John Butler

Larry, I'm not arguing with any thing you said. Well said. The retention of things learned is what it is all about. My first year in teaching was with special needs children. I could teach them things, but mostly whatever was taught was gone within several weeks. With repeated sessions on the same material the result was the same. But, still I loved the job and it was the best thing I ever did.

Jim, Don't hold me to this due to poor memory. But, I think I recall Richard Case Nagell claiming to originate the name in Japan during Oswald stay at Atsuki. JFK Assassination: Dick Russell, author of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" about Richard Case Nagell who had foreknowledge of the Hit in Dallas, TX. Nagell also claimed to have known LHO in Japan--both used the alias "Alex Hidell" and both had a few identical contacts in their address books. This is from a youtube video. Sometimes I have a hard time saving a post for some strange reason? This was one way to get you that info.

She says more from time to time that I shouldn't repeat.

I see a gaping wound in the back of President Kennedy's head. When asked, the wife says nah, your imagining things. Still, I see the wound as described by the Parkland doctors. In some photos it looks like a heart shaped black patch.

Gil, You should teach school. The retention rate social studies after a year is 10%. 90% is lost. I thought the same group of kids in the 7th grade, then again in the 8th grade, and the 9th grade. This was my introduction on how effective teaching is in school. 7th grade was KY history, 8th was American history, and the 9th was civics or government. I basically taught some of the same material year after year. It was a real eye opener. To deal with that failure of retention I basically derived ways to each the same thing 5 or 6 different ways hoping for greater retention.

David, There have been made significant, astounding contributions to the Kennedy/Tippit murders by you and Chris D. this week. I wonder if folks really understand and appreciate what you two have put out this week in understanding the real story which has been covered over with the official story. I hope I have contributed with a new look at the Tippit autopsy. Thanks for your kind words.

I thought I would go over this again for greater clarification. This is an autopsy sketch prepared by Dr. Earl Rose: This sketch indicates that Officer Tippit was shot in the "right temple" area. Actually, not. The temple area is more around the ear than eye. We see in the sketch a wound at the corner of the right eye with an arrow moving back towards the top of the rear part of the skull. This indicates, I would assume, the course of the bullet. But, this is not what is said in Rose's autopsy report on page 487: Examination of the wound of the right temple. But, he contradicts that sentence when he describes "It" and where it enters. It must be and can only be the bullet. So, the bullet enters the right middle cranial fossa. And, where is the right middle cranial fossa? It certainly isn't the right temple. Observe the following: The bullet enters the base of the skull in the right middle cranial fossa. That is the bottom of the skull and this creates a problem. More of that in a minute. Rose next says that the bullet "pursues a course which is slightly upward, backward and". The next page 488 continues the description as "to the left". And, "it is strikes the left occipitoparietal bone" He doesn't say either bone, but the juncture of the two bones. "It", the bullet travels from the bottom of the skull to the juncture of the occipital and parietal bones and is recovered in that region. Then he repeats things said in his first description of the wound. "It", once again the bullet's course is plotted. He said "it is found to enter the right temporal lobe." This is as close as the bullet wound comes to the right temple. The right temple is an area defined by bone and not the brain. The right temporal lobe is a section of the brain and not bone. This wound path is inside the skull at not in the temporal bone. So, at this point we have the "It", bullet, entering the brain through the right middle cranial fossa, at the base of the skull, then traveling through the temporal lobe of the brain. Once through the temporal lobe "It" is shown to "coursed through the brain transecting the brain stem". "It" severs the cerebral peduncles in the brainstem area and then ends up striking the occipitaloparietal bone. And, then from there ending up at the "calcarine gyrus" at the rear of the head. This autopsy description does not match what most people think of when they consider the Tippit head wound. Rose obfuscates what really happened. Why? It has to do with the evidence of the bullet and the head wound in this case. David Josephs asked the right question. How does someone shoot Tippit in the "right temple" when he is laying face down on the ground. Wouldn't the bullet travel in the opposite direction from what Rose describes. And, since is head was by the left front tire and under the vehicle, how does that happen? For the wound that Rose describes Tippit must have been lying face up for the wound to travel from the base of the skull to the rear of the skull in the brainstem area. This asks more questions. Whoever placed the blue jacket on Tippit could have turned the body over. Or, Tippit is the last moment of his life may have turned over to be face down. Or, he could have fallen face up and someone later turned him over. The wound as described by Rose doesn't match witness testimony.

