Larry Hancock

I've heard his name in passing but have never seen him within the JFK community nor seen any vetting of his work.  If he has tapes I presume he would have shared copies or transcripts.  At this point in time I have an open mind about a lot of purported evidence but if someone claims to have it in hand and does not make it available then I don't spend much time on it or them...

I've seen no evidence or corroboration for it, only talk on forums over the years.  As with other purportedly explosive documents, films, photos etc, its hard to imagine that a copy would not have been shared now if it were real.  Its hard to understand why we would not have seen it?  Apparently this is even more interesting since I gather claims have been made by one or more individuals to have it in their possession - so it would not be considered just another "lost" document. 

Also, I don't seem to see a thread with your asking Jim D about the document?

Great,  sometimes is difficult to see something which mentions your name in a quick scan of the threads...I've missed thing before that way.  I'm sure Jim will respond and I will certainly be interested myself.

Calvin, I suggest you do another post and put Jim D's name at the front of it to get his attention, he is visiting the forum but he many not notice this..

I hope Jim shows up to comment on this...you might message him via this forum.  I've seen this claim bounce around online for decades but could never find anything to back it up.  If Jim has documented it that would be very important.

Unfortunately Jim's Jenmkins story is uncorroborated and there really is nothing to confirm Burkley's "management" of the autopsy other than Jenkins that I'm aware of or have been able to find.  If someone has that I'd like to see it.

Frankly given that the senior Navy officers/Doctors at Bethesda totally blew off Burkley's initial attempt to block a full autopsy and simply do an exploratory for the bullet I'm not sure how much influence he would have had in terms of controlling the overall process?  As usual we are left at the mercy of individual memories and claims that contradict each other. 

Which I why I tend to hang on points we can prove and focus on the fact that Burkley obviously did know something that he felt indicated multiple shooters and a conspiracy. That much is clear.

The fact that he offered that to the HSCAt and then chose to back off and the fact that he did retain some autopsy materials that never came under "control" and troubled both LBJ and later AG Clark is also important to remember. Equally troubling is that his daughter refused to support Burkley's own lawyer in making his papers available to the ARRB.

As I recall Burkley came directly to Bethesda where his first act was to try to prevent any autopsy at all, saying they were simply to extract a bullet as evidence; the President's killer was already in custody. 

When that was rejected he became personally involved in the autopsy to an unknown extent...none of the Doctors would ever state anything specific in regard to what direction he might or might not have given...a rather convenient loss of memory on their part - as was so much else.

All of which diverts attention from his most important act, an initial offer to the HSCA to provide information in support of the position that  a conspiracy to kill the President.

RFK appears to have had obvious concerns and most importantly suspcions, as reflected in his immediate phone calls of the afternoon - concerns about CIA officer and about radical anti-Castro Cubans (as I described in Tipping Point, there were warnings about them, with concerns most recently expressed on the President's trip to Florida).

Plausible deniability in assassination was certainly alive and well during the Eisenhower administration - and under John Foster Dulles and his brother.  And of course it continued for covert political and even military warfare under JFK, Johnson et all. 

When guilt was introduced into the assassination it first came from Johnson, and the idea of "blowback" guilt came most directly from John Roselli during his preemptive strike against the Garrison investigation. 

The real blowback was from the lies about the Bay of Pigs, the peaceful resolution of the missile crisis and JFK's view that the Cuba problem might be solved though negotiation.

As I recall Mabra was coming from his assignment at the Elm and Houston intersection.  Since the motorcade was primarily treated as a traffic control problem regular officers were stationed at intersections with reserves on the street in between...but nobody beyond the Elm / Houston intersection.

I'm afraid for way too long we have speculated about the intricacies of the conspiracy at its highest levels and treated things going on in the Plaza independently, simply arguing over each of them again and again. What I tried to do was step back and look at it from a tactical perspective, as anyone with paramilitary experience would if they were involved with an ambush in an urban environment.

Of course we are handicapped in doing that because that's not the way the police investigated it either.  An exploding squib behind the fence for a diversion, lighted from a cigarette - nothing left but footprints and butts, weapons tossed into car trunks and no trunk searches (and the list of license plates and names disappears too), the large wooden shipping boxes in the TSBD never examined, easy to have an end off, toss in a rifle and slam wood back on - once they find the rifle you planted they will stop looking anyway.  Same for any brass you picked up.

