New review of Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" published in the Nov/Dec issue of "The Federal Lawyer"

[Gary L. Aguilar]

The latest issue of "The Federal Lawyer," an American publication that is directed toward, and largely read by, federal attorneys, has published my review of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History."

See:

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Vincent Bugliosi

W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 2007. 1612 pages plus CD-rom, $49.95.

Reviewed by Gary L. Aguilar*

It is available on-line at: http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html

The on-line version has many more footnotes than the published version. The editors elected not to publish many of the secondary sources I cited and it elected not to give the page numbers in Bugliosi's book when I cited him.

The on-line version is identical with the published version except that in the fifth from the last paragraph, I added three sentences concerning comments by the New York Times' Anthony Lewis and Harrison Salisbury that did not make the printer's deadline and so are not in the "hard" copy.

G. Aguilar

[Tim Gratz]

Congratulations on the publication of an excellent article, Dr. Aguilar!

The on-line version has many more footnotes than the published version. The editors elected not to publish many of the secondary sources I cited and it elected not to give the page numbers in Bugliosi's book when I cited him.

The editors' decision is indeed unfortunate.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The latest issue of "The Federal Lawyer," an American publication that is directed toward, and largely read by, federal attorneys, has published my review of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History."

See:

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Vincent Bugliosi

W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 2007. 1612 pages plus CD-rom, $49.95.

Reviewed by Gary L. Aguilar*

It is available on-line at: http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html

The on-line version has many more footnotes than the published version. The editors elected not to publish many of the secondary sources I cited and it elected not to give the page numbers in Bugliosi's book when I cited him.

The on-line version is identical with the published version except that in the fifth from the last paragraph, I added three sentences concerning comments by the New York Times' Anthony Lewis and Harrison Salisbury that did not make the printer's deadline and so are not in the "hard" copy.

G. Aguilar

Perhaps VB can explain exactly why, on 2/7/64, the FBI took the relatively accurate 3-shot/3-hit SS survey plat of 12/5/63 and decided to attempt to delete the Z313 impact point and move it back up Elm St. some 28+ feet.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0144b.htm

But then again, I would suppose that he would also have to explain how it was that the US Secret Service, during December 2, 3, & 4th, with an original copy of the Z-film, determined that Z313 impact was the second shot fired and that the third/last/final shot impact was some 30-feet farther down Elm St.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

[Pat Speer]

The latest issue of "The Federal Lawyer," an American publication that is directed toward, and largely read by, federal attorneys, has published my review of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History."

See:

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Vincent Bugliosi

W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 2007. 1612 pages plus CD-rom, $49.95.

Reviewed by Gary L. Aguilar*

It is available on-line at: http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html

The on-line version has many more footnotes than the published version. The editors elected not to publish many of the secondary sources I cited and it elected not to give the page numbers in Bugliosi's book when I cited him.

The on-line version is identical with the published version except that in the fifth from the last paragraph, I added three sentences concerning comments by the New York Times' Anthony Lewis and Harrison Salisbury that did not make the printer's deadline and so are not in the "hard" copy.

G. Aguilar

Perhaps VB can explain exactly why, on 2/7/64, the FBI took the relatively accurate 3-shot/3-hit SS survey plat of 12/5/63 and decided to attempt to delete the Z313 impact point and move it back up Elm St. some 28+ feet.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0144b.htm

But then again, I would suppose that he would also have to explain how it was that the US Secret Service, during December 2, 3, & 4th, with an original copy of the Z-film, determined that Z313 impact was the second shot fired and that the third/last/final shot impact was some 30-feet farther down Elm St.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Tom, I'm confused about the reference to 2-7-64. If I recall, Gauthier had mentioned a post 313 head shot as early as December.

Edited December 4, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The latest issue of "The Federal Lawyer," an American publication that is directed toward, and largely read by, federal attorneys, has published my review of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History."

See:

Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

By Vincent Bugliosi

W.W. Norton & Co., New York, NY, 2007. 1612 pages plus CD-rom, $49.95.

Reviewed by Gary L. Aguilar*

It is available on-line at: http://www.ctka.net/bug_aguilar.html

The on-line version has many more footnotes than the published version. The editors elected not to publish many of the secondary sources I cited and it elected not to give the page numbers in Bugliosi's book when I cited him.

The on-line version is identical with the published version except that in the fifth from the last paragraph, I added three sentences concerning comments by the New York Times' Anthony Lewis and Harrison Salisbury that did not make the printer's deadline and so are not in the "hard" copy.

G. Aguilar

Perhaps VB can explain exactly why, on 2/7/64, the FBI took the relatively accurate 3-shot/3-hit SS survey plat of 12/5/63 and decided to attempt to delete the Z313 impact point and move it back up Elm St. some 28+ feet.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0144b.htm

But then again, I would suppose that he would also have to explain how it was that the US Secret Service, during December 2, 3, & 4th, with an original copy of the Z-film, determined that Z313 impact was the second shot fired and that the third/last/final shot impact was some 30-feet farther down Elm St.

