The CIA Did Not Do It!

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Have you ever considered that exposing deep differences, especially ignorance of basic evidence, can be the foundation for moving ahead in this case? Here I am at least a bit perplexed that you are still laboring under the illusion that the "magic bullet" theory is even remotely tenable, when it is not only false but has been proven false and even to be anatomically impossible. I say to you, "Run, don't just walk!", to "The 'Lone-Nutter' Refutation", which is easily accessible on-line at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1fetzer1.pdf, which is in the first issue of assassinationresearch.com. What puzzles me especially is that the founder of this forum, John Simkin, put it up for the benefit of members of this forum on 22 November 2003! As for "elitism", I am really thrown for a loss. None of the panels and experts you cite ever attempted to test for the inauthenticity of the autopsy X-rays before David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., undertook that task. If you have read my books, then you should know that from multiple sources, including my correspondence with the Department of Justice in 1993! It is a basic principle of scientific reasoning that, in the search for truth, you must base your reasoning on all of the available relevant evidence. That the "most basic" evidence in this case has been subject to alteration--and that includes the substitution of another brain during the supplemental autopsy exam and the recreation of the Zapruder film--provides the most powerful evidence that the government was involved. The Mafia, for example, which undoubtedly put up some of the shooters, was not in the position to extend its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital and alter X-rays under the control of medical officers of the U.S. Navy, agents of the Secret Service, or the President's personal physician. Neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted someone else's brain for that of JFK. The KGB might have had the ability to recreate a film, but it could not have got its hands on Zapruder's. Nor could any of these things have been done by Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. If members of this forum have read my books, as you claim, then they appreciate these points already. What I cannot understand is how sensational findings like these, which have been established on the basis of objective scientific investigations and which were made available to the general public through books that appeared in 1998, 2000, and 2003, are still "news" to students of the death of JFK in 2005! If you insist in remaining in the dark, you will never solve the case. But we already know 90-95% of what happened here and can prove that powerful elements of the US government were involved. People like Purvis want to take the case back to the dark ages before the work of Mantik, Livingston, Crenshaw, Kizzia, White, Healy, Costella, and others cracked this case wide open. He even cites scribbles from Malcolm Perry, M.D., some 30 years after the assassination, as though they were more important evidence than his remarks during the Parkland Press Conference on the day it occurred, which I published in 1998! Obviously, he has never read Lifton, either, because Lifton is very emphatic about the principle that earlier evidence should take precedence over later evidence, especially when key witnesses, such as Perry, have been subjected to years of pressure from the FBI and other souces to change their mind. (Egad! This was going on already the night of the autopsy, as Harrison Livingstone has explained in some of his books.) I published their work because it is important! The idea that research published in books ought to be ignored is a manifest absurdity. I really cannot believe that serious students of this case could be taken in by such ludicrous attitudes. But I am also dismayed that the members of a forum devoted to the death of JFK are so appallingly ignorant of the most important scientific discoveries in the history of its study. It would be nice for this forum to finally get "up to speed".

Man, this thread has gone to hell!  It seems the Tim/Shanet argument has spread like a cancer.  In a probably futile attempt at statesmanship, let me make a few points.  Hopefully, I won't upset anyone.

1.  Mr. Purvis, you have alluded to numerous interviews you've conducted.  It might prove most valuable if you reproduce in an organized form these interviews, so that other researchers may learn from them.  While I welcome your attendance here, I find your claim that no evidence has ever been uncovered that would point to a second shooter a gross overstatement of the facts, particularly since you seem to lack the curiousity to read books that conflict with your opinions.  If you like, we can create a separate thread whereby a number of us will attempt to demolish the single-bullet theory.  You can defend it if you like.  By the way, while I find the body alteration and autopsy photo falsification theories intrigiuing, I by no means subscribe to them.  In my online seminar, I attempted to show how an honest look at the photos, undertaken with the assumption they are real, STILL points to a conspiracy.  In my upcoming update, I'll expand on this considerably, and even take a whack at the x-rays.

