Paul Kerrigan

I don't buy into James Files' story for a second. For one thing, I think he traps himself when he said that a map of the motorcade route that Jack Ruby brought him showed a "change." We know now that the motorcade route was not changed so what are we supposed to make of James Files when he is obviously lying about the route?

Joanne, hi. The best book to read on the Tippit murder is "With Malice" by Dale Myers. The book draws the conclusion that Oswald murdered Tippit, which you may disagree with. Whatever your personal conclusion is on that score, Myers provides many photographs and much contextual detail that will enrich your understanding of the Tippit murder case. Best wishes, Royce Bierma <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't trust Meyer's book alone. It is riddled with inaccuracies and doubtful assumptions. If you read it, make sure you read Michael Griffith's review of the book afterwards. A Review of Dale Myers' Book With Malice: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Murder of Officer J.D. Tippit

Bonnie Ray Williams, an employee at the School Book Depository, had eaten his chicken lunch on the sixth floor until he left at about 12:20.

That is not true. Colonel Robert E. Jones was the Operations Officer of the 112th and when he gave testimony the the HSCA, he said nothing about any orders to stand down and in fact said that the 112th did in fact provide some protection. ''We provided a small force — I do not recall how many, but I would estimate between 8 and 12 — during the President's visit to San Antonio, Texas; and then the following day, on his visit to Dallas, the regions also provided additional people to assist, that is additional people from Region."

The death of Kennedy did indeed keep Johnson out of jail and saved his political career. Johnson was facing at least one serious probe for his criminal activity at the time of Kennedy's death.

I wrote a short essay regarding the single-bullet theory on this site not too long ago. It's not so much an essay as it is a quick critique. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5727entry5727

My name is Paul Kerrigan and I used to be a teacher of history at the DuBois Area High School. My research into the JFK Assassination has taken up most of my time now. I have been thinking about writing a book about the case. My areas of interest in the case are the areas dealing with alteration aspects of the Zapruder Film and the Jim Garrison case.

I have read Jack White's section in "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax" with his A-Z slides. Jack, you claim that there were two Oswald's, "Lee" and "Harvey." You show pictures of the two. But how do you explain the fact that forensic anthroplogists working for the HSCA determined that the men that you show were in fact Lee Harvey Oswald? http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/penrose.htm

I suggest that anyone interested in Kennedy and Vietnam read this: http://eserver.org/govt/gulf-war/jfk-lbj-and-vietnam.txt

In both films, you can plainly see that there is no explosion of blood and brain matter out the back of the head which was reported by at least four witnesses. Officer Bobby Hargis was hit so hard by brain matter that he thought he had been struck by a bullet. The very quick explosion on the top of the head could not have caused this. If blood sprayed out of the top of the head at this point, then Mrs. Kennedy should have been plastered with blood and brains but you can clearly see she was not.

Without the ability to post images at the moment this may be tough for some to follow, but I'll give it a shot anyway. First of all, I am not sure why you'd think that a bullet cannot cause JFK's head to snap back and to the left? Some of the top leading forensic pathologist, regardless of which direction they believe the shot came from, have attributed JFK's head movement to being shot in the head. I think I have already said that there is evidence that the bones on the back of JFK's skull were sprung outward. I called attention to this with profiles of Kennedy's head as seen in both the Nix and Zapruder films. On Lancer there is a two frame clip showing a stabilized view of JFK at the moment his head rocks forward and then explodes in a backward direction. That clip shows JFK's head tilt forward while his shoulders are driven backwards. The author of that clip stated that when he consulted some medical personnel that he found that a blow to the head from the front and on a downward trajectory, while in the same forward posture as JFK, would do exactly what was seen in the clip that was presented. An easy way to test this observation is to sit with your head bowed to the front as JFK was at Z312. Next, have someone hit you in the back of the head and see what happens. You should find that your head and shoulders move forward. Now if someone hits you in the head somewhere on the top of the skull from where the bone plate came loose and with a front to back downward impact as the bullet would have done - you will find that your head rocks forward and your shoulder's are driven backwards. This causes a type of whiplash effect in reverse and the force of this effect is what snapped JFK's head back against the seat. This stabilized clip and data was then presented to Al Carrier who then shared it with some of the experts he works around. Al is a 20+ year officer and has a CSI background. Al Carrier then posted on Lancer his findings and they were supportive of the events described here for you. A search on Lancer under the name "head shot" may pull up the threads that dealt with this issue. I hope this has been somewhat helpful. I think it is better described and detailed on Lancer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have been unable to locate this shoulder whiplash demonstration on JFK Lancer but I did find an interview with literally, a rocket scientist. He had this to say. G: It is common knowledge that, as captured by Abraham Zapruder, President Kennedy's head and upper torso lurch energetically immediately following the explosion of his head. Could this movement have been caused by the directly transferred momentum of a bullet? That is, can a bullet "push" somebody like that? MacP: No, and no. The movement of a body due to bullet momentum cannot be greater than the movement of the same body if it was holding the gun that fired the bullet. This is a result of elementary physics and is not disputed by anyone who understands physics. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm You also cite Dr. Peters saying that the large head wound was only visible from certain angles. That is not how others describe it. Other doctors and non-medical personnel describe and avulsed, exploded-out wound to the rear of the head. Secret Service Special Agent Roy Kellerman said, describing the rear of the head "the skull part was removed." But at frame 321, you can get a good look at the back of the head and you see no blood or brain matter, nor any large wound. For the sake of argument, let's say Kennedy's head was driven backward by the force of a bullet. Where was the shooter located?

