the logic of Zapruder film alteration

[Keven Hofeling]

3 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Roger writes:

The point I was making was not that because Horne and White made ludicrous claims elsewhere, their Zapruder film claims should be ignored. My point was that because they made ludicrous claims elsewhere, their Zapruder film claims should not be accepted uncritically, as Roger seems to have done.

One of these characters is notorious for actively promoting Lifton's body-alteration scenario, and the other character is notorious for actively promoting the faked moon landings scenario. Both scenarios are very far-fetched, and would sound laughable to any reasonable person, as would the Zapruder film-faking scenario ("So the Zapruder film was altered specifically in order to remove evidence of conspiracy, but the people who altered it didn't bother to actually remove the evidence of conspiracy? Huh? You're pulling my leg, right?").

The faked moon landings scenario is particularly relevant here, since it shares a common methodology with claims about film-fakery. Namely, the spot-the-anomaly game. The flag is moving, but there's no atmosphere on the moon, so it must be a fake! The driver's head turns much too fast, so it must be a fake! We can't see the stars, so it must be a fake! That spectator is eight feet tall, so it must be a fake! I've spotted an anomaly, so it must be a fake!

It really isn't good enough just to spot an anomaly and stop there. If you're claiming that an apparent anomaly is the result of altering the Zapruder film (or an Apollo photograph), you also need to demonstrate the plausibility of the sort of alteration that would produce that apparent anomaly. And if you're claiming that there are multiple anomalies in the film, you need to come up with a coherent system of alteration that would be consistent with all of those anomalies.

But that almost never happens. The Zapruder film version of the spot-the-anomaly game has been going on since the 1990s, maybe even since the 80s, and hardly any of the players even try to come up with a plausible account of how all these anomalies could have been generated.

This is partly because there's no agreed list of anomalies. While one person claims that anomalies A and B exist, another person claims that anomaly A exists while anomaly B doesn't exist (and that anomalies C and D also exist).

It would help if each person who enjoys playing the spot-the-anomaly game would give us a list of his or her preferred anomalies and, more importantly, describe the alteration process that would have given rise to every single one of them. Those lists would be entertaining to read!

As we've seen with the two anomalies Roger provided (The car's left turn is missing! The vertical plume of brain matter is only visible in frame 313!), most or all of the supposed anomalies that have been put forward over the last three decades or more fall into two categories:

• they possess straightforward explanations that the spot-the-anomaly players would have worked out for themselves if only they had applied some critical thinking;
• or the claim simply isn't true to begin with, as in the case of Roger's claim about the invisible vertical plume which turned out to be entirely visible, but only to those of us blessed with the magical ability to actually check the evidence for ourselves.

It's just a game. It demeans a serious historical event, and it allows supporters of the lone-nut theory to claim that not only the anomaly-spotters but also rational critics of the lone-nut theory are no different from moon-landings deniers.

You also mimick Pat Speer's tactic of using ad hominem attacks against those whom you argue against.

Your repeated attacks upon Doug Horne as "attempting to derail the ARRB" by advocating David Lifton's body-alteration theory is a distortion, as are your attempts to conflate Hone's work with that of moon landing hoax advocates.

Such tactics are not new or novel, and have been used before by lone nutters and Zapruder film anti-alteration apologists to smear Horne; and in that regard I will allow Doug Horne to speak for himself, as follows:

"A Matter of Epistemology"

https://insidethearrb.livejournal.com/4402.html

insidethearrb

April 17th, 2010

There is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to read "Inside the Assassination Records Review Board," the five-volume book I have authored, documenting my personal journey while on the staff of the ARRB, and my subsequent conclusions about the nature of the medical coverup of President Kennedy's assassination.

It has recently become apparent to me that some recent readers and reviewers are approaching the book, and my treatment of the evidence, in the wrong spirit and without understanding how I myself approached the evidence, and reached my conclusions. One disgruntled reader has attempted to summarily dismiss much of what is in my book, calling me a "Liftonite;" and a recent reviewer has viewed with dismay the fact that my book is a reinterpretation of David Lifton's seminal 1981 work, "Best Evidence," and has called my conclusions that President Kennedy's wounds were indeed altered (just as Lifton postulated in 1981)---severely tampered with by illicit post-mortem surgery, prior to the commencement of the autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital---"extreme." Both of these approaches are seriously flawed, epistemologically.

Let me first address the charge that I am a "Liftonite." This implies that the hypothesis that President Kennedy's wounds were tampered with following his death (to alter the crime scene, and thereby the official view of what happened, and how) is some kind of cult belief or religion; implies that David Lifton is the leader of this cult or religion; and furthermore, implies that I am blindly following the tenets of this (presumably) incorrect or flawed "belief system," and that therefore my views have no real validity, and that I have offered nothing new in my recent book. All of this is wrong, in a number of ways, and demonstrably so.

First of all, David Lifton is not the leader of a cult or religion. He is a remarkably intelligent guy who formulated a paradigm shift of how we should examine the deeply conflicted medical evidence pertaining to the assassination of President Kennedy. His 1981 book really shook things up; change disturbs; and it sometimes takes a generation---or several generations---before new ideas are accepted as the "new orthodoxy." Martin Luther once called Nicholas Copernicus (the Polish monk who challenged the Ptolemaic model of an earth-centered solar system) a "fool"---and the work of Copernicus was argued about heatedly for many decades---but in the end, Martin Luther and the Catholic church were both proven wrong, and Copernicus and Galileo were proven right. (Second---and on a personal note---I am an agnostic, and do not subscribe to any religion, formal or otherwise.) Third, I consider myself an "empiricist"---meaning that I am impressed by evidence, and my conclusions follow where the evidence leads me, even if the evidence leads me to conclusions that are politically unpalatable, or intellectually disturbing. David Lifton proposed in 1981 that JFK's wounds---both the throat wound, and the cranial wounds---had been altered prior to the commencement of the autopsy more than six and one half hours after his death; the interviews and depositions taken by the ARRB staff confirmed in my mind that this really did take place; therefore, I have stated so (and why) in my book. (I have also disagreed with David Lifton on the "where" and "when" of the post-mortem cranial surgery---more on this disagreement below.) While my book provides a confirmation of the basic thesis in "Best Evidence," using evidence unavailable when David Lifton published his book in 1981, it is unscientific to call me a "Liftonite." It would have been much more accurate to say, "Horne concludes in his book that Lifton's basic hypothesis---namely, that President Kennedy's wounds were altered prior to the Naval autopsy at Bethesda Naval hospital---was correct, and he cites a mass of evidence gathered during the tenure of the ARRB to support his conclusions." Today, do we call those who believe that the earth revolves around the sun "Keplerites" or "Galileans" or "Newtonians" or "Copernicans?" No. We say, "modern astronomy (i.e., empirical evidence) has verified the current consensus that the sun, not the earth, lies at the center of our solar system." Similarly, we do not call those who accept the cosmological model of the Big Bang "Hubble-ites." Rather, we say, "empirical measurements of the universe we live in have repeatedly verified that the known universe is expanding at a rapid rate and that all of the mass in the known universe began rapidly expanding from an infinitesimally small point in space about 13.5 billion years ago." Rather than tag me a "Liftonite," it would be more accurate, and appropriate, to refer to the state of the medical evidence in the JFK assassination as we understand it today, and my conclusions about what the state of the medical evidence tells us about a U.S. government coverup, and about what happened in this country in 1963.

