Daniel Gallup

General Clifton: "We do not want a helicopter for Bethesda Medical Center. We do want an ambulance and a ground return from Andrews to Walter Reed and we want the regular post-mortem that has to be done by law under guard performed at Walter Reed. Is that clear?"

PF

Sounds a lot like the body was going from Andrews to Walter Reed, then from Walter Reed to Bethesda.

I have analyzed this very carefully, conducted a number of interviews over the years, and here are my own conclusions and opinions as to what all this means:

(1) As AF-1 approached Washington, D.C., it was known that the President's body was not in the coffin, and a plan was put in place to return the body to the coffin prior to the autopsy (at Bethesda)--and the fact that the coffin was empty would remain secret.

(2) In order to accomplish that, it was stated that "the autopsy" would be at Walter Reed, the purpose being to bring the large Dallas coffin to Walter Reed, so that the body could be put back inside that coffin; and then brought to Bethesda. Even if this "side trip" became known, it could be ascribed to 'innocent error'--and the whole story about the President being a "Navy man" and hence the autopsy would be conducted at Bethesda.

(3) Mrs.Kennedy was supposed to be separated from the Dallas coffin. To accomplish that, a ramp was ordered for the front starboard side of the plane. THis can be verified by just listening to the tape. Clifton orders just such a ramp, and for exactly that purpose. His words (as I recall): We're going to bring the First Lady off by that route. (I confirmed all this with Clifton in my July 15, 1980 in person interview).

(4) A special helicopter was ordered to meet AF-1 on the starboard side. You can see the lights of that helicopter hovering on the starboard side, in some of the newsreel footage.

(5 ) I have interviewed that helicopter pilot. He was from Anacostia, and the special unit to fly the President and First Lady to the mountain hideout in the event of a nuclear alert. I met with him, filmed him, and actually examined his logbook.

The problem was that when he went to the starboard side, there was nobody there. So he flew back to base.

The above scenario--which is what was planned--could not be carried out, however, because of the following:

(a) As AF-1 approached the final spot, Jackie refused to leave by the starboard side. She insisted on leaving with the Dallas coffin.

(b ) When she and Bobby stepped onto the Army lift, a second unexpected development occurred. (See [c])

(c ) A Navy ambulance, dispatched with a cardio nurse (just in case LBJ needed any medical attention) was unexpectedly (and mistakenly) moved into position by the Army lift, on the order of naval aide Tazwell Shepherd. This was unplanned. Either an Army ambulance was supposed to be there, or--more likely--the Dallas casket waa going to be moved in a helicopter. (There is genuine confusion on the AF-1 tape on this issue.) But the naval ambulance, "moving into position" (on Taz Shepherd's orders) then led to the following situation. . .

(d) Jackie, spotting that ambulance, basically said: "We'll go in that."

(e) The combination of Jackie (1) refusing to leave by the starboard side and (2) spotting the naval ambulance and saying "we'll go in that", resulted in the the coffin being placed in the Navy ambulance and Jackie also going in that ambulance. Once that happened, any chance of the Dallas casket going to Walter Reed vanished.

The result: the coffin--which was originally going to be brought to Walter Reed, where the body would be reinserted into the coffin, and then brought to Bethesda--went directly to Bethesda Naval Hospital.

That resulted in a completely confusing situation at Bethesda, with near comical overtones. You can read what happened next by going to Best Evidence (see Chapter 16, 25-28):

(a) First of all, the President's body was rushed to Bethesda Naval Hospital , where it arrived (we now know) at 6:35 PM.

The report of NOIC Roger Boyajian --unearthed through the excellent work of Doug Horne, at the ARRB--establishes that entry.

(b ) The Naval ambulance, containing the Dallas coffin, Jacqueline Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, McHugh, etc. arrived at the front of the hospital at 6:55 PM. That is established through press reports and Secret Service reports. (See Chapter 16, Best Evidence, for derails)

(c ) That ambulance, containing the Dallas coffin, was commandeered by Admiral Calvin Galloway, and driven around to the rear, and the Dallas coffin brought up the ramp by the loading dock, on a conveyance with rollers, at 7:17 PM EST. (That entry is documented by Sibert and O'Neill, and one or two Army reports. Again, see Chapter 16 of B.E., or Doug Horne's book, Inside the ARRB.

(d) For a brief while, the FBI was kept out of the morgue. (This is reported in the Sibert and O'Neill Report, on the very first page, and I believe it to be accurate, even though O'Neill denied it). During this period, those inside the morgue were placed in another room. Then, the body was then transferred back into the Dallas coffin, brought outside, and returned to a naval ambulance--probably (though not necessarily, the same one driven by Admiral Galloway).

(e) At 8PM, the tri-service casket team--which had "lost" the naval ambulance, and could not find it for some 45 minutes (See My chapter 16, where I interviewed all of them) then escorted the Dallas casket, which now contained the body, back into the morgue. This was the "official entry" and that entry occurred at 8PM, according to their report.

This sequence of "3 entries of 2 caskets" is thoroughly documented by 3 separate paper trails (and has been written up, in slightly different style, by Jacob Hornberger, in a series of articles on the Internet).

As to all these goings on, Commander Humes, when testifying, hid behind the following figleaf, just in case all this came to light:

Specter: tell us who else in a general way was present at the time the autopsy was conducted in addition to you three doctors, please?

Humes: "I must preface by saying it will be somewhat incomplete. My particular interest was on the examination of the president and not of the security measures of the other people who were present." (2 WCH 349)

To recap the 3 casket entries, and the 3 paper trails left behind:

6:35 PM: The body was delivered, in a body bag, inside a shipping casket, per the Boyajian report

7:17 PM: The Dallas casket, which was then empty, entered the morgue for the first time (per FBI Agents Sibert andO'Enill, and at least one US Army report)

8 PM: The Dallas casket, which now contained the Presidents body, entered the morgue for the second time.

In short, the rigmarole of returning the body to the (empty) Dallas casket--which was originally planned to occur at Walter Reed--did not occur, because of the unexpected event(s) that occurred as Air Force One landed; at which time:

(a) Jackie refused to leave by the starboard side, on the special ramp that Clifton had ordered (and you can hear him going through these instructions, more than once, on the AF-1 tapes; and

(b ) Jackie was not flown away in the special helicopter that had been ordered to the starboard side, and whose pilot I have interviewed at length, both by phone, and then on camera, in 1996.

Had Jackie existed on the starboard side, the public would have probably witnessed a scene in which the Dallas coffin was either choppered to Walter Reed, or--possibly--brought to Walter Reed in an Army ambulance.

And that's the explanation for all the radio transmissions about "going to Walter Reed for the autopsy." It was not about having an autopsy at Walter Reed. It was bureaucratic cover for getting the body back into the Dallas coffin.

Of course, when I wrote Best Evidence, and laid out the Air Force One radio transmission (as I did) in Chapter 31, I did not have all the "puzzle pieces" that I have today. Certainly, I had the "empty coffin" data--that is all laid out, starting in Chapter 25 (with the account of Dennis David)--but I did not have the starboard chopper information, and there are other puzzle pieces I did not then have, and which I will be setting forth in a future writing. (So. . ."stay tuned.")

But again I emphasize: The Kennedy autopsy was never going to be done at Walter Reed. That was all "cover" for solving the "empty coffin" problem.

* * *

I'm positive this situation (which I have described above) is what explains the apparent "difference" between what the radio transmissions say (“Walter Reed” etc), and what actually happened ("on the ground"). I base this conclusion on not just having carefully analyzed the AF-1 tapes, but, in addition, on the following: certain research I have done on the unexpected action of naval aide Tazwell Sheperd in causing the naval ambulance with the cardio nurse to back into position on the port side of AF-1; my detailed interview with the helicopter pilot on the starboard side (from the top secret unit that was set up to fly the President, and other top officials to "the mountain hideout" in the case of nuclear war); my in-person detailed interview with General Clifton on 7/15/80; and, finally, research I have done about Jackie's refusal to exit the starboard side, despite the preparations that she do so--in the form of the ramp that was placed there (on Clifton's orders, which anyone can verify by listening to the AF-1 tape), and the helicopter that was ordered to be at that location (which I know from my detailed interviewing of the helicopter pilot).

The key point here is simply this: that certain top officials--including Attorney General Robert Kennedy--were well aware that the body was not in the Dallas coffin, and were attempting to rectify that situation, without the First Lady (much less the entire nation) learning that this was so.

