Tom Neal

Armor, SGT E-5, at the time the picture was taken.

Chris,

Pardon the OT y'all, but since we're having some fun here...

I have an acquaintance who claims he made it from 'no stripes' to '3 up and 2 down'; E-7, (if memory serves)...in ONLY 3 years. This occurred in the late 60's. I'm unfamiliar as to how long it takes for typical promotions in the USA. Come to think of it he just said "Army" - he didn't say *whose* army...

After 3 years wouldn't he have been extremely lucky to have just made SGT on his way out the door?

TIA,

Tom

I'm guessing he's USArmy and those are the Bronze Oak Leaves of an O-5... but I could be wrong.

Glenn,

FWIW, Bronze Oak Leaves = Major = O-4

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess you were Navy???

Tom (former O-3 = ADM)

This is my hypothesis, in slow motion, as it were:

(1) The *pointy* bullet enters the forehead causing little damage, the small orifice cannot possibly move an adult, much less reverse his forward movement.

As the bullet enters the spheroid skull, the expanding pressure wave preceding it dramatically increases internal pressure until the skull ruptures. Prior to the skull rupture, we have a spheroid containing high pressure with a small hole approximately equal to the diameter of the intruding bullet. This small hole is inadequate in size to prevent an increase in internal pressure. Brain tissue, blood, fluid, etc. are expelled through the small bullet hole.

This is analogous to the combustion chamber of a rocket engine in the sense that "thrust" is produced by the high velocity exit of mass from within the skull.

Pardon the venture into Rocket Science 101, but this is the ONLY way to calculate the forces at work:

THRUST = mdot Ve + (Pe - Po)Ae

"mdot" = the change in mass of the head due to the ejection of blood, brain tissue, etc.

"Ve" = the velocity of the ejected matter

"Pe-Po" = the pressure within the skull - the ambient pressure

"Ae" = the area of the bullet hole

If you will provide the mass of the ejected matter via the entry wound, the velocity of this matter at the exit point, the existing pressure within the skull,and the area of the hole in his forehead, I will gladly calculate the thrust produced via the hole in JFK's forehead. This is a simple equation, requiring only multiplication, addition and subtraction. Finally, if you will provide the time interval over which this thrust occurred, I will gladly calculate the total force available to move the body rearward. Until you can calculate this total force, the velocity of his body movement following bullet entry is pure conjecture.

Your statement that this "small orifice cannot possibly move an adult, much less reverse his forward movement." begs the following question: How much force IS required to "move" an adult. Did JFK's entire 180 lb. body actually move from one location to another (i.e. translate) or did he simply pivot at the waist (and neck)? The body from the waist up, pretty much balances atop the pelvis and this balance is maintained by various muscles. This man was brain dead-did his muscles oppose the movement? I don't know how much force is require to pivot the upper body, but my guess is, not much. Not identical of course, but more easily visualized: Stand on your "tip-toes" with your body as relaxed as possible - go to your 'happy place' - without warning someone applies a small to moderate force to your head. Will you lose your balance? If you don't react to recover you balance, I suspect you will topple over backwards.

Next, what happens as the bullet exits the skull leaving another avenue of pressure release? Are you certain the bullet creates a small hole in the rear of the skull, and only then does the back of the head come off? Since the pressure wave precedes the bullets position, wouldn't the expanding pressure *ahead* of the bullet blow the rear of the skull off, *prior* to the arrival of the slower traveling bullet?

Your statements numbered 2-5 can only be dealt with if we can reach a consensus regarding statement 1.

Tom

So the single, most damning piece of evidence in the whole case, the one that kept the Z film locked up in a safe for over a decade...

Are you absolutely certain that the "back and to the left" movement is the "one" reason the Z film was not released? Hiding the limo "stop", hiding the interval between JFK and JBC's reaction to being hit by the same shot, the probable damage to the freeway sign, etc. would be adequate reasons... If so, then the hiding of the Z-film does NOT prove the violent motion *HAD* to occur.

Only if you are assuming the extant Zapruder film is intact and unaltered and the "violent" movement is not an artifact of editing.

Barring collective hypnosis, the violent back snap is incontrovertible.