Moving on, a recent reviewer (Jim DiEugenio of CTKA) seemed to deplore my hiring by the ARRB, since he has concluded that I was determined to prove Lifton's theories correct before accepting employment. This is not at all true. I wrote in my book that while reading "Best Evidence" hooked me on the medical evidence, and captivated me intellectually, that I had no vested interest in either proving it correct, or incorrect, when I joined the ARRB staff in 1995. My sole goal was to learn what had really happened in 1963, to the extent that I could; Lifton had raised the most appropriate questions about the many conflicts within the medical evidence, and I simply wanted to know whether his hypothesis was correct or not. Wanting to know whether a hypothesis is correct, or incorrect, is a very different thing from attempting to validate a hypothesis ahead of time. I was anxious for the ARRB staff to perform all the interviews of medical witnesses, and all the depositions, that we possibly could before our sunset, in an attempt to learn all that I possibly could about the medical evidence. If many of the questions raised by "Best Evidence" defined the areas that Jeremy Gunn (the ARRB General Counsel) and I were interested in as we explored the medical evidence arena, then that simply reflects upon the high quality of the research and writing in that book. Gunn and I also pursued questions and issues raised by other JFK assassination researchers---among them Harold Weisberg, Cyril Wecht, Gary Aguilar, Randy Robertson, and David Mantik. Jeremy Gunn and I were collecting all of the information we possibly could, in an attempt to place all of the information we could in the National Archives before the ARRB shut down; we were content to "let the chips fall where they may," in relation to whether or not ANYONE'S pet theories or hypotheses were proven or disproven. I made this quite clear throughout my book, but perhaps not everyone reads carefully.

This recent reviewer (DiEugenio) also made much of his "discovery" that Lifton and I had once met (we met and briefly spoke with each other for about 3 minutes before a lecture he gave in 1992) prior to my employment at the ARRB, and that this somehow tainted my work effort. First, this is no "grand discovery;" I wrote about my intellectual journey in regard to the assassination evidence quite openly, in a spirit of complete transparency, in Volume I of my book, so that each reader would know exactly where I was coming from. My pre-ARRB journey was essentially a chronological trip through the Warren Report, and the works of Mark Lane; Harold Wiesberg; Sylvia Meagher; Josiah Thompson; David Lifton; and the HSCA report. In the illustration section, where I labeled my own book as both a "confirmation and reinterpretation" of Lifton's "Best Evidence," I was reporting on the results of 13 years of research and writing---I was reporting my conclusions---not on my intentions as I joined the ARRB staff. My intentions in 1995 were to learn all that I could, prompted by a spirit of curiosity that took no assumption, or hypothesis, for granted. Jeremy Gunn, my boss in the medical evidence arena, was prompted by the same open curiosity. Neither of us was going to automatically defer to authority in how to interpret the medical evidence; and neither of us came to our task with predetermined conclusions. Jeremy and I had many of the same questions and doubts about the medical evidence, but sharing many of the same questions does not imply an agenda or predetermined conclusions. After all, the witnesses provided the answers to the questions---not Jeremy and I---and in my book I am simply reporting what they told us, and what I believe their answers mean. Jeremy Gunn had also read "Best Evidence" and was captivated by the many questions and issues it raised; does this imply that the ARRB General Counsel was somehow also "tainted" and unfit for his role? I think not.

Perhaps the most dangerous and unsettling concept expressed recently about my book is the overt skepticism raised by Mr. DiEugenio about the hypothesis that JFK's wounds were altered by post-mortem surgery prior to the autopsy; he labeled this hypothesis "extreme," and with that one phrase attempted to cast severe doubt upon my entire book---its hypothesis, its findings of fact, and its conclusions. This is not science---it's simply namecalling. Real science does not worry about political labels reflecting whether or not someone's sensibilities are offended---real science only asks: "Do the facts support the hypothesis or not? Are the author's conclusions consistent with the evidence, or not?" Just as the results of a lab experiment in chemistry or physics depend upon facts (not wishes), what we believe about the Kennedy assassination should be determined by the latest review of ALL the evidence (including evidence not available 15 or 20 years ago), NOT by someone's ideas of what is politically correct, or about whether the weight of the evidence challenges our own political mythology about what did or did not happen in this country almost 50 years ago.

