JFK Revisited: The New Trailer

[Andrew Prutsok]

Peter Bradshaw gives a none-too-glowing review in the Guardian today. Calls JFK a hawk on Vietnam.

[James DiEugenio]

Is that the most bizarre thing you have ever heard?

And he watched what Galbraith and Newman said in the film?

Newman said something in the film that has never been said in any JFK documentary I know of. In fact, when Galbraith saw the completed film, he even commented on how important it was. McNamara allowed John to listen to his debriefs from when he was removed by LBJ. The Pentagon did not want John to hear them. So he had to call up McNamara to allow him to do so.

In those debriefs, McNamara said that he and Kennedy had decided that they could only go as far as advisory and training and equipment. When that was done, they were done.  They could not fight the war for Saigon. And it did not matter if they were winning or losing. Which eliminates Chomsky's nutty argument. 

End of story. DId Bradshaw miss that one? What BS.

Edited November 25, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[John Kowalski]

Saw the video, really enjoyed it and am looking forward to the release of the 4 hour version.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks John.  

I have to say, that is the reaction we get a lot of.

"I cannot wait to see the long version."  So I guess this was like a table setter.

Edited November 30, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[David Lifton]

On 11/12/2021 at 7:59 PM, Micah Mileto said:

The forensic evidence part was mostly good, although some issues are oversimplified like the chain of custody for CE 399, or the location of the back wound, or the appearence of the throat wound, or the throat wound ignorance story.

 

Do we now have color footage of the Limousine which some have claimed shows a hole in the windshield if you squint real hard?

 

It is not suspicious that there is a version of the autopsy face sheet without Burkley's signature - Burkley probably just made some copies before he wrote that. That signature doesn't necessarily come from 11/22.

 

I'm sorry, but Doug Horne citing Michael Kurtz on Burkley was just painful. Kurtz was debunked straight to the moon by Pat Speer.

 

And Robert Knudsen as a witness? idk.

 

I am at last glad to have a screenshot of the face sheet where you can tell the difference between the pen and pencil markings. As James Jenkins claimed, it was proper protocol to draw face sheets with only a pencil. The part in Kennedy's face sheet that's filled in with a pen is the crucial notation of 14 centimeters below the mastoid process.

The "dot" on the autopsy face sheet  was placed "low."  But the handwriting in the left margin of the autopsy report  face sheet, provided a written measurement that placed it at a (slightly) higher location.  Going back to 1966/67 and what I witnessed in UCLA professor Liebeler's class: this marginal notation always seemed odd, if not downright peculiar (because that particular notation was written in a darker pencil).  The general suspicion was that the (left) marginal handwritten notation was probably added, at some point.  See Chapter 4, of B.E., ("The Zapruder Film and the Timing Problem"), and the ongoing argument I had with Prof. Liebeler, and --in particular--  Liebeler's outburst, "Humes can measure? Can't he?  He can use a ruler?!"  

The autopsy pathologist (Humes) and the ruler

As explained in B.E., it was that exchange --conjuring up the image of Humes "measuring" the location of a wound, with a ruler, on President Kennedy's body-- that caused me to realize that it was not the "autopsy report" (i.e., the written document) that was the "best evidence," but (rather) JFK's body, itself.  Again:  the President's body was evidence.  

Decades later, this may seem obvious, but it was not "obvious" at that time.  Because (back then) the "debate" was always phrased as if the key issue was the  truthfulness of a document, i.e., the U.S. Naval autopsy report. But that was not so.  The issue was not the location of a wound, as described in the (written) autopsy report; rather, the issue was the location of the wound, as it actually existed on the body --I repeat, "on the body" --of JFK.  That (conceptually) was "the key," and it was not obvious, at least not initially.

But that realization was when I had my own "eureka" moment --the realization that the "best evidence" (which was always a matter being debated in UCLA Law Prof. Liebeler's law seminar) was  not --I repeat, was not --the written U. S. Naval autopsy report, but rather the president's body itself.  Put bluntly, the "best evidence" was President Kennedy's cadaver.

The notion that JFK's body was evidence  (i.e., evidence which could be altered) was (initially) rather shocking; but it was in fact the truth.  And grasping that basic concept led to many other basic truths that were in fact fundamental to getting to the truth about JFK's murder. Bottom line: the plotters who took JFK's life understood --all to well --that President Kennedy's body was akin to a "diagram of the shooting."  It was the Rosetta Stone of Dealey Plaza.   But, to carry this metaphor further,  it (the body) was a "Rosetta Stone"  on which they could write.  And so, by messing with JFK's body, by adding their own "writing" to that "Rosetta Stone," they (the plotters) could alter wounds, remove bullets, and turn JFK's body into a medical forgery, thus altering the "diagram of the shooting," and thus changing the story of how JFK died.  

To those familiar with Best Evidence, this will all be quite familiar.   (DSL, 11/29/21 - 12:20 AM PST)

Edited November 30, 2021 by David Lifton
Improve clarity

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

As explained in B.E., it was that exchange --conjuring up the image of Humes "measuring" the location of a wound, with a ruler, on President Kennedy's body-- that caused me to realize that it was not the "autopsy report" (i.e., the written document) that was the "best evidence," but (rather) JFK's body, itself.

Hi David, it's good to see you posting here now and then.

