Paul Jolliffe

David, Respectfully, I'm not so sure about that. We all agree there were multiple shooters from multiple angles. Further I am certain that the bizarre (and suppressed) boarding of McWatters' bus by two unidentified DPD officers just a couple of minutes after "Oswald" had left the bus was in fact a deliberate attempt to kill "Oswald." Also, "Oswald" very nearly was killed at the Texas Theater - had he not shouted loudly "I am not resisting arrest" many people believe he would have been shot right there. No, I am convinced a crucial part of the plot was not merely to frame "Oswald" but to kill him immediately. A dead "Oswald" with all of his (supposed) work as a pro-Castro agent would have led immediately to an invasion of Cuba. The other unidentified shooters could (in the heat of the moment) been named as Castro agents. Speculative? Sure. But the Friday night pressure on Buell Wesley Frazier to "confess" to being "Oswald's" confederate was real and enormous. As late as midnight Friday, the Dallas Police (in the person of Captain Fritz) were desperate to round up multiple shooters. It was only after J. Edgar Hoover called Dallas from Washington early Saturday morning that the DPD backed off Frazier. Not coincidentally, the "official" autopsy was complete by then. (The plot to frame Frazier even included a pre-assassination frame of him - someone used Frazier's name in front of witnesses at the Sports Drome Rifle Range several weeks before the assassination. Yet the real Buell Wesley Frazier was never there, with or without "Oswald.") David, I agree that the largest papers in New York and Washington were pushing the "lone nut" line way too early, but I'm not at all convinced that the Dallas Police were certain of that on Friday. Jesse Curry went to his grave in 1980 believing that there probably was a shooter on the grassy knoll.

Of course the ex-director (fired by JFK) was at The Farm at the very moment of JFK's assassination! Why, don't you know that ex-directors hang out at secure CIA facilities at crucial moments in American history all the time, and it's always a coincidence, unworthy of investigation or even speculation? Only a commie or a mental defective would possibly even wonder about that . . . Next I suppose you'll tell me that you find it bizarre that Allen Dulles was not only named to but was also the most active member of the Warren Commission. Why, just because JFK refused to take the CIA's bait at the Bay of Pigs doesn't mean Dulles hated Kennedy with a purple passion - nooo, Allen Dulles always had the interests of ordinary Americans in mind, and kept sacred the right of the people to rule themselves through their popularly elected officials. Allen Dulles did not spend his entire professional career beholden to the most powerful members of American society, and nor did he seek to enlarge both his personal power and fortune at the expense of American interests. He did not spend 50 years advancing the interests of the most elite people in the world with every fiber of his being! Nooo, Allen Dulles was a saint, a saint I tell you! I suppose you'll be telling me some fantasy about Dulles's belief that CIA officials ought to lie under oath when they believed it necessary! And I bet you'll try to infer something because Dulles said this before an astonished Warren Commission Executive Session on January 27, 1964, and the transcript of which was then marked "Top Secret" and withheld from the American public for over a decade! https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1328#relPageId=29&tab=page What are you, some kind of conspiracy theorist?

I'd never seen that footage before. Very moving. Thanks, Joseph, for posting it.

David, When I was re-reading the FBI's Sibert/O'Neill Report on the autopsy, I was struck (yet again) about the bizarre language in this particular passage: "Also during the latter stages of the autopsy, a piece of the skull measuring 10 x 6.5 centimeters was brought to Dr. HUMES who was instructed that this had been removed from the President’s skull. Immediately this section of skull was X-Rayed . . ." http://22november1963.org.uk/sibert-and-oneill-report#sibert-oneill-report A piece of the president's skull was "brought to Dr. Humes"? Where had it been if it wasn't already on JFK's head? A chunk of the president's head measuring 4" by 2.5" just mysteriously "was brought" to the autopsy? https://www.ginifab.com/feeds/cm_to_inch/actual_size_ruler.html The passive voice here is telling. The lack of official curiosity is stunning! These two FBI agents were to write down everything that happened and who did what, and yet, a gigantic piece of the president's head just appears in some unnamed person's hands, and they offer exactly no explanation! Further, this unnamed person then "instructed" Humes that this piece "had been removed from the President's skull." Who "removed" it? When was it "removed"? How was it "removed"? Why was it "removed"? Where was this "removal" performed? It was not present at the beginning of the "official" autopsy in time for the X-rays. No, this mystery piece of skull was yet to be X-rayed! David, I believe this constitutes your strongest piece of evidence that some sort of medical procedure had taken place before the beginning of the autopsy. This is not the recollection of eyewitnesses as to the condition of the wounds on the president, strong though those recollections may be. This is not the memory of now-missing photos and X-rays, material at odds with the official version, suspicious as their disappearance may be. No, this is an official FBI report, a document from the U.S. Government, published and endorsed by the sanctioned authority, the Warren Commission itself. This is not merely evidence, this is PROOF that some kind of clandestine medical procedure took place somewhere before the official beginning of the autopsy. We don't know the who, or how, or where, or when, or why (although we can guess!) But we can say that such a procedure did indeed take place, and about it, the Warren Commission (and all of the official government lickspittle apologists ever since) have had nothing to say. Their silence is both telling and damning.