As Chris states above, alteration of the film could easily create this violent motion. Suppose what actually occurred was JFK went limp from the massive blowout of his brain when he was shot in the head. He could simply have collapsed backward, but not violently. If there was a shot from the front, why don't we see more blood and brain tissue? The trunk hood, and interior were covered. To remove the blood spatter or evidence of a front shot frames had to be excised. This would cause a speeding up of JFK's rearward motion. Additionally, most believe that the limo "stopped" until the head shot, and then immediately accelerated. This would also exacerbate his movement rearward.

Tom

Is impossibiltate a real word, Jon?

Bob,

Great to have you back!

Tom

Why? Because such scenario impossibilitates (*) the violent back snap.

Only if you are assuming the extant Zapruder film is intact and unaltered and the "violent" movement is not an artifact of editing.

I think Chris is exactly correct here. This section of the film was almost certainly altered, and IMO this was done to remove evidence of two almost simultaneous shots.

Personally, I haven't decided *exactly* what was excised from the film at this point, but I'm convinced it does *not" represent reality. IMO there were 2 closely spaced headshots, one from the rear, and one from the front that impacted somewhat tangentially. i.e. The path of the bullet did not traverse the center point of JFK's head, it passed to the right of center with respect to JFK's body.

Tom

I would go further than Tom, and suggest that much of what King has written was lifted from old Twilight Zone episodes.

Hi Don,

For curiosities sake, are you referring to King's stories in general, or 11-22-1963 specifically? There were two episodes involving time travel and the assassinations of Lincoln and JFK:

1. There was a season 2 Twilight Zone episode titled "Back There" written by Rod Serling himself. A man (Russell Johnson aka the "Professor" from Gilligan's Island) who has been discussing the possibility of "time travel" with several friends suddenly finds himself back in 1865 on the day of Lincoln's assassination. He hurries to the theater to warn the President, but is arrested as a troublemaker. A gentleman who is known to the policeman offers to take charge of this poor confused fellow and prevent him from causing any trouble. The gentleman slips him a drugged drink, and departs. Later, when the man regains consciousness he returns to the theater to find that Lincoln has been shot in the head and the "gentleman" was John Wilkes Booth. The lesson of the episode: Even if you could travel back in time you couldn't change history.

2. The (1985) Twilight Zone series featured an episode ("Profile in Silver") where a descendant of JFK travels back in time to Dealey Plaza, and shouts a warning to the SS who save Kennedy from the assassination attempt. LHO is caught and arrested. Within days, the USSR attacks the US, and we discover that now that history has been changed it is Kruschev that was assassinated. The time travelers decide that to prevent further damage to the timeline, JFK must die. The descendant of JFK is substituted for the real JFK and dies from a gunshot to the head. JFK has been brought 'back to the future' where 'he is desperately needed' and continues his political career. This explains all the controversy regarding the assassination because those in 1963 have no idea why the assassinated JFK isn't JFK at all. Thus, they must hide the truth...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profile_in_Silver

Here is part 1 of the episode which will automatically continue to parts 2 and 3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1UkcPFyxiU

Kennedy is rightly portrayed as a hero and Andrew Robinson does an outstanding job as JFK.

An ironic comment is made by a SS agent regarding "drinking on duty" in part 3.

Tom

Let us never forget: the novel is FICTION.

That's a good thought, Mark. But their goal is to convince the public it's the TRUTH.

Personally, I thought the book was a poorly written rip-off of a multitude of Twilight Zone wannabe TV series that have appeared over the years. The only character in the story that is not 100% cardboard is LHO. And he is 100% tissue paper.

King claims he "researched" LHO at great length. If so, his "research" ended in 1964, and he waited 50 years to write the book....

And of course King states that he "has no agenda" in taking the Lone Nut side, because his wife believes in a conspiracy.

Tom

https://www.facebook.com/david.talbot.9440?fref=ts

This link to his Facebook page may not work unless you are signed in as a member on Facebook.

Thank you, Douglas!

Tom

From David Talbot's Facebook page today (referenced photos omitted)

And now, another sneak preview from "The Devil's Chessboard"...in April 1961, as President Kennedy wrestled with the CIA disaster at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, another CIA-related crisis gripped JFK's young presidency. President Charles de Gaulle of France was threatened with a military coup by rebellious French officers based in Algeria, who were enraged by de Gaulle's decision to settle that bloody colonial war. As rebellious tank units and paratroopers prepared to descend on Paris to overthrow French democracy, de Gaulle took to the TV airwaves, and in one of the most dramatic moments in 20th century French history, the old war hero rallied his people to thwart the coup.

