done to Kennedy's skull, as well as a switch in brains, since the observations of extruding cerebellum by competent physicians, including the neurosurgeon Clark, are the best evidence of where the damage to the brain was. I hold no brief on Morningstar, but Lifton has proved his case beyond refute, IMO. Anyone who thinks differently has to explain the conflicts in the record with a better thesis than Lifton, and I have yet to hear of one. Steven Skeen, I suggest a very careful reading of Best Evidence. If you think he's wrong give evidence, not conjecture, as to why he is. I shall be glad to read it. Best, Daniel

What's the use of studying the speed of the limo and wondering why Jackie didn't fly out of the car if the film is not a true representation of what happened? If Zeigler is surprised Jackie did not slide out of the car, maybe he too should doubt the film's integrity. Physics is physics.

I submit that if we cannot see Kennedy's head explode with a considerable amount of matter exiting the rear (as Toni Foster and others recounted) then we should stop putting any faith in these films. We are fooling ourselves if we think posting gif after gif has any real significance. We have been duped, pure and simple. We are dogs chasing our tails, accompishing nothing. Even them proposed interpretation of the Moorman photograph is pure speculation about what is being seen and where the damage is. It is significant that there is a direct link to the limo stop and the lack of debris exiting the back of Kennedy's head. Ask yourself why the ejecta is missing, and the answer is the limo stop. Ask yourself why the limo stop is removed, and the answer is, to remove evidence of a massive exit of blood and brains to the rear toward officer Hargis (the same Hargis who claimed the limo stopped). When will we start believing those who were there?

Once again, the testimony of eye-witnesses directly beside the limo, including some motorcycle officers, is ignored in favor of the presumption that the films are the "best evidence" of what happened. The evidence of fakery in the Z-film is too great to be ignored, and to suppose that the other films have survived unscathed is utterly naive.

What is significant is that there were witnesses to the limo stop, contra Len Colby, and their testimony stands. David Lifton has mentioned his interview with the Newmans; I have frequently brought up Debra Conway's 2000 interview with Toni Foster. She told Debra: "...The spray went behind him [not seen in the extant Z-film]. I do believe from what I heard and wghat I saw the shots came from the back. Now this whole thing was a shock but that's how I feel, what I heard and what I saw. At the time when I looked at him and I saw [how he reacted]--they were coming from the back. I know the Governor and Mrs. Connally were there but I wasn't even thinking about them. I don't mean that in an inconsiderate way but it's just what I saw. They were proteting themselves too. For some reason the car stopped. It did stop for seconds. I don't every know why it stopped and all of a sudden it sped up and they went under the underpass. I could never figure out why the car stopped. [Mrs. Kennedy] started crawling out the back of the car crying and screaming..." KAC Summer 2000.

(emphasis mine)

It is clear to me that Toni, at least at the time of the Conway interview, had not seen the extant Z-film, and that gives her greater credibility. The simple astonishment of the limo stop is one of the more remarkable statements in the interview, other than the phrase, "the spray went behind him," which, unknown to Toni, is strong evidence of an avulsive wound in the back of the head due to a shot from the front.

The problem here is that Bill Miller, in my mind, has come awfully close to debunking the "bullet in the windshield" argument with actual photos. Perhaps he will chime in here if he is around. Much of the argument was on Lancer's forum.

