First Generation Critics of the Warren Report

[Paul Rigby]

The film authenticated by Zapruder...

Particularly the sequence capturing the turn of the presidential limousine from Houston onto Elm*:

Abraham Zapruder, WFAA-TV, circa 1400hrs CST, 22 November 1963: “And I was [filming?] as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn…,” Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain (Danvers, Mass.: Yeoman Press, 1994), p.77.

Longer version:

This transcript is from video tape of the live broadcast seen nationwide on the ABC network at about 2:10pm CST, November 22, 1963. The interviewer, seated on the left, is WFAA-TV program director Jay Watson. On the right, with his hat on the desk, is Abraham Zapruder.

WATSON: A gentleman just walked in our studio that I am meeting for the first time as well as you, this is WFAA-TV in Dallas, Texas. May I have your name please, sir?

ZAPRUDER: My name is Abraham Zapruder.

WATSON: Mr. Zapruder?

ZAPRUDER: Zapruder, yes sir.

WATSON: Zapruder. And would you tell us your story please, sir?

ZAPRUDER: I got out in, uh, about a half-hour earlier to get a good spot to shoot some pictures. And I found a spot, one of these concrete blocks they have down near that park, near the underpass. And I got on top there, there was another girl from my office, she was right behind me. And as I was shooting, as the President was coming down from Houston Street making his turn, it was about a half-way down there, I heard a shot, and he slumped to the side, like this. Then I heard another shot or two, I couldn't say it was one or two, and I saw his head practically open up, all blood and everything, and I kept on shooting…

* As confirmed by the compilers of the Warren Report:

“The position of President Kennedy’s car when he was struck in the neck was determined with substantial precision from the films and onsite tests. The pictures or frames in the Zapruder film were marked by the agents, with the number ‘1’ given to the first frame where the motorcycles leading the motorcade came into view on Houston Street. The numbers continue in sequence as Zapruder filmed the Presidential limousine as it came around the corner and proceeded down Elm,” The Warren Report: The Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (Associated Press, 1964), p.41.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

But, yes, if sufficient eyewitnesses say it stopped, and the film shows no such thing, I am obliged to accept the former and must account the film a fabrication.

The film does not show the limo coming to a complete stop, but it shows a drop in acceleration as the limo goes from a speed of 12 MPH to 8 MPH in the space of half a second, according to Alvarez. Depending on the witnesses vantage point, that could appear to be a complete, though momentary, stop.

It seems a bit rash to jump to the conclusion that so many other people must have been blind. The number of witnesses who had their eyes glued to the limo and did NOT report seeing the limo stop is much greater than the number who DID report a stop.

the Zfilm is not inconsistent with witnesses who saw an abrupt slowdown "tantamount to a stop", and not inconsistent with the many who did not notice any significant change in accelleration.

It is only inconsistent with anyone who was 100% positive that the limo came to a complete and total stop, as opposed to a sudden slowdown. That category has few members, relatively speaking, and cannot possibly be decisive in this situation.

Unless, of course, we have decided to abandon the use of reason.

[Jack White]

But, yes, if sufficient eyewitnesses say it stopped, and the film shows no such thing, I am obliged to accept the former and must account the film a fabrication.

The film does not show the limo coming to a complete stop, but it shows a drop in acceleration as the limo goes from a speed of 12 MPH to 8 MPH in the space of half a second, according to Alvarez. Depending on the witnesses vantage point, that could appear to be a complete, though momentary, stop.

It seems a bit rash to jump to the conclusion that so many other people must have been blind. The number of witnesses who had their eyes glued to the limo and did NOT report seeing the limo stop is much greater than the number who DID report a stop.

the Zfilm is not inconsistent with witnesses who saw an abrupt slowdown "tantamount to a stop", and not inconsistent with the many who did not notice any significant change in accelleration.

It is only inconsistent with anyone who was 100% positive that the limo came to a complete and total stop, as opposed to a sudden slowdown. That category has few members, relatively speaking, and cannot possibly be decisive in this situation.

Unless, of course, we have decided to abandon the use of reason.

