Aaron Sharpe

@Bill Fite I don't think I've seen the particular video(s) you're referring to, so I haven't heard those claims. I'd be interested, but he has numerous videos that tend to be long. Here's the link to the video I'm referring to.

I'm the US of A.

I've watched a few videos by researcher Michael Brownlow. Gotta say, there's just something I like about that guy. Perhaps because he seems so genuine and honest. Example: In a short video I watched last evening, filmed with Michael standing in Dealy Plaza, he talked a bit about the so-called "Babushka Lady." He said that when he interviewed Charles Brehm, he showed Mr. Brehm the image that included himself and the Babushka lady. Brownlow reported that he asked Mr. Brehm if he got a good look at the woman in question, to which the witness stated, essentially, that he'd seen her well enough to be absolutely certain that she was in her 40s, maybe even 50 years old. Beverly Oliver's claim to have been an assassination witness (she was 17 at the time, so this would rule her out) has always struck me as false. Nice lady, and I'm glad she found Christ (I believe she's passed away now), but she seems like an archetypical publicity hound. But Brownlow was honest enough to state that he just doesn't know whether Oliver was the Babushka lady. He did make the point that she was definitely involved with some of the players in the events of the day (ie, Jack Ruby), so she's not totally irrelevant, either. Then he talked about her claim to have taken a film, and that the film was confiscated. Brownlow is of the opinion that the Babushka Lady figure, whoever she might be, is seen holding a video camera in some photos. He then made a rather astounding claim that I've never heard anywhere else. He said that at some point in the past (and I don't recall how long ago this was; I'm sure I could go back and find a link to the YT video in question if anyone's interested), he interviewed a retired FBI agent who was working out of the Dallas field office on the day of the assassination. The agent, whom Brownlow did not name, was about 80 at the time of the interview. Brownlow says that the agent told him there was indeed a film confiscated by his agency "at a nightclub" within a few days of the assassination, and that he (the agent) had an opportunity to view this film after it was developed. The agent, says Brownlow, said that the film showed a shooter behind the picket fence quite clearly. I wouldn't believe such a claim if it came from certain researchers, but I believe Brownlow. I'm of the opinion that rock-solid, 100% indisputable proof of conspiracy surely existed shortly after the event, but that evidence that hot would have been not only confiscated but destroyed at some point. Has anyone ever heard more details on this? What are the odds that this film, if it ever existed, is sitting in a vault somewhere?

I've been looking for the remastered version of Mark Lane's film since it was announced last year. So far as I can tell it was only shown in theaters, and only a select few. Is this not available digitally anywhere? The title is available to rent on AppleTV, but the info page makes no mention of it being a "remastered" version. The interviews captured in this film are priceless historical gems. I can't see why they'd remaster the film and then not make it widely available. I've done a few Googleations and all I can find are YouTube videos that are basically just ads for the film. Does anyone have any information on an upcoming wider/streaming release?

I doubt he’ll drop entirely out as I believe he wrote it (he’s listed as co-writer, but from hearing him on a podcast I believe he was the principle creator). IMDb lists the status as pre-production, so it isn’t filming. Barry Levinson is currently set to direct. Wouldn’t be the worst thing if this film didn’t get made I’m disappointed that someone as sharp and based as Mamet wants to push the Mafia-did-it red herring. Though according to David Talbot, such distractions are the only type of JFKa films the Hollywood arm of the CIA will allow to get made.

I'm a big fan of Scott's but I haven't watched his daily livestream in some time. He's a very smart guy with a unique perspective. Smart as he is, though, there's no way he has the kind of background in the JFKa that even the least informed person on this site has. I also watched the Octopus Murders but came away from the final episode feeling like the message being conveyed was that it might have all been BS that the deceased reporter had been chasing. In regard to the Zapruder segment, what stands out to me is that the description of the driver (Greer) turning and shooting JFK does not jive with the descriptions of those few among us who have seen the "other" Z-film—descriptions which are generally consistent among those few. What it does jive with is the one JFK theory that I've generally found to be the most outlandish, to the point that I long ago dismissed it outright (However, these days, I don't really dismiss anything outright). So if the "other" Z-film is real, but the reporter on this Netflix show must have seen another "other" Z-film. Why would such a thing even exist? I keep returning to the thought that, if any other version of the Z-film existed, anywhere in the world, given the age of easy digital duplication and distribution in which we live, how could it possibly not have come to light by this point? I do not dismiss Z-film alteration, if only for the reason that we know for a virtual certainty that it was secreted away by the CIA/SS over the weekend following the assassination. But I feel like it's a pointless argument: Alteration will never be proven unless and until one of these "other" versions shows up. The takeaway from this, and the thread that ties Dallas 1963 to the present day, is that news organizations are nothing more than purveyors of BS and propaganda. The larger and more corporatized the news organization, the more true this is. This is one of Scott Adams's recurring themes. For those of you who shake your head in disbelief whenever you see a news story that is either flatly untrue or simply seems to reinforce a popular narrative, "The news was always this way ... You just started noticing."

