David G. Healy

Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series. Your tone is much like a LNr troller would use by automatically assuming that all CTs most commonly make things up. Kinda in reverse of you saying the evuslion was on the "left" side of JFK's head when in fact it was always reported to be on the "right" rear side of JFK's head. The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly. Would that be the brain that 1/3 of it was said to be missing at Parkland only to show up at Bethesda as a full intact brain weighing of normal size??? I ignored the question because it assumes that no shots fired from behind had missed their target. The large rounded dent in the chrome strip above the windshield could have caused fragments to bounce back and land in the front of the limo. It's all left to speculation. Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer. I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke.Mrs. CABELL. I did not know, because I did not see a hand or a head or a human form behind it. It was in just a fleeting second that I jerked my head up and I saw something in that window, and I turned around to say to Earle, "Earle, it is a shot", and before I got the words out, just as I got the words out, he said, "Oh, no; it must have been a "the second two shots rang out. After that, there is a certain amount of confusion in my mind. I was acutely aware of the odor of gunpowder. I was aware that the motorcade stopped dead still. There was no question about that. Cheryl McKinnon mentioned seeing the smoke in her article. Gary Mack ran her article in his news letter. Yet Earle V. Brown was a Dallas cop who was stationed on the railroad overpass that crossed the Stemmons Freeway. By his own estimation he was about 100 yards from the Triple Underpass. The following testimony can be found in WC volume 6, pp. 233-234: Mr. BALL. Did you hear the shots? Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. How many? Mr. BROWN. Three. Mr. BALL. Where did they seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. Well, they seemed high to me, actually; if you want, would you like me to tell you? Mr. BALL Sure, tell it in your own words. Mr. BROWN. Well, down in that river bottom there, there's a whole lot of pigeons this particular day, and they heard the shots before we did because I saw them flying up — must have been 50, 75 of them. Mr. BALL. Where was the river bottom? Mr. BROWN. You know, actually off to the — between us and the, this overpass you are talking about there's kind of a levee along there. It's really a grade of the railroad, is what it is; that's where they were and then I heard these shots and then I smelled this gun powder. Mr. BALL. You did? Mr. BROWN. It come on it would be maybe a couple minutes later so — at least it smelled like it to me. Mr. BALL. What direction did the sound seem to come from? Mr. BROWN. It came it seemed the direction of that building, that Texas . . . Mr. BALL. School Book Depository? Mr. BROWN. School Book Depository. Gary Mack said to me today that about half on the underpass workers had mentioned seeing the smoke come through the trees. I can only recommend that you first learn the witnesses statement record before becoming a critic for one side or the other. Bill Miller Tannenbaum was the source I gave. He said it in an interview in the MWKK series. 1. What was HIS source? Conspiracy nuts constantly use incestuous research which often never has an origin in truth or fact. When you locate the original source so I can read it myself then I will comment. The evuslion was on the right rear side of the head - not the left. For one to adequately debate the evidence of the case - they should first learn it correctly 2. What is your source for the avulsion? It does NOT appear in ANY of the films. And besides, are you now implying that Kennedy was shot from the left front of the limousine and the bullet exited the right rear? Why don't ANY of the doctors agree with your theory? Why don't any of the photographs or x-rays agree with your theory? Why don't any of the films or photographs agree with your theory? Why? Because your theory is ridiculous. You are expecting me to know of evidence that doesn't exist in the real world. Would that be the brain that 1/3 of it was said to be missing at Parkland only to show up at Bethesda as a full intact brain weighing of normal size??? 3. Please provide your source proving that the brain at Bethesda was "a full intact brain weighing of normal size." After I read your source I will respond. I ignored the question because it assumes that no shots fired from behind had missed their target. The large rounded dent in the chrome strip above the windshield could have caused fragments to bounce back and land in the front of the limo. It's all left to speculation 4. Clearly you are cornered here and you apparently don't do well when cornered because your answer is ridiculous. Are you implying that a rifle bullet that could destroy a human head would strike a metal frame of a windshield and only DENT it? This is so laughable I cannot even compose a coherent reply. I don't blame you for avoiding the fragments (which matched Oswald's WC ammunition incidentally) in the front of the limousine--they ARE a sticky wicket for conspiracy critics to explain away. What is your source for the smell of gunpowder? I will read the original myself. Read through the witnesses statements to find the answer.5. Clearly you haven't read much history and certainly haven't WRITTEN ANY history to have this bass-ackwards method of proving a point. When a person makes a bizarre claim (you) it is up to THAT person to provide their own proof. Scholars don't write a book and then in the endnote section include the line "If you don't believe what I've said then YOU go out and do the research." This is clearly reflective of an untrained method of research you employ. If YOU make the claim...then YOU provide the proof. I asked for your sources for seeing smoke from the triple bridge underpass. You dodged the issue with this response, "I believe that Mark Lane interviewed several employees of the RR who saw the smoke." You are now referring to Mark Lane as your source for interviews? MARK LANE? No educated person in the assassination community would EVER refer to Mark Lane as a source for an interview. He has been exposed numerous times falsifying evidence. Incidentally, you didn't even provide ONE name of ONE person who claimed they saw smoke. Why? NO one did at the time. And S.M. Holland's later statement when he DID mention smoke is riddled with so many inconsistencies that it is clear he didn't know WHAT in the world he just witnessed. 6. You quoted Mrs. Earl Cabell as a strong witness that shots originated from the front, but her testimony supports no such thing. All she said was that she smelled gunsmoke. What would you expect witnesses to smell after three shots had been fired from a high powered rifle? Remember that the winds were swirling around Dealey Plaza that afternoon, so simply smelling smoke lends support to NO location of shots. Nice try though. 7. Cheryl McKinnon mentioned seeing the smoke in her article. Gary Mack ran her article in his news letter. The first Ms. McKinnon mentioned smoke was in her 1983 San Diego newspaper article. She was never called as a witness before the WC nor the HSCA. She has never given a swonr statement and she managed to keep her mouth shut for twenty years. I don't believe her "story" one bit. 8. What in the world would you include Officer Brown's testimony for? He supports MY position that the shots originated "up high" and from the "Texas School Depository Building." I'm still laughing that you included HIs testimony to lend support for your ridiculous theory of a front gunman. 9. Oh Gary Mack told you huh? Please give me the names he told you about and I will check their testimony on my own. If you think I am so inexperienced in assassination research to take your word for it when Gary Mack "told you" you have me greatly underestimated. When it comes to historical evidence and proof, it appears you are in way over your head in this debate. You haven't proven one single thing. who let this Lone Nut broken record back in here..... "incestuous research...", you're a crock Folsom (if that's you name) -- as always LMFAO!