Well, I just found a pretty helpful article with not one, not two, but three sketches of the Bethesda morgue: http://dealeyplazauk.com/research/collections/barry-keane/harold-skip-rydberg/ The three artists are Harold Rydberg, Paul K. O'Connor, and Lee Waske. O'Connor's sketch from 1992, and Waske's sketch from 1968 appear to depict the morgue in a near-similar manner, albeit from two different angles. These two sketches seem to match the general background layout of the autopsy photos. Rydberg's 2003 sketch may be the same room , but the phone is off, the sink(s) is a little off, and the "coolers" are on the wrong wall. I presume that Rydberg's memory in 2003 had faded somewhat. (He died in 2017 at the age of 77.) Alan Eaglesham argued back in 2006 that in fact, the autopsy photos were indeed taken at Bethesda. He compared the background of the JFK photos with those of an autopsy from 1966 and found many identical details, including the floor. http://www.manuscriptservice.com/AutopsyRoom/ For now, it appears Aubrey Rike's suspicion about the floor of the Bethesda morgue was unfounded.

Joe, The Bethesda Navy Hospital in 1963 is now part of the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. This is the complex where the official autopsy was performed. This gets confusing because in 1963 there was also the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. This facility (below) closed in 2011: Attached below are photos (including the TILE FLOOR, not concrete) from Walter Reed Army Hospital's morgue. If you blow up the image, the floor is tile, but not the pattern seen on the floor of the room from the official autopsy photos. While I don't know where the official autopsy photos were taken, a possible clue might be found in an article from 1992: Boswell claimed that he believed the autopsy should have been performed at the AFIP at Walter Reed: "Boswell had been at the hospital going over autopsy slides with pathology residents. He recalls, ''Early in the afternoon, we received a call from Dr. Bruce Smith from AFIP, saying, `The president`s body is on its way to Bethesda for an autopsy.` I argued, `That`s stupid. The autopsy should be done at AFIP (which was located 5 miles away at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center).` https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1992-05-24-9202160436-story.html I haven't found a picture of a morgue at the AFIP, apparently part of the WRAH. I am not even certain that AFIP itself had a morgue, but since Boswell was specific in his recollection about his conversation in 1992, I bet he believed that AFIP had such a separate facility from the WRAH. http://www.cai.md.chula.ac.th/chulapatho/AFIP/AFIP fascicles/Afip_tumor of esophagus and stomach/afip_fascicle_fs18_text/www.afip.org/www.afip.html This next link is the morgue (with the wall vaults) at Walter Reed in Washington, D.C. (Not Bethesda, Maryland): https://collections.nlm.nih.gov/catalog/nlm:nlmuid-101401318-img I assume (but don't know) if the autopsy room pictured as an attachment below is the same room as the morgue, perhaps from a different angle. The floor appears to be the same in both images. So, what we know so far is that the floor at the WRAH does NOT match the floor of the official autopsy photos. Whether the floor in those photos match the floor of the morgue at the Bethesda facility (or the floor of a - presumed - morgue at the AFIP) remains unknown. Any help here from anyone would be greatly appreciated.