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/...Vol17_0449a.htm

Tom, I'm confused about the reference to 2-7-64. If I recall, Gauthier had mentioned a post 313 head shot as early as December.

"Tom, I'm confused about the reference to 2-7-64. If I recall, Gauthier had mentioned a post 313 head shot as early as December."

The US Secret Service survey work and assassination re-enactment of 12/2, 3/ & 4th/63, with the Survey Plat dated 12/5/63, demonstrates the Z313 impact location as well as the stationing 4+95 (30-feet farther down Elm St) impact location. (Post Z313)

The 2/7/64 FBI Survey & assassination re-enactment was the attempt by Hoover & Company to make the survey plat (details) match basically what JEH had informed LBJ.

1. Shot into JFK's back--(reaction observed at what is approximately Z212/214)

2. Shot into JBC---------(impact point some 28-feet prior to the location of Z313 impact)

3. Shot into JFK's head---(30-feet past the point of impact for Z313)

all of which was going to make Z313 completely disappear.

And, which quite obviously could not be done due to the Z-film and what it would take to accomplish this with the film.

Additionally, it should be recalled that the FBI (through it's Agents present at the autopsy) knew exactly where the entry wound into the edge of the hairline of JFK was observed during the autopsy, as well as that the FBI was in possession of the coat of JFK which had the second (matching) bullet hole penetration located at the juncture of the collar and the coat, which corresponded to the edge of hairline entry into the skull.

All of these items thusly created a problem with the Z-film which basically could not be overcome (considering that many had already seen the film), as well as a forensic/ballistic/pathological problem with a bullet entry at the lower edge of the hairline, yet a purported bullet exit out the top/front of the skull.

This was of course further compounded by the fact that the anterior/posterior X-ray clearly demonstrated a bullet entrance into the rear of the skull (the cowlick entry) which quite obviously was not down at the back edge of the neck at the edge of the hairline.

Thusly, the WC came in to straighten it all out for us.

Of course, the WC gave us the fantastic "THE SHOT THAT MISSED" scenario, when in fact the SS as well as the FBI had clearly established that the first shot did not miss and that JFK could be observed reacting to the shot at what was approximately Z212/214.

So, in actuallity, the WC pulled off two completely separate "slight/sleight-of-hand" tricks in that they made the first shot as well as the last shot completely disappear below the radar screen.

Certainly makes me proud to be an "American", in knowing that individuals who supposedly represent our government can pull off such a fantastic piece of "smoke & mirrors".

[William Kelly]

Dr. Gary Aguilar, MD. Coast to Coast AM Radio – Nov. 22-23, 2007. 4 AM EST.

With George Noorey.

George Noorey: Dr. Gary Aguilar. He practices in San Francisco, California, a clinical professor at the University of California, San Francisco, and an expert on all medical aspects of the JFK case, and he has testified before the Assassination Records Review Board concerning the medical records. His analysis of the autopsy evidence is published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. Dr. Gary, how are you?

Dr. Gary Aguilar: Thank you very much for having me on. I am very impressed with your knowledge George, you've done an incredible job here and I want to thank you for having me on. One small addendum, my biggest review that was published in medical literature, was a long piece published in a somewhat obscure journal called Neurosurgery. I also published a review recently, a 9700 word review of Vincent Bugliosi's book in an obscure journal called The Federal Lawyer….. I'm one of the few physicians outside the government who is still allowed to see the still restricted autopsy photographs of Jack Kennedy and the X-rays and photographs. So I've had an interest since I was a young man, and both you and I are about the same vintage, so this is something that has continued to bother me.

GN: We'd like to…..but I think it is important for people to understand what may have happened on that horrible day. When you look at those autopsy reports and photos, what exactly do you see here?

GA: People who are interested in this subject will have no difficulty finding the images on line, and in fact they are the real images. I got both my copies before I was given permission to go back there, and compare it with the originals. They are not the high quality as the originals, of course, but they are the real deal. The key part of it here is that John Kennedy died principally from a gun shot wound to the head. The question about whether that shot came from behind or the front or both directions, and I tend toward the view that he was probably shot in two directions in the head and that explains the injuries perhaps as well or better than anything else. But there has been a mishandling of the medical evidence literally from the day of the assassination. From the day of the assassination, the doctors at Parkland hospital described wound that were then redescribed, and the autopsy pathologists were forced to write what I think is a somewhat fraudulent, perhaps criminally fraudulent autopsy report. Since that time the autopsy pathologists have lied under oath about the autopsy photographs, and in other ways have been intimidated. Autopsy photographs are missing….. and we have very good reason to suspect, because all the principles involved, all three pathologists, witnesses…., autopsy photographer, and even people who developed the images afterwards, have said they saw images that are no longer in the extant file. So this has been something where Kennedy's head was quite clearly been blown apart. And there are peculiarities that are very obscure to go into in any detail with an audience, with a general audience that isn't medically trained, other than to say that there are features that are completely inexplicable. The principle one perhaps, anyone who gets on line and sees the autopsy X-rays, particularly the front to back X-ray, so called AP X ray, a big piece of metal in what looks to be Kennedy's right eye socket. Well that piece of metal is supposed to be embedded on the outside, the back side of his skull. It's a 6.5 mm fragment, which is the diameter of the bullet that was supposed to have hit him from Oswald's rifle, and you can ask as many forensic pathologists you want in the world and you will never have one who will be able to explain to you how the central diameter of a bullet, the nose of which is in front of Kennedy, the tail of which is supposed to be in front of Kennedy if Oswald did it, and somehow a section, a central diameter of the bullet ends up…. on the outside of the skull. Good luck with that one. That's one of the many mysteries we have to deal with here.