Todd <----- proven Lone Nutter, disappeared of late. Staunch John McAdams acolyte, spent most of the last few years on the alt.conspiracy.jfk and alt.assassination.jfk USNET boards and trolling JFK assassination specific forums (managed to get thrown off a few along the way. Todd seems to think shooting a MC at non-moving sandbags in the hills of Wisconsin (with John McAdams) proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, LHO's participation in JFK's assassination as *THEE* solo shooter. When confronted with WCR "evidence & testimony", Todd like most Lone Nutters, wilt.... Todd by his own declaration owns files and files covering assorted JFK assassination topics (in debate he can't seem to find them though ) Hi Todd (he'll read this) -- I'm sure BenH. would send his best if he was here, let me do it in his place! "Hey Toddy, there's a few debates concerning 45 assassination related questions waiting for you at you know where....." LMAO! DHealy

Well, well, well my old nemesis Jack White. I'm curious, Jack. Is there ANY bizarre conspiracy theory that you DON'T believe? stay on topic... or start your own thread...

my goodness Bill Miller and James Gordon in the same week, like old home week... Is the 6th floor Museum now making 1st generation assassination photos and scans available to researchers and the general public these day's? If so, the fee's for same? Do you now work/volunteer at the 6th Floor Museum? Kindest regard's David Healy

David Lifton wrote: [...] That's what this case is all about, that’s why Oswald's ghost will not rest, and that issue is never dealt with by filmmaker Robert Stone. _________________________ Thanks for the review, David... David Healy

'Bill Miller' wrote: (...) "They hold the Zapruder film" ... ??? That is a load of crap! Copies of the Zapruder film can be obtained as I recall. dgh: of course one can... MPI has a altered version for our viewing pleasure, since 1998 in fact.... The 6th Floor Museum has in its posession, today one of the 3 original Jamison 1st day Zapruder film dupes. Assigned by The Zapruder trust to the care of the 6th Floor Museum (amongst many other LIFE-JFK/Zapruder film artifacts). (...) Gary Mack's opinions are his own and his job as an archivist of historical records is something totally different. One must understand the simple differences before believing they can undertake the vast amount of data that makes up the JFK assassination. dgh: doesn't wash, Bill. Not 7 years ago, not today! Bill Miller

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Myra, facts of the case? First you'll have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts.... I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan. When this board is gone, Hogasn and i are gone and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you? Actually, David, it sounds like you're saying that no one on a forum has the right to expect civil behavior from other forum members if they haven't been a member of the forum a certain length of time. Actually Myra, Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence..... Bet in 2 more posts we'll have every forum hall monitor present.... what say you? David: Why are you being so crude and insulting to two of the forum members? Both Mike and Myra are very respected here and both have done their homework. Calling Mrya "pushy, controlling" does a real lot to advance this case! Usually you're a good fellow, from what I have seen in the past, (unless you get into it with someone about the Z film), so why these personal attacks? Dawn Dawn, call it intuition, I don't believe Hogan, PERIOD! You want to rush to his side and support him, which obviously is yours and Myra's decision, fine. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.... in fact, I've never lost sleep over who is and who is not a Lone Nutter. If they have an argument to make, GREAT, I haven't seen one from either yet.... I haven't been crude for a long while, Dawn -- your forum membership defense is admirable. So in closing, please don't tell me ALL posting to this board seek to solve this unmitigated disaster, eh... David

I love graphs so I conducted some jiggle analysis recently while sitting in an outdoor cafe on Rodeo Drive watching the girls go by. Jiggle analysis works fairly well in Beverly Hills, but results in other locations have been disappointing. Still, the subject holds endless fascination, and further research is eagerly awaited. I videotaped the blur/jiggle Zapruder film analysis-presentation by David Mantik MD, PhD (PhD - Physics)... Haven't seen anyone contradict his findings yet... I actually stayed awake for the entire un-glamorous presentation...

Bernice Moore Jun 12 2007, 01:03 PM' wrote: Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi A Not-Entirely-Positive Review by David W. Mantik, MD, PhD Memorial Day, 2007 It is surely interesting how intelligent people can differ in looking at the same evidence… “Doggedness and the Talpiot Tomb,” James Tabor, May 22, 2007 Biographical Details Vincent Boo-liosi (no “g” sound) was born on August 18, 1934. According to one web site, he is the third most famous person from Hibbing, Minnesota. After moving to California, he graduated from Hollywood High School. [...] thanks and keep them coming B..... David B

Where I come from, a man is judged by the strength of his word. And the accuracy. First of all, I'm not your friend. I don't like you, I don't respect you, you don't keep your word. Respect for the moderators keeps me from saying more. Uh-huh...How's that again? Who is dead wrong? Don't you want to make sure of your facts? Apparently not. Try reading the threads before putting your foot in your mouth. You keep showing your true colors. Myra is more than capable than sticking up for herself, but you can take this to the bank. She already knows more about the reasons for President Kennedy's murder than you have ever shown. Intellectual command? Don't kid yourself, man. She's got you beat. And it ain't close. And guess what? Myra's still learning and the gap's getting wider every day. It's hard for you to type a sentence without using CT or LN, isn't it? Anyone that doesn't please you, you want to call them an LN'er. Knock yourself out with your childish generalizations that you clumsily try to use as slurs. I welcomed your name calling in these threads. Believe me it doesn't bother me; it just depicts your true nature, phony homilies like friend and cordially aside. And I do offer an apology to readers of this thread and especially Gil Jesus for the diversion. Sometimes though, things have to be responded to. Out of respect to moderator John Geraghty and others, I'll try to make these my last comments re David Healy. of course...Nice dance, Hogan. What colors might those be? You're not accusing me of being a Lone Nutter are you? Apparently you'll go to much length avoiding the poll fee debate - eh? LMAO! Well I admit I'm a bit lacking when it comes to the use of CT/LNutter, especially when you take into account the new Bugliosi book. I doubt he could have completed his book were it not for the CT community. We've given him reason to LIVE, won't you agree? -- who am I calling what, Hogan -- Not a drinker 9can you say the same?), how can I slur --- or are you tactfully claiming otherwise? When you publish concerning the JFK assassination Mr. Hogan please inform us. If you'd like to see my published (book form) work I can point you in the proper direction.... Your apology is NOT accepted by me, nor a few others here. Other than that, have a nice LIFE... Cordially your's , David G. Healy

Mike Scull wrote: That's real good. Now, is this swag buried in a treasure chest in your backyard? If so, then you must have a treasure map for the chest. You know, like the ol' pirates' X marks the spot. Can you at least share that map? He has, Miles -- on more than one occasion.