Bill Miller has nothing of the sort. Stuart, photo experts are experts primarily in contradicting eye-witness testimony. Actual photos are open to subjective interpretation, as well, unfortunately, to alteration. I suggest listening to those on the DVD who saw the hole, and judge for yourself whether these witnesses sound credible. Yes, I have a copy of the DVD, but it is not of sufficient quality to discern a hole. But the eyewitnesses are most impressive, and trump anything Bill Miller or any other alleged photo expert mgiht say. If I sound testy, and I admit I am, it is because of Bill Miller's absurd responses some challenges I have laid at his feet, namely: 1. where in the extant film is all the ejecta which left the back of Kennedy's head? The extant film shows 0 -- zero-- leaving the back of his head. Miller's response: it left too fast to be captured by the camera. 2. to the claims of Toni Foster, the Running Woman, who is one of the clearest and articulate witnesses to the limo stop, thanks to Debra Conway's interview of her in 2000. She like the Newmans and several motorcycle officers and others, said the limo stopped right in front them. MIller: collective shock made them see something that wasn't there. If Bill had taken time to read Debra's interview with Toni Foster, he would have seen how specific she was in describing the events surrounding the head stop. And it is apparent from the interview that she was not aware that her recollections were at variance with the extant film.

Bill Miller is a fine man and dedicated researcher, but when his conclusions contradict corroborative eye-witness testimony, I'll take the witnesses every time. I think the DVD The Smoking Guns is a must see. I do wish I had it in high def, but do not. Best, Daniel

Josh, I have a copy of The Smoking Guns, but the segment involving the bullet hole in the windshield consists of eye-witness testimony to it (and this is quite powerful), not pictures of the actual hole itself. The Secret Service drove the limo away from Parkland and kept observers for the most part away from the limo. Had someone taken a picture of the hole while the limo was at Parkland, that film would have been confiscated anyway. Shots from the front were not suppose to happen, IMO, and this was known by those Secret Service involved in the assassination, whoever they were. For a good study of the windshield, it's hard to beat Weldon's article in Murder in Dealey Plaza , pp. 129 ff. Some of the people mentioned in the article are interviewed in The Smoking Guns. Best, Daniel

I hope someone else besides myself is interested in Horne's work. May I ask the photographic savants out there about the kinds of alteration that could be done to the Z-film and still fool the stereo viewer? Is this something readily done? Done with difficulty? Impossible? Hope someone out there reads this, and thanks in advance. Daniel

I've been informed by Gary Mack that "Horne's alteration theories are idiotic."

Gary told me this quote is accurate. Mack believes stereoscopic viewing of the photography involved the in assassination/autopsy proves there is no alteration. I did a little search and came up with this:

In testimony to the HSCA, Calvin McCamy said that he, Frank Scott,

David Eisendrath, Bennett Sherman and "one of the professors at

RIT" (1HSCA176) examined the photos and found no evidence whatsoever

of forgery or alteration. Asked if it was possible that forgery could

have escaped detection, McCamy replied:

Yes, extremely unlikely. We have considered the possibilities

of various photographic techniques that could have been

used in a train of events to produce these photographs. Some

of them are virtually impossible because of the stereoviewing.

Others would be exceedingly difficult if not impossible. (1HSCA179)

(emphasis mine)

McCamy had previously explained the principles of stereoscopic viewing

of the autopsy photos. Briefly, autopsy photographers tend to take

more than one photo from each location, in case a photo does not

turn out. John Stringer, the JFK autopsy photographer, followed this

procedure. The result is a series of photographs taken of the

same view from essentially identical locations.

Pairs of such photographs can be viewed through a stereoscopic viewer.

A 3D effect is achieved when the photos are viewed in this manner.

The additional depth perception allows the pathologists to get a better

view of the wounds and their relationship to body landmarks. For the

purposes of detecting forgery, this method is foolproof.

When 2 photos - particularly close-up photos which contain a great deal

of detail - are viewed stereoscopically, even minute differences seem to

literally "leap out" at the viewer. Is there a way to fool the

stereoscopic viewer? According to Frank Scott:

To successfully avoid detection of picture alteration

requires taht each picture of a pair of pictures be

altered identically, which is essentially impossible,

particularly with a stereo pair *** Any nonidentical

alteration of the pictures of a pair is readily noted

when pairs are viewed stereoscopically or microscopically.

(7HSCA40)

And you have to keep doing this, photo pair after photo pair.