De Gaulle was convinced that the coup was supported by the Allen Dulles-led CIA -- and the French press was filled with leaks alleging this secret U.S. involvement. But Kennedy took pains to assure de Gaulle that he did not back the coup, and in fact he offered to defend the embattled French government with U.S. military firepower. De Gaulle acknowledged that JFK himself was not behind the French officers' rebellion, but the incident made it clear to both leaders something equally ominous: Kennedy was not in charge of his own government.

Two years later, after JFK's assassination, de Gaulle confided to his information minister that he believed the same U.S. security forces who had targeted him were responsible for Kennedy's death.

These photos below are from President Kennedy and First Lady Jackie Kennedy's official trip to Paris, shortly after the coup attempt, when JFK tried to mend U.S. relations with de Gaulle (an effort greatly aided by Jackie's fluency in French and charm).

Douglas,

Thank you for this. I can't find David Talbot's Facebook page...do you have a link?

TIA,

Tom

Any idea why Hargraves agreed to such an interview in the first place? I'm grateful that we have it, but curious about his motives for divulging the information. What was in it for him?

Greg,

In the interview transcript Hargraves makes it clear that 'the commies did it.' He may have agreed to the interview to push that story. Of course, once they get talking, they talk to each other as much as they talk to Twyman. It appears that they kinda forget he was there, and spill some interesting stuff as it occurs to them.

Tom

That's what I thought too. In one of JFK's meetings with the Joint Chiefs during the Cuban Missile Crisis, I don't think JFK was too appreciative of LeMay's remark (as best I recall it), "You're in quite a fix, Mister President." I remember that JFK's response was, "What did you say?" And LeMay repeated the remark.

IIRC, after LeMay repeated the remark, Kennedy's final words to him were: "Well, you're in there with me."

Tom

Thanks for the kind words Tom - I hope you enjoy it.

My pleasure, Larry. There is no doubt in my mind that I will enjoy it!

I don't see it available as an eBook... Did I miss it?

I'll look forward to discussing it as you read.

As will I.

On your question, as Noel related it to me, Hemming's brother - who was present with Hargraves for the interview - was the one who raised the objections with Noel. I only dimly recall it but I think there was supposed to be a read and approve agreement in place but the pair had shown no interest in reading the transcript and after a goodly time Noel assumed they had just moved on. That's a fairly dim memory at this point. Anyway, Noel was concerned over possible legal action and certainly I honored his request. Later, in talking with Hemming's brother at a Lancer conference in Dallas, the subject came up and again, strictly from memory, he downplayed the whole thing essentially saying there were some minor things discussed during the interview which they felt could be used in the event Hargraves himself faced some rather dated legal problems. Nothing to do with JFK but of course Hargraves did have a lengthy history including suspicion and investigation related to bombings in L.A. That's pretty much the gist of it.

Thanks Larry. Very interesting. Presumably, with the demise of both Gerry Hemming and Roy Hargraves there would no longer be any objections?

As I recall only one day of the interviews ever got transcribed and when I asked Noel he stated the transcription had been really expensive and the tapes of the other part were in deep storage, not something he wanted to get back into.

I just re-read what was transcribed. This interview has always intrigued me, and I had no idea there was more... After a quick search online, I have found no indication that Noel Twyman is deceased. Do you suppose he would allow a transcription of the tapes by me for free?

Tom

He further stated that he turned it over to his "close personal friend", Admiral Burkley. As far as I know, it was never seen again.

Admiral Burkley stated that all the fragments he was given were handed over to the autopsy doctors for the purpose of trying to reconstruct the skull to help determine the wounds. I think there were a total of three fragments. None of these were the Harper fragment. After the autopsy, Burkley states the fragments were put back in Kennedy's skull.

Chris, I believe you're talking about several small fragments received from Burkley. Sam Kinney states that the single skull part he handed to Burkley was equal in size to the large hole in the rear of Kennedy's skull. He has further commented that 'people have been looking for this for all these years...'

Tom

I think the plan was to pin the assassination on a lone perpetrator.