You say that the best evidence is the body itself. But the only way we can see (or imagine) that evidence is through autopsy photos and eyewitness accounts of the body. The problem with the former is that photos can be faked or altered.

My question for you is, how do you determine which of the autopsy photos are authentic?

 

[Micah Mileto]

On 11/30/2021 at 2:48 AM, David Lifton said:

The "dot" on the autopsy face sheet  was placed "low."  But the handwriting in the left margin of the autopsy report  face sheet, provided a written measurement that placed it at a (slightly) higher location.  Going back to 1966/67 and what I witnessed in UCLA professor Liebeler's class: this marginal notation always seemed odd, if not downright peculiar (because that particular notation was written in a darker pencil).  The general suspicion was that the (left) marginal handwritten notation was probably added, at some point.  See Chapter 4, of B.E., ("The Zapruder Film and the Timing Problem"), and the ongoing argument I had with Prof. Liebeler, and --in particular--  Liebeler's outburst, "Humes can measure? Can't he?  He can use a ruler?!"  

The autopsy pathologist (Humes) and the ruler

As explained in B.E., it was that exchange --conjuring up the image of Humes "measuring" the location of a wound, with a ruler, on President Kennedy's body-- that caused me to realize that it was not the "autopsy report" (i.e., the written document) that was the "best evidence," but (rather) JFK's body, itself.  Again:  the President's body was evidence.  

Decades later, this may seem obvious, but it was not "obvious" at that time.  Because (back then) the "debate" was always phrased as if the key issue was the  truthfulness of a document, i.e., the U.S. Naval autopsy report. But that was not so.  The issue was not the location of a wound, as described in the (written) autopsy report; rather, the issue was the location of the wound, as it actually existed on the body --I repeat, "on the body" --of JFK.  That (conceptually) was "the key," and it was not obvious, at least not initially.

But that realization was when I had my own "eureka" moment --the realization that the "best evidence" (which was always a matter being debated in UCLA Law Prof. Liebeler's law seminar) was  not --I repeat, was not --the written U. S. Naval autopsy report, but rather the president's body itself.  Put bluntly, the "best evidence" was President Kennedy's cadaver.

The notion that JFK's body was evidence  (i.e., evidence which could be altered) was (initially) rather shocking; but it was in fact the truth.  And grasping that basic concept led to many other basic truths that were in fact fundamental to getting to the truth about JFK's murder. Bottom line: the plotters who took JFK's life understood --all to well --that President Kennedy's body was akin to a "diagram of the shooting."  It was the Rosetta Stone of Dealey Plaza.   But, to carry this metaphor further,  it (the body) was a "Rosetta Stone"  on which they could write.  And so, by messing with JFK's body, by adding their own "writing" to that "Rosetta Stone," they (the plotters) could alter wounds, remove bullets, and turn JFK's body into a medical forgery, thus altering the "diagram of the shooting," and thus changing the story of how JFK died.  

To those familiar with Best Evidence, this will all be quite familiar.   (DSL, 11/29/21 - 12:20 AM PST)

James Curtis Jenkins said that it was standard protocol to use a pencil on face sheet diagrams. I do not know whether using a pen would have been a big deal. One could imagine a man in black using a pen to write on the face sheet after realizing T3 was too low.

[John Kowalski]

Jim:

What is the significance of the card found on Dag Hammarskjöld's body?

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

We go into that in the longer version. Its one of my favorite segments in the four hour version. Because Kennedy greatly admired Dag and after his death he called him the greatest statesman of the 20th century. And he continued Hammarskjold's policy in Congo just about singlehandedly.

See, there are some who think that Hammarskjold was not killed in the crash. HIs body was the only one not charred or burned.  That ace of spades is usually used by a covert hit team. 

There was an inexplicable delay in the discovery of the crash scene. This left enough time for that team from SAMIR to get there.

Those secret documents from Desmond Tutu that  we show in the film reveal that, if they are genuine, Dulles was in on it.

[Anthony Thorne]

That’s a powerful moment in the longer version.

I’ll just mention, that whole section as described by Jim right above is narrated by Donald Sutherland. There’s quite a bit more of his narration in the longer version of the film and it works extremely well.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Anthony.  The people in Australia are getting the long version and more of Sutherland and this sequence about Hammarskjold.

I am  glad that Oliver decided to use this material.  I think its important to our story, to both Kennedy personally and in our review of Congo.  Kennedy knew from Gullion what really happened and I think it galvanized him to continue Hammarskjold's policy. 

Our editors did a nice job in presenting it.

[Gene Kelly]

Jim

I watched the documentary this weekend, and it was excellent.  In a case as convoluted and complex as JFK, you distilled the key aspects expertly.  No one knows the ins/outs of the JFK case better than you.  As I watched it, it felt like a visual summary of all the great posts that you've shared with us thru the years, along with the well-researched Destiny Betrayed material. What casual viewers will never know is how much noise and disinformation one must wade through to get at the ground truth.  I was proud to see your exclusive credit at the end: "written by James DiEugenio" ... I say proud, because I told everyone within earshot that I trade posts with you on the EF. 

My friends - whom I have been trying for years to get interested in the facts - paid you and Oliver the simplest and best compliment by summarizing the film in one word: "compelling"

Kudos, and looking forward to the full-length version.

Gene 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks so much Gene.  

And boy are you right on with the following:  What casual viewers will never know is how much noise and disinformation one must wade through to get at the ground truth.

You can say that about ten times.