Aaron Sharpe

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.

Well spotted. Thanks. Although I'll believe it when I see it. Judging by those videos, he appears to have slipped into full-on mania as he aged (and the vids are over 10 years old). This would apply to both his behavior and his content, but I would still love to hear his thoughts on Oswald. I'm sure there's a lot about Oswald we still don't know. But I'm afraid we're approaching a time horizon where there will be nothing new to find out. This event will only be "living history" for maybe another decade. I feel in my gut that LHO was being "handled," and that he has been grossly wronged in the verdict of history. Future release of unredacted files may shed some light, but it would seem to me than any documentation highly compromising would not even exist as "unreleased" or "redacted." That all went into James Angleton's fireplace a long time ago, if indeed anything was ever put on paper at all. Jefferson Morley has done good work over the past decade digging into CIA-Oswald connections (and obviously, John Newman before him). His Substack and podcast (jfkfacts) are illuminating.

Yes, I see that my post has summoned the Von Pein. That's okay. Haven't posted much here but I've been lurking for quite some time and am familiar with many of the personalities and viewpoints. I hadn't intended for this to be about the Z-film, but since we're on the topic … My own attitude in that regard right now is simply that I'm very open to the prospect that the film was altered or even wholly fabricated. Something has always bothered me about it, which I might best describe as the odd non-responsiveness of the spectators. Particularly those along the north side of Elm Street. It just seems bizarre that in a line of people who are specifically there to see the most famous person in the world, hardly a one would wave or even bother to move when the man himself rolls by within a few feet. I'd always chalked this up to being due to something about film that I just don't understand. But maybe not. The "Mary Moorman in the street" issue is bothersome. Mary has consistently and explicitly said that she "stepped into the street" to take her photograph (except in interviews where she was coached not to say that, or when it was edited out). Sure, people's memories can play tricks on them, but one thing our modern era teaches us is that even video itself is not a source of ultimately reliable truth. If you will believe what you see on video, you can be made to believe anything. In the JFKa case, it would seem that the personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not. But here's something we do reliably know: The autopsy photographs, particularly the one of the back of the head, do not represent reality. For years I had considered them to be "forgeries," but more recently came across Doug Horne's thought that they are actually legitimate photographs taken of source material (ie, JFK's head) which was manipulated for the purpose of photography. (I suppose that could be considered "forgery" as well). But then there's also Mantik's stereoscopic study which shows something strange about the back of the head, so perhaps it is just a forgery in the traditional sense. These two men disagree on this point. Likewise, certain aspects of the x-rays have been manipulated and do not represent reality. Mantik's articles are usually pretty dense with jargon, but his unique studies of the x-rays are definitive. For me, the above medical evidence is absolutely definitive proof of state complicity in a coverup. This conclusion is amplified by the Dallas medical personnel, whose observations are essentially unanimous and have remained so for decades. To return to a previous point, personal recollections of actual witnesses turn out to be revelatory of truth more often than not. A credible witness can have more value than a videographic record. And these Dallas witnesses are the definition of the word 'credible.' Put another way, it would be impossible to find any group of witnesses with more credibility. Doug Horne wanted to put them in a room with the autopsy photos and get them on the record under oath, but the leadership of the ARRB let us all down. If the state would falsify the photographic and radiographic record of the autopsy (and they did), why wouldn't they do the same to a film of the assassination itself? Yes, it's an extraordinary claim. So it will require extraordinary evidence. And it seems a bit crazy. But David Lifton's claims seemed crazy in 1981. History has borne him out.

Hey wow, I had just skimmed over some of these replies as I’m sitting here watching the series of Lifton’s 14 videos on YouTube and I heard him mention your name. He appears to have gone fully manic in his latter years, but I believe he said something nice about you.

I've been revisiting Lifton recently. One of my original JFKa experiences, in the early 90s at the tender age of 19 or 20, was browsing the VHS tapes in a local video store and spotting a video called Best Evidence. I excitedly took it home and was enthralled by this little bald man whose eyes went slowly back and forth, obviously reading cue cards as he narrated. The material in the interviews was so explosive, and seemed so credible, I could hardly believe it. This went beyond anything even in Oliver Stone's movie. I'm sure everyone has a story about how they first became obsessed with the JFKa. My obsession began in my single-digit ages, with the 'official' facts as printed in a history book, published by an encyclopedia company, given to me by my grandfather. My other grandparents had some of the original Life magazines dedicated to the assassination that were published in the 60s. When I got a bit older and was a big-time movie buff, I heard that Oliver Stone was going to make a movie about the assassination. I was excited to see it, and though I understood that it was going to offer a 'conspiracy' point of view, that wasn't at all why. In fact, I knew nothing about the conspiracy beyond those few elements that had seeped into the popular culture. Ie, the term "grassy knoll,' and the idea that there was more than one shooter. I was simply excited at the prospect of a top-notch, Hollywood-level, big-budget recreation of the events. That's it. I could write for days on how that movie changed my life, but I won't. I found the Lifton video shortly afterward, and as a result Best Evidence became one of the first 5 or 10 books I read on the subject. This was some years before Amazon (or the Internet, for that matter), and I must've gotten the book from a library because I don't seem to have a copy anywhere. It's disappointing that there is no Kindle/e-book version. I don't know why Lifton—or any author, for that matter—would let such an opportunity go by, but used copies aren't exactly cheap. Among the many authors and researchers I've come across, Lifton stands out for a few reasons. I believe his 'body alteration theory' is representative of the assimilation and maturing of evidence in the case over time. Simply put: What once seemed crazy now feels like yesterday's news. I spent most of 2023 reading Doug Horne's 5 volumes (again, no ebook??). It certainly appears to me that Lifton's primary "theory" is more than fully validated—to the point that we are no longer asking Did it happen? That's established. In fact, now we're even beyond asking How did it happen? (Yes, there are definitely holes, but the ARRB established a lot. I'm convinced Horne is correct that Lifton was wrong in one important respect—that the body was altered "between Dallas and Bethesda;" the body was most likely altered AT Bethesda, most likely by Humes himself). What once seemed crazy now feels like yesterday's news. I've been aware of Zapruder-alteration theories since at least 2000, but it always felt like a bridge too far. The explanations in favor of alteration provided by those who are "certain" of it are mostly buried in physics and not very accessible to the layman. On the other hand, the anti-alteration argument is straightforward ("...but the sprocket hole images man!" "There was no time!") But what once seemed crazy ... I recently read Lifton's long essay Pig on a Leash. I hadn't known that he suspected alteration, and in fact had for a very long time, practically since his first viewings of the film. I know he planned a book on the subject, to be the last in a trilogy after Final Charade, but that obviously won't happen. Say this of Lifton: He was slow. Perhaps he was meticulous and wanted to produce the most reliable information possible, but sadly, he ran out of time. I'd be immensely interested in reading his thoughts on Oswald, and seeing what evidence he must have amassed over the years he worked on his unpublished book. He didn't appear to have much of a social life, but does he not have surviving family who are handling his estate? Either that, or surely he bequeathed his research to a trusted fellow researcher. I'd like to think that, after all this time, Final Charade was completed except for the index and cover art. But maybe not. Does anyone know anything about the status or future plans for his unpublished work? Maybe we'll never see it. But what once seemed crazy ...