But more importantly, what we see going along, especially in the mainstream media, is a willingness to withhold the truth from the public. Anthony Lewis, on the day the Warren Report was released, wrote in the New York Times, that the Warren Commission had released all the information that it had gathered, whether the information agreed with their conclusions or not. But it didn't. They didn't release a lot of it. The JFK Review Board found that material was still being withheld in 1993 when they started to go about their work. So the government and the mainstream media have never told us the truth about that…Now there have been a few cracks….Journalist Jefferson Morley, who got interested in the subject, and he actually published a letter in the New York Times, that is worth reviewing for your audience. I won't read it in detail, but he signed the letter with one time BBC correspondent Anthony Summers, Norman Mailer, David Talbot,….and listed the number of people who have either privately or publicly suspected there was a conspiracy, and among them – President Johnson, Richard Nixon, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, emphatically him by the way, Jackie Kennedy, William Attwood, J. Edger Hover, Richard Russell, who was a Warren Commission member, Richard Schweiker, Gary Hart, and on and on and on…many other people. This is not some crackpot nonsense. We now have Vincent Bugliosi out here, and again, what you see in Vincent Bugliosi, with the mainstream media, is they assign people who known nothing about the case. ….Vincent Bugliosi's own book provides… – he's good at indexing who's who in the Kennedy case as anything you'll find. And anybody's who has written knowledgably about the subject – their name will be in there. If you read …. the Los Angeles Times, the Washington Post, the New York Times, on the subject of Kennedy, they won't be. My name's there. All the people you have on your panel aren't there. Well my review is now on the Federal Lawyer, it'll be on the web in the next 24 to 48 hours. It's 9700 words and it gives multiple examples of his mishandling of evidence. But you won't hear that from the mainstream media, that continues to tow the official line, as it has on so many other lies, whether it's the Iraq war, casualty figures in Vietnam, progress in the war, they never really told the truth about a lot of things that go on.

GN: Did they really have to get rid of Kennedy in order to continue their…..

GA: Oh, I think so. While we are getting away from the medical evidence, my expertise, but I think this is a most important question, George. And you need to understand my view is that John Kennedy got radicalized by the Bay of Pigs invasion, when he was promised that America's hand would not have to show in this, it was such a great idea,…..he was the youngest President in history, all these guys said it was such a great idea, so he went ahead with it. And then when things went badly on the beach and they said we have to have some ships offshore, we'd like to send in some troops, and Kennedy said no, we're not going to do that. He put his foot down. Well in that moment I think he got radicalized, he had realized....and by the way, there…I wish I could give you a few more,…but off the top of my head I'll just tell you, and if you ever want….it back I'll let you know. The CIA knew the date of the invasion had been blown, the CIA had found out that the Russians knew the day we were coming, which means the Cubans knew. The whole plot had been revealed and exposed, and of course it failed.

GN: Oh, my God. It's important they didn't stop it.

GA: No, they just expected that Kennedy would roll, as all Presidents would in a situation like that, and do what the military wanted and send in an invasionary force, so Kennedy infuriated them by not doing what they wanted at the Bay of Pigs. Then there was Operation Northwoods, which you may have spoken about, where the Joint Chiefs of Staff planned to commit acts of terrorism against innocent Americans as a pretext for war against Cuba in 1962. Kennedy wouldn't let them do that. Anyone can get that information by Googling Operation Northwoods. You can see the Joint Chiefs of Staff signatures on the page. So he infuriated them with the Bay of Pigs, and again with Operation Northwoods, in 1962 he was pushing for the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which was ultimately and eventually signed, and they were furious about that. They wanted to send troops into Laos and he wouldn't let them do that. Then during the Cuban Missile Crisis, if you read a book The Kennedy Case, Harvard University Press, it's about the Special Operations Group meetings during the Cuban Missile Crisis in those 13 days, the editors of the book say there were many times, in listening to the tapes, the only person in the room determined not to go to war was Jack Kennedy. He was surrounded by advisors that were all advocating war. He stood against his own advisors, which Presidents just don't have the courage to do anymore, and haven't since. And finally on the question of Vietnam and JFK, people said Oliver Stone was a complete crackpot for suggesting that Jack Kennedy would not have prosecuted that war, but its now turned out from classified documents, and you don't even have to take it from conspiracy theorists anymore, a bunch of historians who agree that that's true were skeptical of that theory before the declassified documents came out. Howard Jones, who published a book the Death of a Generation, 2003, Oxford University Press, a very prestigious publishing house. In his introduction on page 8, ….when I first read this business that Kennedy wouldn't prosecute the war I thought it was nuts. And he essentially wrote the book to say that if there was one officer in this country that was determined not to go to war in Vietnam it was Jack Kennedy. So look at what happened. If you look at it in perspective, did they have to get rid of Jack Kennedy?