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Myra, facts of the case? First you'll have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts.... I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan. When this board is gone, Hogasn and i are gone and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you? Actually, David, it sounds like you're saying that no one on a forum has the right to expect civil behavior from other forum members if they haven't been a member of the forum a certain length of time. Actually Myra, Did I say that Myra? Why do you insist you know what CT's think, Bad habit, girl! What I AM saying is quite simple, your futile (and Lone Nutters) ad hom argument doesn't work, you want to fall on your alleged CT sword, by all means DO! Hogan, I suspect will hold it for you! -- Add to that, nobody likes a pushy-controlling Lady Myra, especially one who doesn't have intellectual command of the evidence..... Bet in 2 more posts we'll have every forum hall monitor present.... what say you?

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things.... My but you get so personal in your comments David. Is there some reason why you can't just stick with the facts of this case instead of making ad hominem attacks? Myra, the facts of the case? First, you have to demonstrate YOU have command of case facts.... I and others do tire of the petty ad hominen complaint. You're a relative new comer to this board, Myra and other boards I know you post to. A few of us have been around for over 30+ years (15 of those on the internet boards, where else could John Simkin find us, yes?). We need no hand holding and long ago become quite sick of Lone Nut whining. Just enjoy the show, take what you need, then write your book, we all what to know the latest who did it, even Hogan. When this board is gone, Hogan and I are gone, and you are gone, the CT crowd will be out there... much to Bugliosi and his supporters chagrin....Does that sound like ad hominen to you?

You are one perceptive fellow Mike Hogan. It's a gift. To the forum. To answer your question, your perspective fellow Mike Hogan and I don't see eye-to-eye on ANYTHING, anything other than JFK was assassinated in Dallas Nov 22nd 1963 of course. You call it a gift, some see it as other things....

Your sarcasm about my delicate sensibilities aside, its clear that you just don't get it. If I truly had delicate sensibilities, I would have been in many more threads of yours than I have. Oh admit it, you haven't got it any longer, you old codger.... the Lone Nut clock is running out I have a feeling you'll be around a little while longer, your promise to quit posting if the Forum became moderated notwithstanding. after Bugliosis' latest debacle, I'm gonna leave? No, my Irish friend.

Your sarcasm about my delicate sensibilities aside, its clear that you just don't get it. If I truly had delicate sensibilities, I would have been in many more threads of yours than I have. Oh admit it, you haven't got it any longer, you old codger.... the Lone Nut clock is running out

I feel no need to "amaze" you. I feel no need to present FACTUAL information to you. You've already proven your propensity to ignore any and all facts that don't suit your theory. I feel no need to join you in your own personal rabbit hole. you're also dead wrong, Hogan! As you've proved yourself to be on numerous occasions.... the minimum fee to sign the petition is $2US.... so please, AMAZE us! Cordially your's, David G. Healy p.s. not much anyone can do to impress a tree stump

a fee? Come on Debra.....

Hi John. Email me a copy and i will upload it to my site. Hi Robin, I have been unable to save the map from your site, I have used both IE7 And Firefox browsers. Is it still available? I'm using the site identified in your sig. Cheers Gary I have Firefox and ran into the same problem: go to the image (don't know if your on a Mac or PC) right click in the browser, click on: get page info (a new window will open) click on the media tab (a new window will NOT open), at the bottom of that screen appears Save as .... do your thing

Is the identity of this fellow-researcher a deep dark secret? It is a very impressive list of serious anomalies in the case. He or she should be taking a bow. Given all the holes in Buglisi's tattered case, the program is guaranteed to boomrang in its authors. It should be fun to see. "HBO is NEAR a deal with Playtone" (Variety). Fat lady has not sung yet. I don't doubt that Playtone will go ahead, but it would not shock me if HBO backed out. Ray, No of course not! Ben Holmes is the researcher a regular poster on the infamous alt.conspiracy.jfk board... He's known for debating faulty case evidence/trestimony and lack thereof only. He engages in no nonsense including ad hom attacks. The 45 questions were compiled over a 5 year period, there's plenty more to add to the list --- John McAdams has tried but can't touch this guy, nor has ANY other Lone Nutter. Absolutely deadly when he addresses case medical evidence and the autopsy prosecutors... David Healy Absolutely deadly when he addresses case medical evidence and the autopsy prosecutors... Does not strike me as being that "deadly" and/or informed of the facts, considering that many of his questions could have been answered had he taken the time to research and find out exactly where JFK/the limo was when the third/last/final shot was fired. To me, it appears as just another confused person who can not research the facts to find the correct answers for himself. Tom, Perhaps you should lurk for a bit and see who amongst the old comp-u-serve Lone Nut crowd will enter a debate with him. Specifically concerning WCR medical evidence and/or lack there of. In my opinion he leans towards conspiracy. For those that want to defend the WCR and its volumes, care to discuss autopsies, procedure, REPORTS, protocol, the prosecutors, and know how to debate the issues [and DON'T top post], step up. -- Marine Corps. Corps Marksmanship team... Politics to the right of Rush Limbaugh (the only political comment he's made that I know of). In general, if up and comer Lone Nuts want a USNET board name for themselves he's the CT guy they have to get past. None have that I'm aware of... alt.conspiracy.jfk, 8,000+ posts to the board since 1998. Ad hom attacks start flying, his newsreader ceases to see them. The Nutter's straighten out, he knows -- Ken Rahn, Tony Marsh, John McAdams, Martin Shackelford, etal., makes no difference to him. Theories, open for discussion - debate the WCR record/evidence. As far as confused? Ask the supposed USNET Lone Nut geniuses above, these day's they head the other direction. So, I don't think so... David