All we know is that any reasonably sophisticated covert attack was not going to be exposed by the investigation that was done. Not when you have even the simplest one shooter frame in play. History shows us that with an obvious suspect in custody the tendency is almost always to declare victory and move on to strengthen the case against them, not expand the investigation.

That's a good question David, from memory I would say that neither Cuban CI at WAVE nor later SAS actually considered it as actionable intelligence even thought the rumors had been circulating as early as the winter of 1962 - they may have been becoming a bit more cautions since of course the exile groups were pushing any rumor that might cause military action against Castro.

I don't think that WAVE ever had any direct intel out of its remaining on island contacts to vet the rumors, nor even which group was supposedly holding the defectors.  Given that, the quantity of assets and time devoted to the mission is really quite exceptional.

It took months for the rumors to translate into what you would have to consider a political prodding led largely by Pawley and supported by Senator Eastland.  The initiative did not come from within the CIA nor do they appear to have done anything really to vet the intel, it was more a matter of responding to Pawley. 

The overall span of the thing, from rumors to actually mission was something on the order of six months. 

To save  you some searching, you will find the story and some citations in Segment 1 of Tipping Point- in the Helter Skelter section:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point_Part1.html

David, honestly I wish I could just persuade people to read the material that we have collected and written on this - it gives a far fuller picture than I can paint here (and would make me feel better about doing all that work). 

But to clarify,  Pawley was the driver behind the mission, lobbying King and Shackley for support.  That support ultimately consisted of a number of CIA paramilitary officers, as well as maritime mission planning, communications coordination between the various boats and aircraft and even the assignment of one of the two CIA "ghost ships" to provide radar overwatch.

Th Cuban volunteers were provided by Pawley - with Bayo a very last minute addition - and did receive some minimal security vetting.  However when the CIA raised concerns about them, about Bayo and  to having a LIFE photographer on the mission Pawley successfully pushed back, telling Shackley they were his employees and he would be responsible for them (he may have been a bit cautions himself since their weapons were not issued until late in the mission). 

I don't know exactly what I said to suggest otherwise but the mission members did include Pawley's "employees", Martino, Bayo and CIA PM officers. As to who else could have been sent - it if truly been a normal CIA maritime mission the Cuban's would have been from vetted and experienced WAVE PM cadre, people paid off the WAVE budget and working for Robertson or the other PM officers...in this instance they were not, WAVE was essentially supporting a private mission into Cuba - a violation of all standing Presidential directives. 

Irrespective of Hall,  it should be noted that we have a huge amount of information on the actual initiation of the TILT project, in particular the role of Martino, and much more importantly that of William Pawley in his outreach to both JC King and Shackley at WAVE. 

The exchanges between Pawley and Shackley are documented as are objections of CIA security over the very late inclusion of Pawley's selected Cuban volunteers (only accepted because Pawley himself paid for them and forced the issue),  the inclusion of Bayo (who a security check showed had previously scammed the CIA with a similar proposal), and the inclusion of LIFE magazine - also brokered by Pawley but approved by King.  All demonstrating that the op was as much of a political action to Pawley and King as it was in any sense a true intelligence action. 

We also have the extensive mission debrief document, and finally Shackley's self serving admission that although the CIA had been fooled, it was a good thing because it had impressed Pawley and influential Senators that the CIA was very responsive and "cooperative".  

All this is referenced in Tipping Point, much of it was in SWHT and David Boylan no doubt could provide document references at great length.   If anyone wants the real history and details of the operation....

Good link Robert, I actually refer to that in Tipping Point and cite that particular link myself.  We speculate a lot about the motives of many people yet the remarks by Morales's life long friend Reuben and Harvey's wife seem to me to carry far stronger weight. These people just didn't dislike JFK's policies, they considered him a traitor and literally hated him.

I agree Ron, and to be perfectly honest Johnson was essentially a coward when faced with personal danger, his war experience reflects that and Caro describes it.  For that matter running from a group of ultra right wing women in Dallas, fleeing with Lady Bird from their protest signs as he had done only earlier sort of confirms that. 

My book Surprise Attack grew largely out of a curiosity to compare the reactions of presidents and the national security apparatus in response to national crises.  What I found was that the system itself often responds as it did after Dallas.....moving to what you might call damage control, including containment and suppression of information....but Johnson's personal reaction as Commander in Chief was an exception, he was extremely detached.  Compare his involvement after Dallas to his involvement with the Tonkin Gulf or the Liberty incidents.