You need to be more specific - what is there about the head snapping backwards that would make you think the films were altered because I have never read or heard where any witnesses have ever said that Kennedy's head did anything other than what has been seen on the assassination films? BTW - some of the frames that were in the newspaper were showing Jackie on the back of the car after the shots. I am certain that frame Z313 was not placed in the newspaper. A lot of libraries carry major newspapers on microfilm. Contact a branch near you and ask if the Dallas Morning News or Dallas Hearld are on microfilm there and if they have them, then you can go in and scroll through them looking for these published frames. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> JFK's head going violently backwards. How can that be explained? And please don't say that a bullet caused it because that is impossible. Not bullet could have forcefully knocked JFK's head and body backwards so violently.

Right. Nix did make that statement as I recall, but I believe he was not sure. One thing about the removal of frames - their removal can be detected because then the movements within the film will have jumps and variances that do not match the other films. More importantly - even if they had damaged or removed half of the original Nix film ... Orville still had the first generation copy in his sole possession. Here is some additional information that Gary Mack has been kind enough to share with researchers: The Nix film appeared in theatrical newsreels in late 1963/early 1964. The assassination footage was marketed extensively by UPI until 1992 when all rights to it were given back to the Nix family (and subsequently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum). Nix received a first generation print of his film from UPI shortly after selling it to them in 1963. That print, badly worn over the years while in possession of the Nix family and no one else, was exchanged in 1992 for a previously unknown first generation 8mm print kept in the Dallas office of the FBI. That copy matches all known copies of the Nix film dating to 1963. No one knew of the existence of the Nix film outside of his family until he dropped it off for processing at the Dynacolor Corporation on Industrial Boulevard in Dallas late the night of November 30, 1963. Dynacolor called him the next day and both he and his son, Orville Nix, Jr, watched the film at Dynacolor on Sunday afternoon, December 1. It was only then that Nix decided to contact the FBI. Meanwhile, millions of issues of LIFE magazine had been distributed around the world for nearly a week with many frames of the Zapruder film. All of those frames are the same in the film today as in 1963 and the frames of both films that coincide in time match each other. What this means is that neither film was altered, nor were any others. The significance of the timeline is very easily understood and it has been a matter of record for 40 years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But which frames were published? Insignificant early frames could have been published. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And I want to know; If the films weren't altered, how do you explain the violent backwards head snap?

Right. Nix did make that statement as I recall, but I believe he was not sure. One thing about the removal of frames - their removal can be detected because then the movements within the film will have jumps and variances that do not match the other films. More importantly - even if they had damaged or removed half of the original Nix film ... Orville still had the first generation copy in his sole possession. Here is some additional information that Gary Mack has been kind enough to share with researchers: The Nix film appeared in theatrical newsreels in late 1963/early 1964. The assassination footage was marketed extensively by UPI until 1992 when all rights to it were given back to the Nix family (and subsequently acquired by The Sixth Floor Museum). Nix received a first generation print of his film from UPI shortly after selling it to them in 1963. That print, badly worn over the years while in possession of the Nix family and no one else, was exchanged in 1992 for a previously unknown first generation 8mm print kept in the Dallas office of the FBI. That copy matches all known copies of the Nix film dating to 1963. No one knew of the existence of the Nix film outside of his family until he dropped it off for processing at the Dynacolor Corporation on Industrial Boulevard in Dallas late the night of November 30, 1963. Dynacolor called him the next day and both he and his son, Orville Nix, Jr, watched the film at Dynacolor on Sunday afternoon, December 1. It was only then that Nix decided to contact the FBI. Meanwhile, millions of issues of LIFE magazine had been distributed around the world for nearly a week with many frames of the Zapruder film. All of those frames are the same in the film today as in 1963 and the frames of both films that coincide in time match each other. What this means is that neither film was altered, nor were any others. The significance of the timeline is very easily understood and it has been a matter of record for 40 years. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> But which frames were published? Insignificant early frames could have been published.