Is the identity of this fellow-researcher a deep dark secret? It is a very impressive list of serious anomalies in the case. He or she should be taking a bow. Given all the holes in Buglisi's tattered case, the program is guaranteed to boomrang in its authors. It should be fun to see. "HBO is NEAR a deal with Playtone" (Variety). Fat lady has not sung yet. I don't doubt that Playtone will go ahead, but it would not shock me if HBO backed out. Ray, No of course not! Ben Holmes is the researcher a regular poster on the infamous alt.conspiracy.jfk board... He's known for debating faulty case evidence/trestimony and lack thereof only. He engages in no nonsense including ad hom attacks. The 45 questions were compiled over a 5 year period, there's plenty more to add to the list --- John McAdams has tried but can't touch this guy, nor has ANY other Lone Nutter. Absolutely deadly when he addresses case medical evidence and the autopsy prosecutors... David Healy

Hi Bill, Talbot's "BROTHERS" can play a key roll.... a project made for Oliver Stone. Yesterday I put up on this board 45 questions amassed by a fellow JFK researcher, they'd make for interesting talking points in film project script development.... If Playtone can't/won/t address these questions/concerns, we're witnessing just another PR stunt.... Expensive, yes! But what the hell, the American public ends up paying for it anyway... Indeed, the JFK-GJ proceedings are looking stronger.... David

Only the other week Bill Paxton was talking about doing a film on the conspiracy to kill JFK. This is a good way to keep him quiet. I suspect this press release will account for a few of the "Reclaiming History" publishing delays, they wanted a one-two-three (book, 10 part mini-series [i suspected a four parter], and the documentary [which will be full of speculation masked as fact] knock out punch. When the book tanked they couldn't wait, they had to make the move... this release is about 4 months early by my reckoning. Don't expect much response from Oliver Stone.... Hollywierd has always played both sides of the street,and ALWAYS responds to Washington wishes and NY money.... The big leagues now.... KUTGW

have in common? It's on the way folks, I suspect been in production for quite some time... read it here in Hollyweird's Variety http://www.variety.com/article/VR111796639...yId=14&cs=1