David, Walt Brown's interview with Aubrey Rike about the autopsy photos raises (yet again) the intriguing possibility (probability?) that those photos were NOT taken in the Bethesda morgue: "Postscript: I recontacted Rike to clear up the last rites question, and he insisted that he was present, along with only one priest, when the sacraments were given, and that the shroud on the President's head was not removed. In our Dallas talk, he had seemed to place a great deal of faith in the theories advanced in 1980 by David Lifton, and I asked him in this postscript if he gave any consideration to the possibility that the photos, not JFK, had been altered. "I sat with the fella that took the photos," he told me. "He said the tiles on the floor don't work, as Bethesda had a concrete floor, and he also had a problem with the metal apparatus that was holding the President's head, as the one at Bethesda was made of rubber." David, do you have any speculations where the autopsy photos were taken, especially this one?

Ron, While that scenario seems a tempting possibility, it is contradicted by first-day witnesses everyone concedes had no reason to lie: Aubrey Rike and Dennis McGuire from the O'Neal Ambulance Service. These men claimed on Friday afternoon to have physically placed the president's body into the bronze ceremonial casket from the funeral home and then put that casket into the hearse, which they then drove to the airport. https://youtu.be/YjhCbt5X4hA http://www.kenrahn.com/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/rike.html Note that in the second interview, Aubrey Rike specifically endorses Lifton's theory of body-alteration. David Lifton has claimed that Rike told him that he, Rike, stayed with the casket from the moment it was closed until it was placed into the ambulance. Unless Rike was lying, a body-switch/alteration scenario at Parkland would seem to be impossible. Perhaps David Lifton could post the relevant audio portion of his interview with Rike?

David, You and I agree that Aubrey Rike's statement proves that the casket with the president's unaltered body at Parkland remained sealed until it arrived at Air Force One. No body alterations occurred at Parkland. However, you seem to be implying that you believe that a number of people, including SS Agent Roy Kellerman, knew of the need to hide evidence of frontal shots in advance of the assassination, and thus the need to remove (forcibly and quickly) the body from Dallas. Yet Kellerman's own testimony before the Warren Commission belies that (apparent) assumption: "Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir." Kellerman indicated here his belief that a bullet traveled from front to back through the president's skull. Such a stated belief meant that Kellerman could not have been aware of the plot to hide evidence of frontal shots. My aim here is not to nitpick, but rather to suggest that the the body alteration may (MAY) have been a hasty improvisation, necessitated by an unforeseen development: "Oswald" was still very much alive on Friday afternoon. It is unarguable that no belated, frantic, risky body-alteration plan would have been necessary if the plan originally called for the framing of multiple shooters from multiple directions. In that case, of course there were wounds of entry from the front - there was at least one frontal (fall-guy) shooter! We know from WC Exhibit 3077 that Garland Slack's wife, Lucille, told the FBI agent Alfred Neeley that "Mr SLACK maintained that OSWALD was at the rifle range on November 17, 1963, and that he had been brought there by a man named "FRAZIER" from Irving, Texas". Our man "Oswald" was never at the Sports Drome Rifle Range, and we have no evidence Buell Wesley Frazier was ever there, either. It has long been conceded that the rifle range incidents were part of a pre-assassination frame-up of "Oswald." Yet here we have clear evidence - from the WC's own files! - that the pre-assassination frame included Frazier too. And, since Frazier came within an inch on Friday night, 11/22/63 of being charged as an accomplice of "Oswald's". Two fall guys. Not one. Two fall guy shooters, from multiple directions. No need for body-alteration, at least as long as the main scapegoat, "Oswald" was dead and unable to defend himself. But he wasn't dead as of Friday afternoon, and the plotters were certainly desperate to pin it all on him. https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/pdf/WH26_CE_3077.pdf