In any event, I find his behavior after the attack in Dallas to be a very strange mix of personal unconcern and detachment from the duties of Commander in Chief.  He demanded to be installed in that position as soon as possible...and then did nothing with the responsibility for hours (other than making a still mysterious call to Hoover after his return to DC which does not appear on the record but which Manchester documented).

The best option as to what might have caused such dysfunctional behavior is what I offered in 'SWHT. ,

Let me try those one at a time:

First, Roselli coded his expense report for the trip to ZRRIFLE operations and we have a document saying that Helms had funded the project through the end of the year.  We have nothing to corroborate that operations were totally shut down in April, we just don't have any concrete records of what might have continued, including ongoing training for personnel to go into Cuba to assassinate Castro. There are anecdotal stories of a special, compartmentalized camp used for such a training, supported by Rip Roerbson and isolated from the rest of WAVE activities. 

Segment 5 really deals with my views on higher level involvement - as well as a post I just made to Pete in this thread earlier today so you might want to check that out.

Angleton did not take over the Cuba desk (if anything that remained under JC King, Chief Western Hemisphere), what actually happened was that during 1961 he was given a special assignment to investigate Cuban intelligence penetration of the first Cuba Project.

He worked with Miami station for much of 1961 doing an extended study of CI failure in the first project and preparing a report on fixes...one of the outcomes was the creation of the Cuban Intel Service at JMWAVE, which incorporated many of the AMMOTS Morales had trained.

A personal bond did later develop between Angleton and Harvey, as related to Castro assassination, I detail that in NEXUS and its covered in the bio on Harvey that I mentioned to Steve in another post today.

On your final point, the Castro assassination project was certainly live going into 1963 and it continued on for several months, what we have no real details on are which particular Cuban volunteers were part of that project or exactly what they were doing that year...or where they ended up for that matter.  The committee was just getting around to asking Roselli about that last phase, when he was killed before going back in front of their investigators. 

Roselli tells us the JFK assassination was carried out by personnel that had been involved with a CIA program to kill Castro; Wheaton tells us the same thing. 

As to operational approval, as I pointed out in an earlier segment of Tipping Point, these volunteers were used to taking orders, especially from people like Robertson or Lynch whom they trusted.  Nothing ever on paper, no verbal countersigns from higher up...just do it.....asking questions violates operational security.

For your last point, again I refer you to the same comments I gave to Pete, with one exception....if you refer back to SWHT you will see that I do hold an option, which I spell out in considerable detail (with names) that Johnson had some minimal level of knowledge that something was going to take off the hook in the Baker scandal befire it all blew back on him in Congress.  All that he should do was to be calm and accept whatever occurred to bring that about - without any questions.

Pure speculation on my part, but with some factual info behind the speculation spelled out in two chapters in the book - none of which I put into Tipping Point because I see it as not directly relevant to the attack,  but only to the suppression of any inquiry into conspiracy that he might have driven (and to those really interesting calls from the White House to Texas on that Friday night from his aide).

It's just hard for me to grasp no knowledge at the top of what was going to happen.  Things like my belief that LBJ was briefed in advance so he wouldn't over react.  Talbot says Dulles did spend the evening and rest of the weekend at his residence on the farm, fired or not. . .  He'd been to Dallas a month before for the first time in his life on one of three stops (?) on his book tour.  I know proof of nothing.  Another coincidence.  

I doubt this particular issue will ever be resolved; there is not doubt a great many people intuitively suspect a much broader conspiracy. And given the issues and attitudes against JFK's and his policies in many circles of the time,  its always possible to tie other people and other groups into a conspiracy scenario.

As for me, I tried in SWHT 2010 and then in Tipping Point to present  both the indications and logic behind the idea that a lot of the elements which cast suspicion on the FBI, the DPD, the CIA and even the SS have to do with a) their covering up their own pre-assassination knowledge of and use of Oswald and b) mistakes and negligence on their own part, that especially pertains to the SS.  

I also made the case, beyond that, for indications of an official, Presidential sanctioned campaign of obfuscation and suppression based on National Security concerns (and possibly a bit of guilty knowledge on LBJ's part).  That may even have been supported by a still classified national security directive (just speculation on my part, wait another 100 years and it might or might not surface).