It abandons the use of reason to say that because witnesses DID NOT MENTION the limo stopping

that a proper conclusion to be inferred is that the limo did not stop. There is no way of knowing

WHY witnesses did not mention it. Maybe they were not asked. Maybe they were distracted. Maybe

they did not think it important. Maybe they were looking elsewhere during the stop.

Positive comments (LIMO STOPPED) are much stronger than negative comments (DID NOT MENTION

LIMO STOPPING). Nothing can be inferred by failure to mention the stop.

Jack

[Michael Hogan]

John Kelin,

Thanks a lot for writing Praise from a Future Generation. I agree completely with all the Forum members that have made positive comments in this thread about your book.

I got my copy on Saturday afternoon and literally have not been able to put it down. I'm about half way through.

I had it on my lap during the Jaguars-Steelers game last night.

John, in my opinion you've written an instant classic on this case. I wrote this to one of my friends:

Praise for a Future Generation

succeeds on many different levels. It's appropriate for someone who knows just a little about the study of President Kennedy's murder and yet it's fascinating, and full of new information for even the most seasoned researcher. Plus, it's an historical study of a very important topic. If you get one Kennedy book this year....please consider getting this one.

I just took a brief break from reading. I gotta go back and finish.

Well-written and well-done, John.

[Charles Drago]

I had it on my lap during the Jaguars-Steelers game last night.

So, apparently, did Ben Rothlesberger.

For whom Brother Kelin's title will have not the slightest relevance.

[Cliff Varnell]

Knowing John Kelin I am sure the book is terrific and fills a void in JFK research.

BK

Yes, I'm sure it will.

As I say, I'll be overjoyed if it helps fill THE void in JFK research: the failure of the

JFK research community to effectively advance -- or even acknowledge! -- the

irrefutable physical evidence of conspiracy...

John Kelin's book Praise From A Future Generation fills THE Void and much more.

I'll be discussing this more in a separate thread, "Salandria & the Salient Fact of Conspiracy"...

[John Simkin]

My copy of Praise from a Future Generation arrived from America the other day. I have only read a couple of chapters so far but it appears to be the best book about the assassination that I have read since "The Last Investigation". It probably does not help solve the conspiracy but it is an excellent account of the cover-up and the brave attempts of a few individuals to expose what was going on. It is also beautifully written. I cannot recommend it enough.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Praise of a New Generation: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy and the First Generation Critics of the Warren Report (Hardcover)

by John Kelin (Author)

Amazon Review: November 23, 2007

By Nick Anez

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. Several months later, the Warren Commission Report proclaimed that there was no conspiracy and that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone assassin. It is probable that this official document, designed to deliberately deceive the American people, would have succeeded in its objectives if not for the efforts of a small group of individuals who detected inconsistencies, improbabilities and unqualified lies in the report.

These individuals eventually succeeded against impossible odds in exposing the most reprehensible hoax ever perpetuated upon the American public, a monumental deception that covered up the true facts about the murder of JFK.

In this impeccably researched book, author John Kelin authenticates this first generation of critics and their unrelenting quest for justice. To discover the truth about the assassination, they waged an extraordinary battle against a gigantic bureacracy that was aided and abetted by the mass media. With courage and commitment, they battled powerful antagonists who had unlimited resources, all of which were used to ridicule and silence them.

But they persevered and as a result of their groundbreaking efforts as well as those of their successors, the only people who still believe the Warren Report are those who are woefully ignorant of the facts that have been disclosed over the past four decades.

But Mr. Kelin does more than record their indefatigable labors and the indisputable results of their investigations. He also delves into their personal lives, allowing readers to intimately know them and subsequently witness their human frailties along with their sacrifices. They emerge as fully three-dimensional people, average persons from different walks of life who shared an astonishing commitment to exposing the lies of the establishment.

Mr. Kelin deserves credit for bringing long-overdue praise to these relatively unknown heroes, many of whom are no longer with us. Now, because of the author's equally admirable commitment to historical truth, they will forever be remembered.

They live on in the present and future generations of critics who are determined to achieve justice for a slain president and to restore this nation's sense of honor.

This is an important book that exposes the worst of America, as represented by the murderous conspirators, and the best of America, as represented by those noble critics whose endeavors symbolize profiles in courage.