In terms of authenticity, I go back and forth in my feelings about the Zapruder film. Without going into detail, my question is simply this: Has anyone ever tried to recreate the Zapruder film in as faithful a manner as possible? I'm talking about a person of Mr. Z's height standing atop the pedestal along Elm Street and filming using an identical B&H camera and identical film stock, in similar lighting/weather conditions, and panning slowly down the street as a vehicle makes its way down Elm toward the underpass. Ideally, such a recreation would employ a "limo" of similar proportions to the presidential Lincoln and maybe some motorcycle outriders behind. Even more ideal would be to place at least a few "witnesses" in their same positions along both sides of the street. Apologies if this is common knowledge, but I've searched and have never come across such a thing. I imagine it might have been done back in the original WC investigation, but even if it was I don't think such a film has ever been released into the public domain. Seems like the time period when the film JFK was being made (1991) would have been an ideal time to do this. But certainly this is something that could be done even today. Obviously there are differences in the plaza now (no Stemmons Freeway sign, to name but one), but I think it would be revealing as to whether any of the strange artifacts in the extant Z-film could be recreated. To that end, even the simplest version of such a recreation—ie, simply panning slowly down the street using the B&H camera atop the pedestal, and never mind the subject matter—would have value.

Now that's interesting. I've read Posner, Bugliosi, etc. Not convincing overall (to understate it) but the money left for Marina on the morning of the 22nd is something that's always stuck in my head as one piece of evidence that points toward Oswald possibly being in a psychological place where he could be a "lone assassin," or, at the very least, somehow involved in something which he knew may well prevent him from coming home again. In fact, LN authors who make that case on a large scale often open with that. It's always bugged me. Am I correct that he also left his wedding ring? And maybe a note?

I've mostly been lurking at this forum for a while, but scanning through this thread has really crystallized something I've been observing in the community. There's something monstrously ironic—downright paradoxical, in fact—about criticizing Carlson and labeling him "far right," clearly aligning one's self with the current globalist Regime and shameless sycophancy of the legacy media, while also purporting to champion ... getting to the truth of the JFK assassination??

Greetings to all: I'm a writer who in North Carolina, previously employed in healthcare management (though my degree is in English lit). I'm 50 at the time of this posting, and have had an interest in the Kennedy assassination since I was a child. Of course, back then my interest was of a piece with a fascination in American presidents in general, and in presidents who were assassinated or otherwise died while in office in particular. I never heard much during my turbulent teen years, in the 1980s, about "conspiracy" in the assassination, just enough to make it sound like a lot of crackpots talking to one other. I was excited in 1991 to hear that there was a movie coming out, from Oliver Stone no less, though I was really just expecting a good yarn of a story. What I saw was much more than that. I've become painfully aware over the decades of the power of media to manipulate the public—sometimes by design and sometimes not—and Stone's JFK, in the final analysis, is really just more media. But that movie, even unto the present day, makes all the right people mad. As I'm sure is the case with many of you here, I became obsessed. It began with the two books, by Marrs and Garrison, upon which Stone based his film. It grew from there. I've read dozens over the years. As the internet sprouted in the mid 1990s, I gobbled up all the information I could find. I've also read my share of "LN" books, including Posner and Bugliosi (yes, I read the whole thing). My interest in the subject waxes and wanes every few years, and just recently (2023) hit me again. I find myself re-reading old books, buying Kindle versions of books I already own or used to own and can no longer find, searching YouTube for obscure videos. It was coming across Prayer Man that led me to this forum and the ROKC forum. This fascination of mine is hard to explain. But like the movie tagline says, it's a "story that won't go away." We all know there is something very wrong in our country today. Many of us sense it has been wrong for a long time. I'm not sure where things are headed, but I do have an instinctual feeling that it began—or at least reared its head and allowed itself to be seen by the public—on 11/22/63. I'm also happily married and the father of 3. Glad to be here. -Aaron