- multiple sniper teams

Chris,

Blaming only a LN, but with multiple shooters used to assure success, removing the body from Dallas for a controlled autopsy was mandatory and would have been pre-planned, as you've said.

However, 'they' could have allowed the public to believe multiple shooters were used, and still blamed it on Castro/KGB/USSR. Do you think that the LN scenario was chosen because it's easier to kill one shooter than several? If the public believed any conspirator 'escaped' the pretense of a search/investigation would have to continue indefinitely. Rather than allow this, the additional complexity of a controlled autopsy would have been less of a risk.

I think the act of pointing a gun (and possibly firing it) out the sixth floor window is, in fact, part of the setup (no real sniper is going to do that).

Absolutely. The police had to have a reason to go to the TSBD and find the weapon, so they could blame the designated patsy who worked in that building.

I don't think it was intended that Oswald be captured alive. I think that was a screw-up that Ruby was probably responsible for and therefore it was his responsibility to "fix".

The fact that Ruby had assured access to LHO while in custody, has never entirely convinced me he was chosen to silence LHO for that reason alone. Certainly DPD could have arranged access to LHO for anyone, or it could have easily been an inside job by them. I'm certain they had the 'talent' inhouse. If you had to bring in an outsider would Ruby have been the obvious choice?

At the midnight press conference, DA Wade stated that LFO was affiliated with the wrong Pro-Castro group, and Ruby corrected him. How would Ruby have known about LHO and the FPCC if he wasn't in on the plot? For a considerable time, I have been convinced that Ruby was in on the plot, and like you, I suspect that Ruby was somehow responsible for unintentionally preventing LHO's elimination by the DPD. If true, this would certainly explain why Ruby would be willing to take out LHO: 'You do have a choice, Jack. You can either be a hero for killing the Presidents assassin, or be executed as a conspirator.'

I can't convince myself that Ruby himself was supposed to kill LHO immediately following the assassination. Did Ruby perhaps provide the cop who failed to kill LHO after the assassination?

Tom

Greg, actually the 2010 version has a good bit more material than the other versions.

Larry,

When I read "2010 version" I hoped that was the one I already have. However, upon pulling it down from the shelve and discovering mine is the 2006 version, my first thought was: "GREAT! It will be like reading the 2006 version only with MORE info." For anyone who hasn't done so, this is one of a few MUST READ Kennedy assassination books.

What is missing...is the transcript of Noel Twyman's interview with Roy Hargraves. Fortunately the transcript can be found online in various places now and of course is very revealing in regard to Hargrave's admissions about he and Felipe Vidal being in Dallas for the attack.

This a PDF of the Twyman/Hargraves interview for anyone that is interested:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CDkQFjAIahUKEwi3ueGqn5vIAhVClh4KHWwMBqk&url=http%3A%2F%2Flarry-hancock.com%2Froy_hargraves_interview.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEauAqKFxpSv-x6CHOVQgSML37-zw&sig2=EkH7AVBb1fwFq2uBbYWsSw

Following initial publication Noel was pressured to take that out of circulation and withdrew his permission for my use.

If you're allowed to say, who applied the pressure?

Tom

Admiral Burkley seemed to be in the chain of custody of many pieces of evidence that subsequently went missing.

Chris,

Clint Hill stated that the back of JFK's skull was lying on the rear seat of the limo during his precarious ride to Parkland. The limo accompanied by two SS agents, was flown to DC in an Air Force C-130. During the flight Sam Kinney (driver of the Queen Mary) inspected the limo. On the rear seat he found this large piece of JFK's skull, which he was certain came from the back of his head. He further stated that he turned it over to his "close personal friend", Admiral Burkley. As far as I know, it was never seen again.

Tom

Tom,

I submit that the list of those who knew what was coming in Dallas was short, tight and closely held. There were a handful of Navy men (ONI) who knew and likely played a role, such as David Sooy and Hal Feeney.

Hi Greg,

Do you have any thoughts as to what specific role ONI played in the assassination planning?

I doubt anyone like Galloway would have been in the loop prior to the event. Admiral Burkley arrives and tells him, "I'm acting on the direct orders of the President. This is a matter of national security and this is how this is going to work...."