That's what "the autopsy will be conducted at Walter Reed" was all about. (And not much more.) And that's why so many hours of "AF-1 tapes" are still "missing."

As I said above: stay tuned.

DSL

2/13/12; 10:30 PM PST

Los Angeles, California

David, if the Attorney General knew, why didn't he squawk? It seems to me that Robert Kennedy was smart enough to know something was wrong if the President's body was not where it was supposed to be-- that no good could come from this. Couldn't he put two and two together? I do not doubt the basic time line as you presented it in Best Evidence. Subsequent revelations have confirmed your original thesis, IMO. But what power or persuasion would keep the Attorney General's mouth shut? And when do you think he found out about empty casket? I guess I'll stayed tuned. Respectfully, Dan

Clint Hill/aka the "running & Rising man.

Might want to check out his first attempt at placement of a foot onto the rear bumper of the Presidential Limo and exactly how far he got with this attempt (as seen in the Z-film)

Thereafter, one just may want to compare the Z-film with the Nix film.

Tom

I've done that Tom... and it does look like there are a few missing steps.. his right foot just seems to glide down the street

1. Fragment from the Z313 jfk headshot to JBC's outstretched right arm.

2. The one and only true "magic"* bullet thereafter striking him in the right rear shoulder after he was laying over exposing his back and right shoulder between the open area of the jump seats.

*It went through JFK's head first, prior to exiting downward and striking JBC, and thereafter has done an excellent job of "disappearing'.

Tom

P.S. Certainly glad that I never believed much of anything that the WC had to say. Especially that "circle jerk" reasoning regarding "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"!

Now you say that JFK was hit by 3 shots... and that the headshot creates the wrist wound to JC... (and most likely the small hole in JFK's neck)

Aren't you missing the shot thru Connally's chest? The shot that hit the manhole cover area? The shot that caused dust and sparks to fly up just after the turn onto Elm?

The multitude of witnesses related to the GK area shot(s)? The Tague shot?

Point remains Tom... Kellerman and Hill describe a shot that occurs just as Hill is getting to the limo

Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.

Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, referring to Commission Exhibit No. 354, would you mark an "X", as best you can, at the spot where the President's automobile was at the time the first shot occurred?

Mr. HILL. Approximately there.

Mr. SPECTER. And would you mark a "Y" at the approximate position where the President's car was at the second shot you have described? What is your best estimate of the speed of the President's car at the precise time of the first shot, Mr. Hill?

This is absurd... he marks areas that are substantially UP the street when the zfilm puts him farther down the street and it is STILL not far enough down Elm to accurately describe the location...

Can you please state specifically why you do not believe JFK was hit from the front at all? My understanding was that the tests done showed no way for a bullet to hit at the rear of a head and not cause substantial damage to the face.... the photos do not match the xrays which do not match the witness descriptions...

Perfect

DJ

and that the headshot creates the wrist wound to JC... (and most likely the small hole in JFK's neck)

NOPE!

1. CE399/aka first shot, is responsible for (a) shallow entry into the back of jfk ( small fragment of lead out neck of jfk.

2. Z313/aka second shot, is responsible for (cowlick entry) tremendous cerebral damage to JFK, as well as small fragment to right arm/wrist of JBC.

3. Third/Last/Final shot impact at survey stationing 4+95/directly in front of James Altgens, is responsible

for (EOP ENTRY), completion of fragmentation and separation of portions of JFK's skull, passage through the mid-brain, exit from the frontal area of the parietal lobe of jfk, travelling onward/downward to strike JBC in the right rear shoulder as he lay over across the open area of the jump seats.

Tom

P.S. Shot#3 is in fact the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET".

How could CE399 possibly be respsonsible for a fragment coming (11 degrees upwards) out of the throat? There is virtually nothing missing from the bullet and what there is is from the base-end. Are you suggesting the very stable CE399 tumbled of its own accord over such a short distance?

There was no cowlick entry.

Martin, Tom Purvis has written up a scenario whereby 399 hits a tree branch, tumbles, hits Kennedy at the 7th cervical vertebra (right of it) 18 degrees down and 14 degrees right to left. It is tumbling clockwise if you are viewing Kennedy from a right profile and it enters base first. The base tends downward to rest on the apex of Kennedyls right lung and in the process of entering Kennedy a piece of lead from the base of 399 becomes detached from 399 and exits at a different angle from that of 399 itself,presumably due to its striking bone, or else Tom has some other explanation for this anomaly. According to Tom, the lead exiting fragment created a small wound in the anterior neck that fooled the Dallas doctors who saw the wound and said it was an entrance wound. At Lancer he had pictures that attempted to prove his point.

Tom produced an excellent diagram showing the approximate path of 399 according to his theory, and I wish he would reproduce it here. Needless to say, since I think 399 is a plant, I don't buy his explanation, but Tom would do well at least to explain what he means more thoroughly.

Tom,

I have to respectively disagree with your conclusion of 3 shots - 3 hits. Just like asking why the shooter does not shoot as JFK approaches...

the shot that kills him IS as he approaches... from the right front. in addition to the low neck entry shot from the rear you speak of...

I just believe there were more shots fired, in sync, as directed by radio.. as many as nine in fact (3 shooters firing 3 times ea)

and have to thank you for illuminating so many things for me.

A few posts up I saw the same thing and quote Hill saying a shot arrives as he arrives at the limo, very interesting.

DJ

Clint Hill/aka the "running & Rising man.

Might want to check out his first attempt at placement of a foot onto the rear bumper of the Presidential Limo and exactly how far he got with this attempt (as seen in the Z-film)

Thereafter, one just may want to compare the Z-film with the Nix film.

Tom

I've done that Tom... and it does look like there are a few missing steps.. his right foot just seems to glide down the street

1. Fragment from the Z313 jfk headshot to JBC's outstretched right arm.

2. The one and only true "magic"* bullet thereafter striking him in the right rear shoulder after he was laying over exposing his back and right shoulder between the open area of the jump seats.

*It went through JFK's head first, prior to exiting downward and striking JBC, and thereafter has done an excellent job of "disappearing'.

Tom

P.S. Certainly glad that I never believed much of anything that the WC had to say. Especially that "circle jerk" reasoning regarding "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"!

Now you say that JFK was hit by 3 shots... and that the headshot creates the wrist wound to JC... (and most likely the small hole in JFK's neck)

Aren't you missing the shot thru Connally's chest? The shot that hit the manhole cover area? The shot that caused dust and sparks to fly up just after the turn onto Elm?

The multitude of witnesses related to the GK area shot(s)? The Tague shot?

Point remains Tom... Kellerman and Hill describe a shot that occurs just as Hill is getting to the limo

Mr. HILL. This is the first sound that I heard; yes, sir. I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong, ran to the Presidential limousine. Just about as I reached it, there was another sound, which was different than the first sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooting a revolver into a hard object--it seemed to have some type of an echo. I put my right foot, I believe it was, on the left rear step of the automobile, and I had a hold of the handgrip with my hand, when the car lurched forward. I lost my footing and I had to run about three or four more steps before I could get back up in the car.

Between the time I originally grabbed the handhold and until I was up on the car, Mrs. Kennedy--the second noise that I heard had removed a portion of the President's head, and he had slumped noticeably to his left. Mrs. Kennedy had jumped up from the seat and was, it appeared to me, reaching for something coming off the right rear bumper of the car, the right rear tail, when she noticed that I was trying to climb on the car. She turned toward me and I grabbed her and put her back in the back seat, crawled up on top of the back seat and lay there.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, referring to Commission Exhibit No. 354, would you mark an "X", as best you can, at the spot where the President's automobile was at the time the first shot occurred?

Mr. HILL. Approximately there.

Mr. SPECTER. And would you mark a "Y" at the approximate position where the President's car was at the second shot you have described? What is your best estimate of the speed of the President's car at the precise time of the first shot, Mr. Hill?

This is absurd... he marks areas that are substantially UP the street when the zfilm puts him farther down the street and it is STILL not far enough down Elm to accurately describe the location...

Can you please state specifically why you do not believe JFK was hit from the front at all? My understanding was that the tests done showed no way for a bullet to hit at the rear of a head and not cause substantial damage to the face.... the photos do not match the xrays which do not match the witness descriptions...

Perfect

DJ

and that the headshot creates the wrist wound to JC... (and most likely the small hole in JFK's neck)

NOPE!

1. CE399/aka first shot, is responsible for (a) shallow entry into the back of jfk ( small fragment of lead out neck of jfk.