So what does the weight of the evidence tell us about the post-mortem surgery/wound alteration hypothesis? It tells us that it has been established as a fact (as recognized by David Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in his 25-page review of Volume IV of my book). For simplicity's sake, I will limit the discussion here to the head wound(s):

(1) The Dallas doctors and nurses consistently observed a blowout---an avulsed wound which they interpreted as an exit---in the right rear of JFK's head. They described this in detail in both their contemporaneous treatment reports, and in their sworn testimony in March of 1964.
(2) These descriptions were visually reinforced by the wound diagrams made by Nurse Audrey Bell and Dr. Charles Crenshaw for the ARRB in 1997.
(3) Mortician Tom Robinson, who was present at Bethesda from the time the body arrived until the time it departed, also drew a diagram of a head wound (for both the HSCA staff and the ARRB staff) which was virtually identical to those drawn by Bell and Crenshaw.
(4) Three physicians at Bethesda Naval hospital the night of JFK's autopsy (Burkley, Canada, and Ebersole) who saw JFK's body either immediately after its arrival at the Bethesda morgue (shortly after 6:35 PM, for Canada and Ebersole)---or, as in Burkley's case, earlier, in Dallas, at Parkland hospital---have all described an avulsed exit wound about the size of a baseball in the right rear of the head.
(5) Dr. Boswell drew a sketch at the autopsy (sometime after 8:00 PM) showing a much larger wound---about 5 times larger---which indicated that virtually all of the bone from the top of the head was missing---and leaving unanswered whether or not bone was also missing from the rear of the head. At his ARRB deposition in 1996, Boswell was asked to render on a 3-D skull model the true extent of the area of missing cranial bone, and he did: at the autopsy proper, after 8:00 PM, the bone was missing from the top of the skull, part of the right side of the skull, and from the right rear of the head. The damage depicted by Boswell included the avulsed exit wound seen in Dallas, but was five times larger and extended to include the top and right side of the skull, as well. The differences between the Boswell diagrams and the diagrams made by Bell, Crenshaw, and Robinson are startling, and imply post-mortem surgery at Bethesda Naval hospital. Even today, 14 years after Boswell's deposition, many researchers refuse to deal with the implications of these differences; they are not comfortable with the implications of the gross differences between the two descriptions, so they simply choose to ignore them.
(6) Two witnesses---mortician Tom Robinson and x-ray technician Ed Reed---told the ARRB that they saw the autopsy pathologists perform surgery on JFK's skull. [I infer that the reason was to suppress evidence of crossfire, by removing bullet fragments and brain tissue.] This contradicted Dr. Humes, who stated under oath to the Warren Commission and to the ARRB that he did not have to perform a craniotomy in order to remove the brain. (Humes also relayed this lie to Dr. Finck, the Army pathologist, after his late arrival.) Humes himself stated at the autopsy (as recorded by the FBI) that someone had performed surgery to the top of JFK's skull, and then lied about this under oath---denied it---before the ARRB. Mortician Tom Robinson examined the autopsy photos taken of President Kennedy's skull, and stated that the gross damage to the top of the cranium in those photographs "was what the doctors did," not "the bullet(s)."
(7) The early arrival of JFK's body at Bethesda at 6:35 PM (in the wrong casket, the wrong wrappings, and the wrong vehicle) prior to the arrival of the official motorcade from Andrews AFB (a light gray ambulance transported the ornate, heavy, bronze Dallas casket), provided those in charge of the medical cover-up time to perform the desired surgical manipulations prior to the beginning of the autopsy proper shortly after 8:00 PM. The body's early arrival is documented not only by eyewitnesses who handled the cheap shipping casket that arrived in a black hearse, but its time of arrival (6:35 PM) was recorded by a Marine Sergeant in a document obtained and authenticated by the ARRB staff.
(8) The wound descriptions provided by most Bethesda eyewitnesses include an area that was missing in the right rear of the skull (consistent with the damage seen in Dallas), but also reflect a much larger skull defect, which was fronto-parietal-occipital in nature. That is, the wound seen by most Bethesda witnesses INCLUDED the damage seen in Dallas, but was considerably larger, reflecting the results of clandestine post-mortem surgery to expand the cranial wound. (These witnesses include Paul O'Connor; James Jenkins; Jerrol Custer; and Pierre Finck.) The autopsy photos of the cranium were taken after the post-mortem surgery, and therefore show an extremely large, expanded skull defect. Inadequate analysis of eyewitness testimony performed by others often cites the similarities between the Parkland and Bethesda wound descriptions (namely, an occipital-parietal exit wound in the right rear of the head) while IGNORING that fact that most Bethesda witnesses (namely, the morgue audience after 8:00 PM) saw a cranial defect that was five times larger overall than the wound seen in Dallas, and included damage to areas other than the rear of the skull.
(9) In short, I conclude that while the body may have been tampered with enroute Bethesda (particularly the throat wound), that the exit wound in JFK's skull was substantially the same when the body arrived at Bethesda as it was when it left Dallas. Shortly after arrival, however, post-mortem surgery altered the shape and size of the cranial defect so that evidence could be removed from the body prior to the start of the autopsy. All of the existing skull photographs and cranial x-rays were taken after the post-mortem surgery.

Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." What many have found objectionable over the years---the claim that President Kennedy's wounds were altered by post-mortem surgery, in what amounted to obstruction of justice (a crime)---is strongly supported by the overwhelming evidence of the body's early arrival at Bethesda; by the two witnesses to cranial surgery (Tom Robinson and Ed Reed); and by the startling differences between the descriptions of the head wound seen in Dallas (and upon the body's initial arrival at Bethesda), and the greatly enlarged cranial defect sketched by Boswell after 8:00 PM. When viewed as a whole, the evidence supports my conclusions.

The brain photographs in the Archives cannot be used to support the lone assassin conclusion because as the ARRB's key witnesses (photographer John Stringer and FBI agent Frank O'Neill) demonstrated, the brain photos in the Archives cannot be, and are not, images of President Kennedy's brain---but rather, are images of a substitute brain.

The autopsy report in the Archives (CE 387) cannot be used to discount any part of my hypothesis because it is (at least) the third written version of that document, and is therefore without any medico-legal standing whatsoever. If there were a trial today, it would be thrown out of court by the judge. [The first draft was burned by Dr. Humes in his fireplace, and the first signed version of the report disappeared after it was given to Robert F. Kennedy.]

To those who would call me a "Liftonite," I would simply point out that while I believe the essential points in David Lifton's hypothesis published in 1981 have been verified---the chain of custody of the body was broken enroute Washington, and JFK's wounds were surgically altered prior to the autopsy---I have disagreed with him on some important points. Specifically, I take issue with Lifton's conclusions (as published in "Best Evidence") in the following ways:

(1) I do NOT believe that post mortem surgery was conducted on JFK's head wounds before the body arrived at Bethesda Naval hospital;
(2) I do NOT believe that President Kennedy's brain was removed prior to the body's arrival at Bethesda;
(3) I do NOT believe that JFK's cranium was "reconstructed" at Bethesda, after the body arrived, to fool the camera and the x-ray machine. (Instead, I believe the photos of the intact back of the head are authentic photographic images exposed after midnight---after the FBI departed the morgue---by grossly manipulating and re-arranging the scalp; and I believe the Dallas occipital-parietal blowout was obscured by visual effects in the two modified lateral skull x-rays, which are in reality altered copy films, not originals.)