I'm extremely interested in seeing this. @Keven Hofeling you may choose not to answer this, which is understandable, but if you posted it, where did you get it? I think I posted some queries about this in another thread some time ago, but I'm wondering what the holdup is in Whitehead and Wilkinson releasing their film. Do you think the Sixth Floor is trying to obstruct? Are they able to do that?

Pat, You are the world's worst at PR. Why did you not direct me to your website, which is frankly breathtaking. Sincerely, one of the most comprehensive JFKa sites I've ever come across in style, organization, and content. It's really something. I've spent quite a bit of time reading your Reason to Doubt chapter. Not sure I'm ready to abandon belief in the existence of a rear head blow-out, but I do plan to read the Reason to Believe chapter (and many others after that). I look forward to reading your take on Oswald's paper bag, which is something that's always bothered me. I will cede one point: The case for a conspiracy in this murder is plenty strong even without wading into the waters of photo, x-ray, and video alteration. In fact, spelunking into these rabbit holes (even if there is something there, plenty there) might repel a lot of "normies" (those who haven't spent a lot of time looking into the assassination in detail) who would otherwise quickly accept conspiracy at face value. For now, I cannot discount the likelihood of a large rear exit wound. Perhaps I am biased toward particular witnesses, but then what is the point of credibility? The Parkland witnesses are among the most credible people in the history of credibility. While anyone, including learned professionals, can certainly make a mistake (or, more cynically, spin tales for notoriety or conformity), I've always found Dr. McClelland in particular to be perhaps the most believable witness in this entire affair. I again came across a video of him just this morning relating in great detail the damage to the back of the head and the cerebellum he saw coming out of the wound there. Considering the time he spent and his position at the table in Trauma One, it's extremely difficult to believe he could have imagined this wound. The back-of-the-head autopsy photo is just extraordinarily problematic.

If you want to wait for science (as an institution) or for peer review (as a process) to confirm or disprove anything about the JFK assassination, you will be waiting a very long time. The problem is purely political, which also reaches deep into our scientific institutions. If you lived through 2020, that should be evident, though these past few years merely pulled away the curtain; things were always this bad. JAMA published a shiny defense of Humes and Boswell right on the heels on JFK (the 1991 movie), to cite just one of thousands of examples. The end game here would be to get our government to loudly and without caveat concede that the JFK assassination was a conspiracy, an act of state perpetrated by corrupted institutions that still survive and expect our trust to this very day; that the media was also compromised and complicit; that the investigations were bogus; that much evidence was faked, forged, disappeared, or manufactured; that independent investigations were sabotaged by institutions we pay for. Here is when that will happen: Never. Science isn't going to bring that goal any closer. The best we can hope for is an improved version of what we have now, which is a populace in a state of tension between what is acknowledged ("it was LHO, the nut, and yeah there was some hinky stuff so probably a shot from the grassy knoll but that missed because !!science!! so it was still LHO, he musta been mobbed up") and what the majority of people know in their bones (see preceding paragraph). Improving the situation takes evidence that is accessible to everyone, distributed as far and wide as possible, presented clearly and elegantly. For my money, no one has done more to get at the truth of the JFK assassination than Oliver Stone. A Wilkinson/Whitehead documentary could yield such results, though I doubt it will be quite so polished or widespread. Besides, the people were given their ARRB. They largely went back to sleep as documents were shoveled into a pile and more books were written. The moment is gone. Only the winners of bloody revolutions get to rewrite history. Which is, let's face it, what we're trying to do. I disagree. If David Lifton got one thing right, it's that the body is the "best evidence." The autopsy should tell us everything we need to know. That the greatest country in the world, with the smartest doctors and unlimited resources produced the atrocity it did—an autopsy that conceals rather than reveals—is a screaming fireball of information. I am no scientist and have very little in the way of medical training. But I can point a camera and operate the zoom and click the button. There is no innocent explanation for the mess of this autopsy. Statistics can be made to show anything. Frankly, I'm bored by the analyses of probabilities that group A might have witnessed something incorrectly or less accurately than group B. All I know is that a few score medical professionals saw—first hand and on the first day—a hole in the back of JFK's head and have repeatedly and consistently said so for decades. Respect to Dr. Aguilar, who wasn't there, but Dr. McClelland saw the cerebellum leaking out, and one of the autopsy attendants was able to put his fist inside it, and the mortician filled it in with a piece of rubber. And yet we have a photo of a neat and clean and intact back of the head. Another screaming fireball. The other evidence you cite is terrific, I agree, but the best of it is not "science" per se. It is circumstances that appeal to people's natural intuition for truth. The throat wound for instance. The idea that a bullet, entering from the back, traversed a human body and just happened to gracefully exit near dead-center in one of the most vulnerable and exposed anatomical locations, leaving a neat little hole, is just crazy talk. Only science could make me believe the lie. A consistent web of circumstances, especially when arrived at from an assortment of sources (consilience), is the strongest indicator of reality. The back-of-head wound is powerful not only because of the mass of people who saw it and described it so similarly, but because it fits with so much else. Ie, the motorcycle outriders to the rear who were splattered with blood and brain, the piece of occipital bone found in the plaza (oops, lost that), and then, decades later, the testimony from the mortician that he had patched the back of the head with rubber filler. I think it's the best evidence. I don't think it's possible that we'll ever get better evidence even if we could have anything we could plausibly want. To be clear, if a new video emerged next week, taken from behind the grassy knoll and showing a man with a gun firing at the president over the fence, and everyone agreed it was legitimate from 11/22/63, we'd soon hear a song about "well, the HSCA said there was probably a conspiracy and a shot from the knoll, so now we have proof of that, but this is the guy that missed, so it was a conspiracy but LHO killed him, nothing new here, musta been a Corsican." The body evidence indicates both a conspiracy and a coverup, and also points to the only entity that could possibly have covered it up. There's a little wiggle room in there for the "benign coverup" explanation (which is just more coverup), but if that's the case then why is it still going on? The only thing I can think of that would be better would be something that definitively exonerates Lee Harvey Oswald. There is a single possibility for that: Getting our hands on the original Darnell film (or Weigman, or maybe some unknown other) and being pleasantly surprised to find that the resolution is utterly amazing—and I'm talking a degree of clarity that would make it impossible for people to say, "Looks a lot like Oswald, almost exactly, but there's no way that's him because we know he was six floors up." I don't see that happening. Don't take me as "anti-science." Not at all. Science is beautiful. The institutions that practice it these days are not. Science makes my radio work, but rarely changes hearts and minds. Relying too much on "assassination science" just draws scads of people who will talk at you like this ⬇️