Joseph, I read your fine book some years ago. Thanks for all the incredible effort and information. Truly, your book is a "must read." I wonder how much of the wound-alteration procedure was actually planned in advance. Was it, perhaps, a hasty, desperate improvisation by the conspirators, necessitated by the news that a very-much-alive "Oswald" had been arrested in Dallas? I have long suspected (and argued) that the conspirators intended to frame not only "Oswald" but also, very possibly, Buell Wesley Frazier (and maybe unnamed others!) I've long wondered if the original plan was to frame "Oswald" as the ringleader of a group of disgruntled, unhinged Castro supporters, a couple of whom also fired at the president. If that was the original plan, then that would have solved (from the conspirators viewpoint) the problem of multiple shooters, as seen and heard by numerous witnesses. There was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for the framing of multiple shooters from different directions. And, as I and many others have long suspected, if the original plan also called for "Oswald's" murder within minutes of the assassination, the frame would have been much easier. I am certain that the bizarre search by the two unnamed Dallas PD officers of the McWatters bus within a few minutes of the assassination was the first attempt to kill "Oswald" right then. Many, many people have argued that "Oswald" only survived arrest at the Texas Theater because he shouted "I am not resisting arrest" repeatedly, making the second attempt to murder him then impossible. Enormous pressure was put on Buell Frazier to "confess" late Friday night, and he was in real danger of being charged as an accessory (or maybe as an actual assassin!) until Will Fritz got the mysterious call from Washington around midnight on Friday, and all of the Dallas PD evidence was then turned over to the FBI. Without that call, Fritz might have eventually succeeded in browbeating/intimidating/beating Frazier into some kind of admission of complicity. (Not that I believe that Frazier was a part of anything, merely that the original plan called for his "confession" to support the case against the then dead "Oswald." Except that, of course, "Oswald" was not dead on Friday night.) So, to sum up, there was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for framing multiple shooters from multiple directions. This would have accorded nicely with the real eye and earwitnesses who did indeed see and hear multiple shooters! But framing accomplices required a dead ringleader - "Oswald." And he wasn't (yet) dead. As of late Friday afternoon, there was a very real danger (to the conspirators) that "Oswald" might live to stand trial. So, the need to screw with the medical evidence to make it appear that all the damage was done by only one shooter. A living, breathing (talking!) "Oswald" was arrested a few minutes before 2 pm, Dallas time. At that moment, I believe President Kennedy's body was still at Parkland. Do you, Joseph McBride, or you, David Lifton, have any evidence that anyone at Parkland got a phone call saying that the suspect had been arrested while the president's body was still at the hospital? Was the (shocking!) news that "Oswald" was alive the catalyst for the wound-alteration plan? For the conspirators on Friday afternoon, did a living "Oswald" mean they had to improvise a case that there was only one shooter?

Joe, It's long been recognized that John J. McCloy was the nsider's insider on the Warren Commission. Donald Gibson, in his outstanding book "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-up" argued that the Warren Commission should more properly have been called the McCloy/Dulles commission because they controlled proceedings. A great example was Dulles and McCloy's ability to override Earl Warren and his choice for general counsel for the commission. Warren wanted his longtime associate and friend, Warren Olney III from California, but Dulles and McCloy wanted J. Lee Rankin. Guess who won. https://www.justice.gov/criminal/history/assistant-attorneys-general/warren-olney

All of these points are valid, but really isn't it just a simple matter that studying the JFK assassination is hard, and for most people, it is too intellectually demanding for them? Most ordinary people trust the mainstream media at least a little on most issues. So when the MSM presents its universal, monolithic "Oswald did it, Oswald did it alone, and Oswald did it because he was a nut" theory, well then most folks assume that must have some veneer of truth to it. I realize that lots of people still have doubts about the Warren Commission's basic conclusions, but most people just don't understand the basics of the evidence. They have not the time, the self-discipline or the capacity to wade through the evidence. So doubts are all they have, and they don't dare voice those doubts because of potential ridicule, particularly in a public forum. For those of us on forums such as this one, i think we can take major satisfaction in the vehemence and the rage of the MSM at anyone who dares to dissent from the Lone Nut view. The JFK assassination is clearly a very, very sensitive topic and fifty seven years later, it is still just as taboo as ever. That tells me just how crucial it remains today to keep the ultimate sponsors of the assassination hidden from public view. If by some miracle, we could prove precisely to whom Allen Dulles and James Angleton were ultimately responsible, we would shake not merely the historical record, but the very underpinnings of American society today! That's why the case is still such a no-go for the mainstream media, and why it is so relevant today! They hate us, and ridicule us and shout us down not because we're wrong, but because we're right!

W. Niederhut, I can't speak for others on this thread, but my point in citing the extended quote from work of Howard Jones above was to lend support to your claim that Prouty (and Krulak) had a key hand in drafting the Taylor/McNamara Report. Howard Jones, in his seminal "Death of a Generation: How the Assassinations of Diem and JFK Prolonged the Vietnam War", did not mention either Prouty or Krulak by name in that passage. However, the Michael Forrestal material confirms that the basics of that report - not merely the outline, but the guts of it - was written in advance, in Washington, D. C., just as Prouty has long claimed. And just as surely, that task was done at the behest of President Kennedy himself. We can not prove that the either Krulak or Prouty was a principal author of the draft copy, but both men had the requisite knowledge and experience to do so. Prouty's claim to have written the Taylor/McNamara Report in advance is certainly plausible, but probably unprovable beyond any doubt.