I like that. It would have bypassed the Navy chain of command above Galloway to avoid any possible interference.

Why do those who know things mostly keep silent, even later in life? Why has the Kennedy family largely remained silent? Why do the other films and photographs of the assassination remain underground? In my opinion, because those in possession of such information understand what it would mean for their lives and their families should they elect to engage in a frontal assault on the national security establishment.

IMO, some who know, keep quiet because they think JFK SHOULD have been murdered.

Do you have an idea as to what organization is currently 'reminding' anyone who might talk as to the consequences of speaking out? Would this same organization decide when it is necessary to eliminate someone and make it happen?

Thanks for your reply,

Tom

I don't buy the theory that the assassination and coverup were two distinct and separate events. It makes little sense to plot and carry out the assassination of a head of state and have no plan for the aftermath. How Kennedy's body got to Bethesda early enough for an "intervention" to occur does not pass a "smell test" as an event that was unplanned.

Hello Chris,

I may be misinterpreting you here... Your belief is that whether the original plan was to make the assassination appear to the public as a multiple-shooter conspiracy OR as a 'lone gunman', a 'controlled autopsy' was planned in advance? Do you think that the LN pretense was the original plan?

Thanks for your reply,

Tom

Tom Neal,

You ask whether I think GW Bush is better than Kerry?

Better in what sense?

Sorry Jon,

Due to the content of the many replies, I actually thought the subject of this thread WAS Bush v. Kerry. When Mark K. questioned the "relevance" I read the Subject and only then discovered my error. I already admitted "my bad" and don't want to continue to derail the discussion.

Thanks for your response though,

Tom

I want to hear everyones opinion, right, left, wrong, crazy and certifiable. I just won't sit with my back to the door.

Chris,

That is a commendable attitude. It is a shame that more people don't share it.

Evan,

I too applaud Chris's attitude. I used to share it, but I'm no longer up to the task...

Tom

I don't understand why Tom doesn't like me.

Hi David,

My humor meter is on the blink today... Just to be certain, I didn't say anything nasty to you, did I?

Sorry

Hi Greg, Thanks for your reply!

Im not convinced that the military would have gone to great lengths to conceal multiple shooters

Re-reading my post, I should have left out the 7 Days in May reference, which indicates a coup entirely planned/executed by the military. My intended question ONLY pertained to the Navy's falsified autopsy. i.e. Was the Navy aware of and in agreement with the "intervention" (to use Senator McCain's terminology) assassination plot before it happened? Or were they only brought in by Johnson AFTER the assassination as part of the LN coverup?

Assuming Galloway, who expired in 1992, was not in agreement with eliminating JFK, prior to his death wouldn't he have realized he was used in a cover-up? Following the lifting of the gag order and/or his retirement, why did he keep completely silent? Wouldn't he try to absolve himself of creating a falsified autopsy?

Sorry for the confusion regarding the wording of my question,

Tom

The clip from C14 (the FBI designation of the alleged assassination rifle) appears in two Commission Exhibits; CE 574 and CE 575.

Interestingly enough, CE 574 is labeled "CLIP FROM C14 RIFLE LOADED WITH SIX CARTRIDGES" and CE 575 is labeled "CLIP FROM C14 RIFLE." If this is the same clip from the rifle, is it proper to present one clip in two different Commission Exhibits? If it's the same clip shouldn't both photos be in CE 575 to avoid confusion?

Tom

LBJ 'persuaded' Richard Russell and Earl Warren to 'accept' their assignments to the WC claiming that a finding other than 'LHO the Lone Nut' would result in WWIII. Did he make the same claim to the USN presumably via the SECDEF, who passed this order down to the commanding officer at Bethesda, or did Johnson simply give an order to falsify the autopsy per Lone Nut requirements directly to RADM Calvin B. Galloway, commanding officer of the Naval Medical Complex?

If neither of the above, the alternative seems to be a "Seven Days in May" military scenario. Were the Bethesda personnel acting on orders from the Chief of Naval Operations, ADM David L. McDonald, or RADM Galloway?

To put it more succinctly, was the hospital acting on LBJ's orders given post assassination, or was it a Naval Operation planned prior to the assassination? Of course, as a prerequisite, the Navy would have expected LBJ's cooperation post autopsy in this scenario...

Any takers?

Tom