And each alteration must be done with steroscopic viewing

in mind. And with the hope that no one ever compares them

non-stereoscopically under a microscope. (the HFP photo experts did

this as well and still couldn't find any fakery)

The following pairs were viewed:

back of head (photos 42/43)

top of head (32/33 and 34/37)

skull defect (44/45)

head from front right (26/28)

back wound (38/39)

anterior neck wound (40/41)

There are many problems with this line of reasoning. The autopsy photos are of poor quality and seem designed to conceal as much as reveal. According to Stringer's earlier recollections, he took pictures which are not in the present collection. And I have problems with McCamy's claims himself. In Inside the ARRB, p. 291, Dr. Mantik is quoted as saying, when viewing the back of the head photos stereoscopically, that the are of the posterior scalp looked "two-dimensional," not 3-D. Says Horne, He (Mantik) said that he conducted stereo viewing with multiple types of images of the back of the head, namely, color positive transparencies, color prints and black and white prints. He said all of them yielded the same 'bizarre' 2-D effect in the area of the posterior scalp. He also told me he did not get this impression from stereo viewing of any of the other autopsy photograpghs." Later (883 ff) Horne backs off his support of Mantik and regards the back of the head as represented in the photo as a reconstruction after the FBI had left the morgue (883). Yet he relies on Mantik on the falsification of the x-rays; I find it inconsistent for him to dismiss Mantik's observations about the back of the head photo. Obviously it would be apprpriate for more experts to view the posterior scalp stereoscopically.

But if Horne's explanation is correct, that the large hole in Kennedy's right rear was concealed by scalp manipulation, then Mack's reliance upon stereo viewing is, as the Germans say "unanwenbar," or, besides the point. A dishonest representation of the way the body looked when it came from Parkland can be be created and photographed, and stereo viewing would be an irrelevant factor in determining the way Kennedy was killed.

Or take the gash in the neck: if this represents an enlargement of Perry's trach incision, as i believe it does, then pictures of a falsified wound would be no clue as to how Kennedy was shot, even viewed stereoscopically.

I do not know how stereo viewing would be relevant to the Z-film; someone with more expertise than I might chime in. But in the case of the autopsy photos, Gary Mack's reliance upon stereo viewing as the basis for calling Horne's theories "idiotic" may not be the wisest conclusion to be drawn.

Daniel,

Marrs posted the following on this website

http://www.abovetops...hread304691/pg1

in response to a query about Reymond from a poster by the name of ipsedixit

"Howdy ipsedixit,

Unfortunately, I have heard nothing further from William Reymond and his claim of obtaining an unedited version of the Zapruder film from a French intelligence agent except that Reymond told one researcher that his intelligence contact had been murdered and that he was dropping out of sight.

I wish I knew more.

Jim Marrs"

Oh how depressing! I do hope this Reymond character is on the up and up. All we need is another person seeking 15 minutes of fame. Sadly, if he was telling the truth and has had to drop out of sight, we ought to extend our well-wishes and prayers his way. If he really is in trouble, that itself speaks volumes. And he'll have my poor prayers.

I hope Rich Dellarosa is hearing this interview by Jim Maars of William Remon (sp?) from heaven. It gives one hope that the true nature of the shooting may yet surface before the rest of us die-- in the form of the "other film." All the eyewitness testimony to the limo stop has been explained away due to the bastard film at the Archives. It's time for the charade to end, and if it takes French intelligence to bring us the truth, mon Dieu, vive le France! (if I have said it correctly).

IF Gary Mack says Horne's theories are "idiotic," and it would be good to get his exact quote, then he should do two things: apologize for the insulting language, and man up and give sound reasons why he disagrees with Horne. Otherwise, he comes off no better than a playground bully. Gary, tell us all on this forum what objections you have to Horne's work. Tell us where he is either misinformed, uninformed, or illogical, and please be quite specific. If you can't do that, either suspend judgment or confess he is correct. And please no private emails. Man up and back up these words, if in fact they are yours. Thanks in advance, Daniel

If you read Dino Bruglioni's comments carefully, it is quite clear he is describing a different film from the extant film in the Archives. I think Horne has settled the case beyond all doubt that the Z-film has been faked.