So much for the claim that I am a blind adherent to another's published views. I have gone where the evidence has led me; in some cases this has meant I have agreed with Mr. Lifton, and in other cases it has meant that I have publicly disagreed with him, based upon my view of the expanded evidence in this case. There is much evidence available now that he did not have access to in 1980 when he completed his manuscript: specifically, the staff reports and deposition transcripts of the HSCA's interviews of autopsy witnesses; and the ARRB's medical witness deposition transcripts and interview reports.

In summary, David Lifton's basic hypothesis---that an assassinated President's wounds were altered by illicit, clandestine, post mortem surgery---has been verified by me in my book not out of blind loyalty, but because the weight of the evidence supports that conclusion.

An historical conclusion cannot be denied simply because one person, or a group of like-minded individuals, finds a conclusion "extreme" any more than a scientific hypothesis can be refuted simply because it challenges an orthodox view prevalent at the time the new hypothesis is introduced.

I encourage anyone interested in the epistemological issues mentioned above to read my book yourself, and then make up your own mind about what the conflicts in the medical evidence mean; don't depend upon any one review or any one internet posting or so-called "discussion thread" for an assessment of my five-volume work. The subject is too important for you to depend upon someone else's opinion, when forming your own evaluation of the medical evidence in the JFK assassination. (And all too often, strong opinions expressed within the so-called JFK "research community," about the work of other researchers, reflect more about pre-existing bias, closed minds, and long-established personality conflicts, than anything else.) Study the evidence yourself, and make up your own mind. END

 

[Keven Hofeling]

26 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

  Since Brugioni received an 8mm film it hardly could have been the original which was a 16mm double Film ... so somebody worked on that film and slit it prior Brugioni received it  Maybe he received half of  the 16mm original ... or a copy. (The original could have been duplicated at TIME Chicago). The crux is: the film Brugioni received was unaltered whether it was a copy or not ... why? There was no time to tamper with it. 

You are mistaken...

"...Friday, November 22^nd:  Zapruder’s home movie of the assassination was developed at the Kodak Plant in Dallas.  When developed, it was a 16 mm wide, 25-foot-long “double 8” film, with sprocket holes running along both outside edges, and was unslit.  What does this mean?  Simply put, as shot in the camera, and then as developed, all “double 8” home movie films consisted of two 8mm wide image strips going in opposite directions, and upside down when compared to each other. The normal practice immediately following developing was for the developing lab to “split,” or slit, the 16 mm wide film in half, vertically, and then join the two sides of the movie (known as the A side and the B side) together with a splice, so that it could be projected in an 8 mm home projector.  A “double 8” movie that has been slit only has sprocket holes on one side (the left side), and is 50 feet long (instead of 25).  In the case of the Zapruder film, the A side (family scenes) and the B side (the Kennedy assassination) were not initially split, or slit apart, so that Mr. Zapruder could get three copies (contact prints) exposed at another lab (the Jamieson film lab in Dallas), in Mr. Jamieson’s 16 mm contact printer.  That is, the 16 mm out-of-camera format (with opposing image strips going in opposite directions) was temporarily preserved on Friday afternoon, so that Zapruder’s film could be copied.

Before departing for the Jamieson lab to have three contact prints exposed, the 16 mm wide, out-of-camera original was viewed once by the Production Supervisor (Mr. Chamberlain) and Mr. Zapruder, on a Kodak 16 mm processing inspection projector, at twice the normal projection speed—to simply ensure that Zapruder had indeed captured the assassination on film.[5]

Following his return from the Jamieson lab with the three exposed contact prints, all three contact prints were developed at the Kodak Plant in Dallas.  After the three dupes were found satisfactory, the original film was slit down the middle to 8 mm in width, and the two halves of the movie spliced together, end-to-end (per normal procedure). The original film, now 8mm in width, was viewed at least twice on an 8 mm projector by several laboratory personnel (including Production Supervisor Phil Chamberlain, and Customer Service Manager Dick Blair), Mr. Zapruder, and his attorney.[6]  At least one of the three dupes was also viewed, and was noted to have a “softer” focus than the original film (as would be expected)...."

[5] Roland J. Zavada, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence (September 25, 1998), Attachment  A1-8 (Meeting Minutes of Discussion between Roland Zavada, Phil Chamberlain, and Dick Blair), and Attachment A1-11 (Phil Chamberlain’s original manuscript regarding events related to the handling and processing of the Zapruder film at the Kodak Plant in Dallas).

[6] Zavada, 1998, Attachment A1-8.

https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

 

[Karl Kinaski]

 

@Keven Hofeling

 From The Doug Horne-Brugioni Interview ... 

 

When asked by Horne if Brugioni thought he had an original home movie, Brugioni said yes, but offered two rather vague answers for that assertion:

He thought he had the original because of two reasons, quote:

One:The fact that the Secret Service was bringing it in and the second thing, when I looked at it was not processed in a typical commercial fashion it wasn't in a box or little box or anything like that (...) the film was controlled by the Secret Service all the time it was there. 

But as I said: It doesn't matter if original or copy  since the movie Brugioni was working with at saturday night  was unaltered.

Brugioni: I ve never seen that film like the night that I looked at it. (Unaltered original or unaltered copy).

That I believe.  Because he saw an unaltered version nobody of us ever saw down to the present day. Whether he saw that unaltered version in form of the original or as a copy ... is of not much importance IMO.

 

 

[Keven Hofeling]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The spot-the-anomaly game just doesn't stop! Almost as soon as you've debunked one claim, someone else repeats it. Sometimes, the same person even repeats a claim that has just been debunked. On page 7, Keven Hofeling repeats a claim that he must know has already been debunked at least twice:

Keven must know that this is nonsense, because I debunked it on page three of this thread in reply to Roger, and on a different thread in reply to Keven himself when he made the very same claim only a month ago. Why did he repeat a claim he knows to be factually incorrect?