A word from James DiEugenio: James DiEugenio: The J.D. Tippit Murder Case in the New Millennium 'Our Hidden History' Interview DiEugenio: Anyway that's the last time the landlady saw him. She said that he was there at about 1:04. Well, the Warren Commission tells us that Oswald then walked from that corner to 10th and Patton and Tippit was killed at about 1:15 and of course they say Oswald did it. Now, the problem with this is additions of about nine-tenths of a mile. That creates a problem because it's hard to believe somebody can walk nine-tenths of a mile in something like 11 minutes. By the way, and I know two researchers who did walk that route and they were both much taller than Oswald and they said "we power walked it. We didn't just normally walked it." He said "we didn't come close to 11 minutes." The "lone nut killer", Oswald was a trained Marine. He walked everywhere he went, except for cabs and buses. Was he capable of walking that in 11 minutes? Or, more likely ran that distance, if he did it at all. This brought back memories of my time in the service. Mr. DiEugenio is absolutely right. To cover that distance in 11 minutes or less one must run. In basic training a 8 minute mile was acceptable to pass a PT, or Physical Training test. Some guys ran a 6 minute mile and one a 5 minute mile. If I am recalling correctly the standard infantry marching pace was 3 miles per hour. That's a 20 minute mile. There was one test that required marching 12 miles in 3 hours. This was for an Expert Infantryman classification. There was an award for doing this, an Expert Infantryman badge. Most guys weren't interested in he badge, but were interested in the Professional Pay that was associated with it. I believe that was an extra 90 dollars a month. That is if you made this walk and demonstrated sufficient knowledge of things Army Infantry. 12 miles in 3 hours gives one a 4 mile a hour marching pace. For one mile that would be 15 minutes. This 15 minute mile is brutal for 12 miles. It is just one gear short of running. I don't believe Oswald was even there much less walk the distance in 11 minutes. If he did the 4 mile an hour pace he would have been seen moving just short of a running motion.

I'll try too. There is more to come.

Greg, I may have stepped over the line here a bit. If you say that was not your intention, I accept that and apologize for my bad behavior. Earl Rose does use the words "right temple". Go back to page one and you will see that on the autopsy page that I posted where I have marked the second explanation with a large red 2. This is a big problem that one runs into from time to time in other discussions. I understand that most people would think of that area as the temple. Almost everyone does and they are wrong. It is not and the temple is actually located closer to the ear than the eye. But, what most people think or understand will not hold up in science or a court of law when it comes to the preciseness needed to describe and understand such a serious matter as a gunshot wound. Earl Rose's autopsy of Officer Tippit should have resulted in his decertification or whatever term is appropriate and a new coroner found. David Joseph's comments were directed to Jonathan Cohen more than you. As I said earlier, sorry for including you in that. David's comments aptly describe JC.

David, Looks like I don't have to reuse what you said in another thread. Once again you make the Super Master Carpenter grade by hitting this nail precisely on the head. And preciseness in anatomical description is what it is all about. You can't take seriously the gross descriptions and gross inaccuracies in the Earl Rose autopsy. Or, for those who lack knowledge of anatomy or even worse those who distort anatomy to make their point. Things like that distort the discussion to the point where communication is impossible. Look at the following: Greg's photo here turned upside down and reversed gives one a better look at his right temple wound. Accurate for his portrayal of a right temple wound, but totally inaccurate to describe the wound in the Unger photo or the autopsy sketch. I suspect the reason he used this photo this way is order to make it harder to understand the comparison. Description of anatomy is all about preciseness of detail in describing an organism's anatomy. Earl Rose's autopsy report would not pass review in any peer-reviewed journal in Anthropology which routinely discusses the anatomy of living and fossil creatures. Often times anthropologists are called in to make a more accurate description in criminal cases. I'll repeat myself, "The temple is an area where 4 skull bones come together on the side of the head. These are the Frontal Bone, the Parietal Bone, the Sphenoid Bone, and the Temporal Bone. In anatomy, these are accurately detailed anatomical areas and must be defined by preciseness. A loose description such as temple is not acceptable for any scientific report." And, the right temple is not located at the corner of the eye where the wound is. The Sphenoid Bone is there with no mention in the autopsy report.