Excellent video.

Here's a direct Amazon link.

If there is one thing we can be certain of after all these years of collecting and analyzing evidence, taking testimony, etc., it's that the back of Kennedy's head was blown out. This is 100% certain. No question whatsoever. Anyone arguing to the contrary cannot be taken seriously. That, in combination with the entirely unnatural appearance of the back-of-the-head "shadowing" in these Z-frames, is all one needs to know. So, that the Zapruder film has been "altered" is an anodyne suggestion. The answer is yes. I remain curious as to the extent of the alteration. There are those who maintain that the entire thing has been "fabricated"—ie, that the car and its occupants are a separate traveling matte atop a composited background, with the Stemmons sign placed over top. This is outside the topic of this thread, but what is related is the intellectual progression from "that's crazy" to "okay, tell me more." The greater part of the US populace has gone through this in regard to the Kennedy assassination. Body alteration once seemed crazy, but it's as much a fact as the back-of-the-head injury. So now we are open to more: Who did it? Where and when did they do it? What exactly did they do? Why?

Thanks, @Keven Hofeling. Interesting info, though TBH I've actually read all of these sources before. The only thing new to me is that they're actually still planning to release a documentary, and they actually have a title. If so, that's fantastic. I'd previously come across sources making it sound as if the Whitehead/Wilkinson work was never going to see the light of day for whatever mysterious reason. This is all great, but this has been going on for about 15 years now. Perhaps they're working on a means of maximum exposure (since they are Hollywood types) and/or finding a means to monetize it as much as possible. Hey, I'm a capitalist, so that's fine by me, but still this feels like the Lifton thing all over again. How long can it possibly take? As far as I can tell, most of this work was already done a decade ago. I'll venture a guess. Since The Sixth Floor has copyright on the film, could there be problems reaching an arrangement for rights to use the film/stills so extensively in a documentary? My thinking here is that since the film is basically the jewel of The Sixth Floor, and the proposed film directly challenges its integrity, perhaps the museum doesn't want that blemish on what is supposed to be a historical artifact. Can a copyright/use request be flatly turned down, no matter the proposed remuneration?

There's something strange about this series. I don't want to necessarily suggest that it's being "suppressed," as maybe it's just not getting enough promotion. I know that it is, in fact, available on Amazon, but I cannot get it to show up in search results no matter what I do. You almost need a direct link to find the darn thing. Also, I've been hearing about it for a few months now, at least. It's billed as a "4-part" series, but only an "introduction" is available (labeled as "episode 0"), and even imdb shows no other episodes or planned release dates. Is this series actually complete in terms of production? Ie, is it "in the can?" To be clear, I haven't watched it (episode 0) yet, though I look forward to it.

Indeed, it seems unlikely that a sophisticated person with an engineering background would not have a simple backup of something so critical. OTOH, there are the comments here from those who knew and worked with him to the effect that the existence of any manuscript is doubtful. I’m getting the vibe that this supposed “computer crash” could be concocted to cover the uncomfortable fact that he spent decades producing either gibberish or nothing. He seems to have been reaching in so many directions, I don’t know how he could have maintained a productive focus. I hope I’m wrong. But there was a moment in one of his YouTube vids where he talks about his new book “which should come out next year.” The video is from 2013.