In case anyone is thinking of repeating the same nonsense yet again, here are some links to frames 314, 315 and 316, all of which show the "fine red mist suspended in the air" which Keven claims doesn't exist:

• Frame 314: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z314.jpg
• Frame 315: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z315.jpg
• Frame 316: https://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z316.jpg

Pro-alteration folks: please bookmark those links, if only to save yourselves future embarrassment!

My earlier reply to Keven, in which I debunked  this claim, also provides an explanation for one of his other claims, the absence of horizontal debris in the Zapruder film.

The issue with the blood cloud being present in the extant Zapruder film for only one frame lasting 5/18 of one second is not solved by your scans of frames 314, 315 and 316, which DO NOT depict the blood cloud extending into those frames, but instead seem to depict skull fragments flying through the air.

Why is this important?

Because the issue is the removal of frames in order to remove the blood, brain and skull that many witnesses reported being ejected from the back of JFK's head, which has been accomplished almost perfectly, except for the anomalies that remain, such as the skull fragments in the air (which you offer as an attempt to counter the unnatural brevity of the blood cloud), the simultaneous involuntary movement of the Connallys and Secret Service agents to the rapid stop of the limousine (See in the following Zapruder film clip), and the humanly impossible rapid head turns of William Greer (which despite your snide remarks about same have never been solved with a plausible explanation):

 

The absence from the film of the blood, brain and skull being ejected from the back of JFK's head that so many witnesses described is a very serious issue which you have consistently attempted to elude with the standard ridiculous answers from lone nutterville. The following excerpts make clear that the film should be depicting what the witnesses reported:

WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF BLOOD AND BRAINS EXITING THE BACK OF JFK'S HEAD:

Clint Hill, Samuel Kinney, Bobby Hargis, Bill Newman, Marilyn Willis, Harry Holmes, Charles Brehm, Abraham Zapruder, Erwin Schwartz and Dino Brugioni.
 __________
"...BLOOD, BRAIN MATTER, AND BONE FRAGMENTS EXPLODED FROM THE BACK OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD. THE PRESIDENT'S BLOOD, PARTS OF HIS SKULL, BITS OF HIS BRAIN WERE SPLATTERED ALL OVER ME -- ON MY FACE, MY CLOTHES, IN MY HAIR..."

Secret Service Agent Clint Hill (in his 2012 book "Mrs. Kennedy and Me: An Intimate Memoir").
__________
"...I HAD BRAIN MATTER ALL OVER MY WINDSHIELD AND LEFT ARM, THAT'S HOW CLOSE WE WERE TO IT ... IT WAS THE RIGHT REAR PART OF HIS HEAD ... BECAUSE THAT'S THE PART I SAW BLOW OUT. I SAW HAIR COME OUT, THE PIECES BLOW OUT, THEN THE SKIN WENT BACK IN -- AN EXPLOSION IN AND OUT..."

Secret Service Agent Samuel Kinney (3/5/1994 interview by Vince Palamara).
__________
"...WHEN PRESIDENT KENNEDY STRAIGHTENED BACK UP IN THE CAR THE BULLET HIT HIM IN THE HEAD, THE ONE THAT KILLED HIM AND IT SEEMED LIKE HIS HEAD EXPLODED, AND I WAS SPLATTERED WITH BLOOD AND BRAIN, AND KIND OF A BLOODY WATER...."

Dallas Motorcycle Patrolman Bobby Hargis (4/8/1964 Warren Commission testimony).
__________
"...I CAN REMEMBER SEEING THE SIDE OF THE PRESIDENT'S EAR AND HEAD COME OFF. I REMEMBER A FLASH OF WHITE AND THE RED AND JUST BITS AND PIECES OF FLESH EXPLODING FROM THE PRESIDENT'S HEAD..."

Dealey Plaza witness Bill Newman interviewed about the JFK assassination -- 0:13-0:27 -- https://youtu.be/EEhlbAwI7Zg?t=13
__________
"...THE HEAD SHOT SEEMED TO COME FROM THE RIGHT FRONT. IT SEEMED TO STRIKE HIM HERE [gesturing to her upper right forehead, up high at the hairline], AND HIS HEAD WENT BACK, AND ALL OF THE BRAIN MATTER WENT OUT THE BACK OF THE HEAD. IT WAS LIKE A RED HALO, A RED CIRCLE, WITH BRIGHT MATTER IN THE MIDDLE OF IT - IT JUST WENT LIKE THAT...."

Dealey Plaza witness Marilyn Willis from 24:26-24:58 of TMWKK, Episode 1, at following link cued in advance for you https://youtu.be/BW98fHkbuD8?t=1466 ).
__________
"...THERE WAS JUST A CONE OF BLOOD AND CORRUPTION THAT WENT RIGHT IN THE BACK OF HIS HEAD AND NECK. I THOUGHT IT WAS RED PAPER ON A FIRECRACKER. IT LOOKED LIKE A FIRECRACKER LIT UP WHICH LOOKS LIKE LITTLE BITS OF RED PAPER AS IT GOES UP. BUT IN REALITY IT WAS HIS SKULL AND BRAINS AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WENT PERHAPS AS MUCH AS SIX OR EIGHT FEET. JUST LIKE THAT!..."

Dealey Plaza witness and Postal Inspector Harry Holmes. Murder from Within (1974), Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams, p. 213. 
__________
"...Charles Brehm: 0:21 WHEN THE SECOND BULLET HIT, THERE WAS, THE HAIR SEEMED TO GO FLYING. IT WAS VERY DEFINITE THEN THAT HE WAS STRUCK IN THE HEAD WITH THE SECOND BULLET, AND, UH, YES, I VERY DEFINITELY SAW THE EFFECT OF THE SECOND BULLET.

Mark Lane: 0:38 Did you see any particles of the President's skull fly when the bullet struck him in the head?

Charles Brehm: 0:46 I SAW A PIECE FLY OVER OH IN THE AREA OF THE CURB WHERE I WAS STANDING.

Mark Lane: 0:53 In which direction did that fly?

Charles Brehm: 0:56 IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK...."

Dealey Plaza witness Charles Brehm interviewed about JFK assassination by Mark Lane for the 1967 documentary "Rush to Judgment": https://youtu.be/RsnHXywKIKs
__________
"...I SAW THE HEAD PRACTICALLY OPEN UP AND BLOOD AND MANY MORE THINGS, WHATEVER IT WAS, BRAINS, JUST CAME OUT OF HIS HEAD...."