2. Z313/aka second shot, is responsible for (cowlick entry) tremendous cerebral damage to JFK, as well as small fragment to right arm/wrist of JBC.

3. Third/Last/Final shot impact at survey stationing 4+95/directly in front of James Altgens, is responsible

for (EOP ENTRY), completion of fragmentation and separation of portions of JFK's skull, passage through the mid-brain, exit from the frontal area of the parietal lobe of jfk, travelling onward/downward to strike JBC in the right rear shoulder as he lay over across the open area of the jump seats.

Tom

P.S. Shot#3 is in fact the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET".

Tom, I'm glad you mentioned CE399. Years ago you posted on Lancer, I believe, the point of entry and schematic diagrams from the back and side showing where the bullet lodged and the direction it was tumbling. I thought those diagrams most helpful in understanding your view of the first shot. I'm sure it would be of great benefit to everyone on this forum if you could repost them, because if readers here weren't part of the conversation on Lancer they may not know what you mean by the lead fragment exiting the front Kennedy's neck. Regards, Daniel

Quick question:

Does anyone here believe "the right side of Kennedy's brain" could have been "blown out" an orange-sized hole in the middle of the back of his head.

The question is , Pat, whether anything Dr. M said to the Rotarians contradicts his WC testimony which is quite explicit about where the damage to the head was:"the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.... so that the parietal bone protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fratured along its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones ...in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral and some of the cerebelar tissue had been blasted out." (6WCH 33). This and the drawing made for TT in 1966 (and confirmed in 1994 to Brad Parker in First on the Scene) represent the earliest and most significant accounts of McClleland. Your comment "back of his head" ought to be changed to the "right rear of his head." Regards, Daniel

No, Daniel, the "earliest and most significant accounts of McClelland," made MONTHS before his testimony, are as follows:

1. McClelland's report written on the day of the shooting.

"The cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple."

2. McClelland's comments to journalist Richard Dudman a few weeks later. These comments were published in the article in which Dudman revealed for the first time that the Secret Service had visited the Parkland doctors, shown them the autopsy report, and told them the autopsists had concluded the throat wound was an exit.

"he and Dr. Perry fully accept the Navy Hospital’s explanation of the course of the bullets."

"I am fully satisfied that the two bullets that hit him were from behind."

"As far as I am concerned, there is no reason to suspect that any shots came from the front."

My point, Daniel, is that McClelland is not the reliable witness many CTs claim him to be. His memory is so shot, in fact, that he has taken to claiming he DREW the "McClelland" drawing, a drawing created by people who'd NEVER even talked to him.

As far as the "orange-sized" hole, are you agreeing with me that the wound described by McClelland and others would not be in the center of the back of the head, but on the right side?

Pat, I am just responding to the specificity obvious in McClelland's WC testimony, that is, where the wound was, what types of brain matter were observed and how much was missing. In that deposition quoted so often it is this characteristic that jumps out at the reader. McClelland's specificity makes him an excellent witness for a wound that is in, using his own words: "the right posterior portion of the skull." Two facets: "posterior," and "right" side. So in the center? No, I am in agreement with you that the center is not what McClelland is describing, nor where I think the wound was. The alternative to an exit wound in the center of the back of the head is not the right side of the head but the right rear of the head.

Pat, remember Nurse Bell asking Perry where the wound was, and Perry having to turn Kennedy's head anatomically to the left? That indicates that though it was on the right part of the skull it was still in the back of the head. Nurse Bell would have no trouble seeing a large hole in Kennedy's head if that hole was "chiefly parietal," as the wound appeared to Humes hours later in Bethesda. But Bell at first could not see the head wound until Perry assisted; and her description of the wound is that is chiefly "occipital."

Surgeon recounts JFK operation

http://www.scntx.com/articles/2012/01/28/news_update/7891.txt

Chris Beattie/Staff Photo - Dr. Robert McClelland recounts to the Rotary Club of McKinney what happened Nov. 22, 1963 in the Parkland Memorial Hospital operating room where former President John F. Kennedy took his final breaths. McClelland, who spoke to the Rotarians the past two Fridays, was on the surgical team that operated on Kennedy and his alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.

By Chris Beattie, cbeattie@acnpapers.com

Published: Saturday, January 28, 2012 4:27 PM CST

Almost 39 years later, mystery still surrounds the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy.

Was Lee Harvey Oswald the real shooter? If so, was he the only one? There is someone who knows the truth about what happened on that November day in Dallas -- at least part of it.

"It was not just a single shooter," said Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the surgeons who operated on Kennedy at Parkland Memorial Hospital. "It wasn't just some crazy young man who wasn't connected to anything."

Such a conclusion, shared by millions across America, came to McClelland long before Friday, when he recapped his experience to the Rotary Club of McKinney. Though he admittedly "kept a distance from all of it," McClelland's personal connection to the event was hard for anyone else to ignore.

Just moments after Kennedy slunk to his left, sending horror through thousands of spectators, he was fighting for every breath inside a Parkland operating room, his head inches away from McClelland.

"He was in terrible shape; the right side of his brain had been blown out," McClelland said. "We worked on him for only eight or 10 minutes, from the time they made the incision to the time he lost all of his cardiac activity.

"There was no chance of saving him."

But memories of the futile operation, and the surrounding chaos, were never lost. McClelland spoke to Rotarians the past two Fridays about his recollections. His story dropped jaws and drew curious silence.

He reignited the wonder of any listeners who'd pushed the conspiracy theories away, out of mind. That's what McClelland said he tried to do, but the mysterious pieces always found him.

Some pieces seemingly fell from the gun -- or guns -- of Kennedy's killer.

"My supposition, and that of a lot of people, is that the first shot probably was fired from the sixth floor of the [Texas School Book Depository]...whether by Oswald or someone else, I don't know," McClelland told Rotarians. "The next shot apparently came from behind the picket fence by the grassy knoll -- all kinds of things indicate that is indeed what happened."

One glaring indicator, to which McClelland was uniquely close, was Kennedy's neck wound. Dr. Malcolm Perry, the chief surgeon for Kennedy and Oswald, cut an incision into Kennedy's neck to explore the wound.

Perry told reporters minutes later that it looked like an entrance wound -- meaning the shot had come from somewhere other than the sixth floor of the Depository. Referencing a recently published book about the assassination, McClelland said Secret Service agents allegedly accosted Perry after his statement and told him never to say it again.

"After the assassination, if you ever mentioned anything about it to Dr. Perry, he would tell you, 'I don't want to talk about it,' and he would really get angry if you pressed him about it," McClelland said. "We always wondered why that was."

Perry took his reluctance to the grave, dying from lung cancer two years ago in Tyler. McClelland, the only surviving member of the historic surgical team, stayed clear of the chaos as long as he could. He and Perry were two of four doctors who tried to save the president Nov. 22, 1963.

"People always ask if he was dead, and he wasn't," McClelland said. "He was making attempts to breath. But we didn't stand around and ask questions, we just started acting."

The team, which also included Drs. Charles J. Carrico and Charles Baxter, afterward sat, dazed, in a nearby nurse's station. Secret Service agents gave them note pads and asked each to write his impressions of the president's wounds.

Their notes later became evidence in the Warren Commission's investigation of the assassination. Perry eventually changed his initial story and said the bullet hole near Kennedy's Adam's apple was an exit wound.

But the Warren Commission's report has since been directly refuted by numerous eyewitness accounts, one of whom McClelland met a few years ago in Dallas.

Ed Hoffman, who is deaf, had his daughter tell McClelland what he saw near the grassy knoll, behind the picket fence, when Kennedy went down.

Hoffman, 27 at the time, had left work around the time of the president's arrival in Dallas to get a toothache inspected at the dentist. The presidential motorcade forced Hoffman to pull off on the edge of Stemmons Freeway, about 700 feet away from the knoll, Hoffman told McClelland.

He said he saw one suited man pull out a rifle, place it on top of the fence and fire at Kennedy, then toss the gun to another man dressed in work clothes. That man dissembled the gun, put it in his tool bag and disappeared into the crowd, Hoffman said.

Moments later, Hoffman saw a policeman question the suited man, then walk into the crowd with him following a short glimpse of the man's identification.

Two high school history teachers came to Dallas several years ago to study Hoffman's story, and wrote, "From Behind the Picket Fence," a book that McClelland said is "very well-detailed in establishing what Mr. Hoffman saw."