"JFK was not sold on the recommendations from the Krulak/Mendenhall Mission so he sent McNamara and Taylor a week later for a second opinion." Rob, there was no single clear-cut recommendation from Krulak and Mendenhall. President Kennedy was so taken aback by the completely differing accounts from his two men - men whose mission was to provide support for the president's position that American training of and logistical and technical support for the ARVN could now begin to be scaled back on a major scale - that Kennedy infamously asked of Krulak and Mendenhall "You two did visit the same country, didn't you?" Krulak's sunny view of the potential for ARVN's success in the field contrasted starkly with Mendenhall's pessimism. Mendenhall focused on the failure of the Diem regime to persuade ordinary South Vietnamese that they were better off with Diem at the helm, instead of the VC. The U.S. military (for years) had emphasized that with American aid, the ARVN was "winning" the war. The president had planned to use that (false) optimism to justify an American withdrawal. JFK did not believe the cheerful reports, but he saw them as a way to say in effect "OK, our job is done here." Rob, I am sure you know this, but John Newman demonstrated decades ago that the military reporting on the war began to take on a decidedly dark tone after NSAM 263 was issued. They believed (falsely) that the president's policy of a massive reduction of American involvement was based on Kennedy's misreading of the true situation in Vietnam, so if they now chose to reveal the truth to him, then he would change his mind about withdrawal. But they were wrong - Kennedy already knew the truth: the war was not going well for South Vietnam or the Diem regime. Ultimately it would be up to the South Vietnamese to fight it, not America. For President Kennedy, these new, accurate military reports were irrelevant to his stated policy - we were getting out, regardless. As to whether Fletcher Prouty himself had a hand in drafting the Taylor/McNamara Report, I don't know. However, I do know that on page 370 of "Death of a Generation" (which I have beside me at this very moment), Howard Jones claimed that Michael Forrestal himself was quoted by Kai Bird in "The Color of Truth" as saying "During the flight, Bundy and others received binders of materials, including a draft of the report that they were to prepare afterwards. Years after the mission, Forrestal asserted that the observations had already been "carefully spelled out, [with] all the statistics to back them up". He described it as a "dreadful visit" where the members attempt to accumulate "phony statistical" evidence of success." Rob, this is powerful evidence that the Taylor/McNamara Report report indeed was prepared in Washington in advance. And, such preparation could only have done at the express order of President Kennedy. He wanted this optimistic report for the reasons I outlined earlier. Maybe Prouty exaggerated his own role in drafting this report, or maybe he didn't. I don't know, but I'm not sure it really matters much - JFK wanted out, and he created the Taylor/McNamara Report to provide the escape route.

Jim, James Galbraith asked two decades ago "Was Nhu in discussions with intermediaries for Ho Chi Minh, with the possibility that there might have been a deal between North and South to boot the Americans from Vietnam? It appears that he was. And had he succeeded, it would have saved infinite trouble." https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/galbraith.html Any deal between Diem and Ho which ended America's military involvement in Vietnam meant no later, wider Vietnam War. This, of course, was completely unacceptable to the hawks in both Saigon and Washington. The removal of Diem (coupled with the impossibility of his return, thanks to his assassination), made the larger Vietnam War possible. Lansdale may have genuinely liked Diem, but ultimately Lansdale was an agent for those forces determined to have the Vietnam War.

Fascinating as it is to look at these documents, I still want to know more about the last-minute talks in which Diem was (allegedly) willing to engage with Ho Chi MInh. James Galbraith asked two decades ago "Was Nhu in discussions with intermediaries for Ho Chi Minh, with the possibility that there might have been a deal between North and South to boot the Americans from Vietnam? It appears that he was. And had he succeeded, it would have saved infinite trouble." https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR28.5/galbraith.html We need to discover exactly who knew about this approach, both in Vietnam and in Washington. Any late deals between the Diem regime and Ho would certainly have included the end of any significant American involvement - in other words, no possibility of the Vietnam War. Was the coup of November 1, 1963 facilitated in part by (American) officials determined to bring about such a war?