Testimony of Dealey Plaza witness Abraham Zapruder -- who filmed the assassination -- at the Clay Shaw trial -- https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/zapruder_shaw2.htm
__________
"...I also asked him if he saw the explosion of blood and brains out of the head. He replied that he did. I asked him if he noticed which direction the eruption went. He pointed back over his left shoulder. He said, "IT WENT THIS WAY." I said, "You mean it went to the left and rear?" He said, "YES." Bartholomew then asked him, "Are you sure that you didn't see the blood and brains going up and to the front?" Schwartz said, "NO; IT WAS TO THE LEFT AND REAR...."

Excerpt from interview of Erwin Schwartz -- Abraham Zapruder's business partner -- who accompanied Zapruder to develop the camera-original Zapruder film, and saw the camera-original projected more than a dozen times. Bloody Treason by Noel Twyman.
__________
"...Brugioni's most vivid recollection of the Zapruder film was "...OF JFK'S BRAINS FLYING THROUGH THE AIR." He did not use the term 'head explosion,' but rather referred to apparent exit debris seen on the film the night he viewed it. "...AND WHAT I'LL NEVER FORGET WAS -- I KNEW THAT HE HAD BEEN ASSASSINATED -- BUT WHEN WE ROLLED THE FILM AND I SAW A GOOD PORTION OF HIS HEAD FLYING THROUGH THE AIR, THAT SHOCKED ME, AND THAT SHOCKED EVERYBODY WHO WAS THERE..."

Excerpt from interview of Dino Brugioni -- Photoanalyst at the CIA's National Photographic Interpretation Center -- who viewed the camera-original Zapruder film the evening of 11/23/1963. Douglas Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board" , 2009, Volume IV, Chapter 14, page 1329.

And yet, on the back of JFK's head we see only the appearance of the black patch to obscure the rear defect, and no blood or pieces of skull and brain being "blasted out" of the back of JFK's head can be seen in the extant Zapruder film starting at Z-313 as there should be (See slow motion clip of Zapruder film headshot sequence below). Visible in the extant "original" Zapruder film is only a fine red mist suspended in the air for 1/18 of one second (frame Z-313 only), while all of the witnesses in real time on the ground in Dealey Plaza described an entirely different debris trail consisting of voluminous blood, brain and skull that was blown out of the back of JFK's head (Charles Brehm: "IT SEEMED TO HAVE COME LEFT AND BACK"), not the front:

 

The First Lady had even went out onto the trunk lid to retrieve a portion of brain, and yet high definition Zapruder stills of the trunk lid do not show the brain matter that she retrieved:

 

That the First Lady did retrieve brain which she handed over to Dr. Marion Jenkins at Parkland Hospital is confirmed by Dr. Jenkins himself:

 

In previous posts you have attempted to explain the absence of the biological debris being ejected from the back of JFK's head by claiming that Abraham Zapruder's 8mm camera was incapable of capturing such details, to which I responded by demonstrating that Zapruder's camera had no difficulty capturing the color and details of Jackie Kennedy's red roses which were in far fewer Zapruder frames than the black patch on the back of JFK's head was:

If I recall correctly, you first pretended that you had no idea what I was demonstrating with the red roses, and then later claimed that the difference is that the roses are not in shadow. But if your theory were correct, then the rearward parts of the red roses should be enshrouded in black shadow, and yet are not...

The short and simple of this is that your attempts to argue that bone fragments captured flying through the air in Z-314, 315 and 316 are somehow extensions of the blood cloud fall flat, as does your silly notion that Abraham Zapruder's camera was incapable of capturing the details of blood, brain and skull being ejected from the back of JFK's head.

And Hollywood film professionals Paul Rutan Jr. and Garrett J. Smith, in the following interview excerpt, make it particularly obvious how ridiculous your claim is that the black patch covering the large avulsive wound in the back of JFK's head is really just a natural shadow:

https://www.fff.org/2023/08/16/the-evidence-that-convicts-the-cia-of-the-jfk-assassination-part-4/
 

"...Smith: .…Now, as to my credibility, thirty-seven years in the movie business, I’m not sure how much lower you can go than that; and [I] just got done with nearly twenty-five years at Paramount, where I basically ran their mastering for most of those years and spent the last few years investigating new digital production technology.

Rutan: [I’ve] been doing this since 1968, I was delivering film in New York City; and then full time from ’74 I got hired to work for my Dad, and I worked for him for 12 years — started out as janitor, and then shipping, and then film cleaning, and then film repair, and then optical lineup, and then optical printing. So, ever since then I’ve worked for a couple of companies, set up a department at COMPAC video, and I had my own company for 14 years doing restoration.

Whitehead: Do you see any signs of alteration?

Rutan: Yes.

Whitehead: Where do you see them?

Rutan: Well [speaking while pointing at frame 313 on a large HD monitor], in the — this explosion right here doesn’t look, it’s, see [pointing] — it’s got defects on it — but it just doesn’t look real, it doesn’t look like blood, it just doesn’t look real….

Rutan: I think you’re looking at a patch, at a photographic patch that they put on the back of his [JFK’s] head. It’s crude, but if you run the film you’ll see that it moves — differently than his head does, as well. So, it’s an optical, some sort of an optical [effect] that they put on there, to not show the back of his head.

Whitehead: In your opinion, what do you think would have been the most likely way this would have been accomplished?

Rutan: With an optical printer, with an aerial optical printer….

Rutan: Well, the only thing I can see really is how predominant the black patch is in this particular frame [pointing]. I mean, it’s clear to me that that is not the back of his head, that that is some kind of a [sic] optical effect, that has been laid on the back of his head by an optical house. And this [pointing at the large pink “blob” on the right side of JFK’s head] is also an optical effect. But the back of his head is what always — what I’m always drawn to, because you — it’s almost like he’s wearing a toupee, because there’s the top of his head [pointing at JFK’s auburn hair on the very top of his head] and that’s basically the color it should be, and then it’s black, it’s just solid black.

Smith: You know, the density doesn’t match — the shoulders don’t match that [meaning that the shadow on the back of JFK’s shoulders does not match the black patch on the back of his head] and [the black patch] doesn’t match the top of his head [pointing to JFK’s auburn colored hair on top]….