If the limo stopped, as I believe it did, then the driver either by deliberate participation in the plot or unbelievable incompetence and dereliction of duty, bears some responsibility for the murder. Kellerman comes off rather badly in Horne's 5 volumes, mostly for his role at Bethesda and Horne's belief, which I don't think is widely shared, that it was Kellerman who widened the trach incision to retrieve a bullet.

Was not the Secret Service under the Treasury department, and I read long ago, but remember not where, that the size of the Secret Service increased during Kennedy's term and this could well have been with men loyal to Johnson and not Kennedy? Men who might think like General LeMay or Allen Dulles.

What if the back wound, not seen at Parkland, is not a bullet wound at all, but was inflicted with a type of metal punch to simulate a bullet wound?

Is this possible? Might David Lifton or Dr. Mantik weigh in?

My copy of BE is in pieces but if David would chime in he would point the the following: Dr. Carrico did a munual examination of the back while Kennedy was lying down on his back to determine if there was any defect in the back. He didn't find any. Later, Humes called Perry and asked if he made any wounds in the back. Why would he do that? And finally, Clint Hill mentions an "opening" in the back -- strange wording for a bullet wound. This is all from memory. I am not experienced with gunshot wounds, but it is difficult to understand how a bullet traveling downwards form 45 to 60 degrees according to the FBI penetrated such a short distance, failing to violate the pleural cavity. And it is suspicious that Nurses Bowron and Henchcliff, and orderly Sanders, make no mention of the back wound, although they washed the body and should have seen it. I know in the 90s Bowron told of it to Harrison Livingston, but the value of that claim is of dubious value IMO. She had plenty of opportunity to spread the knowledge of the wound even before that time, and not a peep until over 30 years after the event. And to my knowledge Nurse Henchliff has gone on record as saying she never saw such a wound. I recall asking about this on Lancer and getting that response. I wish I remembered from whom that tidbit came from and when.

Surely all of this was known to the authors of this new work; at the very least the wound is strange and cries out for explanation. I would have preferred to read their speculation on the matter, to see how they dealt with all of the above. Some have argued that it is speculation that the throat wound was enlarged, yet that did not prevent the authors from stepping into that mindfield. So why avoid the back wound issues? Still unhappy in Pasadena, Daniel

"Aftermath of the JFK Assassination:

Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda Morgue"

A synthesis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63,

particularly for those new to the subject but also as a consciousness-raiser for those well versed in the JFK assassination.

Available as a free download:

- Large format

- 50 pages

- 15,000 words

- Seven illustrations

- Index

Also available from Amazon as an ebook.

Details:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/

Many thanks, Allan. Question: doesn't the strange nature of the back wound raise suspicions? I don't think you touched on this in the book. Regards, Daniel

Daniel:

Thank you. There is a discussion of the back wound, but possibly not with the emphasis you have in mind.

Allan

Of course there is a discussion of the back wouund, and it is much appreciated. But since wound alteration is a major theme of your work, I expected some discussion of it with regards to the strange nature of the back wound, even the way it is described by Humes. Too hot to handle? Respectfully, Daniel

"Aftermath of the JFK Assassination:

Parkland Hospital to the Bethesda Morgue"

A synthesis of the events of the afternoon and evening of 11/22/63,

particularly for those new to the subject but also as a consciousness-raiser for those well versed in the JFK assassination.

Available as a free download:

- Large format

- 50 pages

- 15,000 words

- Seven illustrations

- Index

Also available from Amazon as an ebook.