reposted with permission... This is a repost... any LNT'ers care to give it a try? (No snipping or top-posting now...) Look near the bottom for a new question in honor of Bugliosi. [Any killfiled trolls: don't worry, if you *actually* make a valid point, someone (Aeffects, Walt, Gil, Toddy... whoever) will be sure to respond - and I'll see your response.] I've updated a number of the questions with more information. But these should illustrate the point that LNT'ers *can't* answer'em... they're in no particular order: 1. When the WC had ballistics tests done, shooting a bullet into the entry location of the head specified by the autopsy report,the bullet invariably exited the forehead or face of the target - can you explain why JFK’s face was virtually untouched, and certainly showed no signs of an exiting bullet? 2. Why do LNT’ers refuse to admit that there was a wound in the back of the head, when the autopsy report clearly states: "1. There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter.?" There is *no* part of the Occipital which is *not* located in the back of the head - yet LNT'ers will not admit to a large BOH wound - as described in the Autopsy Report and by dozens of medical witnesses. 3. Why can no LNT'er explain the evidence that Robert Harris has developed to demonstrate that two bullets were fired in a span of time shorter than the MC was capable of? The pattern of LNT'ers ducking Robert's obvious example is almost funny to watch... 4. Why did so many credible eyewitnesses point to the front of the limo as the source of shots being fired? If eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and the claim is made that echoes were what was being heard, why were so many eyewitnesses specific to the location? IOW’s, why didn’t anyone specify a shot from the left? 5. Can you explain why the bullets at the Tippit scene, identified as Automatic, changed to revolver? Sgt Hill was holding the shells in his hand, and asserts that it was his *examination* of those shells that led to his radio report. How could an experienced Police Sergeant make such a dumb error in the shooting of a fellow police officer? 6. James Chaney, a police motorcycle officer was less than a dozen feet away, and looking directly at JFK during the shooting (according to both his statements, and the Altgen's photo of him). We *KNOW* that his testimony would have been devastating to the SBT - since we know that Chaney asserted that the bullet that struck JFK was a different one than the one that struck Connally. Mr. BELIN - What other officers did you talk to and what did they say that you remember? Mr. BAKER - I talked to Jim Chaney, and he made the statement that the two shots hit Kennedy first and then the other one hit the Governor. Mr. BELIN - Where was he? Mr. BAKER - He was on the right rear of the car or to the side, and then at that time the chief of police, he didn't know anything about this, and he moved up and told him, and then that was during the time that the Secret Service men were trying to get in the car, and at the time, after the shooting, from the time the first shot rang out, the car stopped completely, pulled to the left and stopped. Mr. BELIN - The President's car? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir. Now, I have heard several of them say that, Mr. Truly was standing out there, he said it stopped. Several officers said it stopped completely. Mr. DULLES - You saw it stop, did you? Mr. BAKER - No, sir; I didn't see it stop. Mr. DULLES - You just heard from others that it had stopped? Mr. BAKER - Yes, sir; that it had completely stopped, and then for a moment there, and then they rushed on out to Parkland. Knowing, from this testimony, that Chaney would have testified to a pattern of shots that would have contradicted their SBT theory, can anyone defend the Warren Commission's honesty in failing to question James Chaney directly? Why was he never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR? 7. The previous testimony brings us to a new point - dozens of people testified or asserted that the limo either slowed dramatically, or actually came to a very brief stop. Why can't this be seen in the extant Zapruder film? 8. Why was there no close-up photographs ever made of the limo? John McAdams has asserted otherwise, but cannot produce any such photos. Considering that Secret Service agents are college educated, and well aware of general crime scene procedures, why was the limo being washed within minutes of the assassination? Can anyone defend this, since the timing would tend to indicate a pre-planned action? 9. Why were the NAA results buried by the WC? John McAdams has denied that this meant anything - although it's quite clear that McAdams is trying to put the best spin on the facts to make such an assertion. The Warren Commission had no reason whatsoever to hide any evidence of Oswald's guilt - AND PROVABLY HID EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, so can anyone defend the Warren Commission's actions in burying the NAA data? 10. Why was the Justice Department concerned enough to spy on the Garrison trial, and attempt to influence it by sending Boswell to counteract what Finck was testifying to? John McAdams has put forth the silly idea that Garrison was 'attacking' the Federal Government - but seriously, can anyone provide a *reasonable* reason for the Justice Department to interfere in a state prosecution? 11. Why did Baker come up with so many different versions of meeting up with Oswald, and why did the WC dishonestly move Baker’s time of arrival back so far, and the alleged assassin up so much? They did so by false statements, why was this needed? 12. "Tests were also made with a nuclear reactor on the cast of Oswald's cheek Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, head of the activation analysis program of the general atomic division of General Dynamics Corporation, made an analysis of the paraffin cast, the results of which were presented to the Commmission. Dr. Guinn said that he hand his colleagues reasoned 'that if a gun was fired and some of the powder came back on the hands and cheek, some of the bullet primer should also come back'. They decided to try looking for elements by putting the wax impressions of hands and cheeks into a nuclear reactor.' Guinn said the had informed the FBI that it would be worth-while to utilize 'activation analysis' because the Dallas police had merely used the chemical paraffin test. 'We bought a similar rifle from the same shop as Oswald and conducted two parallet tests,' Guinn said. 'One person fired the rifle on eight occasions.' The scientist stated that paraffin casts were made and when tested by means of radioactivity, 'it was positive in all eight cases and showed a primer on both hands and both cheeks. [Weisberg, who has seen Guinn's report, quotes "heavy deposits" on the cheek casts] Then we took the casts of Oswald's cheek and put them in a nuclear reactor.' Guinn added, 'I cannot say what we found out about Oswald becuase it is secret until the publication of the Warren Commission Report." - Mark Lane's Rush to Judgement, pg 152-153 These comparative tests, which were done by a recognized expert - were contradicted by Cunningham's testimony on pg 561 of the WCR (despite the fact that Cunningham had *NO* experience with NAA) - but the Warren Commission was not honest enough to present Guinn's evidence... This evidence is *exculpatory* for Oswald... Why was the WC dishonest enough to present Cunningham's testimony, without allowing readers to know about Guinn's testing results? Why were those test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today? 13. "in a discussion after the conference Drs. Light and Dolce (two wound ballistics experts from Edgewood Arsenal) expressed themselves as being very strongly of the opinion that Connally had been hit by two different bullets, principally on the ground that the bullet recovered from Connally's stretcher could not have broken his radius without having suffered more distortion. Dr. Olivier (another wound ballistics expert) withheld a conclusion until he has had the opportunity to make tests on animal tissue and bone with the actual rifle." "Memorandum for the Record," dated April 22, 1964, written by Melvin Eisenberg about a conference held on April 21, 1964. Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC (Dr. Joseph Dolce) fired when he refused to endorse their theory? (Or, more correctly - the WC refused to allow him to testify, and eliminated any reference to his opinions in the WCR.) 14. Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted? Dave Powers, for example, or Tomlinson? Why do LNT'ers refuse to admit this simple historical fact of FBI intimidation of eyewitnesses? (Toddy, for example, has been running from this since 2005... even though he *requested* the supporting evidence) 15. What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy? Any idea why John McAdams, as well as all other LNT'ers - keep running away from this topic? When it was pointed out that the size of this object was twice the size of the one that Dr. Humes asserted in testimony was the largest fragment, here's what John McAdams was forced to do: ******************************************* > I'd say a 6.5mm virtually round object was big enough, > wouldn't you? Particularly when it's twice the size of what > Dr. Humes thought was the largest fragment found. John McAdams: We don't know it's more than twice the mass, because it's apparently just a sliver. ****************************************** Why did McAdams dishonestly try changing from "size" to "mass"? Until LNT'ers can satisfactorily explain this 6.5mm virtually round object, the best explanation remains that this was a failed attempt to frame Oswald. 