David, Very well said. If you don't mind I would like to reuse that in another thread.

Greg, I can see that we don't see eye to eye, so to speak. That's not a problem with me. People of good will and good intent can reasonably disagree. Thanks for your comments on my thoughts and I'm sorry you were confused and didn't catch the concepts I was trying to convey. Thanks for your civility which is often lacking in folks that don't agree with what I try to say.

Jonathan, Thanks for your response. Perhaps you should be more selective in your reading material. There is a lot of people out there who hold views and attitudes similar to mine. I wouldn't want you to become over "boggled" Have a nice day.

Earl Rose’s Duplicity This concerns some of the reasons why Earl Rose chose to do the autopsy of Officer Tippit in the manner that he did. 1. Earl Rose was a M.D. in Dallas, Texas. He did autopsies there. He is generally accounted as a good guy because he tried to keep Kennedy’s body in Dallas as the law required. He was over run by the Secret Service and the body was taken from Parkland. 2. Was Earl Rose a good guy in this circumstance of the Kennedy/Tippit murders? He couldn’t autopsy President Kennedy, but he did do an autopsy on Patrolman Tippit. 3. As we have seen elsewhere, his autopsy on Tippit is questionable. 4. I suppose one could rationalize Rose’s use of non-anatomical terms to describe the Tippit No. 1 gunshot, head wound. This could easily be explained as a way for non-medical or anatomically trained individuals to read an autopsy report. I have no problems with this. It is a good way to share information. 5. However, this non-technical information should not vary from the technical in any significant way. They should be as close as possible. Anatomical change of even the slightest bit indicates different structure, function, and use. 6. This is not the case in the Tippit autopsy. The non-anatomical varies significantly from the anatomical descriptions. 7. There is variation in body structures due to random, minute genetic changes. That’s why there is a whole system of anatomical direction measurement terms. Some are listed below. There are many more than these and often used in combination: a. Superior and Inferior – Superior means above, inferior means below. E.g. The elbow is superior (above) to the hand. The foot is inferior (below) to the knee. b. Anterior and Posterior – Anterior means toward the front (chest side) of the body, posterior means toward the back. c. Medial and Lateral – Medial means toward the midline of the body, lateral means away from the midline. Proximal and Distal – Proximal means closest to the point of origin or trunk of the body, distal means farthest away. These terms are often used to describe the arms and legs. If you were describing the shin bone, the proximal end would be the end closest to the knee and the distal end would be the end closest to the foot. In the fingers, a proximal joint is the one closest to the wrist and a distal joint is the one farthest from the wrist. 8. Notice in the description of the head wound, No. 1 he does not use terms similar to these. But, he does in describing other wounds and features in combination with standard direction measurements. 9. Why? I think he wanted to do a correct and truthful job. I can only repeat the above reasoning. I believe he consciously altered the location of the wound in order to satisfy the coercion of others involved in the cover up. What would have been the response if he didn’t? The authorities in Dallas would have found someone else to do the job in the manner they desired. And, probably his career would have been ruined. Consider the Dr. Perry story as an example of the kind of coercion a person can come under from the authorities. Many people, witnesses and others, died during the period 1963 until the ARRB termination. So many that it is statistically impossible to rationalize their deaths other than by sinister forces being involved. Others think this kind of cover up continues. The autopsy photo of the wound in Tippit's head is hard to deal with. 3 wounds or 4 wounds? That is one question. A second might be if the photo is false (according to the autopsy report it is) then who shot Tippit in the head might be a good question. Or, is it just a fake as many other pieces of evidence were?

