Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

A COUP IN CAMELOT is finally here (DVD, BLU RAY, streaming). Head and shoulders, this is the best JFK assassination program ever- most comprehensive, up to date, and factual.

https://www.amazon.com/Coup-Camelot-Peter-Coyote/dp/B01MECN1LP/ref=pd_rhf_ee_p_img_3?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=SZ6VHJGVA7NRDY3M63BW

UPDATED official site:

http://acoupincamelot.com/

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Coup in Camelot Award-Winning JFK Assassination Documentary Now Available on iTunes and Other Digital Platforms

 
November 4, 2016 -- Los Angeles, CA -- A Coup in Camelot the award-winning documentary on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy is now available on iTunes, Amazon Video Direct, Google Play and Vimeo OnDemand.
 
The DVD and Blu-ray can be purchased exclusively on the film’s web
site at http://acoupincamelot.com/.
 
Narrated by Emmy award-winning actor Peter Coyote, directed/produced by Stephen Goetsch and written/produced by Art Van Kampen, A Coup in Camelot is a powerful examination of compelling new research, exclusive interviews and critical analysis by the top medical, forensic and research experts in the country.
 
“November 22, 2016 marks the 53rd anniversary of the assassination of the country’s 35th president,” said Stephen Goetsch, director/producer. “We are pleased to offer audiences this unbiased and impassioned addition to the historical record of this tragic event.”
 
Five decades later crucial questions remain about President Kennedy’s assassination.  The film provides extensive evidence of botched Secret Service protocols, Zapruder film analysis with 6k digital scans, shocking medical evidence revelations, and expert Oswald analysis, to uncover the dramatic tale of A Coup In Camelot.
 
The following JFK assassination experts who appear in the film are available for interviews:
 
·         Douglas Horne – Assassination Records Review Board, Author
·         Vince Palamara – Secret Service Expert, Author
·         Sherry Fiester – Forensics Expert, Author
.         Dr. David Mantik - Radiologist
·         Dick Russell – Oswald Expert, Author
·         Barry Ernest – Oswald Expert, Author
·         Jerry Dealey – Historian, Author
 
For the film experts’ biographies visit: http://acoupincamelot. com/bios.html
 
To view the trailer visit: http://acoupincamelot. com/trailer.html
 
For complete information on A Coup in Camelot visit: http:// acoupincamelot.com/

 
Press Contact:
Susan Kaplan
susanlkaplan@sbcglobal.net
 
Amazon:
 
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I finished watching A Coup In Camelot. It’s very well made and worth a purchase. I had a few tiny nitpicks, but I think they’re far outweighed by the positive aspects. There’s tremendous value in having illustrations on the screen. It helped me to better understand many confusing issues.

I’m not a fan of having text on the screen while a narrator says other words, so it got off to a slightly bad start for me right at the beginning. Luckily, text/speech conflict is not a problem for most of the film. The text presented onscreen in terms of memos is well animated. Relevant words and phrases jump out of the page and are highlighted by using a red font instead of black.

ACIC is good at debunking the rumor that JFK ordered the Secret Service agents off the back of the limo. Vincent Palamara really brings the Secret Service aspect of the JFK assassination into focus. The story of Don Lawton (the agent that shrugged three times at the airport) is explored in depth, tracing toward Emory Roberts (who gestured Lawton and Clint Hill away from the Presidential limo), to Robert’s superior Floyd Boring and Boring’s assistants Winston Lawson and Roger Warner, who planned the Dallas motorcade.

The information about the press bus being put so far back in the motorcade was something that I hadn’t been conscious of until now.

ACIC does a good job showing how the position of the police motorcycles differed from previous presidential motorcades.

I wasn’t quite sure about the section of the film where they examine frame 242 of the Zapruder film. It does seem clear that at that moment motorcycle officer’s Hargis and Martin, and SA Hill are looking toward the grassy knoll, I’m not sure about Kellerman and Connally. I believe Kellerman does indeed turn all the way around and look behind him is subsequent frames, and Connally appears to be reacting to being struck by bullets. I seem to remember it being argued that Connally’s shoulder is being driven down by a bullet at that point.

The section with Sherry Fiester was very interesting, but I think I’ll have to read up on it and watch ACIC again. She examined bullet trajectories and argues that the final headshot came from near the south end of the triple overpass, and the shot knocked JFK’s head to the side, and not directly backwards as we have been interpreting as being indicative of a shot from the behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It’s illustrated by a cue ball hitting another billiard ball and knocking it to the side instead of directly forward.

Fiester’s explanation of “fracture sequencing” was quite compelling evidence of a frontal shot, but I wonder if it conflicts with Dr. David Mantik’s analysis of the X-Rays later in the film? (I'll talk about this later.)

I worry a little about her interpretation for a few reasons. First, it seems that Fiester’s theory seems to discount the possibility that two bullets hit JFK’s skull at almost the same time. I don’t know if or how two bullets hitting almost simultaneously would throw off her calculations. Second, it seems to rely on the Zapruder film being authentic. (I’m currently in the “probably lightly tampered” camp on the Z film.) Maybe I’m wrong about those nitpicks. Fiester knows more about blood spatter analysis than I do, that’s for sure. I'll have to get her book.

Overall, her theory and methods seem intriguing and persuasive. I’d really love to hear what G. Paul Chambers, author of “Head Shot”, thinks of Fiester’s science.

The “flap of skin” pinkish blob that seems to appear on the right side of JFK’s head in the Z film is said to have been pulled back over his skull, and the blood congealed, forming a sort of glue that kept the flap of skin in place. This is something I haven’t heard about before, so I’d be interested in learning more about that.