Just as in Perry's case, though, Hoffman was quickly shut out, McClelland said. Hoffman told his father and his uncle -- a Dallas police officer at the time -- days after the shooting, and both told him he better keep his mouth shut.

After recounting his conversation with Hoffman and his daughter, the Rotarians focused on his every word, McClelland summarized other prominent theories surrounding Kennedy's death. He answered questions about the "magic bullet" and the assassination's potential connection to Kennedy's involvement in the Cold War.

Dr. Jerry Sims, the Rotarian who invited McClelland to speak in McKinney, was a young intern at Parkland on that day. He recalled how the First Lady asked him outside the operating room if she could smoke a cigarette -- a habit that few knew she had, Sims said.

McClelland, who still spends time in hospitals teaching young doctors, packed up his notes to standing applause. One by one, Rotarians came to him with more questions.

He was the closest most of them would ever come to knowing what happened the day JFK was killed.

But, even for McClelland, the mystery remains.

M

"It was the most memorable thing of my life," he said. "Yet, we may never know the exact truth."

Quick question:

Does anyone here believe "the right side of Kennedy's brain" could have been "blown out" an orange-sized hole in the middle of the back of his head.

The question is , Pat, whether anything Dr. M said to the Rotarians contradicts his WC testimony which is quite explicit about where the damage to the head was:"the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted.... so that the parietal bone protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fratured along its lateral half, and this sprung open the bones ...in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral and some of the cerebelar tissue had been blasted out." (6WCH 33). This and the drawing made for TT in 1966 (and confirmed in 1994 to Brad Parker in First on the Scene) represent the earliest and most significant accounts of McClleland. Your comment "back of his head" ought to be changed to the "right rear of his head." Regards, Daniel

Nice points, B.A. In HOAX (2003), I explain that Erwin Swartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, viewed the film (in what appears to have been its original form) at Eastman Kodak, where it was developed. When Noel Twyman asked him about the limo stop, he was vague and could not recall. But when he asked him about the effects of the fatal shot, Swartz was quite specific and very graphic. He said that he had seen Kennedy's head suddenly "whip around to the left", that he had seen an explosion of blood and brains from the head, and that it had blown out "to the left and rear".

Moreover, Secret Service agents Sam Kinny and Vincent Gullo, Jr., to confirm that Kinny had told him of his discovery of a piece of the right-rear of JFK's skull in the limousine on the flight back to Washington, D.C., and that another member of the detail had become nauseated from observing the blood and gore across the limousine trunk. The completely clean trunk of the limousine as seen in the extant film also indications that this part had to be "tidied up" lest it contradict the government's "official account". Reports from those who have seen "the other film" confirm it. (pp. 27-28)

I find it extremely odd that Thompson would even dare say that claim that no witness in Dealey Plaza showed such a wound......I mean the evidence of what many saw that day is astounding as far as the head wound. It honestly does not take any kind of rocket science to quickly conclude that those "patches" on JFK's head are just that, graphical additions to hide what many know as obvious and what many witnesses saw that day. If you have a grand coverup and official story painted up the wounds must agree, not the other way around. Not to the perps anyway.

I must also say, one thing I have always found odd (or off even lol) is the fact that I have never seen parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle at the moment he was shot. I mean the film seems clear enough to show (or indicate) if it were to take place, which it did (he was shot). You would think with the clarity of the film, one would see parts of JFK's head on the back of the vehicle, where Jackie went to pick up parts, etc. You seen nothing at the moment of impact or afterwards, as far as I can see anyway.

Dr. Fetzer or anyone else: in an earlier post you reproduced Tom Robinson's notes. I have always been puzzled by those who insist Dr. Angel's placement of the Harper fragment to be correct -- if this were true, would not Robinson have reported the absence of bone in the location cited by Dr. Angel? Instead, we have a hole in the back of the head, right were Dr. Cairns first identified the bone. Has this problem been discussed in light of Robinson's notes? Just wondering. Any input appreciated, and thanks in advance. Daniel

Am I the only one to notice that Josiah Thompson has not said a word about

(1) the witnesses who reported the blow-out to the back of JFK's head;

(2) the physicians who reported extruding cerebral and cerebellar tissue;

(3) the X-ray studies that exposed the blow-out had been covered by a patch;

(4) the visible blow-out in frame 374 that confirms (1) though (3) in spades?

So now we have another "patch", this time painted in, which he claims is not

even there! Does anyone discern a pattern here--one of denial and evasion?

Wouldn't it make more sense for him to acknowledge that the Hollywood scan

is closer to the Archived film than to divert attention to a pseudo-documentary?

Nice question, Chris. And here's one right back. In your five versions from the "lost bullet," you have an arrow pointing to what appears to be a black spot an the top of the bright strip which is the south curb of Elm Street. You are right that it doesn't appear in the close-up from 317 that I posted. But it also does not appear in two of the five versions you posted from the "lost bullet." What does this mean? I don't know. What do you think?

JT

Dr. Fetzer et al. I have been looking at Z-317 now for pages and pages of posts. One of my interests is Toni Foster, whom we can see in that frame, and her testimony of the limo stop in her interview with Debra Conway in 2000. In the Z-film she continues the fast walk/run toward the limo at the time of and shortly after the headshot, while in Nix I believe we see her turn her head sharply to the right, possibly at the time of the heashsot. It was on this basis that Kathy Beckett proposed Foster could not have seen the limo stop, since she wasn't looking at it when it presumably did. Has anyone done a careful study of Toni Foster's movements in the two films and indentified anything suspicious? I seem to remember a researcher demonstrated that her gate has an irregularity in it in the extant Z- film, right near the time of the headshot. But I am also curious about her movements in Z vs. Nix. If this post is out of place, apologies to all concerned. Regards, Daniel

So Roderick Ryan is wrong and you are right? Ryan received the Academy Award for his contributions to cinematography in 2000. Why in the world do you think your opinion would outweigh his? Moreover, where did this "blob" come from

I never said anything about Ryan, except for what Zavada wrote. And I believe him. And I am not so full of myself that I think my opinion would change anything. I never asked that it would. I just knew when I posted that, you would go off.

I believe the "blob" is SHADOW, the same type of SHADOW I see on Jackie. As for the Hollywood 7, I haven't seen anything from them.

There is a difference between a limo stop, and a motorcade stop. Also with respect to Toni Foster, I believe somewhere on Lancer, I saw a close up, and her head seems to be turned, ie, she was not looking at the limo at the time of the "stop". I'll see if I can find it for you tomorrow.

Kathy, I first noticed Toni Foster's comments years ago in the 2000 Kennedy Assassination Chronicles, which Dr. Fetzer reproduced in part. I also know the film you are making reference to. You are correct: it shows Toni jerking her head to the right. The problems with your analysis as I see it: although in the film where we see Toni look right, we don't know why she is doing so. The obvious reason to me is her own explantion: "the spray went behind him," which if so destroys the value of the extant film, which shows no ejecta exiting the back of Kennedy's head. She may be following the bloody spray. I believe Bill Miller told us at Lancer that Toni was some 30 ft from Kennedy when his head exploded. Mark of 30 ft and imagine a massive amount of blood and brains blown out the back of Kennedy's head. Would that draw your attention? Secondly, your argument suggests you know the time of the "stop," and that Toni's head is turned so that she couldn't see the stop. But that assumes that a "stop" (in quotes) existed, and Toni missed it. But when exactly, based on the Z-film, did such a "stop" occur? Such a time cannot be identified, so it is no use in claiming Toni's face was turned and she missed the "stop." The one thing that strikes me about Toni's testimony, and I have repeated this at Lancer and on this forum previously, as it has the quality of genuinenes to it, in that it does not appear that she had seen the extant film to color her memory. When Lifton interviewed some of those closest to the limo at the headshot, particularly the Newmans, they were adamant that the limo stopped, and they didn't care what the film showed(see pp. 344-5 in THZFH). This was in 1971, and is one of the most important parts of Lifton's essay Pig on a Leash.

Kathy, one cannot isolate the limo stop as something to be considered in an of itself. Removing the limo stop removes what happend during the stop, and at least one thing happened that has very strong corroborative evidence: that "the spray went behind him," to quote Foster. This alone would be reason to remove the stop, for it would be powerful evidence of a shot from the front, perhaps through the right temple. ITEK's study of the extant Z-film confirms no such ejecta exits the back of Kennedy's head. Now turn to the description of the wound in Dallas: an avulsive wound with bones sprung open in the back, a hole with bone and lots of brains missing. This testimony is completely inconsistent with the extant film, except in a few frames where careful observation does in fact reveal the Dallas wound (I think Z335 and Z370).