GN: Oh, yes.

GA: I mean they wouldn't let them have the Bay of Pigs, wouldn't let them have Operation Northwoods, wouldn't let them have a Cuban Missile Crisis attack on Cuba, he pushed for a nuclear test ban treaty….

GN: The federal reserve, we have to bring that up…..

GA: The Federal Reserve, that's another one, one that knows much less about, than these others, but it's another example of that. No, I think he had to be removed. And at that moment, people began learning that they serve, for the lack of a better word, Eisenhower's Military-Industrial complex.

GN: He had to have known Gary, besides the story we just had that he was warned about Chicago and didn't go there, he had to have known they were all out to get him.

GA: In fact, if you read David Talbot's new book Brothers, which is a suburb book, beautifully written by the way, he's just a great writer. It annoys me that he's such a great writer because I wish I could write as well. But he lays out the fact that both Bobby and Jack, but particularly Jack, you need to call it a premonition, but he understood, and he even advocated his associates see this film Seven Days In May where there's a plot against the President by the military.

GN: He was intuitive.

GA: You don't have to be a genius to stand in a room with the most powerful people in the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis and you're standing alone against them, to realize that you're not making powerful friends by doing that. And here's the irony of the thing. I'd like to say I'm delighted to be able to say this on coast to coast radio because its well known and published in all sorts of university books, but you talk to…one in a hundred people know its true. If Kennedy had done what the military wanted during the Cuban Missile Crisis, which was to bomb the missile sites that were still under construction and to invade the island, what we didn't know then that we now know, the Cubans had nukes on the beaches, tactical nuclear missiles that had a range of about 200 miles, or so,….

GN: Armed and ready to go.

GA: Armed and ready to go. If we had sent in a flotilla to take over the island, the Russians had….idiotically, given the Cubans independent authorization to fire in the event of an attack. They would have nuked our ships; the Americans would have seen the Russians hand in this and no doubt had retaliated with a nuclear strike on Russia…..

GN: Florida and part of the south would have been gone.

GA: Part of the south might very well have been gone. They would have taken out Russia and Russia would have said that this nuclear exchange business is a game that two can play, and we wouldn't be having this conversation today. It would be an entirely different world if Kennedy had not been President of the United States. Now mind you, I grew up in Los Angeles, my dad worked at Lockheed, my parents ran John Birch Society chapters when I was growing up. I was a Young American for Freedom member, a Young Republican, I campaigned…….

GN: I haven't heard the John Birch Society mentioned in a hundred years.

GA: It's still around. My mother still likes it. It's unbelievable.

GN: Now they're called right wingers, right?

GA: It's insane. Now when I reflect back on it, the thing that opened my eyes was reading the Pentagon Papers, and Dan Ellsberg is a hero. I wish there were a few more like him in the world. But also you have to realize that, I thought the guys you could trust were not those long haired, commie pinkos, you know that were protesting when I was in college. The people you could trust were those guys with the clear eyes, short hair and uniforms and the ROTC….they were the people you could trust. Then I read the Pentagon Papers and learned that protested, the commie pinko, dope smokers, and….the guys who you should not. The individual soldiers were heroes. In this movie Lions for Lams, they quote Churchill I think, they say that lions go into battle for the lams…. in the field, and as we see in Iraq today, they are the real heroes and they are going into battle on behalf of men who are lams, who really don't represent the personal the sort of courage and personal dedication….I don't blame the individual solders or the guys behind the ROTC tables, but the seat of the military, the manipulation of the government towards military ends is a national tragedy here.

GN: And you know what's happening now as you see world events and that is they are all ganging up to destroy whatever we thought was our form of democracy and freedom, by chopping up the dollar, by doing what they are doing, and you can see it unfold now, it's almost as if the plan was concocted forty four years ago.

GA: It's absolutely frightening. It's been as you say, marching in an unavoidable march down this terrible path we are on. We used to have the strongest currency in the world, now we're the laughing stock of the world. We used to be the world's banker, and now we're the world's biggest debtor.

GN: It's like it all happened at once. It's been ongoing but the publicity of it and the effect is like the bottom fell out. You know what it's like? You're a doctor, you'll understand this. A guy goes along for his whole life, feeling good, having a good time, exercising, and wakes up one morning and has a heart attack. It's all over for him. It's all over, and he says to himself, how the heck did this happen? It was building up. And that is what is happening to us.