But I know none of that is ever going to compete with suspicions of a broader conspiracy - its just impossible to prove a negative, especially one in the venue of conspiracy.  We see that every day in contemporary times.

What I can do is answer  your final question and say that the print version is targeted for Q1.  Still a lot of work to do ranging from corrections and elaborations (some suggested in this thread) to copy/content additions based on brand new information that has only come to my attention over the last month or so.  With Rex's tolerance that will add a few more pages to the book. 

And then there is the final proof read and ultimately the index.   Still, if we both survive all that, and if I can write new copy quickly enough, still shooting for the end of Q1 (and glad it will have a 2021 copyright, not 2020).

Steve, I described a good bit of the correspondence in NEXUS but the real source is in Harvey's biography by Stockton.  The only reason we have any real insight to their later association is though his work and the correspondence provided by Harvey's wife. It provides a far different story than what had previously been in public view.

https://www.amazon.com/Flawed-Patriot-Rise-Legend-Harvey/dp/1574889915

As to their working relationship on assassination and on Angleton's work on Cuban counter intelligence following the Bay of Pigs disaster, including with the AMOT's, that is cited to documents and you will find it in NEXUS. 

Pete, I'm going to be a contrarian once again and say that while Dulles's worldview might certainly influenced the senior officer cadre that he had around him for so long I don't see any sign of operational involvement in a conspiracy to kill JFK.  For that matter, a great deal of his earlier extreme actions were driven by his brother's influence over him rather than at his own initiative.  John Foster Dulles had to carry a great deal of the blame for taking the U.S. off the rails in international relations during the Eisenhower regime.  

As to Allan, he often either just channeled his brother or quite literally took a remark from Eisenhower and passed it on to a senior officer who took it as an order (I tried to show again and again in NEXUS that was one of the biggest dangers of how the CIA was operating under Dulles).  Presidential authority got lost in the world of subtle conversations and indirect dialog in the Directors office at CIA....resulting in political assassinations which never carried any real authority. 

It became a contagion, as an example J.C. King was the first officer to propose killing Castro - and quite frankly was the senior officer that approved the TILT mission, a political action which could have eviscerated the Kennedy administration had it succeeded.  Frankly I think King doesn't get nearly enough attention, a man with extreme views who was operationally in charge of Western Hemisphere for way to long.

As a more direct answer, all I can postulate as I did in Tipping Point is that there were conversations which would have involved Dulles, Angleton, Harvey - the latter two some of the most paranoid and off the rails people you would find anywhere - ,and Helms about their concerns over JFK's drift towards negotiation and neutrality in international relations, which they considered both extremely naive and actually dangerous.  Those conversations were repeated within Operations, likely to King but more importantly down stream to officers in SAS/WAVE. 

The whole purpose of Tipping Point was to lay out a very concrete scenario how those conversations were translated into a conspiracy by a clique of Cuba Project alumni in Miami - I know that is too low level to be satisfactory for many but that's the way I see it.  Dulles and an "influencer", yes....as someone giving orders, the operational driver in a conspiracy...not in my opinion.

I don't know if you consider that "setting in motion", to a certain extent it would be I suppose, little different than how earlier conversations had triggered actions with no orders given. It certainly would not have been the first time, just the most extreme. 

Commenting on that leads me to revisit the situation inside CIA operations, in particular at JMWAVE.   First, over the two years leading up to the conspiracy there were immense emotional stresses and literal hatred created among virtually all the personnel with the initial Cuba Project, in particular those officers working in the military  operations, the maritime operations at both the Guatemala bases, at Miami Station and in the base in the Keys. 

The dynamics of that and the vitriol involved in it appear in segment 2 but for anyone really interested, I cover them in more detail in my most recent book In Denial, in its chapters on JFK and the Bay of Pigs.

So in terms of tensions and a deep seated mistrust of JFK you only need to look at how Esterline communicated that to those in the chain of command and follow him down to Miami, to Moore, to Morales, and to the exiles in the maritime operations there.  I just referenced that a bit in my reply to Ron.  I think I make it pretty clear where that attitude resided within the chain of command in 1963, stretching back to DC.

In segment 5 I discussed how it was being fueled by ongoing information coming from DC,  from Harvey but also in word about the new programs and attitudes being carried down by Fitzgerald to Shackley, Moore and Morales...and I describe their attitudes. I have to believe that given the depth of those emotions, individuals might well have offset much of the normal concern over the assassination and of JFK's murder you would expect to find after his death.