Details:

http://www.manuscriptservice.com/Aftermath/

Many thanks, Allan. Question: doesn't the strange nature of the back wound raise suspicions? I don't think you touched on this in the book. Regards, Daniel

Hi Joe; Your welcome, imo also, there certainly is , was something wrong, also keep in the back of your mind the effort by some to go to Walter Reed HOSPITAL, SOME YEARS BACK SOME TRIED TO CONNECT BETHESDA AND w/r BUT NOTHING CAME UP WITHIN THE RESEARCH ..sorry caps....except there was a back road from one to the other to get there rather quickly, but that's another go around, imo David Lifton, nailed these beggars years ago and now his research has again been confirmed by Doug Horne, two OF THE GREAT RESEARCHERS imo within this continuing morass...here is A/F 1 showing where the coffin was situated on the flight back to Andrews..fyi....take care b..

The Air Force One at the Reagan Library is nearly identical to the one used on 11-22-63. It's quite confined inside. It's hard to imagine any significant movement of any type in the front or the back or the plane that people in the middle of the plane wouldn't know about. My two cents.

Pat, let's suppose you are right. What are the chances Kennedy's body was not in the Dallas casket when put aboard Air Force 1, but already in a body bag and in some baggage compartment? Was there ever a time at Parkland when some sort of subterfuge like this could have happened? Or was the casket at Parkland always in plain sight? I'm with Lifton on the casket being empty when the body reached Andrews. Could it have been empty when placed aboard Air Force 1? If not, why not? Just wondering, and hoping someone has studied this issue thoroughly. Years ago on Lancer, I remember reading of the possibility that two large fire extinguishers could have been put into the Dallas casket to give it weight -- urban legend, one of many? Regards, Daniel

Referring back to the chart with the 3.74 and 2.24 mph entries.

The top two rows go like this:

FRAME TO FRAME #of Frames Distance Traveled

168-171 3 .9ft

171-185 14 19.2 ft

Think in terms of differences: 11 frame difference and 18.3ft difference.

Now create a ratio from it: 18.3/11=1.666

11/18.3=.60

Bottom Rows:

FRAME TO FRAME #of Frames Distance Traveled

161-166 5 .9ft

166-185 19 19.2ft

Once again, differences 14 frames 18.3ft

Ratio= 18.3/14=1.307

14/18.3=.765

Keep these numbers in mind!!!

chris

Ok chris, I failed to click on the link to the Vehicle Speed Analysis based on the WC re-enactment data. At the bottom of the table you say: "At no time during the assassination did the Presidential Limousine slow to 2.24 to 3.74 m ph. The vehicle obviously did not achieve speeds of 28.69 mph, not did it accelerate from speeds of 2.24 mph to 12.60 mph in approximately one second (frames 166-185)... neither the original data nor the altered data even closely approximate the true average speed of the Presidential Limousine which was in fact between nine to twelve mph thoughout the entire sequence of shots fired."

There are a number of points I don't understand. Where does the figure in the chart under "distance traveled" come from? Obviously the variation in distance traveled per frame would show a jerky limo doing impossible things. Did the WC come up with these strange numbers?

Second, your claim that the limo kept to a certain average speed throughout the shooting is self-contradictory. If the film is altered, no such conclusion is possible.

The distance from frame 1(JFK aligned with the TSBD corner)-Z161 is 85ft.

There is a 15ft adjustment included in the WC scenario which sets the distance at 100ft.

161frames/18.3fps=8.797seconds

100ft/8.797sec=11.367ft per sec

11.367/1.47(1mph)=7.73mph

If I want to create an average vehicle speed over the entire distance of frame1 to 313 with the above scenario, I need to incorporate WC calculations from CE884,

So frame 161-313 is 152 frames @136.1ft traveled.

There is one problem though, I will not be able to use 18.3fps as my frame rate.

I'll have to use 24fps.

152frames/24fps=6.33sec

136.1ft/6.33sec=21.5ft per sec

21.5ft per sec x 1.47(1mph)=14.62mph

Now average the above scenario's together since we are talking about 152 and 161 frame scenarios.