GA: We've been missing the signs here. I haven't been missing them. In fact, studying the Kennedy case is one thing which has been very helpful for me to immediately start recognizing when I'm getting disinformation from the government in the mainstream media. I was howling about, because I was reading the international press on line, I was howling about the huge exaggerations about the imminence of this great threat we face from Iraq, when Judith Miller's stories were gracing the front pages of the New York Times telling us we had to go to war to fend off this terrible human threat, and I felt, wait a minute. I've already been through one war like this where we had an imminent threat in the Gulf of Tonkin that never really existed. Even many of my medical colleagues, many of whom tend to be quite conservative, as you probably know, said Oh, no, no, you can trust them this time, and they're telling the truth this time. Now they're all shame faced and embarrassed, but in the meantime….You can find this easily by Googling the words: rich-poor-gap-widens. The United States used to be a country where you could start off poor and rise to prosperity easier than anyplace else in the world. Well guess what folks? According to the Wall Street Journal, which is where you will find that article, the United States…is now tied for dead last in your chances to rise to prosperity from poverty. This isn't some commie leftist nut cases saying this….this is the World Street Journal saying this. We've lost a huge thing. And I'm a guy who grew up in a family of twelve, conservative, Republican parents, but poor as church mice, with brothers and sisters frequently out of work, with waves of hiring and firings depending on the defense budget.

GN: Do you know why they can't tell us what happened back there in 1963. They can't tell us because they haven't stopped yet. If it was a one time event, and he got assassinated and they know who did it, they would have said this. They can't say it because it's still going on.

GA: There continues to be a terrible deception going on. And the mainstream media has now been so organized with so few outlets in the country that they can keep on message, and keep manipulating the public and manipulating and manufacturing consent….

GN: I just don't think they understand here…I know a lot of people in the media and most of them aren't told what to do by other groups or agencies. They are just so involved in this competition to get the Anna Nicole story on the air that they just don't…

GA: ….You want to go with the sensational thing, which is how Rupert Murdoch took the venerable London Times and made it, tabloidzed it.

GN: You got one guy out there – Lou Dobbs with CNN, who sticks his neck out. Other than that there's not much out there.

GA: Well, there's a guy, I'm trying to think of his name, because I watch almost no TV, commentator on MSNBC,…..

GN: That's Keith Olbermann…..

GA: I've seen a couple of things he's done and thought it was spectacular. And Paul Krugman of the New York Times and Frank Rich of the New York Times,….

GN: But how many people read that? It's become a television world and a radio world to some extent. Gary, we've go to run, but thank you for getting us to look at the web site and some of those photos, I just did.

GA: I recommend that people who read Vincent Bugliosi's book go to a web site called www.reclaiminghistory.org, not com., .org, where there's essays I've written and other critics have written that will lay out the facts because Bugliosi can't be trusted.

GN: Okay, we've got to run; we've got one more guest to go.

xxxxxxx

Edited December 4, 2007 by William Kelly

[Tim Gratz]

JFK's intelligence probably equalled that of the three brightest forum members combined.

Dr. Aguilar wrote:

And you need to understand my view is that John Kennedy got radicalized by the Bay of Pigs invasion, when he was promised that America's hand would not have to show in this, it was such a great idea,…..

How anybody as intelligent as Kennedy could believe the invasion could be carried off without everyone in the world at least suspecting US involvement baffles me. It was because he wanted to try to accomplish that objective that he scaled back the invasion and US air support, which of course was one reaon why it failed.

Castro betrayed all those who supported him amd he has denied the citizens of Cuba basic civil liberties for over 45 years. JFK should have just sent in the Marines in April of 1961 and ridded the hemisphere of that tyrant once and for all, and the Cuban people would have blessed him as their saviour and that is how history would recognize him.

And if Joseph Califano and many others with inside knowledge are correct, had Castro been removed in April of 1961, Dallas might never have happened.

[Pat Speer]

JFK's intelligence probably equalled that of the three brightest forum members combined.

Dr. Aguilar wrote:

And you need to understand my view is that John Kennedy got radicalized by the Bay of Pigs invasion, when he was promised that America's hand would not have to show in this, it was such a great idea,…..

How anybody as intelligent as Kennedy could believe the invasion could be carried off without everyone in the world at least suspecting US involvement baffles me. It was because he wanted to try to accomplish that objective that he scaled back the invasion and US air support, which of course was one reaon why it failed.

Castro betrayed all those who supported him amd he has denied the citizens of Cuba basic civil liberties for over 45 years. JFK should have just sent in the Marines in April of 1961 and ridded the hemisphere of that tyrant once and for all, and the Cuban people would have blessed him as their saviour and that is how history would recognize him.

And if Joseph Califano and many others with inside knowledge are correct, had Castro been removed in April of 1961, Dallas might never have happened.

If most of those on this forum are correct, if Kennedy had successfully destroyed Castro, Dallas might never have happened, because the right-wingers and anti-Castro Cuban terrorists who killed him would have had their own banana republic to play with.