It is dangerous to take exception with those closest to the limo based on the assumed authenticity of the extant Z-film, at least in my opinion. Regards, Daniel

For the last month or so, I have been trying to determine whether Officer Chaney was splattered with blood and brain tissue from the Z 313 impact. Certain members of this Forum were quite helpful to me in providing leads. Yesterday, I was able to listen to an mp3 file of a 58 minute interview with Chaney carried out by Fred Newcomb’s research team in 1971-1973. It is referred to in his book, Murder from Within.

Like two other tapes, this tape begins with “John Whitney” on the line for James Chaney. “Whitney” is a pseudonym for Gil Toft, who was helping Fred Newcomb with his book. It becomes immediately apparent that “Whitney” has talked to Chaney before and sent him both a copy of the Zapruder film and the Altgens photo. It is clear from “Whitney’s” questions to Chaney that “Whitney” was hoping Chaney would be able to point out features of the actual event that do not coincide with what the Zapruder film shows. Chaney says he has watched the film a couple of times. “Whitney” then tells Chaney to look for various things: (1) look for “splices” in the film where there is some sort of jerk in the movement of the limousine, (2) watch Connally after the limousine emerges from behind the sign, (3) note that the limousine doesn’t even seem to slow down. This sets up the following exchange:

(4 minutes, 53 seconds)

Q: There are certain ways on film to be able to tell where someone has monkeyed around with the film.

A: I know.. 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.

Q: Yeah, Bobby. I just spoke to him a few minutes ago. There are, I think, at least between 60 and 75 people that day who claimed the car stopped. But even if it didn’t stop..

A: 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?

Q: Right.

A: 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.

Q: Cause that’s another..

A: 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.

Q: That stop is another thing to look for. And then another thing you can look for is to study Kennedy himself. It’s interesting then he gets that main shot that hits him in the head, blows his head up. Ah, all of a sudden you don’t see any blood or matter splashing anywhere, just one quick shot.

A: On this film I’ve got, everything looks like its powdered in white, still white.

Q: Right, right. You just see it that one split second. You don’t see anything flying anywhere.

A: No.

Q: Which is kind of strange..

A: Well, it was all over with as soon as you see it. It did splatter everything.

Q: Right, right. You notice the way Kennedy’s body after he’s hit goes. Lots of things like that. Oh, by the way, did you get that picture we sent also?

A: Yeah, the picture came with the film. (7 minutes, 43 seconds)

Remember the discussion of a year or so back about Chaney accelerating ahead in front of the limousine to reach the lead car and tell Chief Curry what had happened? The claim was that since the Zapruder film (or any other film for that matter) failed to show this, the Zapruder film (and the others) were all faked up. This seems to put the nail in the coffin of that particular claim. Chaney says that “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 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.”

Chalk this one up to the law of unintended consequences.

JT

I regard the interview as valuable, but if the Z-film has been altered then Gil Toft is promoting memory pollution in Chaney. How much better for Toft to have contacted Chaney and asked him to tell him everything he could recall without showing him the film. Then if Chaney's recollections contradicted the extant film, how much more valuable the interview. Notice how Chaney demonstrates a great deal of uncertainty on the limo stop. He "doesn't know" in the early stage of the interview and then he "doesn't think it did." Toft's mistake was to send Chaney the film in the first place, the unintended consequence of which was to color the officer's memory. I would rather read as much as I could of any statements Chaney might have made contemporaneously with the assassination, or what other officers saw of Chaney. REgards, Daniel

Dan,

your friend goes on and on that no one knew about the FBI interviews before he told us, and this is where we made our mistake.

But as usual, he is talking through the wrong orifice and refuses all efforts to be corrected. Perhaps you will be more forthcoming and admit that - why yes - there it right there. Those guys first mention those FBI interviews on page 4 of a very long thread - and well before DSL joined in.

http://educationforu...pic=17269&st=45

The lawyer who helped get Bledsoe through the interview was not just any lawyer. She was part of a coterie of influential Dallas females who were in LBJ's inner circle and included Sarah Hughes who swore LBJ in and Louise Raggio who was in the same church as Michael Paine, but who represented Ruth Paine in proposed divorce proceedings.

On this page, you've find a picture of the bus transfer which helped place Oswald on McWatters bus. David has thus far resisted all temptation to give us his no doubt brilliant understanding of how it remained in such pristine condition in Oswald's shirt pocket considering the roughing up it, and he, got during the arrest. Maybe you'd like to have a go at explaining it?

The only evidence placing Oswald at Mary's house was a calendar allegedly made by Oswald confirming he paid the rent for the first week. This was offered to the FBI by the young man who had PURCHASED it for $4.00 from Mary's son, Porter. The FBI allegedly took a copy of it and left it that. We do not know what happened to the copy. There is no evidence the handwriting was examined (and in any case, they should have kept the original for that, as well as for an examination for prints) . What does that tell you? I'll tell you what it tells me. The FBI knew it was bogus and that is why did not keep it - much less examine it. The kid ended up getting $250.00 at auction for it - which shows any brains Mary may have had, certainly weren't inherited by her son.

Anyhow, here is the news story of the auction sale: http://www.maryferre...bsPageId=737239

Note that the story said Oswald wrote his name "laboriously"? That phrase was actually used by the hand-writing expert used by the auction company (who had a vested interest in maintaining the lie that it was Oswald's writing). But why would Oswald have any difficulty writing his own name? The answer is , he wouldn't. But who would? An elderly lady, or her not-too-bright son, that's who - for the sake of a few bucks.

Greg,

Except for the parts I've bolded, that was a typically persuasive post. Can't you see how much more effective it would be without the unnecessary nastiness or sarcasm? Don't you understand how much harder it would be for David to respond inappropriately himself, if you stuck to your strong analysis of the evidence?

Don , thank you for the links, and I shall glad to read them. The point of my post was to point out that David's reasoning was clear and accessible to someone like me who is a reader,not a researcher, in the case. In David's post there was no insulting language, just arguments that could be answered with dispassionate reasoning. Your reply to me was, for the most part, in kind, and I thank you. The words about the "wrong orifice" were unnecessary, however, and was just a way of hitting back, but did not nevertheless detract from the rest of your good post, which posited a rebuttal as I expected to hear. I suppose I am detached enough from all the personal animosities that exist on this forum to wonder why insulting language is necessary to convey a point. Isn't it just a lot more productive to produce argments for the reader to chew on? For doing that, I thank you. Best regards, Dan

Joe,

I couldn't disagree more. And here's where I believe your theory breaks down. Just consider what you have written:

QUOTE:

They needed a woman who normally took that bus, who would know Oswald, and recite back a story told to her. They found Mary Bledsoe. They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her. There is no evidence that she really was Oswald's landlady. None. No mail for Oswald was redirected there. There's no receipt for the rent. No independent eyewitness ever saw him at Bledsoe's. There's nothing, except Bledsoe let slip the idea that he left some of his luggage behind. UNQUOTE

Now read the 3 FBI reports I have cited. Again, here are the links:

First FBI interview, 11/23/63, by FBI Agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, 340-341)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=329103&imageOnly=true

2nd FBI interview; 11/28/63; by FBI Agent Bardwell Odum; (CD 5, 342-344)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10406&relPageId=347

3rd interview: 12/4/63; by FBI agents Brown and Butler (CD 7, pp 302 – 303)

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=330120

CD 7 About the shirt (but she goes through it again, that she saw him enter the bus); 12/4/63

Now consider --that is, reconsider--what you have written:

"They prep her and put her into a room, with a female lawyer there to help her as she is questioned by the Warren Commission. The WC people questioning her were not the ones who prepped her."

Now the question I pose comes down to this: "Who are 'they'?"

Your analysis implies that all this skullduggery takes place prior to Bledsoe's Warren Commission testimony--but the 3 FBI reports prove otherwise; those three FBI reports make clear that Bledsoe told her story to FBI agent on 11/23/63--and then again in two more FBI interviews.