7.73+14.62=22.35/2=11.17mph

Now run the WC scenario which uses 18.3fps with the same numbers above:

152/18.3=8.30 seconds

136.1ft/8.3 seconds=16.397ft per sec

16.397ft per sec/1.47(1mph)=11.154mph

Do you see how you can hide distances and frame rates within a bigger picture?

chris

I am wondering Chris how you integrate a limo stop into your analysis. Based on eyewitness testimony, as best as I can understand it, the limo was slowing down and stopped after or during the headshot, if indeed there was but one, as I am inclined to think based on the Dallas' testimony. The extant Z-film does show the limo slowing below the 11 mph average right before the head shot, but I believe the limo stop was removed, along with ejecta exiting out of the back of Kennedy's head, which would have been a major problem for framing Oswald for the crime. Would be interestd on your take,and thanks in advance. Respectfully, Daniel

Hi Daniel,

I'm not going to integrate a limo stop in my analysis. That is not what I am trying to accomplish. I am trying to expose a film created from different frame rates, created by the WC, to cover up a shot some 30ft farther down Elm than the 313 headshot.

chris

As a math teacher I should be interested in your study, Chris, and I thank you for summarizing succicintly exactly what you are trying to show. But all this still begs the questions: why do you suppose it was the WC which created the fradulant film, and not the CIA; and how does the most central aspect of the that fraud, the limo stop, figure into the numbers? Because the limo does show a distinct slowing, even in the extant film, before 313. If your study is about averages, would it not do to take smaller and smaller time increments as one nears 313? Best regards, Daniel

I am wondering Chris how you integrate a limo stop into your analysis. Based on eyewitness testimony, as best as I can understand it, the limo was slowing down and stopped after or during the headshot, if indeed there was but one, as I am inclined to think based on the Dallas' testimony. The extant Z-film does show the limo slowing below the 11 mph average right before the head shot, but I believe the limo stop was removed, along with ejecta exiting out of the back of Kennedy's head, which would have been a major problem for framing Oswald for the crime. Would be interestd on your take,and thanks in advance. Respectfully, Daniel

In fairness, I believe that the limo stop is at least somewhat disputed, but I am also interested in how it WOULD affect the analysis, regardless of whether one accepts it or not.

Hi Daniel, this is the other Daniel. Yes the limo stop is most certainly disputed!!!! And I liked the way you phrased the question: how would Chris figure in the stop, whether it happened or not. May I recommend David Lifton's essay "Pig on a Leash" in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax, pp. 333-4 (re Sylvia Meagher) and pp. 344-5 wherein Lifton details his interviews with those individuals who were situated at the limo at the time of the headshot, interviews in 1971 before the extant Z-film was shown to the public. See also Toni Forster in the K. A. Chronicles, summer 2000. Debra Conway broke open the case favoring alteration for me with that interview. See also the essay Delay on Elm St. in Murder in Dealey Plaza. I hope Chris answers our question. best, Daniel

The distance from frame 1(JFK aligned with the TSBD corner)-Z161 is 85ft.

There is a 15ft adjustment included in the WC scenario which sets the distance at 100ft.

161frames/18.3fps=8.797seconds

100ft/8.797sec=11.367ft per sec

11.367/1.47(1mph)=7.73mph

If I want to create an average vehicle speed over the entire distance of frame1 to 313 with the above scenario, I need to incorporate WC calculations from CE884,

So frame 161-313 is 152 frames @136.1ft traveled.

There is one problem though, I will not be able to use 18.3fps as my frame rate.

I'll have to use 24fps.

152frames/24fps=6.33sec

136.1ft/6.33sec=21.5ft per sec

21.5ft per sec x 1.47(1mph)=14.62mph

Now average the above scenario's together since we are talking about 152 and 161 frame scenarios.