Tim, most people who've looked into the Bay of Pigs, including myself, have concluded it was hopeless. No military invasion would have been successful beyond the short term, and no short term invasion would have been successful without the U.S. paying a penalty somewhere else, most probably Berlin. Only a few anti-Castro zealots and CIA agents in denial will still say it was a good plan till Kennedy messed it up. If you really think it was all peachy till Kennedy messed it up you should read the CIA IG report, that chiefly blames Bissell and Barnes. You know, the report the CIA hid away for thirty years so they could continue blaming Kennedy.

I trust you realize, by the way, that the "Kennedy canceling the second air strike because he was chicken story" is a myth, acknowledged as such by Hunt, among others. Adlai Stevenson and Dean Rusk were concerned with U.S. credibility, and urged it be canceled. Kennedy put it to Cabell, who failed to say it was necessary. The next day, after it became clear it was necessary, Kennedy ordered a second strike. This strike was attempted, only the CIA and Navy failed to coordinate watches and, as a result, the brigade's planes were without air cover and easily shot down. Several Americans, flying against orders because the anti-Castro Cuban pilots were too tired and scared to return and fight for their country, were killed.

In short, there was plenty of guilt to be passed around, and blaming Kennedy personally for the failure at the Bay of Pigs is nonsense. His greatest error was in not stopping the thing altogether. If he'd done so, what happened in Dallas would probably have happened sooner.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

Tom, on 12-9 Gauthier wrote a memo detailing his re-enactment. I believe this matches the exhibits given the WC on 1-20. Are there memos detailing the 2-7 re-enactment you describe?

From patspeer.com, chapter 2b.

"On 12-9, we see a memo from Gauthier himself, describing his efforts in Dallas. He is preparing floor plans of the depository and of the police station where Oswald was killed, as well as a mock-up of Dealey Plaza. He lists the advantages of having these exhibits and then declares "The marks on the freeway indicating where shots one, two, and three were believed to have struck the Presidential car, have been noted and this information can be indicated on the model. From this information, it appears that shot one struck the President momentarily after he came within gun range when his car moved passed the tree top as viewed by the assassin. Shot number two which is believed to have struck Governor Connally occurred after the car had traveled a distance of 95 feet at approximately 15 m.p.h. The markings on the Freeway indicated that shot number three which is believed to have struck the President occurred after the car had traveled another 45 feet. At 15 m.p.h a car moves forward at a speed of about 22 feet per second or one car length. The President's car length is 21 feet long. Based upon this information the second shot occurred about 4.36 second after the first shot was fired and the third shot occurred about 2.0 seconds after the second shot was fired. The total elapse time to fire shots two and three was approximately 6.4 seconds during which time the President's car traveling at 15 m.p.h. covered approximately 141 feet."

[Tim Gratz]

Pat, do you doubt that if the US had used its military might the Castro regime would not have been destroyed in less days than Israel defeated Egypt in 1967?

And JFK would not have set up a banana republic. I am sure you know that. (If anything it would have been cigar country!) Kidding aside, I believe that many of the leaders of the exile groups had fought with Castro against Batista because they really wanted to bring democracy to Cuba and with the guidance of the Kennedy regime that would have happened.

You are correct that I am correct that Dallas would probably not have happened, either because Castro was behind it to stop the US attempts to kill him or because anti-Castro Cubans were behind it because they objected to Kennedy's settlement of the CMC. So you can take your pick.

I do agree with you that the BOP was not a good plan in the first place except I think its chance of success would have been greatly increased had Castro been eliminated shortly before it happened. I believe the murder of Castro was part of Bissell's "secret plan". Would you agree with that? The problem is that when Castro was not murdered, then the BOP should either have been cancelled or there should have been a full-scale US invasion.

I do not think Kennedy canceled the second strike because he was chicken. He did it because he mistakenly listened to Rusk and Stevenson. By that time, of couse, US involvement in the operation was evident.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom, on 12-9 Gauthier wrote a memo detailing his re-enactment. I believe this matches the exhibits given the WC on 1-20. Are there memos detailing the 2-7 re-enactment you describe?

From patspeer.com, chapter 2b.

"On 12-9, we see a memo from Gauthier himself, describing his efforts in Dallas. He is preparing floor plans of the depository and of the police station where Oswald was killed, as well as a mock-up of Dealey Plaza. He lists the advantages of having these exhibits and then declares "The marks on the freeway indicating where shots one, two, and three were believed to have struck the Presidential car, have been noted and this information can be indicated on the model. From this information, it appears that shot one struck the President momentarily after he came within gun range when his car moved passed the tree top as viewed by the assassin. Shot number two which is believed to have struck Governor Connally occurred after the car had traveled a distance of 95 feet at approximately 15 m.p.h. The markings on the Freeway indicated that shot number three which is believed to have struck the President occurred after the car had traveled another 45 feet. At 15 m.p.h a car moves forward at a speed of about 22 feet per second or one car length. The President's car length is 21 feet long. Based upon this information the second shot occurred about 4.36 second after the first shot was fired and the third shot occurred about 2.0 seconds after the second shot was fired. The total elapse time to fire shots two and three was approximately 6.4 seconds during which time the President's car traveling at 15 m.p.h. covered approximately 141 feet."