16. "I also found some surpising results based on the chest X-ray. I made accurate measurements of the width of the spine directly on the X-ray. The front to back thickness of the body at this site (14 cm) as well as the distance of the back wound from the midline (4.5 to 5.0 cm) were supplied by the HSCA. Since this latter distance can be measured independently on photographs of the back, I also did this. The so-called exit site at the front of [the] throat was described by the Parkland doctors as being very near the midline. When I placed these measurements onto a cross section of the body and then connected the bullet entry and exit sites by a straight line, I immediately saw that the "magic" bullet had to go right through the spine. This path would have caused major damage to the spine and would have been very obvious on the chest X-ray. In fact, there is no major trauma like this anywhere in the spine. Because of the impenetrable vertical barrier produced by the transverse processes up and down the entire cervical spine and because of the total width of the cervical spine, there is no place for the bullet to pass through anywhere in the neck and still exit through the midline of the throat. If, instead, the upper chest is considered as a possible bullet trajectory site, then another problem arises. The bullet would have to go right through the lung. But no lung damage of this type was seen by the pathologsts and none is seen on the X-rays either. This "magic bullet simply cannot enter through the back wound and then exit through the throat wound without hitting the spine - or else causing major lung trauma. It is odd that this rather simple reconstruction with exact measurements has never been done before. Its very simplicity, however, proves direct evidence that the object which entered the back could not have exited at the front of the throat." Dr. Mantik, Assassination Science, pg 157-158 Why has no-one been able to step up to the plate and show that this *is* possible? 17. Col. Finck testified during the Shaw trial: Q: I will ask you the question one more time: Why did you not dissect the track of the bullet wound that you have described today and you saw at the time of the autopsy at the time you examined the body? Why? I ask you to answer that question. A: As I recall I was told not to, but I don't remember by whom. Q: You were told not to but you don't remember by whom? A: Right. Q: Could it have been one of the Admirals or one of the Generals in the room? A: I don't recall. Q: Do you have any particular reason why you cannot recall at this time? A: Because we were told to examine the head and the chest cavity, and that doesn't include the removal of the organs of the neck. Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds? Even John McAdams has run away from answering this simple question. 18. Why were the prosectors not allowed to examine JFK's clothing, a routine and completely ordinary procedure in an autopsy, despite the fact that the clothes were certainly within reach? John McAdams has attempted to assert that this was done on orders of the Kennedy family, despite the fact that Col Finck detailed in a contemporary memo who had prevented him from examining the clothing: "I was denied the opportunity to examine the clothing of Kennedy. One officer who outranked me told me that my request was only of academic interest. The same officer did not agree to statein the autopsy report that the autopsy was incomplete, as I suggested to indicate. I saw the clothing of Kennedy, for the first time, on 16 March 1964, at the Warren Commission, before my testimony, more than three months after the autopsy." Why would McAdams, who certainly knows of this memo, lie about such a simple historical fact? 19. Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them... John McAdams has denied that any photo or X-ray have disappeared, but to do so; he must call the eyewitnesses liars - and beg ordinary people to suspend common sense. The prosectors described only *TWO* injuries inside the body - one to the trachea, which they were prevented from removing, and one to the tip of the lung - WHICH THEY STATE THAT THEY PHOTOGRAPHED. A photograph that has never been seen. (Interestingly, this also happened in the RFK case, missing photographs... although the controlling agency in this case was the LAPD) 20. Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts? (Interestingly, this same pattern happened again in the RFK murder case - although here it was the LAPD that took to harrassing CT journalists and researchers.) 21. Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it? 22. Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it. The shells at the Tippet scene, for another. Why were autopsy technicians forbidden from doing ordinary marking for X-ray identification? 23. "I spoke to Gus Rose concerning the camera. He told me that he did find the small camera. He told me that 'the FBI came back three times trying to convince me and Captain Fritz that what I had found was a light meter. Captain Fritz told them on the third visit not to come to him again about the camera.' Fritz stood behind his man and today is vindicated through Rusty's photograph." - First Day Evidence, pg 212 "The agent-in-charge of the Dallas FBI office during the assassination investigation wa J. Gordon Shanklin. He claimed that he could not recall the camera incident. However, an inventory list was made in his Dallas FBI office on November 26th, 1963, of the evidence obtained from the Dallas police. It listed "one Minox camera" under item number 375, which was witnessed by De Brueys himself as well as Dallas Police Captain J. M. English of the Property Bureau. However, upon arrival in Washington, a SECOND inventory list was made by De Brueys and another agent, Vince Drain. Item number 375 at that point became a 'Minox light meter.' Still included among the evidence were two rolls of 'apparently exposed' and two rolls of undeveloped Minox film, supporting the fact that there must have been a camera to take the photographs." First Day Evidence, pg 214 Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO? Why did he own one? This was not an inexpensive camera... and it seems cruel to mention that these were favored by intelligence operatives because of their small size. 24. Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators? 25. Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why?? 26. Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"? Or can you point to these "theories" being used in any prior legal case... 27. Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film? 28. LNT'ers get really nervous and never seem to have any explanation for the reported Limo slowdown/stop that took place in Dealey Plaza. With dozens of eyewitnesses all reporting the slowdown/stop - and many of them *highly* credible (such as the motorcycle cops who were *with* the limo), LNT'ers really can't deny what happened. So when it's pointed out that this *IS NOT SEEN* in the extant Z-Film - they all immediately jump into a chorus of "Hallelujah Alvarez"... pointing out that Alvarez found a slowdown in the film. BUT IT CAN'T BE SEEN BY THE CASUAL VIEWER!!! And Tony Marsh ran screaming away - and starting talking about something else (ghost images) and refused to explain this... as *no* LNT'er has been able to do. LNT'ers just *hate* the eyewitnesses - even when they are forced to imagine the eyewitnesses being correct, as in this case. Any LNT'ers care to explain what Tony ducked? Why is a slowdown *NOT SEEN IN THE EXTANT Z-FILM TO THE CASUAL VIEWER?* 29. Why do over 40 eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo? Dr. Mantik has reported that using stereo viewing, the "hair patch" shows 2D, contrary to everything else, which shows in 3D. Many have noted the "wet" appearance of the hair patch. Interestingly, the lateral X-ray also has a "white patch" at this same location - Dr. Mantik reports that optical density measurements of this "patch" show that JFK was a "bonehead"... solid bone all the way across. Why is there such a distinct and common pattern among eyewitnesses, BOH photo, and Lateral X-ray? 30. Somewhat related to the previous question, why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo? (The Autopsy Report stated that the wound extended to the occipital, and was *devoid* of bone and scalp... this simply cannot be seen in the BOH photo.) No LNT'er has been able to point to *any* part of the Occipital that cannot be seen in the BOH photo - yet the autopsy report, *all* prosectors, and over 40 eyewitnesses place a large wound here that was devoid of bone and scalp. 