I don't even think Specter believes in the Single Bullet Theory anymore. "When you talk about US Air, you're between a rock and a hard place. I wish there was some magic bullet which we could come up with," said U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa. "But I think we have to leave it to the key people on all sides to figure it out."

Mr. White - I take it that when your first sentence said that "this is misinformation", that you were talking about the rest of your reply. You seem to miss some important points for some reason. For instance, the fact that the Zapruder frames were being put into the public domain at a time when no one could possibly have known about Nix's film or what it showed so to know what to alter on the Zfilm went over the top of your head. You also missed the point that Orville Nix had a copy of his film made when he first took it into have it developed. That's like going to the local photo lab with a roll of film and asking them to make double prints. Just because one print gets lost or damaged - you still have the second print. That copy made from the original film had remained in the Nix family's sole possession until the early 90's and well after the assassination or any possible film alteration had taken place. The film copy that "Orville Nix" had made back at the end of November 63' (the copy that no one but the Nix family possessed for the next 30 years) shows the exact same thing that the copies of the original Nix film shows. I don't know why the importance of all this escapes you, but that copy Orville Nix had made in the beginning had never gone out of the families possession for over 30 years. I hope that no one is going to suggest that the Nix family altered their original copy so to match your alleged altered version. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What Zapruder frames were being shown? Do you know which ones? Nix turned in his original film to the FBI on December 1. He requested and received a copy from the FBI and stated that the film does not appear as clear as his usual pictures. Years later, Nix's granddaughter Gayle Jackson claimed that her grandfather felt that the film had certain frames removed from it and that it had been edited by the government (Assassination Science, pg. 302-03).

No, the route was planned in advance. The evidence for this changed route theory is a small map on the cover of the Dallas Morning News. The reason it doesn't show the detour through Elm Street is because the map is so small and hasn't been drawn to scale. The previous evening, the Dallas Times-Herald ran a much larger map which showed the real motorcade route. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dthmap.gif

Mr. Thirdeye...it is easy to pull wool over the eyes of those who do not know the right questions to ask. Jack White <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, that's why I asked you. I know very little about any aspect of photography.

Sorry, double post.

Yes I certainly believe the Dallas doctors, but the hole they seen was from the bones being sprung open. Mr. SPECTER - Before proceeding to describe what you did in connection with the tracheostomy, will you more fully describe your observation with respect to the head wound? Dr. McCLELLAND - As I took the position at the head of the table that I have already described, to help out with the tracheotomy, I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had been shattered, apparently, by the force of the shot so that the parietal bone was protruded up through the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its lateral haft, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue, posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been blasted out. There was a large amount of bleeding which was occurring mainly from the large venous channels in the skull which had been blasted open. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Is that why the massive rear defect is not visible in the "Zapruder" film?

Yes, the infamous "Backyard Photos." There are five of them I believe. Three show Oswald in different positions.

This is mostly for Jack White. How could the forgers of the photos hide the deception so tampering would not be evident under grain structure analysis?

You're a conspiracy theorist. Do you believe that the Dallas doctors were right when they said the back of the President's head was missing?

Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, so let me try another way of explaining how I saw it. I've come up on fences that were hot/electric and I have thrown up a leg to hop over them without getting shocked. Somewhat like a track runner would hop a hurdle. I personally think too much is being read into the older and out of shape Arnold throwing his leg over the pipe for Turner's documentary. I get the feeling that some people are thinking Gordon threw his leg over and onto the pipe on the day of the assassination because of what he did in the MWKK series. The Arnold in the MWKK series was heavy, aging and out of shape altogether. As I recall, Gordon even hobbled somewhat when he walked. I might add that Gordon didn't even make it clear if he stopped as he was raising his leg to get over the pipe because of his being confronted. Because the Older aging Arnold rested his leg on the steam pipe in his interview so to continue telling his story, I don't necessarily think it means he sat on the pipe on 11/22/63 while talking to the man who ran him out of the area. I 'll just say that I don't think a 22 year old man just out of basic training would have had any difficulty in hopping over that pipe without getting burnt had he not been stopped before hand. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The thing is, he would have been insane to try to climb over the pipe. It was giving off steam and he would surely have felt the heat coming off of it. Why wouldn't he simply go around the pipe?