I also believe, Mr. Purvis, that you should undertstand that to many, like myself, your friend Boswell's statements are among the most telling arguments ever given for conspiracy. If you compare his various face sheets, you'll see that as the conspiracy crowd started talking, he moved the back wound further and further up the neck, and then reversed himself when actually shown the photos in 97 and admitted it was squarely on the back.  If you compare the position of this back wound to Dale Myers" cartoon and the 1998 laser re-enactment by DiMaio you'll see that they had to change either the President's body shape or his position in the car to make the trajectory point back to the TSBD.  It DOES NOT add up. I must also admit your point about people making money off crazy theories is fairly lost on me.  To my understanding, the only "researchers" making money over the last decade or so are those who are willing to go on TV and say there's not one "scintilla" of evidence pointing towards anyone besides Oswald.  Scintilla, by the way, is lone-nut-ese for "I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!" I believe Posner and Bugliosi get together once a year or so and try to out-"scintilla" each other!

2.  Dr. Fetzer, while I've read most of your books, and respect your work,  I think it's intellectually inconsistent for you to take an elitist viewpoint on the assassination.  The sad fact is that most of the incorrect impressions of the assassination were either supported or created by doctors and men of science, i.e. the original autopsists, the Clark Panel, the FPP, Dr. Angel, Dr. Levine, Vincent Guinn, Thomas Canning, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Zimmerman, etc.  If we are to let ourselves be enamored by the credentials of the writers in your books then we should also give weight to the credentials of these men.  When confronted with such a divergence of expert opinion, one is left only with the alternative: do one's best to grasp the issues at hand and decide for oneself.  So you'll have to excuse us when we who lack your background are unable to completely trust everything you say.  I really wish I could--it would have saved me hundreds of hours reading articles in forensic publications and medical books.

Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 25, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Man, this thread has gone to hell!  It seems the Tim/Shanet argument has spread like a cancer.  In a probably futile attempt at statesmanship, let me make a few points.  Hopefully, I won't upset anyone.

1.  Mr. Purvis, you have alluded to numerous interviews you've conducted.  It might prove most valuable if you reproduce in an organized form these interviews, so that other researchers may learn from them.  While I welcome your attendance here, I find your claim that no evidence has ever been uncovered that would point to a second shooter a gross overstatement of the facts, particularly since you seem to lack the curiousity to read books that conflict with your opinions.  If you like, we can create a separate thread whereby a number of us will attempt to demolish the single-bullet theory.  You can defend it if you like.  By the way, while I find the body alteration and autopsy photo falsification theories intrigiuing, I by no means subscribe to them.  In my online seminar, I attempted to show how an honest look at the photos, undertaken with the assumption they are real, STILL points to a conspiracy.  In my upcoming update, I'll expand on this considerably, and even take a whack at the x-rays.

I also believe, Mr. Purvis, that you should undertstand that to many, like myself, your friend Boswell's statements are among the most telling arguments ever given for conspiracy. If you compare his various face sheets, you'll see that as the conspiracy crowd started talking, he moved the back wound further and further up the neck, and then reversed himself when actually shown the photos in 97 and admitted it was squarely on the back.  If you compare the position of this back wound to Dale Myers" cartoon and the 1998 laser re-enactment by DiMaio you'll see that they had to change either the President's body shape or his position in the car to make the trajectory point back to the TSBD.  It DOES NOT add up. I must also admit your point about people making money off crazy theories is fairly lost on me.  To my understanding, the only "researchers" making money over the last decade or so are those who are willing to go on TV and say there's not one "scintilla" of evidence pointing towards anyone besides Oswald.  Scintilla, by the way, is lone-nut-ese for "I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!" I believe Posner and Bugliosi get together once a year or so and try to out-"scintilla" each other!

2.  Dr. Fetzer, while I've read most of your books, and respect your work,  I think it's intellectually inconsistent for you to take an elitist viewpoint on the assassination.  The sad fact is that most of the incorrect impressions of the assassination were either supported or created by doctors and men of science, i.e. the original autopsists, the Clark Panel, the FPP, Dr. Angel, Dr. Levine, Vincent Guinn, Thomas Canning, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Zimmerman, etc.  If we are to let ourselves be enamored by the credentials of the writers in your books then we should also give weight to the credentials of these men.  When confronted with such a divergence of expert opinion, one is left only with the alternative: do one's best to grasp the issues at hand and decide for oneself.  So you'll have to excuse us when we who lack your background are unable to completely trust everything you say.  I really wish I could--it would have saved me hundreds of hours reading articles in forensic publications and medical books.

Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Speer; (Pat)

Again, let me state my personal appreciation for your open-minded approach to this issue.

Posner's book is also "garbage". Merely from a different source.

Actually, were it not for certain portions, it is almost like a re-run of the WC.

As you are most probably aware, JFK wrote a book which became a "best seller".

Of course it took years before it was revealed that father "Joe" had purchased these books by the case in order to achieve this historical event in book writing.

The early day/first generation of researchers who first could only afford to publish the paperbacks are in my opinion like the early day sports personnel.

They most assuredly were not in it for the money, and they paved the way for those who are.

Tom

Edited August 1, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

The most extensive discussion of the Harper fragment may be found in a study by David W. Mantik that appears in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000). And in case some of you may not know it, Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are both on the same side in relation to the death of JFK. Bugliosi is completing a two-volume work that is supposed to prove that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was right! Astounding, alas!, but true. It was planned for publication in 2003, but he appears to be having difficulty "explaining away" discoveries about the medical evidence. And since Purvis is putting up copies of every letter he ever wrote, let me observe that Gary Aguilar's most important article appears in this volume with several by Mantik, who, in my estimation, is the most important student of the case in its history. I recommend everyone become familiar with his work.

Man, this thread has gone to hell!  It seems the Tim/Shanet argument has spread like a cancer.  In a probably futile attempt at statesmanship, let me make a few points.  Hopefully, I won't upset anyone.

1.  Mr. Purvis, you have alluded to numerous interviews you've conducted.  It might prove most valuable if you reproduce in an organized form these interviews, so that other researchers may learn from them.  While I welcome your attendance here, I find your claim that no evidence has ever been uncovered that would point to a second shooter a gross overstatement of the facts, particularly since you seem to lack the curiousity to read books that conflict with your opinions.  If you like, we can create a separate thread whereby a number of us will attempt to demolish the single-bullet theory.  You can defend it if you like.  By the way, while I find the body alteration and autopsy photo falsification theories intrigiuing, I by no means subscribe to them.  In my online seminar, I attempted to show how an honest look at the photos, undertaken with the assumption they are real, STILL points to a conspiracy.  In my upcoming update, I'll expand on this considerably, and even take a whack at the x-rays.

I also believe, Mr. Purvis, that you should undertstand that to many, like myself, your friend Boswell's statements are among the most telling arguments ever given for conspiracy. If you compare his various face sheets, you'll see that as the conspiracy crowd started talking, he moved the back wound further and further up the neck, and then reversed himself when actually shown the photos in 97 and admitted it was squarely on the back.  If you compare the position of this back wound to Dale Myers" cartoon and the 1998 laser re-enactment by DiMaio you'll see that they had to change either the President's body shape or his position in the car to make the trajectory point back to the TSBD.  It DOES NOT add up. I must also admit your point about people making money off crazy theories is fairly lost on me.  To my understanding, the only "researchers" making money over the last decade or so are those who are willing to go on TV and say there's not one "scintilla" of evidence pointing towards anyone besides Oswald.  Scintilla, by the way, is lone-nut-ese for "I don't know what the heck I'm talking about!" I believe Posner and Bugliosi get together once a year or so and try to out-"scintilla" each other!

2.  Dr. Fetzer, while I've read most of your books, and respect your work,  I think it's intellectually inconsistent for you to take an elitist viewpoint on the assassination.  The sad fact is that most of the incorrect impressions of the assassination were either supported or created by doctors and men of science, i.e. the original autopsists, the Clark Panel, the FPP, Dr. Angel, Dr. Levine, Vincent Guinn, Thomas Canning, Dr. Lattimer, Dr. Zimmerman, etc.  If we are to let ourselves be enamored by the credentials of the writers in your books then we should also give weight to the credentials of these men.  When confronted with such a divergence of expert opinion, one is left only with the alternative: do one's best to grasp the issues at hand and decide for oneself.  So you'll have to excuse us when we who lack your background are unable to completely trust everything you say.  I really wish I could--it would have saved me hundreds of hours reading articles in forensic publications and medical books.

Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Speer; (Pat)

Again, let me state my personal appreciation for your open-minded approach to this issue.

Posner's book is also "garbage". Merely from a different source.

Actually, were it not for certain portions, it is almost like a re-run of the WC.

As you are most probably aware, JFK wrote a book which became a "best seller".

Of course it took years before it was revealed that father "Joe" had purchased these books by the case in order to achieve this historical event in book writing.

The early day/first generation of researchers who first could only afford to publish the paperbacks are in my opinion like the early day sports personnel.

They most assuredly were not in it for the money, and they paved the way for those who are.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 25, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Obviously, there are those who are of the opinion that I have some misconcieved notion that the WC and/or Posner represent the final answers to the JFK assassination.

Anyone who accepts either version has not taken a close look at the facts of the assassination.

Tom

Edited July 29, 2005 by Thomas H. Purvis

[Charles Black]

Tom Purvis

In order to be more specific regarding my first posting under this thread, I want to make it clear that stating MY opinions regardng this case was not an attempt to discredit YOUR personal beliefs, or to rob you of your right to express them. It is MY belief that the path that you are taking, except for the pleasure which it gives you, is not directly pertinent to what I hope is an ongoing research and investigation of this subject. I certainly can appreciate your devotion to your theories and suppositions.

I find however certain statements that you make are quite incpompatible with what I perceive as actuality and fact.

"New Orleans La. is the home of organized crime". A very misleading statement. Particularly misleading to many who live outside of the US. New Orleans might be considered as "One" of the "origins" of organized crime in the U.S. Home implies, as you meant it to, permanence.

This would be similar to saying that Florida is the home of the horse industry in the U.S. This would imply that, because Florida was one of the entry ports of horses in N. America, that it currently holds a most prominent position in the horse industry.

This is just as disingenuous as implying that in 1963, New Orleans was Mafia Central.

Your statement that the family of LHO is important in understanding who and what he was and that "it is also essential in demonstrating the direct associations of members of his direct family and their direct connections to other persons".

I of course will not argue that environment has a strong role in the "shaping" of individuals. That same environment shaped Robert Oswald and John Pic. I also understand Mr. Murretts(sp?) "lofty" position in New Orleans crime activities.

Relating to family and environment, I find nothing whatsoever that indicates that the immediate family of LHO were in any way "close knit"! Nor do I recall any of the Oswalds praising the virtues of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy, which by the way, is not uncommon in the Old South to this day. Even considering your geneological tie ins, I do not see the Oswalds as part of the Old South gentry.

I have known several Southerners that sport Robert E. Lee as their name or a part of their name. I have also known several John Browns, however none of these have pursued any radical politics.

Tho I can appreciate your interest in geneology and I most certainly recognize the importance of environment in the development of an individual, I personally feel that it would take a very very long stretch to link Southern geneology to the JFK assassins.

This is why I believe that your geneology premise is a very round about way of going absolutely nowhere, and confusing, if not misleading the issue. The "issue" being, again IMO, a true and independent investigation, grand jury and possible trial of the JFK assassintion case.

Charlie Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Tom Purvis

In order to be more specific regarding my first posting under this thread, I want to make it clear that stating MY opinions regardng this case was not an attempt to discredit YOUR personal beliefs, or to rob you of your right to express them. It is MY belief that the path that you are taking, except for the pleasure which it gives you, is not directly pertinent to what I hope is an ongoing research and investigation of this subject. I certainly can appreciate your devotion to your theories and suppositions.

I find however certain statements that you make are quite incpompatible with what I perceive as actuality and fact.

"New Orleans La. is the home of organized crime". A very misleading statement. Particularly misleading to many who live outside of the US. New Orleans might be considered as "One" of the "origins" of organized crime in the U.S. Home implies, as you meant it to, permanence.