31. Why did the WC misrepresent so much of their evidence, even to the point of outright lies at some points? The statements about Mrs. Tice, for example, or the date that Oswald left England... 32. There were known assassination attempts in both Chicago and Tampa in the weeks before the successful assassination attempt in Dallas. Although the Chicago attempt was successfully kept out of the papers, this isn't true of the Tampa attempt - which made it into one article. Why did the Secret Service not inform the WC of these past attempts, and what can explain the WC's "ignorance" of these previous assassination attempts? Why do LNT'ers refuse to even *admit* that these attempts are historical and known? 33. Why did the WCR never deal with the unidentified finger-print found in the Sniper’s Nest? This pattern of burying and disregarding any exculpatory evidence is troubling at best, and dishonest to those who study more deeply how the Warren Commission operated. 34. Why did the WC simply lie about the first press conference with Dr. Perry? We all know that they certainly had the power to get film of the conference, and they refused to do so... why? 35. From the Jan 27th Executive Session: *************************************** Mr. Rankin. Then there is a great range of material in regard to the wounds, and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time. We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation other shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through. ***************************************** "Below the shoulder blades?" "probably a fragment came out the front of the neck?" Can you point to any statement in the current existing Autopsy report that would support these statements? Was Spector simply mistaken? Under what conditions could he come up with such a mistaken impression of what the Autopsy Report said? 36. Why was their such an amazing amount of clumsiness when it came to the assassination films? The Z-film being broke in several places, the Muchmore film being broke right at one of the head shots, the Nix Film reportedly returning in a different condition from when it was taken from him? This isn't to mention the number of eyewitnesses who reported their film taken *and never returned* 37. "The significance of Givens' observation that Oswald was carrying his clipboard became apparent on December 2, 1963, when an employee, Frankie Kaiser, found a clipboard hidden by book cartons in the northwest corner of the sixth floor at the west wall a few feet from where the rifle had been found." (WCR 143) Mr. KAISER. I was over there looking for the Catholic edition--teacher's edition. Mr. BALL. Where did you see the clipboard? Mr. KAISER. It was Just laying there in the plain open--and just the plain open boxes-you see, we've got a pretty good space back there and I just noticed it laying over there. Mr. BALL. Laying. on the floor? Mr. KAISER. Yes, it was laying on the floor. Mr. BALL. It was on the floor? Mr. KAISER. It was on the floor. Mr. BALL. How close was it to the wall? Mr. KAISER. It was about---oh--I would say, just guessing, about 5 or 6 inches, something like that. Mr. BALL. From the wall and on the floor? Mr. KAISER. Laying on the floor. Mr. BALL. And were there any boxes between the wall and the clipboard? Mr. KAISER. No, not between the wall and the clipboard--there wasn't. Mr. BALL. Were there boxes between the stairway and the clipboard? Mr. KAISER. No, you see, here's---let me see just a second---here's the stairs right here, and we went down this way and here's the stairs this way going up and here's the and it was laying fight in here by the cards--there are about four or five cards, I guess, running in front of it--just laying between the part you go down and the part you go up. Mr. BALL. You mean laying between the stairway up and the stairway down? Mr. KAISER. Yes, right there in the corner. (6H 343) BALL. How long did you stay up on the sixth floor? After you found the location of the three cartridges? Mr. MOONEY. Well, I stayed up there not over 15 or 20 minutes longer--after Captain Will Fritz and his officers came over there, Captain Fritz picked up the cartridges, began to examine them, of course I left that particular area. By that time there was a number of officers up there. The floor was covered with officers. And we were searching, trying to find the weapon at that time. (3H 289) The WC simply lied, when trying to disguise the fact that the many policemen that swamped the sixth floor (See Mooney's statement) couldn't find a clipboard that Kaiser clearly states was in plain sight, and not hidden at all. The clipboard was *NOT* hidden - and an entire working week went by before it was "discovered". Can anyone defend this curious lie of the Warren Commission? 38. "... but there is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (WCR 292) "Because Oswald's use of this pseudonym became known quickly after the assassination, investigations were conducted with regard to persons using the name Hidell or names similar to it." (WCR 313) "Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name." (WCR 645) But the actual evidence shows otherwise: "I, John Rene Heindel, 812 Belleville Street, New Orleans, Louisiana, being first duly sworn, depose and say: ...While in the Marine Corps, I was often referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than "Fidel." This was a nickname and not merely an inadvertent mispronounciation. It is possible that Oswald might have heard me being called by this name; indeed he may himself have called me "Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of his either using or hearing this name." (8H 318) If a LNT'er wishes to argue that the staff was unaware of this deposition, they'll need to face this: Mr. JENNER. Do you remember a marine by the name of John Heindel? Mr. POWERS. No, sir. Mr. JENNER. Sometimes called Hidell? This is Atsugi now. Mr. POWERS. No. (8H 288) The WCR once again, simply lied. And although John R. Heindel was known from a Secret Service investigation conducted in New Orleans from 22Nov - 2Dec; (See CE3119 pg 12) no other research has been presented... presumably, the FBI, Secret Service, and WC simply declined to investigate Heindel. Interestingly enough, the Dallas Police list of property seized on Nov 23rd at the Paine residence includes the following: "four 3 x 5 cards bearing respectively names G. Hall; A.J. Hidell; B. Davis; and V.T. Lee" (CE 2003 pg 269) Gus Hall, Benjamin Davis, and Vincent T. Lee are real people of prominence in the leftist political movement. If A. J. Hidell is a fake name invented by Oswald, the subtlety of preparing an index card for Hidell, and putting it in with known real people was certainly nothing less than brilliant. (to paraphrase Silvia Meagher) Can anyone explain why the WCR simply disregarded and misrepresented the evidence in the case of this 'alias'? 39. "Oswald disembarked at Le Havre on October 8. He left for England that same day, and arrived on October 9. He told English customs officials in Southampton that he had $700 and planned to remain in the United Kingdom for 1 week before proceeding to a school in Switzerland. But on the same day, he flew to Helsinki, Finland, where he registered at the Torni Hotel; on the following day, he moved to the Klaus Kurki Hotel." (WCR 690) Any normal reading of that paragraph will give you the idea that Oswald left England for Helsinki on October 9th. But once again, it's a lie that is in provable conflict with their own evidence: Anyone can turn to CE 946 pg 7: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...8/html/WH_Vol... and read the stamp which states: "Embarked 10 October 1959" But this wouldn't be good for the WC - for as they discovered, there were no commercial flights from London to Helsinki that Oswald could have taken in order to get to his hotel in Helsinki on the 10th. (See CE 2677) The WC knew that the only alternative was a non-commercial flight - such as a military flight. This wouldn't do at all - so the simple solution of the Warren Commission? Simply lie about the day Owald left London... Why does the "truth" require a lie to support it? 40. The only other person besides Kantor who recalled seeing Ruby at the hospital did not make known her observation until April 1964, had never seen Ruby before, allegedly saw him only briefly then, had an obstructed view, and was uncertain of the time. (WCR 336) But, let's take a look at Mrs. Tice's actual testimony - to see if the WC was telling the truth or not: Mr. GRIFFIN. How long did this man that you think was Jack Ruby, how long did he stand out there next to you? Mrs. TICE. I was standing about 3 feet from them. Mr. GRIFFIN. Where was he standing in relation to you. Was he in front of you or behind you, or off to the side, or where was he? Mrs. TICE. I was standing about like this, and they were standing there, but I was being nosey and listening. Mr. GRIFFIN. In other words, this man was off to the side 4 or 5 feet distant from you, the distance from you to me? Mrs. TICE. This man that I say was Jack Ruby was about 3 feet from me, I guess, about as far as you are from me. Mr. GRIFFIN. You could only see the side of his face, I take it? Mrs. TICE. Jack Ruby's? Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes. (15H 392) Mr. GRIFFIN. So Jack actually was a little bit in front of you? Mrs. TICE. Yes; I guess. Mr. GRIFFIN. Would you put an R where Ruby was? (Mrs. Tice marks.) Mr. GRIFFIN. Now, a man walked up to him and tapped him on the shoulder? Mrs. TICE. The man came right down this way, over this way and slapped him on the shoulder and asked him how he was doing. Mr. GRIFFIN. And at that point Jack turned around? Mrs. TICE. At that point Jack turned around and started talking to him. At the time, he was facing right toward me. (15H 394) The Warren Commission simply lied about Mrs. Tice's view of Ruby - attempting to state that it was obstructed, when the actual testimony shows that Ruby was just 3 feet away, and at one point, *facing* Mrs. Tice. The WC *cited* her testimony, so they couldn't have been unaware that their own evidence contradicted their assertion. Amusing that the WC would argue that Mrs. Tice had never seen Jack Ruby before... they didn't appear to be embarrassed that Brennan had never seen Oswald before... Once again, the question becomes why did the Warren Commission feel that it needed to lie about it's own collected evidence in order to 'prove' the truth? When does the truth need a lie to support it? 41. The fact that the HSCA also chose to lie about the medical testimony and the BOH photo is another troubling issue that LNT'ers simply cannot deal with. Quoting from the History-Matters website, here's an example: "At least as troubling is the HSCA's handling of the medical evidence. The HSCA had a tougher row to hoe, there having been several well-written critiques of the Warren Commission which required answering. One "problem" that presented itself was the stark contrast between the statements of physicians who treated Kennedy at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, who almost uniformly described a large rear head wound (which would tend to indicate a shot from the front), and the autopsy report, which asserted a right-side head wound which did not reach the back of the head. The HSCA met this problem head on, explaining why they sided with the autopsy doctors: "In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wounds as depicted in the photographs. None had differing accounts." This written statement, it turns out, is utterly false. With the release in the 1990s of the HSCA's files, which include transcripts of these unpublished interviews (complete with drawings made by the witnesses), we now know that several autopsy witnesses indeed corroborated the Dallas doctors' observations. See the Medical Coverup topic on this website for the transcripts and audiotapes of the interviews. More recent medical interviews, conducted in 1996 and 1998 by the Assassination Records Review Board, contain even starker indications of a medical coverup to conceal evidence of a frontal shot, and therefore a second shooter." http://history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/L...s/Lasting_Que... This brings to mind the question that I've asked many times, yet no LNT'er has undertaken a serious reply... Why, if the WCR is correct, did both the WC and HSCA need to lie about their own evidence to make their case? 42. Just a few days after the assassination, an anonymous caller told the DPD that Oswald had had a rifle sighted at the Irving Sports Shop. Interestingly, no one at the shop remembered anything about this, nor did anyone step up to the plate to admit that they had called. However, in checking their records, they came up with paperwork showing that work had been performed on a rifle for a customer named "Oswald" between November 4th-8th. And even though no-one remembered the specific person, the ticket proved that it could *not* have been Oswald's rifle... the ticket specified the drilling of *three* holes to mount a telescopic sight. The MC only had *two* holes. Anthony Summer's, in recounting this - specifies that there were other, unstated, reasons that the ticket could *not* have referenced Oswald's MC. The question that this incident clearly raises is just who was it that was attempting to frame LHO? There are many other instances of "Oswald sightings" that intentionally frame him as an arrogant man with an MC. And although Oswald normally only specified his name as "Lee Oswald", a number of these sightings had the man specifying his name as "Lee Harvey Oswald". Rather puzzling for the LNT'er crowd... Another interesting incident had taken place several years earlier, when Oswald was provably in Russia. Immediately after the assassination, a manager of a Ford Motors franchise, Oscar Deslatte, contacted the FBI - stating that the name "Oswald" seemed familiar... so he'd gone back through his order files, and found a prospective purchaser from 1961. The "Oswald" from 1961, along with a Cuban, had tried to purchase 10 trucks. Deslatte recalled that "Oswald" first identified himself as "Joseph Moore", but asked that the name "Oswald" go on the purchase documents. Interestingly, when the carbon copy of this old purchase order was finally released by the FBI in 1979 - it turned out that the name of the Anti-Castro group that was trying to purchase the trucks was the "Friends of Democratic Cuba"... an organization that Guy Bannister was a key member of. Hmmm... anyone ever connect Guy Bannister with LHO before? There are a number of other interesting "impersonations" of Oswald, (The most famous of which were in Mexico City - long buried by the WC) and the question becomes - "Who was impersonating Oswald, and for what reason?" So the question becomes... who was 'impersonating' Oswald in the weeks before the assassination? 43. Admiral George Burkley was the only medically trained doctor to be present at both Parkland and Bethesda, yet was strangely absent from any questioning by the WC. When the HSCA rolled around, despite a letter from Burkley's attorney, stating that Burkley "has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.", the HSCA waited close to a year before interviewing Dr. Burkley. Then, strangely enough, evidently never questioned Dr. Burkley on his assertion that others must have participated in the assassination. Can anyone explain these curious facts in light of a *real* investigation? 44. "This shouldn't be in the damn record!" - the infamous outburst of Dr. George Loquvam, during the HSCA forensic panel discussion. A most revealing statement - why was the good doctor concerned with eyewitness statements being put into written form, even though the HSCA classified it? It matters little, since the written record doesn't really indicate anything that *should* be kept hidden - thereby leading any careful reader into concluding that someone has been busy doctoring the transcripts. In fact, a note written by Andy Purdy about a phone call from Dr. Michael Baden, the chairman of the HSCA medical panel - Baden told Purdy that he was almost finished with the Humes and Boswell transcript, and that he believed that it "can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence." "can be cleaned up enough to be in evidence"??? Looks like Loquvam got his wish... the "damn record" was indeed "cleaned up", so that today we don't know what was really said. But someone forgot to take Loquvam's revealing statement out. Why does the truth require lies to support it? And why hasn't *any* LNT'er been able to either answer this question, or refute that the WC and HSCA *LIED* in their reports? 45. Despite being widely hailed by the media as an "exhaustive study produced by honorable and prestigious men", the Warren Commission Report was unable to find any room in its 888 page report, or 26 volumes of supporting evidence for the very first piece of paperwork generated in any murder case - the death certificate. Perhaps they just didn't have any room left? Can anyone defend this? NEW!!! ******************************************* 46. In honor of all the hoopla surrounding the latest entry to the WC apologist camp - Vincent Bugliosi: can anyone explain why Bugliosi (as all previous LNT'er authors have done) was required to omit, misrepresent, and lie about the evidence to make his case? This isn't about facts which honest people can have disagreements about, this is the twisting of the evidence in a dishonest manner to put together a one-sided case. Why is this necessary? NEW!! ******************************************** It's the evidence which shows two conspiracies - the initial one to murder JFK, and a secondary conspiracy to cover up the facts in this case. Because it's the evidence, LNT'ers don't have much answer to questions such as these. The most common response seems to be to deny the basic underlying information, but this simply won't do for the honest lurker. These questions *must* be answered if the theory of a "Lone Nut" (Two of them), is to survive the light of day. It's also interesting to see how many similar questions can be put together for another conspiracy that Bugliosi proved - that of RFK. (Yes, for those unaware, it was Vincent Bugliosi that proved a conspiracy in the RFK case... if more than 8 shots were fired, then ipso facto, a conspiracy existed.) In many ways, it seems as if the conspiracy that took the life of RFK 'learned' from the mistakes of the JFK conspiracy. They still made mistakes, of course...