Smith: It just seems really obvious that the frames where they’ve matted out the back of the head, and added in the pink splash, the pink water-balloon — whatever it is that’s supposed to be the blood — it’s just not even believable … maybe fifty years ago that might have passed muster, but for anybody — I mean — my impression is if I showed it to a 12-year old kid, they would say it was a cartoon…."

 

It is completely obvious that it is not a natural shadow. In Zapruder Z-312 we see what by all appearances is a perfectly natural shadow, but just 5/18 of one second later at Z-317, the natural looking shadow has morphed into a D-max black hexagon shaped black blotch with sharp edges -- which constitutes a truly striking transformation.

 

Edited February 20 by Keven Hofeling

[Keven Hofeling]

23 minutes ago, Karl Kinaski said:

 

@Keven Hofeling

 From The Doug Horne-Brugioni Interview ... 

 

When asked by Horne if Brugioni thought he had an original home movie, Brugioni said yes, but offered two rather vague answers for that assertion:

He thought he had the original because of two reasons, quote:

One:The fact that the Secret Service was bringing it in and the second thing, when I looked at it was not processed in a typical commercial fashion it wasn't in a box or little box or anything like that (...) the film was controlled by the Secret Service all the time it was there. 

But as I said: It doesn't matter if original or copy  since the movie Brugioni was working with at saturday night  was unaltered.

Brugioni: I ve never seen that film like the night that I looked at it. (Unaltered original or unaltered copy).

That I believe.  Because he saw an unaltered version nobody of us ever saw down to the present day. Whether he saw that unaltered version in form of the original or as a copy ... is of not much importance IMO.

 

 

It is true that Dino Brugioni did not give a very good answer during the filmed interview when Doug Horne asked him why he thought he had the original.

The much more compelling answers are spread throughout the interview, and actually had everything to do with your original post which erroneously claimed that the camera-original film would have been in 16mm format. You actually had that reversed: It was the original that was 8mm, and the copies were 16mm. So the very fact that Brugioni had to wake a local merchant to procure an 8mm projector for NPIC in order to work with the film is dispositive. Also not mentioned in Brugioni's answer is that the Secret Service told Brugioni it was the "original."

This is how Doug Horne articulates it in his online essay, "The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration" https://assassinationofjfk.net/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/ :

"...Format of film delivered:  Mr. Brugioni clearly recalls that the film delivered was an 8 mm film.  He is positive about this because one member of his team had to go out that night and, through special arrangement, purchase a brand-new 8 mm projector, so that the film could be viewed as a motion picture. [NPIC had a state-of-the-art 16 mm projector installed in its briefing room, but had no 8 mm movie projectors.] He clearly recalls that the film strip only had sprocket holes down one side, which is consistent with a slit, 8mm wide “double 8” film. He is also positive in his own mind that it was the original film, and not a copy.  Mr. Brugioni personally owned an 8 mm “double 8” camera in 1963, and was familiar with the differences in quality between an original film and a copy film.  He recalls that the images on the film were extremely sharp.  Furthermore, the extreme nervousness and anxiety demonstrated by the two Secret Service officials convinced him that he had the original film, since they were terrified he would damage it when projecting it.  All factors he observed, Brugioni insists, pointed to the film being the camera-original...."

 

[Roger Odisio]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Roger,

I want to understand your theory.

Please explain what specifically of the following is NOT the case, according to your theory:

1. The CIA plotters designed and implemented a plan, centered around, Mexico City, whereby LHO was made to look like he was in cahoots with Cuba and the Soviet Union in a deal to assassinate Kennedy.
2. The reason the CIA plotters did this was to create a pretext for invasion of Cuba and/or a war with the Soviet Union.
3. The CIA plotters hoped the Johnson Administration would order an invasion of Cuba and/or a war with the Soviet Union.
4. The CIA plotters made sure that LHO was working for the TSBD during 11/22/63 so that he could be blamed as the patsy. (That is to say, the American patsy who was in cahoots with Cuba and the Soviet Union.)
5. The CIA plotters plan failed because the Johnson Administration rejected their international commie plot. Instead, they blamed the shooting solely on Oswald.

 

Everyone knows there was a faction that wanted to blame Cuba for the murder and confront the SU.   As president, Johnson was never going to allow that.  He had lusted after the presidency his whole adult life.  He was not going to see it go up in smoke like that. The SU was serious about protecting Castro.

 

You say the plotters in your scenario "hoped" Johnson would do what they wanted after the murder.  That's a clear indication they were a fringe group, not members of the inner circle of planners.  The plan was of such enormity it had to be concrete, not based on a hope. 

 

All the work to establish Oswald as a commie allied with Cuba was a contingency, not fully implemented in the end.  But it had its uses for the killers.  It created a bunch of rabbit holes for researchers to pursue, diverting them from the central questions:  who did it if not Oswald, and why?

 

In short your line of inquiry has little or nothing to do with my understanding of what happened.

 

[Karl Kinaski]

@Keven Hofeling

Maybe I was not clear enough.  

By 16mm I was referring to the unslit double 8mm  (2X8 mmm) original film, which contained a home movie and the assassination scene on one moviestrip ... Brugioni only received the assassination scene ... half of the "original" at best ... "original" I put in quotation marks because it is only half of the movie-strip taken out of Zapruders camera in Dallas ...  copy or half-original: Brugioni worked with an untampered film ... that is what counts IMO ...

KK

[Roger Odisio]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

It sounds like the limo did stop and that motorcycle cops were running around. Something that could not be removed by Hawkeye Works over the weekend.

So, perhaps what happened was that Hawkeye Works only blackened the wound on the back of the head and painted in a new wound on the right-top of the head. It was decided that the limo-stop remaining in the film was too incriminating against the Secret Service, and so the film was withheld.

Since the film was withheld, there was plenty of time to do further work on the film. It was decided to remove the limo stop. Which they did.

Is there a problem with this hypothesis? For example, were copies made of the weekend Hawkeye Works' film and distributed? If so, this would complicate my hypothesis.

 

According to Homer McMahon, "Bill Smith" the "SS agent", who returned the film from HW, picked the frames to include in the second set of boards.  The job of picking frames and making up the boards continued after McMahon left early Monday morning.  In the 90s McMahon said some of the frames he worked on were no longer included in the extant boards he saw, and some were added after he left.  Life/CIA then kept the altered original film hidden for almost 12 years.