Future generations will praise not only these critics but Mr. Kelin as well.

http://tinyurl.com/2mjut7

Documents show that Warren Commission member Congressman Gerald Ford pressed the panel to change its description of the wound and place it higher in Kennedy’s body. Ford wanted the wording changed to: “A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.” The panel’s final version was: “A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine.”

The arrow in the photograph below shows where the bullet had to pass through Kennedy in order to conform to the preposterous Single Bullet Theory, when the bullet actually entered Kennedy's back.

Were it that you actually understood what this photograph was in regard to, then you would also understand considerably more in regards to the lies and misrepresentations which began immediately after the US Secret Service had exposed the impact location for the third/last/final shot.

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

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/kellerma.htm

Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here.

Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline?

Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir.

*Note: Will not waste additional time & space, again repeating the statements of Dr. Humes & Boswell in regards to the entry point being in the lower edge of the hairline.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW!

As soon as those who seek the facts, come to realize that the arrow which points to the marking on/at the lower edge of the hairline of the "stand-in" represents the entry wound into the scalp, as observed by the autopsy surgeons as well as SS & FBI personnel present at the autopsy, then the sooner that they will come to realize that:

1. In order for the bullet to enter at this point and travel "upwards" to strike in the vicinity of the EOP, and thus exit in the front of the head, when the shot was fired on a downward angle, then they will come to recognize the position at which the head had to be in for this to have occurred on a downward angle of fire.

2. That, just prior to having struck the scalp of JFK, that the bullet also passed through the coat, just at the bottom junction of the coat collar, just prior to having impacted the skull, that the coat collar had to have been slightly raised and the "tangent" penetration through the coat was a result of the position of the head of JFK as well as the coat at the time of impact.

3. The arrow points to the THIRD/LAST/FINAL shot impact point onto the head of JFK. That shot which impacted directly in front of James Altgens position and which impact occurred after JFK had been hit in the top of the head (cowlick area) by the Z313/aka second shot impact, and which last impact was when JFK was leaned well forward in the vehicle with his head down and rotated slightly to the right.

Lastly, the angle of penetration/angle of attack for the bullet penetration through the skull of JFK will give one the answer which they seek.

[Cliff Varnell]

2. That, just prior to having struck the scalp of JFK, that the bullet also passed through the coat, just at the bottom junction of the coat collar, just prior to having impacted the skull, that the coat collar had to have been slightly raised and the "tangent" penetration through the coat was a result of the position of the head of JFK as well as the coat at the time of impact.

There is no bullet defect in the coat immediately below the collar. The defect there

is quite small. There is no corresponding hole in the shirt.

JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck at the moment

of the first shot. Otherwise, how would the shirt collar be visible at the back of

his neck in the Houston/Elm films and photos?

The jacket was indeed raised 1/8 inch -- hardly the 3 inches Mr. Purvis posits elsewhere.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

2. That, just prior to having struck the scalp of JFK, that the bullet also passed through the coat, just at the bottom junction of the coat collar, just prior to having impacted the skull, that the coat collar had to have been slightly raised and the "tangent" penetration through the coat was a result of the position of the head of JFK as well as the coat at the time of impact.

There is no bullet defect in the coat immediately below the collar. The defect there

is quite small. There is no corresponding hole in the shirt.

JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck at the moment

of the first shot. Otherwise, how would the shirt collar be visible at the back of

his neck in the Houston/Elm films and photos?

The jacket was indeed raised 1/8 inch -- hardly the 3 inches Mr. Purvis posits elsewhere.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect

Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below.

Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?

Commander HUMES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?

Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One has a definitive choice in this matter in that they can:

1. Take the work of some "newbie" who claims to be a researcher, yet:

a. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the autopsy surgeons.

b. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the FBI Agents from the FBI Ballistics Lab.

c. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the FBI Agents from the FBI Spectrographic Lab.

d. Was dumb enough to let Arlen Specter "slip" this one "into the record" with absolutely no verification.

e. Never done any "ballistic testing" to demonstrate exactly why there was considerable difference between the two and totally distinctive bullet hole penetrations through the coat of JFK.

or:

Take the time to research here on this forum, as well as elsewhere, the facts of what is stated:

The tangential/angular penetration through the coat worn by JFK, which is located at the edge of the coat collar, and which hole completely penetrates the outer fabric as well as the inner liner, is the result of a bullet which passed through the coat and thereafter struck JFK in the head at the lower edge of the hairline.