Jim, Is it a coincidence that Ed Lansdale "retired" within hours of the Diem brothers' assassinations? If, as many believe, there was plenty of CIA foreknowledge/involvement with the fate of the Diem brothers on November 1, 1963, then certainly Lansdale must have known. James Galbraith wrote two decades ago that there were last minute indications that Ngo Dinh Diem was actually trying to cut a last-second deal with Ho Chi Minh, one that would have led to prompt American Military withdrawal. If true, then I can easily see why ruthless officers within the CIA, hellbent on an eventual American ground war, would then facilitate the murder of the Diem brothers. I can think of no other rational reason why Lansdale "retired" at the exact same time the removal of the brothers was made publice. His "work" was done.

"Nixon continued the war unnecessarily for four years, after he knew it was lost. " Jim, I've written before that I never believed that Oliver Stone got Nixon quite right - Stone was sure that Nixon's policy of governance (cards close to the vest, no leaks, don't use the regular government channels, such as the State Department, etc.) was a function of RMN's personality. Stone even invented dialogue between Pat and Richard Nixon in which she wailed that he wouldn't let anyone in, not even her. That is the conventional view to explain why Nixon was so secretive and "paranoid." But that's not right, and Stone himself had some doubts about that explanation. In one of the best scenes in "Nixon", Stone has Nixon confess to a young female anti-war protestor at the Lincoln Memorial that he can't really stop the war, that he can "control it. Maybe not control it totally, but tame it enough to do some good." https://youtu.be/TxCqOw5_4oE I think that's much closer. Nixon, because of his long experience in government, especially his eight years as Eisenhower's VP, knew the "system" (The Deep State) very well. He knew, for example, the Eisenhower really wanted the May 1960 peace summit with Khrushchev to be a success, yet thanks to the CIA U-2 crash, the summit was wrecked and Ike's final few months were seen as a failure. Nixon governed the way he did because he knew (and feared) the American Deep State. I think he was mortally afraid of who he might provoke if he quit Vietnam too quickly. Unnecessary? Sure, from our perspective, but Nixon saw the "system" up close. He wasn't stupid - he knew what had happened to President Kennedy.

Yes, that's how read it too, Sandy. It is just barely conceivable to me that Angleton might (might) have been telling the literal truth: he did not KNOW who did it. However, there is no possibility that he could not have strongly SUSPECTED who did it, and with a little digging, he could have found out. If James Angleton truly did not know "who struck John", well that's because he didn't want to know. Angleton had to have aware of the "Oswald" file for years before 1963. The manipulation of the "Oswald" file at CIA HQ and the false cables to and from Mexico City about "Oswald's" supposed visit to the Cuban and Soviet Consulates could only have been part of an operation under Angleton's direction. But Angleton wasn't nearly as connected to the Power Elite as Dulles. So. if Angleton was the chief architect of the assassination, then he was hired by Dulles on behalf of the Power Elite. (i.e. Did David Rockefeller give Allen Dulles the green light?) However, could Angleton perhaps have done it on behalf of some other sponsors, outside of the United States? Well, the Washington Post certainly gave us a hint in 1987: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1987/12/05/the-secret-ceremony/d8d30dab-fe95-4ba0-b52f-c50a04795b77/

Thanks, Chris. Since I've never been up there, it was useful for me to see extensive continuous footage. Very helpful in providing perspective.

As I look at the close-up photos of the limo's windshield outside Parkland, I am not convinced there was really a through-and-through hole in it. There might have been, but I can't see it. I know there are witnesses who insist the windshield was a hole and not a spidery crack, and maybe they are correct. But . . . I guess I am on the fence on this: I can't really believe a high-powered rifle shot through the windshield would leave such (relatively) little damage to the windshield. Does anyone have any photographic evidence of rifle shots penetrating any other vehicle's windshield and leaving such a small trace of impact? Can anyone here cite a study of the damage to windshields from rounds of various calibers? (With lots of pictures for me to look at!) What, exactly, does the damage from a 6.5, a 7.65, a .22, a .223, and so on do to a windshield from 100 yards? Thanks in advance!