INSERT ADDED ON 1/3/12: Also please note: Mary Bledsoe provided her account to the FBI on Saturday, November 23, a full day before the Sunday (11/24) press conference held by District Attorney Wade, in which he made a hash of so many facts. So this notion that Bledsoe was dragged out to present a false account which would lend credibility to what Wade had said on Sunday evening is provably false--again: her initial FBI interview (by agents Harrison and Wier, CD 5, pp 340-341, the first of the 3 links I posted--was a full day prior to Wade's news conference) . END OF INSERT

So this notion--a seriously oversimplified notion, imho--that Mary Bledsoe told a false story, as a result of some "prepping" prior to April 2, 1964, when she was deposed in Dallas by WC attorneys Jenner and Belin, is belied by the fact that she told the same story on November 23, 1963, to FBI agents Harrison and Weir (CD 5, pp 340-341) and then again to FBI Agent Bardwell Odum (on 11/28/63) and then again to FBI agents Brown and Butler on 12/4/63.

So the entire notion that her account is a Warren Commission fabrication, is provably false. It is recorded in a sequence of three separate FBI reports starting on November 23, 1963. As you well know, there was no "Warren Commission" back then. The Commission wasn't created until 11/29/63, and the lawyers didn't report for work until early January, 1964--but Mary Bledsoe's account was already a matter of record in three FBI reports, starting the day after the assassination.

Consequently, the entire notion that her account was a concoction of the Warren Commission is provably false.

(INSERT: . . as is the notion that she was somehow "trotted out" to corroborate what Wade said on Sunday, is false, since she provided her account a full day before, on Saturday, 11/23)

So now, if you wish to argue that Mary Bledsoe's story is false, you must argue that between the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and the very next day (Saturday, November 23) Mary Bledsoe was induced to fabricate this entire story of (a ) having known Oswald as her boarder, and (b ) of having seen him (indeed, immediately recognized him) when he boarded McWatters' bus at Elm and Murphy--and then somehow induced to tell this completely false story to two FBI agents on Saturday, November 23--and not only that, but then to repeat it again on November 28, 1963, and then still again on December 4, 1963.

And then, to appear before two Warren Commission attorneys on April 2, 1964, and go through it all again.

So if Bledsoe is "in on it" --i.e., in on this "conspiracy to lie and fabricate"--she commits multiple felonies on November 23, 1963, does it again on November 28, 1963, and still again on December 4, 1963, and then finally --again commits perjury on April 2, 1964!

Not only do I think that is highly implausible and unlikely--I think its perfectly absurd.

As to what I call the "auxiliary hypothesis"--that Bledsoe wasn't Oswald's landlady (for a week, commencing 10/7/63)--the reason for some folks positing that is obvious: those who advance this preposterous hypothesis need to find a way of "proving" (in their minds) that Bledsoe could not possibly have legitimately "identified" Oswald on the McWatters bus, and so by saying Bledsoe was not his landlady, they remove the basis for that instant recognition. They not only compound her felonies (by saying she is lying about that, too) but then have the flimsy basis for believing that she could not have identified Oswald, as she did, because he never boarded with her (i.e., rented in her home) at 621 N. Marsalis in the first place!

I don't believe any of this, and as far as I'm concerned, the obvious motive for those making these claims is that they do not want Oswald on McWatters bus because (instead) they passionately believe that he left Dealey Plaza in a station wagon, as reported by Roger Craig (and others).

So that, imho, is really what's going on here. Of course, once they march down that path, they get tied up in all kinds of other complications: if Oswald was not on McWatters bus, then he was not the person in Whaley's cab; and if he was not the person in Whaley's cab, why then he was not the person who was dropped off by Whaley and ran into the rooming house at 1026 North Beckley, at around 1 p.m., and--finally--if he was not that person, then someone else ran into the rooming house (not Oswald) and so that leaves open the possibility (in the minds of those advancing all this) that Oswald couldn't have been at the scene of the Tippit murder, and perhaps was simply at the Texas Theater, watching the movie, when the police closed in on the theater and pounced on Oswald as Tippit's killer. Or some variation of this sequence. The details are unimportant. The ultimate goal is to completely overturn the "official timetable" by removing Oswald from McWatters' bus.

I believe this entire line of analysis to be false--and the problem starts with this false notion that Mary Bledsoe, who had certainly been Oswald's landlady, for a week, starting on 10/7/63, and who certainly was a passenger on McWatters bus, did not immediately recognize Oswald when he boarded the bus, at approximately 12:40 P.M.

One other thing: I believe your "social" commentary on Mary Bledsoe is also incorrect. You write: "These are poor, working class, blue collar, uneducated people. They are being used and they don't know it. Bledsoe isn't some kind of evil genius. She's a moron."

Sorry, but she's a doctor's daughter, and I just don't see why you characterize her as you do.

DSL

1/3/12; 5:15 AM PST

Los Angeles, California

PS: 1/3/12; 5:40 PM PST: See important "INSERT" above, re Wade's news conference, and its chronological relationship to first FBI interview, which preceded it by a full day. So much, then, for the theory that Bledsoe was being "used" to "cover" for Wade, and some of his bizarre and inaccurate statements. DSL

I am not knowledgeable on the Bledsoe case, but here David Lifton has calmly and rationally presented his case that Bledsoe was on the bus in a manner Joseph Backes can respond in kind. I think that is what forum members like myself who are not researchers but interested readers expect from those who have invested their lives trying to bring the truth of this case to light. I can glean from Lifton's post exactly what supports Bledsoe's being on the bus and the weakness of the position that she wasn't. If all such controversial issues were discussed in the tone and clarity Lifton provides for us here, there would be no need of moderators. Kudos, David, for a well-thought out position, which certainly will promote a well-thought out rebuttal. Regards, Dan

Here is a nice quote from a review of Noel Twymann's Bloody Treason on Amazon. It explains why the Zapruder Film could not have been massively altered (I will agree some critical frames were spliced out.)

"Mr. Twyman fails to explain how the original Z film plus 3 first generation copies, as well as, 2 second generation copies were assembled in one location so the original and all the copies could all be altered in the same way. As of November 26, 1963 Zapruder had the original. Life had a 1st generation copy, FBI in Washington had a 2nd generation copy, Washington Secret Service had a 1st generation copy, Dallas FBI had a 2nd generation copy and the Secret Service in Dallas had a 1st generation copy."

Another quote from an Amazon review: B. Lecloux:

"In Badly Reasoned, at the Harold Weisberg Digital Archive, you will find an excellent book length critique of Twyman's claims [of Zapruder Film alteration]. Weisberg is scathing in his analysis of this book. Further, historian David R. Wrone, in his book on the Zapruder film pretty much puts to bed the notion that the Z film was tampered with.

He carefully shows how there was no time for any tamperers to have had the film. And, how would they know that this was the only film they had to phony up? If they didn't know of every possible photo and video of the event, how would they be able to get away with tampering with the Z film.

In terms of common sense, the charge of faking this film is ridiculous. In terms of the documentary record, which is very clear, it doesn't appear to have happened."

Kind of hard to alter the Zapruder Film when the cat has been let out of the bag and their are so many copies floating around.

Regarding the matter of JFK's limo slowing down - it most certainly did slow down (even the break lights were on) but it did NOT stop. It slowed down to a crawl, perhaps 5 miles per hour, maybe a tad slower than that.

It is certainly possible that Dark Complected Man - who I fully believe was in on the assassination - was signaling the driver William Greer to slow down or stop so that JFK could be killed. Possible but I think a more likely explanation of DCM's actions is that he is signaling a sniper or snipers on the Grassy Knoll that JFK is still alive and we need a head kill shot. DCM is literally standing off the sidewalk, about a foot into Elm Street.

And it does seem very clear that the Secret Service put JFK's limo out front, with no large press bus as had been in other motorcades in Texas, so that JFK could be easily shot. This does not mean that all Secret Service Agents were involved in the JFK assassination, perhaps key players such as James Rowley, who was a good friend of Lyndon Johnson and about his same age. Emory Roberts behavior is quite suspicious, too.

Now back to good ole Umbrella Man - I do think it is probable that he was coordinating with Dark Complected Man (who by the way, was probably an anti-Castro CIA-connected Cuban who hated JFK as much as he hated Fidel Castro). I too an extremely suspicious of Louis Steven Witt and doubt he was indeed Umbrella Man. And if Witt was not, then it brings up the matter the question of who, if anyone, prodded him to come forward and tell a bogus story. Possibly the CIA or the plotters. Someone needs to interview Witt's family and attempt to find out if he really was Umbrella Man.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14870

Ropbert, I think you are behind in your reading of the curious events surrounding the Z-film. You should read Horne and catch up. Having said that, I would repeat, the greatest evidence of alteration is the removal of the limo stop, whatever happened during that time, and the strange blackening out of the back of Kennedy's head so no detail can be rendered as to the nature of the wound there. Regards, Daniel

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

By the same token, Daniel, surely any rational person has to admit that there is very strong witness testimony to the limo slowing down?