David, Interesting ideas. Most people don't have great facial recognition skills for those met infrequently. Freguently? Maybe. But, in the case of the Oswald doubles they are seen infrequently by various folks and suggestion by others would easily lead to those folks identifying Oswald who was actually someone else who resembled Oswald. Sometimes, even remotely resembled Oswald.

Maybe Zedited in the Zapruder film if some of things mentioned are true.

Greg, David Josephs did a great job pointing out the problems with the Tippit autopsy almost 10 years ago. To answer your question, they are not the same areas of the head. The right middle Cranial Fossa is a skull bone at the bottom of the skull in the mid right portion. This is demonstrated in your post. The right temple is a different area of the skull. There is no temple bone, but there is a Temporal Bone. The temple is an area where 4 skull bones come together on the side of the head. These are the Frontal Bone, the Parietal Bone, the Sphenoid Bone, and the Temporal Bone. In anatomy, these are accurately detailed anatomical areas and must be defined by preciseness. A loose description such as temple is not acceptable for any scientific report. People often confuse the forehead (Frontal Bone) with the temple. The temple is best described by the being the area around the ear (Temporal Bone) that joins the Sphenoid, Parietal, and Frontal bones. There are two autopsy descriptions for the gunshot head wound, No. 1. The first of these I believe is fraudulent. This describes a gunshot wound to the head by location in inches from locations on the skull in non-anatomical terms. This is demonstrated by a sketch from the autopsy. David Josephs first posted this in 2012. In that post he posted this: And, With the following text: “Can ANYONE provide PROOF, that Tippit was shot in the head at 10th and Patton... according to this FBI report... Dr. Liguori does not mention a headwound at all and bullets are removed in the ambulance, at Methodist AND at Parkland??? We KNOW he was shot in the head.... Why didn't anybody see it? How is it possible that these three BEST WITNESSES do not recall an execution style shot to the head?” This calls into question the autopsy sketch. This sketch indicates a gunshot wound just off the corner of the right eye, about an inch or so. This sits directly above the Sphenoid bone of the skull. You can feel this area if you place your finger about an inch or so from the corner of your eye and just above your cheek bone (Zygomatic Arch or bone). Nowhere in the autopsy report does it mention this area. It does mention the right temple in connection with this sketch and in the Unger photo. This wound shown here is not in the right temple or in the right middle cranial fossa at the bottom of the skull. So, what do we make of this? I take it to be a fraud. Both the diagram and the photo. I base this on the FBI report indicating there were only 3 gunshot wounds and the second description of gunshot wound No. 1 in Earl Rose’s autopsy report. The autopsy clearly states “Examination of the wound of the right temple is made. It is found to enter in the right middle cranial fossa…” These are two different areas of the brain!!! One can’t really use the right temple this way as a description by saying the wound went through the right Temporal Lobe as the right temple. When talking about the “right temple wound” Rose uses non-anatomical terms. This is for those folks who do not read autopsy reports and understand medical terminology. This type of description is used to describe gunshot wound No. 1 in the first description. Then he goes on to describe it as it should be using the correct terms. If the bullet enters the right middle cranial fossa then that wound is at the bottom of the skull and not the side. The right temple/Temporal bone is a different area then the right middle Cranial Fossa. Neither are in the area of the Sphenoid bone. First off the head wound is questionable by reading the FBI report. Secondly, the autopsy description is questionable by having two different descriptions of the No. 1 wound. Neither mention a wound as described by the photo and diagram. Here is my best description, at this point, of how the wound is descripted in the autopsy report second description of gunshot wound No. 1: The autopsy report says, “and, is found to exit the brain substance in the Calcarine Gyrus at the left of the midline.” OBTW, you can’t have a sulcus without a gyrus. These are terms that describe the brains surface structure or ridges and fissures. Sulcus is a crevasse of fissure and Gyrus is a ridge or mound. This description is quite different from the autopsy sketch or the Unger photo. What do I make of this? Rose obviously is giving an autopsy description that matches what the Dallas police and authorities want in the murder of Tippit. But, at the same time he is saying to those who thoroughly read the report the true conditions. People in positions of authority such as Rose who dealt with the Kennedy/Tippit murders were put into impossible positions by coercion of the cover up operators, the local and federal authorities.