The reason as to why this bullet DID NOT strike the shirt collar is due primarily to the fact that the coat collar was slilghtly raised/elevated, as well as the fact that JFK was leaning well forward at the time of impact, with the coat collar remaining raised while the shirt collar remained tightly buttoned around his neck.

It is absolutely no coincidence that the hole through the coat at the collar as well as the penetration into the scalp of JFK at the edge of the hairline, compliment each other.

Now Cliff!

For the reading enjoyment/entertainment of all here, please share with us all of those conversations which you have had with FBI Agents Frazier; Gallagher; Heilman; Heiberger;, etc;; in regards to the issue of the examination of the coat and this PURPORTED sample location/aka FACTUALLY bullet penetration.

Personally, had I too fallen for this slight*/sleight- of- hand trick by Specter & Company, it is most unlikely that I would have admitted it either!

But! I did not fall for it!

*It must be slightly "slight" if this ole country boy can spot it immediately and knows enough to recognize that someone should discuss the subject with those who actually examined the clothing worn by JFK.

Which of course "country boy" did!

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...5167entry135167

Post #7

"I have also resolved approximately ninety percent of the answers as to how and why the facts have always been obscurred"

One may chose whichever answer best fits their perspective:

1. Crock of S***!

2. Load of BS!

3. Delusional Thinking!

4. All of the above!

5. HMMMMMMMMM! Maybe something here since Tom also exposed the altered survey data as well!

[Charles Drago]

Where is the independent verification for a hole at the jacket collar?

Has any researcher who has examined the clothing at the National Archives noted the presence of such a penetration?

Do photos exist of the so-called collar hole?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Where is the independent verification for a hole at the jacket collar?

Has any researcher who has examined the clothing at the National Archives noted the presence of such a penetration?

Do photos exist of the so-called collar hole?

Better yet!

Did anyone from the FBI Laboratory remove a "sample" from the coat, which sample location was at the juncture of where the turned down portion of the collar meets the coat, and which was located directly above the other penetration in the coat?

NOPE!

At least not so according to the only FBI Agent in the lab to actually have examined JFK's coat!

P.S. The coat (& second hole) has been examined by many, to include Dr. Lattimer, who merely "parroted" the Specter Line.

Sorry folks, but I just gotta have great respect for anyone who can pull that one on the overall general public.

I would suppose that it has something to do with "sneaky" having great appreciation for "sneakier"!

Question: Exactly why was it that anyone believed anything which Arlen Specter presented??????????

[Cliff Varnell]

2. That, just prior to having struck the scalp of JFK, that the bullet also passed through the coat, just at the bottom junction of the coat collar, just prior to having impacted the skull, that the coat collar had to have been slightly raised and the "tangent" penetration through the coat was a result of the position of the head of JFK as well as the coat at the time of impact.

There is no bullet defect in the coat immediately below the collar. The defect there

is quite small. There is no corresponding hole in the shirt.

JFK's jacket collar was in a normal position at the base of his neck at the moment

of the first shot. Otherwise, how would the shirt collar be visible at the back of

his neck in the Houston/Elm films and photos?

The jacket was indeed raised 1/8 inch -- hardly the 3 inches Mr. Purvis posits elsewhere.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/humes.htm

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir. This exhibit is a grey suit coat stated to have been worn by the President on the day of his death. Situated to the right of the midline high in the back portion of the coat is a defect, one margin of which is semicircular.

Situated above it just below the collar is an additional defect

Mr. SPECTER - How about the upper one of the collar you have described, does that go all the way through?

Commander HUMES - Yes, sir; it goes all the way through. It is not--wait a minute, excuse me it is not so clearly a puncture wound as the one below.

Mr. SPECTER - Does the upper one go all the way through in the same course?

Commander HUMES - No.