Not that I can add that much, but I almost did not see this posting.

First off, I have little trust of either Gauthier or Shaneyfelt.

From information provided to me, Shaneyfelt is the one who altered the West Survey Data Block (CE884), and of course Gauthier was the one who, in conjunction with Specter, "slipped" it into evidence.

Thusly, I would have to have some absolute proof that the notes which were purportedly written by Gauthier were in fact made on the date given before placing that much credence in them for anything.

Secondly, as is noted, Gauthier seems to base everything on two totally erroneous propositions.

"the car had traveled a distance of 95 feet at approximately 15 m.p.h."

"At 15 m.p.h a car moves forward at a speed of about 22 feet per second or one car length. "

"during which time the President's car traveling at 15 m.p.h. covered approximately 141 feet."

The vehicle speed WAS NOT 15mph.

"The markings on the Freeway indicated that shot number three which is believed to have struck the President occurred after the car had traveled another 45 feet"

"The President's car length is 21 feet long. "

"the third shot occurred about 2.0 seconds after the second shot was fired."

Gauthier has, through some method, tied an erroneous vehicle speed of 15mph/aka 22fps, to the 21-foot length of the Presidential Limo, and then tied this to some visual interpretation that the distance between shot#2 and shot#3 was two limo lengths, thus: 2 X 21 = 42 feet, plus 2 additional feet, = 44 feet. (45 feet)

And, has done a similar computation for distances related to the first and second shot.

The Survey Work of December 1963 was done for the US Secret Service. Specifically, for Edward E. Moore, and John Joe Howlett was also involved.

Gauthier was merely there as a representative for the FBI to ultimately gain the information necessary to make exhibits, and thusly had no true work related to the stationing on Elm St. of the presidential Stand-in.

And, his supposed notes clearly demonstrate exactly why he was a model maker as opposed to a math major.

I will attempt to go into the distances later.

[David G. Healy]

Tom wrote:

...

From information provided to me, Shaneyfelt is the one who altered the West Survey Data Block (CE884), and of course Gauthier was the one who, in conjunction with Specter, "slipped" it into evidence.

...

This guy was a very BUSY guy..

[Pat Speer]

Not that I can add that much, but I almost did not see this posting.

First off, I have little trust of either Gauthier or Shaneyfelt.

From information provided to me, Shaneyfelt is the one who altered the West Survey Data Block (CE884), and of course Gauthier was the one who, in conjunction with Specter, "slipped" it into evidence.

Thusly, I would have to have some absolute proof that the notes which were purportedly written by Gauthier were in fact made on the date given before placing that much credence in them for anything.

Secondly, as is noted, Gauthier seems to base everything on two totally erroneous propositions.

"the car had traveled a distance of 95 feet at approximately 15 m.p.h."

"At 15 m.p.h a car moves forward at a speed of about 22 feet per second or one car length. "

"during which time the President's car traveling at 15 m.p.h. covered approximately 141 feet."

The vehicle speed WAS NOT 15mph.

"The markings on the Freeway indicated that shot number three which is believed to have struck the President occurred after the car had traveled another 45 feet"

"The President's car length is 21 feet long. "

"the third shot occurred about 2.0 seconds after the second shot was fired."

Gauthier has, through some method, tied an erroneous vehicle speed of 15mph/aka 22fps, to the 21-foot length of the Presidential Limo, and then tied this to some visual interpretation that the distance between shot#2 and shot#3 was two limo lengths, thus: 2 X 21 = 42 feet, plus 2 additional feet, = 44 feet. (45 feet)

And, has done a similar computation for distances related to the first and second shot.

The Survey Work of December 1963 was done for the US Secret Service. Specifically, for Edward E. Moore, and John Joe Howlett was also involved.

Gauthier was merely there as a representative for the FBI to ultimately gain the information necessary to make exhibits, and thusly had no true work related to the stationing on Elm St. of the presidential Stand-in.

And, his supposed notes clearly demonstrate exactly why he was a model maker as opposed to a math major.

I will attempt to go into the distances later.

Tom, the Gauthier to Callahan memo can be found here...

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=29

I re-wrote some of my webpage after finding this memo on the Mary Ferrell site. It's hard to believe they were really this lame.

I looked through the FBI's files and was able to find squat on the 2-7-64 re-enactment you keep mentioning. Do you have any links to information about this re-enactment? Perhaps this re-enactment came as a result of Gauthier's exhibits, which clearly portrayed the head shot as the second shot at the same time the description of his exhibits said it was the third shot. Perhaps the existence of this re-enactment was kept from the files to protect the FBI.

Edited December 5, 2007 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Not that I can add that much, but I almost did not see this posting.

First off, I have little trust of either Gauthier or Shaneyfelt.