David, There is something wrong with the autopsy report done by Earl Rose. He gives two different descriptions for gunshot wound No. 1. This is the head wound. He first describes, but does not give a medical or an anatomical location for the first description. He simply gives a description/measurement in inches that leads one over to the forehead where there is a gunshot wound and contusion ring present in that location. This was in an Unger photo and a diagram (by Rose I think). The next description falsifies the first. Later, he gives the second description of gunshot wound No. 1 that has the bullet entering the base of the skull (right middle cranial fossa) traveling through the right temporal lobe and striking the brainstem severing functions there. The bullet then leaves the brainstem area when it strikes the rear portion of the skull (occiptal/parietal bone) then moves upward towards the top of the skull ending about an inch from the top of the skull (Calcarine Gyrus which I believe is in the front of the skull). {correction here rear of skull} Which of these descriptions do you like? It seems that the forehead wound with contusion ring (frontal bone wound near the sphenoid bone) is the one that most people think is what occurred. But, if you prefer the second description based on medical/anatomical locations then the first description is a fraud. So, what does one do with the Unger picture showing a forehead wound and contusion ring? And, what about the diagram? Are these faked according to Rose's autopsy? and, If Tippit was laying face down went shot the fourth and last time that the bullet would have had to go into the area under his jaw and travel upward to course through the temporal lobe and strike the brainstem. If Tippit was lying on his face and stomach it is hard to imagine how this wound came about. Perhaps the shooter rolled him over? Perhaps the shooter squatted and shot Tippit from a low angle. The autopsy report said the bullet entered the right middle cranial fossa which is a bone at the bottom of the skull. If he was lying on his face then the bullet wound have went in the other direction hitting structures in the front of the head. All I know is something is wrong with this autopsy report.

Thanks Steven, If that were so it would give more credence to the notion that the testimony of Brugioni and McMahon is CIA disinformation designed to further obfuscate what really happened. This would be kind of like a Nixonian "modified limited hangout". Their testimony has always bothered me in the sense that those two were long term employees of the CIA and just how truthful could they be even if they were willing to tell all. Taken Richard Helms, David Phillips, and E. Hward Hunt as examples, could you really trust what a CIA agent says?

Thinking of more than one Zapruder film filmed at the same time as Zapruder brings up the Doug Horne story of the documenting of the early history of the Zapruder film. Is this CIA disinformation? Did Brugioni and McMahon tell a tale for the public after all those years that simply leads one down a meaningless, controversial trail for the CIA? If there was more than one Zapruder film filmed by Sitzman and some man behind them then what does one make of that Horne/Brugioni/McMahon tale? If there was more than one Zapruder film filmed from his location then that film or film could have been at Rochester, New York as early as a jet could fly there. Maybe by 5:00 or 6:00 PM on the day of the assassination. Earlier films could have been made mapping the area in preparation as a base for the actual information coming into the Hawkeye Works from the multiple Zapruder/others films that no one new anything about. These early base films could have been there as a base film by perhaps 2:00 PM. John Costella said at one point that the Zapruder film may have been built from the ground up. He indicated that all that was known about the Zapruder film was about 30 frames used in briefing boards and Life Magazine. The rest of the extant film could have been prepared later. I think this may be the case because a tremendous amount of information had to be reconciled with other films such as Muchmore, Nix, and others. Other than briefing boards and life magazine what did people know of the Zapruder film? Select individuals were allowed to see the film and we have their memory and veracity for what they saw. What they said may have been subject to coercion as so many other witnesses were coerced by the Secret Service, FBI, and Dallas authorities. The record of dead JFKA witnesses is appalling.