This would be similar to saying that Florida is the home of the horse industry in the U.S. This would imply that, because Florida was one of the entry ports of horses in N. America, that it currently holds a most prominent position in the horse industry.

This is just as disingenuous as implying that in 1963, New Orleans was Mafia Central.

Your statement that the family of LHO is important in understanding who and what he was and that "it is also essential in demonstrating the direct associations of members of his direct family and their direct connections to other persons".

I of course will not argue that environment has a strong role in the "shaping" of individuals. That same environment shaped Robert Oswald and John Pic. I also understand Mr. Murretts(sp?) "lofty" position in New Orleans crime activities.

Relating to family and environment, I find nothing whatsoever that indicates that the immediate family of LHO were in any way "close knit"! Nor do I recall any of the Oswalds praising the virtues of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy, which by the way, is not uncommon in the Old South to this day. Even considering your geneological tie ins, I do not see the Oswalds as part of the Old South gentry.

I have known several Southerners that sport Robert E. Lee as their name or a part of their name. I have also known several John Browns, however none of these have pursued any radical politics.

Tho I can appreciate your interest in geneology and I most certainly recognize the importance of environment in the development of an individual, I personally feel that it would take a very very long stretch to link Southern geneology to the JFK assassins.

This is why I believe that your geneology premise is a very round about way of going absolutely nowhere, and confusing, if not misleading the issue. The "issue" being, again IMO, a true and independent investigation, grand jury and possible trial of the JFK assassintion case.

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Home is from where one originates.

The hanging of several sicilian immigrants in the 1800's in New Orleans is the first true indication of an organized element.

Also, one could review that information which demonstrates that Carlos Marcello, as controlling element of the "Home" of organized crime, was the only head of the family which did not have to consult with the syndicate board prior to initiating any actions.

Whereas New Orleans & Dallas were both "Confederate Heritage" towns, one did not have to go around expousing their past.

And, for one who has not experienced the frequent "Northern" attitudes to our southern manner of speaking, they are not likely to appreciate what LHO was up against as a young boy in NYC.

As regards Jefferson Davis, many consider Robert E. Lee as the true leader of the Confederacy.

It is his statue which stands in LEE CIRCLE in the center of New Orleans, not that of Jefferson Davis who actually died in this city.

In fact, if one will review history, Jefferson Davis was buried in Metarie Cemetery in New Orleans.

With his services held at I believe it was City Hall.

Thereafter, when the Confederate Memorial Hall was completed, his body was exhumed and placed in the Confederate Memorial Hall for another service, and thereafter moved to Richmond, VA.

The WC & others have attempted to demonstrate that LHO, & to some extent his family, were merely out in the cold cruel world, left to fend for themselves.

This is absolutely not true!

Family connections and individuals who had some from of direct lines back to family members aided Marguerite Oswald, as well as LHO in many aspects.

In the event you are of the opinion that the "Front Organization":

____________________________________________________________________

FOR AMERICA

_____________

Mailing Address: 208 LaSalle St. Chicago, IL 60604

Qualified: 07/14/1954

Revoked: 12/15/97

Registered Agent: Charles E. Dunbar

Registered Agent: Sumter D. Marks

Registered Agent: Louis B. Claverie

____________________________________________________________________

And:

____________________________________________________________________

Travelers Aide Society

208 LaSalle St, Chicago IL 60604

____________________________________________________________________

And:

Louis B. Claverie is the Uncle to Marguerite Claverie and therefore great uncle to LHO.

____________________________________________________________________

And:

Charles E. Dunbar was an attorney who represented United Fruit and was engaged in discussion with individuals attempting to raise monies for the Guatemala episode in history.

____________________________________________________________________

And:

Sumter D. Marks had two full first cousins, (Henry Malvern Marks & Howard Harper Marks) as well as their families living in Dallas, TX.

____________________________________________________________________

And, John W. Sims, of this same firm of attornies, was a co-member in one of the single most prestigious organizations in the US, which included the wife of TSDB owner D. H. Byrd.

____________________________________________________________________

And:

Charles E. Dunbar's family linage took him back to the sister of PGT Beauregard.