From information provided to me, Shaneyfelt is the one who altered the West Survey Data Block (CE884), and of course Gauthier was the one who, in conjunction with Specter, "slipped" it into evidence.

Thusly, I would have to have some absolute proof that the notes which were purportedly written by Gauthier were in fact made on the date given before placing that much credence in them for anything.

Secondly, as is noted, Gauthier seems to base everything on two totally erroneous propositions.

"the car had traveled a distance of 95 feet at approximately 15 m.p.h."

"At 15 m.p.h a car moves forward at a speed of about 22 feet per second or one car length. "

"during which time the President's car traveling at 15 m.p.h. covered approximately 141 feet."

The vehicle speed WAS NOT 15mph.

"The markings on the Freeway indicated that shot number three which is believed to have struck the President occurred after the car had traveled another 45 feet"

"The President's car length is 21 feet long. "

"the third shot occurred about 2.0 seconds after the second shot was fired."

Gauthier has, through some method, tied an erroneous vehicle speed of 15mph/aka 22fps, to the 21-foot length of the Presidential Limo, and then tied this to some visual interpretation that the distance between shot#2 and shot#3 was two limo lengths, thus: 2 X 21 = 42 feet, plus 2 additional feet, = 44 feet. (45 feet)

And, has done a similar computation for distances related to the first and second shot.

The Survey Work of December 1963 was done for the US Secret Service. Specifically, for Edward E. Moore, and John Joe Howlett was also involved.

Gauthier was merely there as a representative for the FBI to ultimately gain the information necessary to make exhibits, and thusly had no true work related to the stationing on Elm St. of the presidential Stand-in.

And, his supposed notes clearly demonstrate exactly why he was a model maker as opposed to a math major.

I will attempt to go into the distances later.

Tom, the Gauthier to Callahan memo can be found here...

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=29

I re-wrote some of my webpage after finding this memo on the Mary Ferrell site. It's hard to believe they were really this lame.

I looked through the FBI's files and was able to find squat on the 2-7-64 re-enactment you keep mentioning. Do you have any links to information about this re-enactment? Perhaps this re-enactment came as a result of Gauthier's exhibits, which clearly portrayed the head shot as the second shot at the same time the description of his exhibits said it was the third shot. Perhaps the existence of this re-enactment was kept from the files to protect the FBI.

"I looked through the FBI's files and was able to find squat on the 2-7-64 re-enactment you keep mentioning. Do you have any links to information about this re-enactment?"

Not unlike the Time/Life as well as the SS work, it virtually became a "non-event".

However, it is referenced:

This reference can be found in some of the Commission's formerly classified (behind closed doors) meetings in which there is discussion related to the different measurments/conflicts between what the SS and what the FBI had come up with.

And, although I have a copy of this, it is boxed away in some unknown location.

And of course, I also have copies of the "dated" survey plat, as well as Mr. West's survey notes for the FBI work (notes are unfortunately not dated).

Finally, if one will review old newspapers of the time, then they will most probably find reference to the event.

The Mobile Press (Mobile, AL) had an excellent article on the event and discussed that the FBI had sent all day in Dallas/Dealy Plaza with the assassination re-enactment.

Thusly, I would assume that Dallas papers would also have reference to the Time/Life work of 11/26, the SS Work of December 2/3/4th, as well as the FBI work of 2/7/64.

Lastly, not unlike other early evidence which surfaced, there is no doubt that the FBI certainly wanted evidence of this work to "disappear" as well.

When "Hoover's Lie" was found out (before anyone had ever seen the survey plat) it could have become an item of National Importance.

Here was "Hoover's FBI" having been caught in what could be described only as an intentional attempt to distort and misrepresent the facts of the assassination.

After which, FBI credibility would have dropped considerably in the polls.

Many have been under the erroneous assumption that the "Hoover Lie" placed JBC receiving a wound at a point shortly after he exited from behind the sign, and two soon after the first shot to have been fired from the Carcano rifle.

WRONG!

But, it was certainly a good "smoke screen" which has sent many a person down into the netherland world of rabbits & smoke.

The FBI/JEH & Company fiasco merely moved the second shot impact point some 24.5 feet back up Elm St. to a point at which JBC has just passed the lamp post.

Completely deleted the Z313 impact point (which was quite definitive in location due to Mary Moorman/Jean Hill/& the yellow curb mark)

And left in the third shot impact to JFK's head down in front of James Altgens.

This ingenious act, (on paper), more evently spaced the presented shooting sequence, yet kept all shots within the actual zone of fire, and utilized the "turn" of JBC to explain the bullet trajectory through the chest of JBC.

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z275.jpg

Unfortunately, this little imaginative/creative episode also left only approximately 38 elapsed frames of the Z-film to the headshot at Z313, and this is where the "can't shoot the Carcano in this time" problem came into play.

Along with the difficulty of attempting to make the Z313 headshot impact completely disappear from the record, which on paper (the FBI survey plat), the FBI had done.