"2.) The FBI removed a portion of curb stone from the location where James Tague stood on the day of the assassination. There was clear evidence of a bullet strike to this piece of concrete. Their laboratory results indicated the presence of lead in this defect, but no copper, thereby rendering the results "inconclusive". The whole FBI/James Tague curbstone removal thing is fascinating - the FBI did NOT want to have anything to do with a missed shot, and they certainly did not want to deal with Tague. The Warren Commission duly ignored the Tague shot until U.S. Attorney (for Dallas) Barefoot Saunders saw a short local article about Tague and had the integrity to insist to the Warren Commission that they investigate this shot. So, in the summer of 1964, the FBI dug up the concrete curb approximately where Tague stood. They could not find any area where the bullet had chunked the concrete, but they did find the mysterious dark stain, which they theorized was residue from a glancing piece of a bullet. They had first-day photos in their possession from local news photographers which showed EXACTLY where Tague stood, and which showed EXACTLY a small hole in the concrete curb on 11/22/63! Even more incredibly, in a desperate effort to explain how a once present hole was now a "smear", the FBI resorted to speculating the somehow street sweepers during the ensuing seven months had somehow filled in the gap! No FBI explanation could be more absurd, and no acceptance of any such bull@#$ could be more risible! Yet the Warren Commission accepted that whopper without a question! When Tague testified to the Warren Commission, he revealed that some unknown parties had apparently tailed him when he himself had gone in the spring to look at the spot. The WC expressed no curiosity. In the 1980's Harold Weisberg paid an outside analyst to look at the curbstone slab now in the National Archives. They reported the obvious: the lead "smear" was a patch over the hole. This patch had no evidentiary value, but whatever was beneath it would contain traces of residue which, when chemically analyzed, could disprove the entire government "solution" to the assassination. The patch destroyed evidence in a presidential assassination. Whoever did it committed a federal crime. But of course, the U.S. government to this day has NO interest in learning who patched that hole. There was a decent thread two years ago about this topic, and several posters were pretty knowledgeable. (I myself had a couple of lengthy conversations with the late Harold Weisberg about this 25 years ago.)

Well stated, Jeff.

So I'm guessing that this photo was taken from the south side of the overpass, not the South Knoll, correct? There is no doubt that this would be (virtually) a straight on shot at the president. And it appears any shot would have to pass through the windshield. Of course, as I argued months ago, almost the same angle works back the other way too: the Dal-Tex building, especially the south side windows. (No back window to deflect either!) Which I suspect was indeed a firing point, behind not only the president, but also behind the crowds lining Houston Street. Everyone would be looking ahead at the president, and no one looking back at a building behind the motorcade. (Except Howard Brennan did exactly that, and plainly said so to the Dallas Sheriff's office in his first day affidavit. But that's a different thread.)

Yes, the Ruby hit is a possible pathway to the conspirators, but obviously the WC did not want to go down that path. I can't believe that was because Jack Ruby was only a function of the mob. I don't believe that's all he was. No, he was U.S. Intelligence - connected for years. We all know about his short-lived 1959 stint as a narc for the FBI, but clearly, anybody running guns to Cuba and high up in the Dallas drug trade for years before the assassination was no mere mob hitman. Jack Ruby was an asset/source for law enforcement at the local, state and federal levels. Jack Revill all but admitted that Ruby had been a source for years: "Mr. PURDY. Was Jack Ruby ever used as an informant by the Dallas Police Department?Captain REVILL. He was not used as an informant by the intelligence unit. Whether or not Jack Ruby was used as a source of information, and there is a difference, this I don't know.Mr. PURDY. To what extent is it possible that Jack Ruby was thesource of information to units other than yours?Captain REVILL. Jack Ruby could have provided information to the members of the vice section who called upon his club, who conducted surveillances or visits into his clubs, but I have no knowledge, personal knowledge of this occurring. (!!!) So, I suppose the best way to find the sponsors of the assassination is to examine the pressure placed on those who covered up the crime. On whose behalf was Allen Dulles working? If he was not the chief architect, then it had to be someone close to him: Angleton or Helms. Through Dulles we can see the path to the "Power Elite." So, maybe somewhere in the Allen Dulles papers there remains a hint or two. I doubt it, but maybe. On the other hand, this excerpt from David Rockefeller's 2002 memoir is just jaw-dropping: “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it” (p. 405). "Working against the best interests of the United States . . . and I am proud of it." Well. I think we have our answer.