And if a rational person then compares the two sets of witness testimony to each other (one being the limo stopped versus the other being the limo slowed down, almost to a halt) which would the rational person conclude was more likely if he was basing it upon the said evidence?

And the Nix film also shows blood and brain matter being expelled forward so that film too has to be altered which then begins to take us into "Chris Matthews is going to have a field day" type territory?

Regards

Lee

It is difficult to sift through the "slowed down" witnessess to "almost stopped" witnesses, to "stopped" witnesses. But the sifting has to be done, and I fear there is a great hesitancy to do this. By the way, I subjectively would link the "almost stopped" witnesses with the "stopped" witnesses as being more corroborative of each other than the "slowed down" witnesses, but that's just an opinion. Based upon Toni Foster, Hargis,Chaney, the Newmans, and a few others, I believe the limo stopped momentarily, for such a short time that others might have said it "almost stopped." But that is again my opinion. I also feel insufficient reflection/study on the matter has hurt the research community and progress on the case. Best, Daniel

What an absolutely pathetic display from Dr. Fetzer.

45 years ago Josiah Thompson made an inavaluable contribution to JFK research when he figured out that the assassination was carried out by three gunmen and that the fatal shot came from the right front. To this day he continues to uphold these basic facts. He also has spends a good deal of time sorting the wheat from the chaff - hence the reason he dismisses the whacky nonsense that is constantly flying out of camp Fetzer. There is absolutely NOTHING in this video to suggest that Tink is about to denounce conspiracy except perhaps in the warped imaginations of the most paranoid individuals with an axe to grind. And suggesting that he is an "op" is beyond pathetic.

Tink's careful, meticulous, logical approach to the evidence and his sober manner make the rest of us researchers look good. On the other hand, Dr. Fetzer's ridiculous, paranoid, over-the-top nonsensical theorising and his "anything that contradicts my theory was altered or faked" reasoning makes us all look like total loons. If anyone is guilty of causing confusion and conflict amongst the research community (such as it is), spoiling our reputations and giving outsiders reason to doubt a conclusion of conspiracy it is not Josiah Thompson.

Can you guess who it is?

Martin, I think you are confusing the manner in which Jim Fetzer presents his ideas with the ideas themselves. Any rational person has to admit there is very strong witness testimony to the limo stop, for example. The manner in which Jim Fetzer presents this information may grate, but he has sufficient witness testimony on his side that argument in and of itself cannot be ignored. There is also the observations at Parkland of an avulsive wound in the back of the head, but according to ITEK, the extant film shows no debris exiting the back of the head. In fact such material exiting the rear of Kennedy's head should have been one of the predominant features of the film, were it genuine. I do not agree with all of Dr. Fetzer's ideas, nor the manner in which he speaks to those with whom he disagrees. But separate the man from his claims, and give thought only to the claims. OK, not all the claims, but ones which have obvious corroboration -- the limo stop for one. Sometimes confusion and conflict within the community are not caused by the works of Jim Fetzer, but by the extraordinary way evidence was falsified in this case, enough to make the collective research community's heads spin in collective confusion. Having said that, I do wish Dr.Fetzer would tone it down, if only to gain a more sympathetic hearing on points where I believe he is on solid ground. Regards, Daniel

It looks as though I will be interviewing someone coming forth as a possible witness to the condition of the JFK assassination limousine SS-100-X after the assassination.

If you have any questions that you would like considering for inclusion, please email me at pamelam1@mindspring.com

Thanks.

A hole in the windshield,and if so, its characteristics, if any can be recalled.

Two of the likable nice republican persons now trying

to become U.S. President are JON HUNTSMAN and MITT

ROMNEY

It is my greatest hope they are not considered by voters

and all others on that fateful day.

From the 1990 manuscript/book CROSSTRAILS

MORMON MANIFESTO

All Mormons must consult their ecclesiastical superiors

to obtain permission before accepting any appointment

that might interfere with their religious duties!

-------------------------------------------------------

Long since embedded in the political,social and

economic fabric of the United States & world.

The question......Future liberty

Arise! Alert to sacrifice

Boycott the 'beastly mark' Mormon mastery

To track all persons thoughts and deeds

Boycott this 'all powerful' apostate Masonry

with assassin grip 'on all U.S. politics'

Boycott their 'common cause' new century

Buy not...Sell not...use not

Boycott it's 'dialectic indignities;

Destroy the 'brute comrades' zeal

Boycott their 'new order' equality

For "U.N. world' work ethic, slavery

Boycott the chaos-creator's 'pale tyranny'

Who's lackeys in 'lethal power' now rule

Boycott 'the plan' of few to subvert majorities

With 'legislated limits' on all rights of liberty!

I can imagine it's 1959 and a similar warning, mutatis mutandis, is issued against that Catholic who was running for President.

More balderdash.

You said that the single bullet theory - which holds that a single bullet struck JFK at T1 heading downwards at 17 degrees, passed through his back/neck to exit his throat and then went on to cause all of Connally's wounds - was a "demonstrated fact". I'm asking you when it was demonstrated that this journey was even physically possible let alone factual.

When and where did this demonstration take place?

Martin, Tom's presentation at Lancer some years back postulated the view that 399 did not cause any wounds to Connally, but remained embedded base first at the top of Kennedy's right lung. A piece of lead, Tom theorizes, shot out the front of kennedy's throat, confusing the Dallas physicians into thinking they were looking at an entrance wound. The problems with this scenario are too many to be counted. Another point: Tom held the view at Lancer that the bullet entered at the 7th cervical vert., not T-1. If Tom has changed his views, it would be good to know.

We're asked by Mr. Purvis to not chase "mythical creatures."

Maybe Tom can explain the mythical creature that existed on the Sixth Floor. The creature that made no sounds. The creature that Harold Norman claimed fired a weapon and from which he heard spent shells hitting the floor but heard no footsteps from. Heard no movement of.

Either the witnesses lied or the creature was in no hurry to leave or a combination of both. Either way the case against Oswald is impacted. Was LHO just wearing his socks and put on his shoes on the stairs or did he have the ability to levitate? Or alternatively Harold Norman is a xxxx and his evidence should be discarded. And if Norman did lie then why did he do so and did he do it under his own volition or was he coerced?

There is so much that goes against Purvis' theory (that he believes is the actual solution) that it's hardly worth the effort listing it all. Next he'll be trying to explain away the lack of nitrates on LHO's face. I'm guessing a McAdamsesque excuse; that the MC was so highly engineered it didn't expel any.

When Purvis uses the language frame "mythical creatures" he actually means awkward questions.

I'm still waiting for the TP explanation of Clinton/Jackson. Another mythical creature I guess?

And I'm still awaiting a response to this question:

Actually, the SBT is a demonstrated fact.

Really? Demonstrated by whom?

Tom, I think the well-thought out objections to your conclusions by Mr. Dolva, Hays and Farley require a response in kind, not condescending language aimed at those of us who disgree with you. Spending $30,000 of your own money to give voice to your views does not give you the right to pour scorn on those who investment has been no less serious than yours. Regards, Daniel

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

Be careful!!!! One could acquire the wrath of the "speculators" by presenting anything which is rational; factual; and which makes simple sense.

Tom, what grieves me is how far above you put yourself above others with whom you disagree, and the contemptuous language you employ therein. Is all this necessary?

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

i think you may be referring to this documentation,, but it is not the same as the previous document...b

I remember Lifton has a discussion of the FBI language in these memos in Best Evidence. There is, on pp. 648-9 in the Caroll and Graf paperback edition an extensive discussion of the problem. On page 649 top: "Until Admiral Osborne's statement [he had seen a bullet roll out of the President's clothing at Bethesda], then, the record shaped up as follows: 1. there was, on the one hand, a receipt for a "missile," but no "missle" in evidence corresponding to that receipt; 2. there was a jar containing two tiny fragments, but no receipt that seemed applicable to that jar; yet the FBI stated, in their own report, that they had executed a "proper receipt" for these two fragments." Most of Chapter 29 on the Osborne allegation is quite relevant. Best,Daniel

Info re Bullet behind JFK ear..

FWIW, the "lodged behind the Ear" memo was written during the autopsy, when information was quite sketchy and transmitted via the phone. The doctors claimed the largest fragment recovered during this autopsy was recovered from behind the right Eye. Eye, not Ear. As a result, I think it's highly probable the reference to the ear was simply a mistake, and that the fragment in question was the so-called 6.5 mm fragment on the A-P x-ray, the fragment recovered from behind the right eye.