The second set of boards are now at NARA.  

This opens up several possibilities for when alterations were done.  Those who did the alterations were not confined to the roughly 12 hour period the film was at HW.

It seems clear that three copies were made of the altered film at HW to replace the three copies Zapruder had made when he had the film developed.  Two of the original copies went to the CIA and SS.  There was no problem switching them once the film had been altered.

Zapruder kept the original third copy when he gave the original film to Life/CIA on Saturday.  The plan was to give the original back to Zapruder in a few days in exchange for his copy, when Life had finished their work on publishing some stills in their magazine.

That changed when it make clear the work at HW wasn't sufficient to eliminate the incriminating parts of the film.

Life/CIA cancelled the original deal on Sunday, and gave Zapruder another $100,000 to keep the original (out of sight) indefinitely.

It seems likely that Life/CIA also gave Zapruder the copy of the altered film and took back his copy that was made from the original. $150,000 in 1963 dollars buys a lot of cooperation. The extra $100,000 was paid to Zapruder in 4 annual installments. Zapruder died just2 years after the payments ended.

Zapruder's  copy of the original and Brugioni's boards were the last vestiges of the original film. Brugioni's boards were destroyed in the 70s when authorities started sniffing around the murder again and Brugioni mentioned he still had his boards in his safe.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

25 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

In short your line of inquiry has little or nothing to do with my understanding of what happened.

 

Okay, but...

 

29 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

You say the plotters in your scenario "hoped" Johnson would do what they wanted after the murder.  That's a clear indication they were a fringe group, not members of the inner circle of planners.  The plan was of such enormity it had to be concrete, not based on a hope. 

 

 

We know it wasn't a fringe group... it was the CIA. We know that because only the CIA could have placed Oswald in the TSBD, where he needed to be. And only the CIA could have pulled off the Mexico City charade, which David Phillips certainly had a hand in.

The rogue group at the CIA who did the Mexico City charade also placed Oswald at the TSBD, so you can't just blow them off. If you can't explain them, then there's a flaw in your theory.

As for the outcome being based on hope... what the CIA did was a false flag operation. False flag operations ALWAYS create pretenses for something. It's up the Commander in Chief how he acts on the pretenses.

 

31 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

All the work to establish Oswald as a commie allied with Cuba was a contingency, not fully implemented in the end.

 

But it WAS fully implemented. It was still going on even after the Warren report was published. And neither Angleton or David Phillips ever gave up on it!

 

[Roger Odisio]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Okay, but...

 

 

 

  54 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

You say the plotters in your scenario "hoped" Johnson would do what they wanted after the murder.  That's a clear indication they were a fringe group, not members of the inner circle of planners.  The plan was of such enormity it had to be concrete, not based on a hope. 

 

 

SL:  We know it wasn't a fringe group... it was the CIA. We know that because only the CIA could have placed Oswald in the TSBD, where he needed to be. And only the CIA could have pulled off the Mexico City charade, which David Phillips certainly had a hand in.

 

The rogue group at the CIA who did the Mexico City charade also placed Oswald at the TSBD, so you can't just blow them off. If you can't explain them, then there's a flaw in your theory.

 

RO: When I refer to the CIA doing something I mean its leadership. Not some rogue group at the agency.  In 1963 that meant Allen Dulles along with whoever he chose to help him with a particular job. That was the point of Peter Dale Scott's story about "the old man" taking care of the Kennedy problem.

 

Dulles was respected and revered at the agency.  Imo, nothing would have happened about the murder without his knowledge, approval, and likely personal participation.  Reading The Devil's Chessboard gives you a sense of that besides Scott's story.

  54 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

All the work to establish Oswald as a commie allied with Cuba was a contingency, not fully implemented in the end.

 

SL: But it WAS fully implemented. It was still going on even after the Warren report was published. And neither Angleton or David Phillips ever gave up on it!

 

RO: Johnson killed implementation of the plan to blame the murder on Cuba.  It doesn't matter what Angleton or Phillips or anyone else wanted or continued to do to agitate for it after the murder. 

 

[Chris Davidson]

[Denise Hazelwood]

19 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:

Ok. If you copy the following,   "JFK assassination two different Dealey plaza interviews with witness Linda Willis" 
and paste it into the Youtube search box, it should be the 1st video that comes. It is 29:24 min long with the Willis 5 comment at 25:30.

The problem seems to be with my computer. I did pull it up on my phone with this info. Thanks, Chris!

In this video, Linda Willis identifies "Black Apron Man" as "somebody who worked in a shoe shop." I'll add that info to the "Black Apron Man" thread.

Edited February 21 by Denise Hazelwood
add info relevant to a different thread

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

When I refer to the CIA doing something I mean its leadership. Not some rogue group at the agency.  In 1963 that meant Allen Dulles along with whoever he chose to help him with a particular job.

 

Those of us who understand and attempt to explain the Mexico City, commie-conspiracy angle count Allen Dulles among the rogue group that designed that plot. "Rogue" just means CIA officers operating outside the control of John McCone.

 

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

That was the point of Peter Dale Scott's story about "the old man" taking care of the Kennedy problem.

 

BTW, Peter Dale Scott is among those of us who attempt to explain the Mexico City, commie-conspiracy angle. He refers to it as Phase 1 / Phase 2. Phase 1 is the commie-conspiracy plot, and Phase 2 is the lone nut plot, IIRC.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

RO: Johnson killed implementation of the plan to blame the murder on Cuba.  It doesn't matter what Angleton or Phillips or anyone else wanted or continued to do to agitate for it after the murder.

 

Yes, I know Johnson killed the plan to blame it on on Cuba. I've never said otherwise.

The difference between your view and mine is that you believe Johnson killed the commie angle before it was even implemented, and I believe that Johnson killed it after it was implemented. The evidence proves that it wasn't killed before it was implemented. That's the reason I pointed out that it was still being implemented even after the Warren Report was published, and that Angleton and Phillips were still pushing it for years. Allen Dulles was behind the plan too... I didn't mention him only because there is no evidence that he was still pushing the commie angle after the Johnson Administration decided not to act on it.

 

[Chris Davidson]

Is it logical to conclude one of these drivers is applying the brakes?