The CGI illustrations of the two (three?) caskets arriving at Bethesda was very helpful. We so often read the descriptions of the two caskets, but rarely get to see an example of a shipping casket. To see them both illustrated on the screen was interesting.

The whole section of ACIC regarding the two caskets was very interesting and laid out in a streamlined manner. At a little past 46 minutes in, there’s some audio between General Clifton and SAIC Gerald Behn regarding helicopters directed to Bethesda, that was very interesting.

At an hour and five minutes in (1:05) there’s audio of Nurse Aubrey Bell relating a story of Dr. Malcolm Perry saying he was repeatedly pressured by late night phone calls from people at Bethesda trying to get Perry to change his opinion of the throat wound from being one of entrance to one of exit. That was quite interesting to hear that from Bell’s own lips.

It’s said that Tom Robinson, an embalmer at Bethesda claimed to have seen doctors sawing into JFK’s skull, which contradicts the official statements of Dr. James Humes, who said there was no need to use the saw because the wound was so large.

The sequence featuring Dr. David Mantik’s examination of the profile X-Ray of JFK was fascinating as well. I couldn’t quite follow the “white patch” argument, and wasn’t quite sure what was being said. Are the X-Rays fake or partly authentic and doctored? If Sherry Fiester’s fracture sequencing explanation from earlier in the film is correct, it’s pretty clear evidence of a shot from the front. Why would conspirators fake an X-Ray indicating a frontal shot when the official story relied on shots exclusively from behind?

The tape of Dr. Mantik questioning Dr. John Ebersole, the assistant chief of radiology the night JFK arrived at Bethesda was amazing. I had never heard that before. Mantik questions Ebersole about the X-Ray allegedly showing a 6.5 mm bullet fragment, and Ebersole immediately ends the interview.

There’s also a short bit about autopsy photographer John Stringer saying he saw JFK’s brain being sectioned. I still can’t figure out who says that the brain was sectioned and who says that the brain was not sectioned and was even on display for medical students for a short time.

Finally, near the end there is a well-known clip of Jack Ruby stating that the true facts won’t be allowed to come out. Strangely, the following question and answer are cut out in ACIC –

Reporter: Are these people in positions of power, Jack?

Ruby: Yes.

The hallway interview with Ruby where he refers to “the man in the office now” (presumably the then-current President Johnson) is not included either, nor is there any examination of Ruby or Oswald’s mental states, motives, or possible connections to the Mafia, Cubans and/or intelligence services.

That would be part of my little nitpicks. I personally would have preferred a little more on Oswald, Ruby, J D Tippit and others. Oswald is examined for only about fifteen minutes right near the end, and it seems to barely scratch the surface of the mystery surrounding him. But, to be fair, examining Oswald and Ruby in depth would take a full documentary on its own, and I think ACIC is wise to concentrate on the events in Dealey Plaza, Parkland, and Bethesda.

Overall, quite good, well produced, and worth owning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just finished watching A Coup in Camelot. It covered some important topics not covered or emphasized elsewhere: the secret service security stripping, body manipulation, autopsy fakery and the abrupt shift from JFK's strategy of peace to all out war within days.  

The secret service complicity in particular is fresh ground.  And you did a great job with your commentary Vince.  Thanks for making people aware.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched this the other night. I thought Vince Palamara did a good job presenting what he'd uncovered. I thought Barry Ernest was very good as well. But I thought the film's discussion of the medical evidence was just awful, and a huge step backwards, at least for this aspect of the case. Assuming, that is, that the film gets any traction.

I mean, we had a huge blow-out (pun intended) on this issue earlier this year, where Milicent Cranor attacked me for arguing against those claiming there was a large hole on the far back of Kennedy's head. She thought I was presenting a straw man---that some of the Parkland witnesses claimed the wound was on the far back of Kennedy's head--as a means of discrediting that the bulk of the witnesses described a wound at odds with the autopsy photos.

So what does this film do? It presents Charles Crenshaw and Audrey Bell as prime witnesses to the head wound, and shows their depiction of the large head wound--as a wound restricted to the back of the head at the level of Kennedy's ear and below--over and over again.

I think we can all agree this was nonsense.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I watched this the other night. I thought Vince Palamara did a good job presenting what he'd uncovered. I thought Barry Ernest was very good as well. But I thought the film's discussion of the medical evidence was just awful, and a huge step backwards, at least for this aspect of the case. Assuming, that is, that the film gets any traction.

I mean, we had a huge blow-out (pun intended) on this issue earlier this year, where Milicent Cranor attacked me for arguing against those claiming there was a large hole on the far back of Kennedy's head. She thought I was presenting a straw man---that some of the Parkland witnesses claimed the wound was on the far back of Kennedy's head--as a means of discrediting that the bulk of the witnesses described a wound at odds with the autopsy photos.

So what does this film do? It presents Charles Crenshaw and Audrey Bell as prime witnesses to the head wound, and shows their depiction of the large head wound--as a wound restricted to the back of the head at the level of Kennedy's ear and below--over and over again.

I think we can all agree this was nonsense.

Who at Parkland says that there was not a substantial wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Who at Parkland says that there was not a substantial wound in the right rear of JFK's head?

 

"Right rear" is vague, Denny. When asked to locate the wound on their own heads, the Parkland witnesses pointed to a number of locations, most of them high on the back of the head on the right side. This is not what is depicted in the film. Instead, it shows the Crenshaw and Bell drawings of a wound low on the back of the head behind the right ear, and still other drawings depicting a wound in the middle of the back of the head. The film also presents Mantik--who claims the middle of the back of the head was missing (a wound unobserved at Parkland, btw)--as its chief medical expert.

So, no, the film is not supportive of the Parkland witnesses as a whole. It's actually quite the opposite.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...