Mr. SPECTER - Through the inner side as it went through the outer side?

Commander HUMES - No, in an irregular fashion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One has a definitive choice in this matter in that they can:

1. Take the work of some "newbie" who claims to be a researcher, yet:

a. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the autopsy surgeons.

b. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the FBI Agents from the FBI Ballistics Lab.

c. Has never taken the time and effort to locate and speak with any of the FBI Agents from the FBI Spectrographic Lab.

d. Was dumb enough to let Arlen Specter "slip" this one "into the record" with absolutely no verification.

e. Never done any "ballistic testing" to demonstrate exactly why there was considerable difference between the two and totally distinctive bullet hole penetrations through the coat of JFK.

Beware, gentle reader, those who claim to do research but choose to ignore the

primary sources.

I have a photo of the upper back of JFK's jacket from the National Archives which

shows this defect in such detail I can count the threads. It was photographed

along with a handy one-inch ruler for accurate measurements.

The "high" defect is similar to a scorpion in that there is a 6-thread wide/5-thread

high (3/32") roundish hole from which a 1/4" semi-circular fabric slice curves slightly,

like a tail.

This is not a bullet hole.

Mr. Purvis, if you took the time to do real research instead of always

seeking to shore up absurd little theories you might have discovered this on your

own.

or:

Take the time to research here on this forum, as well as elsewhere, the facts of what is stated:

The tangential/angular penetration through the coat worn by JFK, which is located at the edge of the coat collar, and which hole completely penetrates the outer fabric as well as the inner liner, is the result of a bullet which passed through the coat and thereafter struck JFK in the head at the lower edge of the hairline.

Only in the fevered imaginations of pet theorists.

The reason as to why this bullet DID NOT strike the shirt collar is due primarily to the fact that the coat collar was slilghtly raised/elevated, as well as the fact that JFK was leaning well forward at the time of impact, with the coat collar remaining raised while the shirt collar remained tightly buttoned around his neck.

I guess we'll have to take Mr. Purvis' word for this, since he cannot produce any actual

evidence from the photographic record for any of this.

For the sentient among us, however, there are the Elm St. films/photos

which clearly show the shirt collar at the back of the neck.

Unless, of course, Mr. Purvis suggests that JFK's jacket was a see-thru variety?

JFK on Elm St with his shirt collar clearly visible at the back of his neck:

It is absolutely no coincidence that the hole through the coat at the collar as well as the penetration into the scalp of JFK at the edge of the hairline, compliment each other.

You don't need a weatherman to know how hard the wind blows.

Now Cliff!

For the reading enjoyment/entertainment of all here, please share with us all of those conversations which you have had with FBI Agents Frazier; Gallagher; Heilman; Heiberger;, etc;; in regards to the issue of the examination of the coat and this PURPORTED sample location/aka FACTUALLY bullet penetration.

So what kind of bullet leaves a 3/32" diameter hole?

Thrill us with your acumen, Mr. Purvis.

Edited January 27, 2008 by Cliff Varnell

[John Simkin]

Better late than never, I just got and read my copy of the book, and can't say enough good things about it!

I agree, however, I was very disappointed when the author stopped answering questions on his book. The same thing happened with Edward Haslam's Dr Mary's Monkey. That is why I have been encouraging a debate over the books by David Kaiser and Jeff Morley, two authors who are still willing to post on the forum.

One of the reasons why I believe "Someone Would Have Talked" is the best researched of all the JFK books is that Larry Hancock has always been willing to answer every question posed on his book. That is the attitude of someone who is very confident that he can back-up everything he has said in his book.

[Don Jeffries]

John,

I think John Kelin may have decided to stop participating in the forum after his "Blow Up #5 Man" thread. During that thread, practically no one agreed with him, and I think some of the posts were worded pretty strongly. Nothing wrong with any of the replies, but I'm just guessing that maybe it wasn't the response he was expecting. Of course, this is all just a hunch on my part- it could just as easily be that Mr. Kelin is too busy to participate on the forum now.

At any rate, I really hope John Kelin will start posting again in the near future. I have a great deal of respect for his work and think the forum really benefited from his presence.