7.73+14.62=22.35/2=11.17mph

Now run the WC scenario which uses 18.3fps with the same numbers above:

152/18.3=8.30 seconds

136.1ft/8.3 seconds=16.397ft per sec

16.397ft per sec/1.47(1mph)=11.154mph

Do you see how you can hide distances and frame rates within a bigger picture?

chris

I am wondering Chris how you integrate a limo stop into your analysis. Based on eyewitness testimony, as best as I can understand it, the limo was slowing down and stopped after or during the headshot, if indeed there was but one, as I am inclined to think based on the Dallas' testimony. The extant Z-film does show the limo slowing below the 11 mph average right before the head shot, but I believe the limo stop was removed, along with ejecta exiting out of the back of Kennedy's head, which would have been a major problem for framing Oswald for the crime. Would be interestd on your take,and thanks in advance. Respectfully, Daniel

After the big success of “Killing Lincoln,” Bill O’Reilly is back on the case of a presidential assassination. The Fox News host and best-selling author is collaborating with Martin Dugard on “Killing Kennedy: The End of Camelot.” Henry Holt and Company announced Thursday the book will come out this fall. O’Reilly says in a statement that “Killing Kennedy” will “answer many questions” about the death of JFK, who was murdered on Nov. 22, 1963.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/bill-oreilly-book-on-assassination-of-jfk-coming-this-fall/2012/02/16/gIQASzpTHR_story.html

It might be worth sending Bill O'Reilly what you have on the assassination.

No matter what he once knew and /or believed about this case I guarentee his book will be lone nut bs. Just in time for the 50th anniversary.

The re-assassination of JFK will be in full swing. History be damned.

Dawn

Why give up without a fight? I emailed him; what if everyone did?

Tonight on The O'Reilly Factor Bill O'Reilly, basking in the success of his book Killing Lincoln, announced he is now currently collaborating in a work which will be called Killing Kennedy. Mr. O'Reilly has a very large following and this book will be widely read, and ultimately, quite successful, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly. He expects to be done some months hence, and now would be a good time to provide him with critical input, though I don't know personally how to do it in a way that will get through to his desk. If anyone out there does, please be on notice. Agree with him or not, the man is quite influential. Regards to all, Daniel

Whose side is he going to take? I have a book by him selling on eBay. [idyllic Books].. As I said in my book description he looks to me like if he had one drink he'd kill somebody. He angers very easily. He may have had a drinking problem at one time, which made him homicidal. I see that in his face and when someone disagrees with him. Even if he's smiling he hates you. Just my impression. I hope he's not going to do a book on Kennedy's sex life. We need a break. And what's he going to say? He's a conservative. Is he going to announce to the world that LHO did it? We've had enough books saying that, recently Bugliosi and Mark Fuhrman. Are we going to be dealing with that mentality again? Enough is enough. I would bet he's a media asset, so he's not going to tell us anything we should know. Case Closed.

Kathy C

Kathleen, I sincerely hope you are hasty in your estimation of the man. I don't know what to expect either but he is in the process of writing it right now. That's why if anyone has any connection with him, it would be great to encourage him to cast a jaundiced eye at the evidence in the case, and live up to his motto "fair and balanced." I want to add, I just emailed him with an appeal to give real scrutiny to the case and gave some examples of fraud in the evidence. I don't know if he will ever see the email but I hope someone on his staff will read it; if enough people email him it might make a difference.

Tonight on The O'Reilly Factor Bill O'Reilly, basking in the success of his book Killing Lincoln, announced he is now currently collaborating in a work which will be called Killing Kennedy. Mr. O'Reilly has a very large following and this book will be widely read, and ultimately, quite successful, if I'm reading the tea leaves correctly. He expects to be done some months hence, and now would be a good time to provide him with critical input, though I don't know personally how to do it in a way that will get through to his desk. If anyone out there does, please be on notice. Agree with him or not, the man is quite influential. Regards to all, Daniel