1. Jackie's hand and wrist are covered by a light spot, an alleged reflection. A reflection of what that makes it so intense it is different from the rest of the trunk. Jackie may have been wearing white gloves. But, upon closer examination one can see her hand past the light spot in some frames. 2. There are too many straight lines in Jackie's figure. There are not many things in nature that produce a straight line, particularly on a woman's figure. 3. Notice the notch formed by Jackie's hat to her right buttock. This notch forms a broad U shape consisting of 3 straight lines that shouldn't be there. Her right buttock is an outside line for her figure and is flat and not rounded as it should be. 4. Her right leg is cut off midway between hip and knee. Her right hand and wrist seems to be missing in some of the frames. All of these things indicate altered frames. The matte artist didn't do his work as well as he could have done in cutting out her figure from another film. Rushed for time or arrogance in some one not seeing these details? I conclude that Jackie picking up President Kennedy's brain matter of the trunk has been edited out of the Zapruder film.

This is what I saw when I went to that link and didn't get any further. Is this really suggesting that Kennedy was mortally wounded here at the corner of Main and Houston Streets. Is this being attributed to Jim Altgens. This definitely is not the official story. What is being said here? Is this why Altgens 5 is altered?

Chris D., I thought I had noticed something new, but as most of the time someone has already thought about the idea. I noticed that Zapruder was shorter then Sitzman. And, it some cases she looks like a man from the waist up. I've looked at Moorman, Willis, Betzner, and Bronson. You can't really tell whether Sitzman is behind or beside Zapruder. They do seem to be filming together in Moorman. This was posted in 2009 by Fetzner: "By Guest James H. Fetzer, March 11, 2009 in JFK Assassination Debate I left another--similarly dangling--issue in this post when I made the following observation: "Why the photo would be faked, I do not profess to know, but my guess would be there was something in the pergola area that had to be obfuscated and, when the alteration was done, it was not done quite right. The astounding part is not that a mistake was made, but that Jack White noticed the line of sight that you have done so much to obscure." I believe that Jack may have hit on the crucial reason--or, at least, one of the reasons, since there may be more--for fiddling with the Moorman in the pergola area specifically, which has to do with the images of Sitzman and Zapruder, who might or might not have been there at all. Consider Jack's studies. In (Z1) the Betzner, Sitzman is 69" tall and Zapruder is 62". In (Z2) the Moorman, their heights are now 66" and 58". In (Z3) the Nix, she is 70" tall and Zapruder (who is now wearing a hat) is 68". In (Z4) the Willis, Sitzman is 71" tall and Zapruder 64". And in (Z5) Bronson she is 65" tall and Zapruder 57". Now Sitzman cannot be 69" tall and 66" tall and 70" tall and 71" tall and 65" and be one person at one location in real time. However, her image could have been introduced into those photos and films to create a presence that was not actually at that place and time. Similarly, for Zapruder, who cannot be 62" tall and 58" tall and 68" tall and 64" tall and 57" tall. Something very odd is taking place here, for the discovery of which we, once again, have Jack White to thank. Perhaps Zapruder did not take "the Zapruder film, because the evidence presented here suggests he wasn't even there!" If these calculations can be believed, then more likely than not there is something going on with Zapruder and Sitzman. Could Zapruder and Stizman not be there? I don't think so. But, there is now good evidence that there was filmed more than 1 Zapruder film. Maybe, a case for 3 films so far. The government had their hands on every film and photo in Dealey Plaza. I can only think of one that may have escaped their quest to tell their story. That is the AMIPA film. And, I am sure someone will say what about Robert Croft he went back home. Yes, he did, but the FBI tracked him down at his home and took his film material.

This is absolutely an expression of wonderful, out of the box thinking. Both Zapruder and Sitzman filming at the same time. Who would of thought of that? Nobody for 58 years, except one. So, that is 3 cameras. If 3 cameras are being used by the co-conspirators (I have always thought of Zapruder as one) then there is the possibility of more. Thanks for this vindication of what I have thought all along. More than one film was used to put together the Z film. I first got this idea looking at the people shown on the Southwest corner of Houston and Elm in Zapruder and Elsie Dorman. Zapruder and Dorman don't match on the number of people there before the Zapruder Gap and afterwards.