Pat, isn't that 6.5 mm fragment also the subject of intense scrutiny and question?

Tom Purvis always is cryptic. I've been able to glean the following over the years, regarding his curious theories:

- He thinks that Oswald fired all the shots, with that rifle, from the sixth floor TSBD.

- He thinks the Warren Commission was a joke and covered things up.

- Not 100% sure, but I believe he thinks the Zapruder film was altered.

Beyond that, it's hard to figure out anything about his seemingly conflicting set of beliefs. What is most amazing of all is that so many here continue to pay attention to his posts.

Well I stand guilty of trying to respond to his cryptic posts, baited by his perfunctory dismissal of wound alteration, body bags, shipping caskets etc. Some time ago on Lancer Tom presented what I thought then and think now is an impossible sencario of CE 399 stiking Kennedy in the neck (at the 7th Cervical)--CE399 is tumbling clockwise due to hitting a tree and enters Kennedy's neck base first and a portion of the base exiting the front of Kennedy's throat, confusing the Dallas doctors into thinking they were looking at an entrance wound. CE 399 did not, according to Tom, exit Kennedy, but stayed lodged at the top of Kennedy's right lung. The bullet is not reported there by the Bethesda physicians so it too has disappeared by the time the body has reached Washington DC. The path of CE 399, according to Tom, is something of a dog leg; entering into Kennedy's neck at one angle, but due to its clockwise tumbling, resided base first in Kennedy's neck at a steeper angle so that the base rests against the apex of Kennedy's right lung. How a substanital piece of the lead core at the base of CE 399 could detach at an angle shallower --indeed, in Tom's picture, the lead core is traveling almost horizontally--than the initial bullet entry angle with the bullet tumbling clockwise is not clear to this reader, nor what happened to CE 399 since neither OP Wright or Tomlinson identified CE 399 as the bullet found at Parkland. Why CE 399 is not in Kennedy at Bethesda is up to Tom to explain. After all, he regularly mocks any notion of wound tampering.

So with David Joseph's fine addition, we now have two bullets lodged in Kennedy-- the Purvis bullet down by the top of the right lung, and the Secret Service bullet lodged behind Kennedy's ear. Actually there is a third -- the one Sibert and ONeill report was found at Parkland that accounted for a wound in kennedy's back and which worked its way out of the back during efforts to save Kennedy's life.

What the blazes happened to those 3 bullets?

Maybe you are referring to this bullet lodged behind JFK's ear?

David, most interesting! Always good to read first day memos. How strange that on Nov. 22 the Secret Service has knowledge of a bullet behind Kennedy's ear. If it is lodged there, it was not seen by anyone at Parkland (not surprising), and Humes testifed he was at a loss to account for there being no bullets in Kennedy. So if it was there at Parkland it was no longer there by the time the body reached Bethesda. "Lodged" behind the ear doesn't sound like a bullet that would in and of itself fall out at Parkland without being seen by doctors attempting to ressucitate Kennedy or the nurses who washed the body. And though someone at Parkland, according to Sibert and oNeill, informed Humes that evening that a bullet had fallen from Kennedy's back during efforts to save the President, there is no immediate testimony to such an event happening by anyone at Parkland, to my knowledge. If such a bullet was lodged behind Kennedy's ear, it might have fallen out, but why no mention of this at Parkland, and why the FBI(?) explanation to Humes that the bullet came from the back?

Would like to know more about this memo. Thanks, Daniel

For those who are not gainfully occupied in chasing mythological creatures throughout Dealey Plaza and who have an actual interest in factual truths as well as documents which will ultimately be of some historical significance, the following information is provided:

Beginning with the first weekly publishing of the newspaper (for the month of November) "THE GEORGE COUNTY TIMES", the relatively simple facts of the third/last/final shot impact to the head of JFK will be published.

Additionaly, for those few who actually have interest in facts, this, the third/last/final shot IS NOT the Z312/313 impact. (which was the second shot).

The third/last/final shot impacted the head of JFK at approximately survey stationing 4+95, which happens to be almost 30-feet farther down Elm St. from where the Z313 impact occurred.

Continuation of weekly publication throughout the month of November will be done until virtually all aspects of the third shot impact (aka "THE SHOT THAT MISSED"/aka the one and only true "MAGIC BULLET") have been presented.

Tom Purvis

P.S. For those who are already on the "distribution list", you will continue to receive your copy of each weekly publishing.

P.P.S. For Mr. Mack. Although the copies have yet to be made, you/The Sixth Floor Museum, can count on having a full-sized copy of the Warren Commission Survey Plat in hand by the first week of November as well.

If one has to be on your distribution list in order to receive your theory on the shooting, please let me know how one may be included on it. I have sufficient time to pull myself away from chasing mythological creatures to give your ideas a patient hearing. Always the best to you, Daniel

This article by David Welsh appeared in Ramparts Magazine in November, 1966:

Mrs. Roberts, the plump widow who managed the rooming house where Oswald was living under the name O.H. Lee, was one of the key witnesses before the Warren Commission. She testified that "around 1 o'clock, or maybe a little after" on November 22, Oswald rushed into the rooming house, stayed in his room for "not over 3 or 4 minutes" and walked out zipping on a light-weight jacket. The last she saw of him he was waiting at a nearby bus stop. A few minutes later, one mile away, Officer Tippit was shot dead; Oswald was accused of the crime.

Mrs. Roberts also testified that during the brief time Oswald was in his room, a police car with two uniformed cops in it pulled up in front of the rooming house, and that she did not recognize either the car or the policemen. She heard the horn honk, "just kind of 'tit-tit'... twice," and after a moment saw the police car move off down the street. Moments later Oswald left the house.

The police department issued a report saying all patrol cars in the area (except Officer Tippit's) were accounted for. The Warren Commission let it go at that. It did not seek to resolve the question: what were policemen doing honking the horn outside Oswald's rooming house 30 minutes after a Presidential assassination? Their swift departure would indicate they certainly were not coming to apprehend him. It is perhaps too far fetched to imagine that they were giving Oswald some kind of signal, although it seems as plausible as any other explanation of this bizarre incident.

After testifying in Dallas in April of 1964, Mrs. Roberts was subjected to intensive police harassment. They visited her at all hours of the day and night, contacted her employers and identified her as the Oswald rooming house lady. As a result she was dismissed from three housekeeping and nursing jobs in April, May and June of 1964 alone; no telling how many jobs she lost after that. Relatives report that right up until her death a year and a half later, Earlene complained of being "worried to death" by the police.

Mrs. Roberts died January 9, 1966, in Parkland Hospital. Police said she suffered a heart attack in her home. No autopsy was performed.

I am of the opinion that Earlene Roberts correctly identified the number of the patrol car when she was first asked about it. The change in number developed because of this constant harassment she apparently suffered.

The original number she gave was of the car that was driven by Jim Valentine and escorted Gerald Hill and reporter Jim Ewell to the TSBD. The car from that point mysteriously dropped off the radar until late afternoon.

I don't believe anything that surrounded Gerald Hill that afternoon was a coincidence and the fact that Earlene Roberts "mistakenly" plucked out of thin air the number of a car that he was connected to defies belief.

Hill claims he went to Oak Cliff from the TSBD with Captain Westbrook. The problem with this is Westbrook doesn't remember him being in the same car.

Lee, if the newspaper photo at this link of Earlene Roberts and her sister was widely published, I am sure it contributed more to her public notoriety than any effort the DPD managed on their own. It should have dawned on both sisters that it was not a good idea to talk to the press or to be available for a news photographer. Not meant to be a defense of the DPD, but the president had been shot and killed, and a cop, and the sisters were reported to have recently rented to the guy the TV, radio, and newspapers reported was responsible for the shootings. To this day, we find no photos at that time, of Linnie, Wesley, Bledsoe, or Milton Jones, yet Roberts and Johnson were photographed within hours. Jones seems to be the only one I mentioned who had an advantage. The other three, I think, knew better. Have you ever seen a photo of the third sister, Ms. Bogle, or of Nancy Perrin Rich?

Tom, neither woman looks particularly happy with their picture being taken and it seems a trivial point that Earlene could not have anticipated the police harrassment she would receive, not because she gave Oswald a room (did they harass the TSBD managers for giving Oswald a job?)but because what she reported linked the police to Oswald in an unflattering way. Respectuflly, Daniel