Now directly to your question, which I read as being the tension following the assassination...and that is more speculative.  What is obvious is that there were a number of officers who did suspect (with good reason) that the attack had come from CIA assets, with officer involvement. 

I cite statements from Kent and Phillips in the book to that point and also describe an actual investigation that was conducted within Miami station and then destroyed, suppressed and literally denied by Shackley.  So he lied about that, which goes a bit beyond suspicion. 

Going back up the chain of command, I think there were suspicions at headquarters but the Director himself had assured RFK the CIA had not been involved so nobody was too likely to raise that question again - his denial preempted within the organization even though with his limited experience, he really had no justification to give it nor RFK to believe it.

Beyond that its pretty clear that SAS and WAVE and even Mexico City had enough worries about what they had been doing in and around Oswald to be more engaged with suppression than inquiry - certainly they had to cover up a great deal of those activities, especially in regard to New Orleans and Mexico City.

Was their tension at headquarters, yes - but my suspicion was that consisted more of a great desire to deal with their immediate Oswald related problems.  I really doubt there was any high level desire to investigate. Whatever anyone suspected or knew was overridden by personal concerns and by fears of survival of the Agency as a whole - whom everyone still saw as a front line unit in the fight against global communism.  Right or wrong I imagine that was used as the justification for just moving on.

If we knew more about who really participated in the April contacts, not just in Miami but in the Keys it would really help explore the roots of the conspiracy that developed in the fall.  While Morales was very likely a candidate Deputy Chief of Station Moore may have been as well.  As an old Cuba project/Bay of Pigs guy and being in charge of all maritime operations he is another very real person of interest.  We just know a lot less about him personally than we do Morales.  At the moment he is still a work in progress and I expect more about him (as well as a couple of other things) to show up in the print version of Tipping Point if I don't exceed Rex's editorial patience.

The Lechuga / Duran story deserves far more attention than it has received and is based in deep research by Bill Simpich and Stu Wexler, now continued by David Boylan (who is working the Moore lead as well). I would say it is one of the deepest and perhaps the most seminal leads to explain events in Mexico City (including Emilio Rodriquez, Tony Sforza, the AMOTS and the impersonation of Oswald) than anything else I've seen. 

More importantly, it provides a very specific path by which Oswald would have been selected as the ideal patsy for Dallas....a path leading back directly to Miami and SAS/WAVE personnel.

Richard,  I certainly think there was a very quick response to cover up indications of conspiracy,  I just don't see it as all pre-planned (even LBJ's calls back to Texas that evening to shut down any mention of conspiracy much less charges are suspicious, but are also consistent with the almost universal desire for control over any crisis). 

Part of my reasoning is based on my friend Connie Kritzberg's experience with her article quoting a Parkland Doctor describing a shot from the front after treating the President.  He was very clear to her, she wrote it up very clearly and submitted her article before 9 PM that evening.  When published the wording was slightly changed to obfuscate the Doctors remarks about a shot from the front.  When she protested to her editor he referred her to the FBI. 

Later research by Connie suggests that newspaper reports were being referred to the FBI over night and that copy for the edition carrying her story was "tweaked".  To some extent that is not terribly unusual as major crimes often have key pieces of information stripped out of what the press prints in order to aid the investigation.

What I've concluded is that there were multiple items of news reporting, interviews - even DPD interviews - which suggested conspiracy and that lasted all the way up to the FBI reports the autopsy observers filed around midnight.  But beginning on Saturday the story the flow of information became constrained and actually began to turn totally around on Sunday.

Also, if you read segment 5 of Tipping Point or SWHT 2010 for that matter, you will find a case for a national security directive ordering that evidence of conspiracy be controlled and suppressed beginning on Saturday.  That is consistent with what happened to the autopsy materials over the weekend, with the FBI change in direction to order a total focus on Oswald and the order on Sunday only to build a case against him. 

So to answer your question, I do think there was a control and suppression operation, which began very quickly, but to be blunt it was so half-assed and failed in so many respects that we can now see pieces of it literally scattered all over the place. 

Indeed it is so poor that it almost didn't hold together in 1964 - and we can now deconstruct it in extensive detail....I just see no sign that it was anything more than an iterative, knee jerk reaction to gain control of the situation and avoid dealing with was was pretty quickly obvious as a conspiracy (obvious to a number of well placed people that I quote in Tipping Point and to many others who quickly determined it best to just shut up because nobody wanted to hear anything to the contrary). 

