Highlights of the Duquesne Symposium, Nov 15-17

[Roger Odisio]

Some highlights from the Duquesne U symposium, Nov 15-17. I followed it remotely.

 

* John Newman, "Understanding the Cold War Context".  Newman detailed the battle between the war machine and Kennedy's attempts to reign them in.  In particular he explained all the steps the war machine took to try to sabotage NSAM 263, and the changes made to it in NSAM 273 after the murder.

 

Newman thinks it's obvious LBJ knew about the murder beforehand (or it wouldn't have happened), but the killers withheld details from him because Johnson was so drunk every day they were afraid he would inadvertently spill the beans.

 

I would go a step further. The killers required at least two assurances from Johnson that as president:  (1) he would not go after the killers, but instead organize the coverup to ensure no real investigation would happen, and (2) he would facilitate the killers' main policies that JFK had thwarted.

 

Newman concludes JFK was murdered by a combination of the military and a small group of "rogue elements" in the CIA (presumably led by Alan Dulles).   I sent in a question asking about the claim of "rogue elements". The term, rogue, seems to imply that CIA leadership was not on board.  But Dulles was effectively still running important elements of the CIA from his home after being fired. The question was not read to Newman, but a member of the audience typed in that rogue was appropriate because Dulles no longer had an official position with the CIA.  Semantics, I think. 

 

*  Tink Thompson, Gary Aguilar, and Bill Simpich  "Converging Lines of Evidence in the Case for Two Headshots" and Donald B Thomas, "Acoustical Evidence of the JFK Assassination".  In "Last Second in Dallas", Thompson emphasized more recent analysis of Dealey Plaza acoustical evidence which he says supports his 2 head shot claim. But here the group wisely left that part to Thomas, and concentrated on their analysis of what the Zapruder film showed about the head shot(s).  

 

Famous Z frame 313 was the first shot from the front, followed less than a second later, about at frame 328, with another shot from the rear. The first shot drove Kennedy back against his seat and blew out the back of his head.  The second shot plowed in the back of his head and acted something like a billiard ball propelling JFK to the left into Jackie.

 

As I recall, this group thinks the shot from the front came from the grassy knoll, which contrasts with Rob Reiner's claim in a later session, that the frontal shot came from the south knoll (as argued by Sherry Fiester), which is more directly in front of the car. Reiner argued this location more clearly fits the entrance wound in Kennedy's forehead with the wound in the back of the head. But a second shot entering the back of the head after it was blown out, causing some witnesses to say almost all of the brain was gone, could have obscured such a neat formulation.

 

Neither the Thompson group nor Reiner came to grips with the likelihood (imo) that crucial frames in the Z film were altered  (more on that below).  Dino Brugioni said the head shot he saw in preparing the briefing boards the night after the murder lasted several frames beyond 313 and was more dramatic than what what now shows on the extant Z film, with blood, bone, and tissue shooting several feet in the air. That would seem to buttress the claim of two shots close together. The claim of two head shots is a very important point for those who think the WR is a fraud.

 

Both the Thompson group and Thomas also see evidence of more than three shots, another nail the the WR coffin.

 

* David Mantik vs Robert Groden, Pro and con on whether the Z film was altered.   Unfortunately Mantik was on at the same time as Thomas' talk about the acoustical evidence, so I'll have to watch his talk later when the recording is made available. Groden says no alteration, and had prepared a video to support his argument.  But he couldn't get it to work, so he tried to summarize his points.

 

Groden praised Brugioni as credible, but says he was simply wrong in thinking he was working with the Z original.  In retrospect, I'm not sure that matters if you believe what Brugioni says he saw on the film he was working on, be it the original or good first gen copy. His contention  establishes alteration because the extant film is different. So I submitted a question asking Groden what he thought the CIA was doing with the film at Hawkeye Works that Sunday after Brugioni had made the first set of briefing boards that showed clearly what had happened. Ben Wecht read the question to him. And Groden dodged it.  He simply repeated his routine about Brugioni being mistaken in thinking he was working on the Z original! 

 

* Doug Horne, "Two Brain Exams following JFK's Autopsy"  This was eerily similar to Horne's interview of Brugioni about the two sets of briefing boards.  The first set of boards was done to see to what extent the Z film contradicted the killer's story, which was later discarded. The second set was to try to conceal as much as they could about frontal shots.  Those now sit at NARA.

 

In this case, I believe Horne said the first exam was done on the real brain, including sectioning it to try to determine the trajectory of the bullets. Both the results and JFK's brain were then destroyed. The second exam was done on some other brain, which weighed more than an average brain that hadn't been (partially) destroyed.  That brain and those results are now at NARA.

 

*  David Montague, "Lessons from the ARRB" I took the opportunity to ask one of my favorite questions:  Section12 (b) of the JFK Act says it's  NARA's Archivist who has the responsibility to certify to the President and Congress when all JFK records have been released to the public. Not Joe Biden.  Why did he think Congress included that and how realistic is it?  He didn't have much to say, but up popped Larry Schnapf to "assure the questioner" (did you know it was me, Larry?) that the MFF lawsuit he was working on was tackling that question.  

 

I see David Talbot has published the talk he gave at Duquesne, posted here by Doug Caddy,  He told how the New York Times recently asked him to send in a piece on the murder for the 60th.  He says he was "too kind" to the role of the MSM in the coverup of the murder.  They rejected it anyway.   

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks for mentioning me Roger.

Were you there or was this from the livestream?

Karen Croft, Talbot's researcher emailed me after my speech to congratulate me. She headed her message "Bravo" and said it was the best she saw.

Edited November 21, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Roger Odisio]

13 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for mentioning me Roger.

Were you there or was this from the livestream?

Karen Croft, Talbot's researcher emailed me after my speech to congratulate me. She headed her message "Bravo" and said it was the best she saw.

When I copied an early speaker's list from the Duquesne website, Jim, your talk was on it.  But a later list closer to the date, which I assumed was the final version, did not include your talk.  What happened?  It was from this later list that I flagged talks to cover when I wrote up some thoughts yesterday.

 

However, I did see your talk.  Ben Hecht announced it right before you started.  I had planned to watch Greg Parker's prerecorded talk about Oswald but switched to see you instead.

 

I think your talk was valuable because so many researchers treat the JFKA in isolation, devoid of context or aftermath.  As usual your account was loaded with details.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Roger.

I don't know why they would cut my name from the last speakers' list.

BTW, I deliberately aimed my remarks at the keynoter Ms. Perry.  In fact, I asked her if she would stay around until then, but she left the day before.

So I started my talk answering her comments on Kennedy and civil rights, which she said he was late on.

Question:  how does acting on the night you were inaugurated constitute "being late"?

Because that is what happened.