Matt,  strictly in terms of how this relates to Tipping Point, in particular segment 5, my view would be that the film was a matter of record even in Dallas, before it got to Hawkeye, before NPIC, and certainly in the form of the storyboards that were used in the initial briefing.  It had even been purchased by LIFE. Many people including the media were aware of it.  Making it vanish would have fanned speculation about conspiracy and coverup. 

The only choice was that of obfuscation, restricting access to it, controlling the elements of it that did get into print in the public media, writing about it so as to fit the lone nut scenario (the article which talks about the president turning to face the TSBD when he was shot, pure nonsense showing how far matters could be stretched).  All stupid stuff, just barely good enough to make the official story stick - but that is true for a great many areas including the autopsy.  And all of it explaining why so many people at various levels were had good reason to be skeptical of the lone nut story - which literally had to be forced into the public record.

And to that extent it was all in opposition to the plot and conspiracy I sketch out, not in support of it.

Chris, as a history buff, with a history degree, and as a history writer I've come to feel that "history" ("a study of past events") can be accurate, but that accurate history is not necessarily popular history ("a broad genre of historiography that takes a popular approach, aims at a wide readership, and usually emphasizes narrative, personality and vivid detail over scholarly analysis").  

I can recall a historiography professor making that quite clear in discussing source material - warning us about relying too much on news articles, even news of a given period since media news has its factual limitations.  If its reporting directly from the scene it may have value, otherwise its likely contaminated by editorial agendas.

We were warned that popular histories run the same risks, since they are often written for large circulations and may be constrained by the publishers objective's (these days by politicized school book review committees, look at Texas or Colorado).  

Academic histories should be superior but reality wades in even then because academic works are often so sterile and cumbersome their circulation becomes limited to academia.  Academic publishers hardly ever make a profit and have to be subsidized, popular publishers find a very limited market for works that meet the source and citation standards for academic publication.

Having said all that its easy to slam the media, or popular history publishers or even popular history authors (as much as a certain "Killing everybody" figure comes to mind).   The other side of the coin are readers who demand personality, intimate details and sensationalism - and who only want the history that fits their own worldview.  Plenty of room for blame on both sides.

Having lived though the Camelot era I can say that it does really bring back good memories and its not just naive nostalgia.  Even though my family were hard nosed conservatives and opposed many of JFK's actions - including school integration - there was never the sort of personal bitterness we see now.  There were comedy albums about the Kennedy's but the social life at the White House,  Jackie's personality, JFK's touch football games, they were all viewed as very real and in a sympathetic light by most people.  While we often focus on the hate found in certain circles, the national tone was quite different.  While we tend to dwell on people who demonize the New Frontier, or the Space Race or the Test Ban treaty, the general sense of new beginnings was quite real - I can even recall being fired up about JFK's health programs and the call for walks and exercise.

Well just to make myself as clear as possible...what I was attempting to say is that my experience with public viewings of the film leads me to believe that the general public often responds to the film with the impression that the president has been shot from the front...for people unfamiliar with the film that produces a real emotional impact and opens many of them up to a frontal shot and brings the official story into question.

I simply maintain that if the film, along with many of the other early public remarks out of Dallas including Oswald being driven away in a station wagon and witnesses seeing smoke and apparent shooting from the fence-line,  had been widely seen by the public it would have made life much more difficult for the lone nut story. 

I can say from personal experience that the shooting of Oswald by Ruby raised considerable doubt in the public mind about the lone nut line that was emerging that weekend.  The film would have given further push to public skepticism.

I did not maintain the film as we see it now proved multiple shooters; I will say that we may well not see now (due to likely frame removal or manipulation among other things) precisely what McMahon observed and mentioned...which in reality was simply something that impressed him that there were multiple shooters. 

Given that there were two sets of story boards made, and that the first was supposed to be destroyed and produced panic when it was found not to have been, certainly something about the presentation as supported in the first set raised a real problem for the official lone nut story line. 

I thought I was clear that I was open to frame removal, frame manipulation and even to the possibility to tampering to the image of the wound in the rear of the head.

It is sort of surprising to me that we cannot even agree that the Z film, even as we see it now, raises doubt (and would have raised even more then in combination with information out of Dallas) in many peoples minds about a single lone nut shooter firing only from the rear.