____________________________________________________________________

And:

Lee Harvey Oswald had a cousin named PGT Beauregard due to the marriage of a distant Aunt into the Beauregard family.

____________________________________________________________________

And: on/on/on as regards those who's Tulane University was (in their minds) defiled in early 1963, along with their confederate heritage and millions of dollars lost in Cuba.

____________________________________________________________________

And: on and on about the connections of those who are associated with he employment places of Marguerite Oswald & LHO, with these same persons,

then, you are correct!

____________________________________________________________________

And: the law firm to which these individuals owned had a direct lineage back to Charles E. Fenner in whose home Jefferson Davis Died.

____________________________________________________________________

And: The son of this Charles E. Fenner, of Fenner's Battery of Artillery, Confederate States of America, who was Charles E. Fenner, JR who was also co-partner in the brokerage firm of Merill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, & Beane.

This has no relevance.

____________________________________________________________________

In my manner of thinking, it represents:

1. Money

2. Power

3. Prestige

4. Southern Heritage

and in this regard I must assume that Chief Justice Earl Warren, as well as the WC, had ample indication as to what environment spawned and created LHO.

[Charles Black]

Tom

I do not find your most recent post any more relevant than your prior ones!

Charlie Black

[Mark Stapleton]

Tom

I do not find your most recent post any more relevant than your prior ones!

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Charles,

I agree with you. I don't really see the significance of Tom's complicated postings concerning the family lineage of certain people. Also, since when is New Orleans the centre of organised crime in the U.S.? It's had it's moments, like when Frank Costello shifted the slot machines there to avoid reformist New York Mayor Fiorelli La Guardia in the 1930's (with the approval of Louisiana Senator Huey Long) and Carlos Marcello's ascension to leadership of the New Orleans mob in 1947, but to claim it was the hub of the American underworld is a big leap.

Edited July 26, 2005 by Mark Stapleton

[Pat Speer]

While Tom might be over-stating the case, it is indisputable that the New Orleans docks were regarded as the birthplace of the American mob. While other cities like Chicago and New York had dueling families and ambitious politicians fighting for position throughout the twentieth century, New Orleans' political and social life was completely saturated with olive oil and tomato juice. For most of the century, the local DA and the local FBI just pretended it didn't exist.

That said, I find no evidence in Oswald's statements or behavior that he had even the slightest concern for his family or his heritage, beyond his Russian wife and their two daughters..

[Pat Speer]

The most extensive discussion of the Harper fragment may be found in a study by David W. Mantik that appears in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).  And in case some of you may not know it, Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are both on the same side in relation to the death of JFK.  Bugliosi is completing a two-volume work that is supposed to prove that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was right!  Astounding, alas!, but true.  It was planned for publication in 2003, but he appears to be having difficulty "explaining away" discoveries about the medical evidence. And since Purvis is putting up copies of every letter he ever wrote, let me observe that Gary Aguilar's most important article appears in this volume with several by Mantik, who, in my estimation, is the most important student of the case in its history. I recommend everyone become familiar with his work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr. Fetzer, I took a look at Bugliosi's book on Amazon the other day and it already has 9 reviews! Even though no one has read it! I think it was 5 raves and 4 disses. Either way, it's clear that certain people use Amazon to attack books or praise books based upon their personal agenda. I assume this is part of the reason your books have been rated fairly low. A quick look at your negative reviews would almost certainly reveal that many of those quoted are devotees of Posner and McAdams et al. I find your books and the articles therein fascinating even when I disagree with them.

In Dr. Mantik's article on this Forum he mentions the Harper fragment. He agrees with Dr. Angel that it could be parietal, but that if this were so it would place the lead bullet wipe signifying an in-shoot near the temple, near the outshoot visible on the Zapruder Film. And he insists that this is unthinkable and that no one has conjectured such a thing.

Except me. In my studies of the photos and x-rays, I am 99% convinced there were two shots from behind that hit Kennedy in the head. The EOP entrance is readily visible on the photos but is inconsistent with the damage done to the brain if the exit was the large one by the ear. I suppose from this that this bullet exited from the throat. Which leaves the large defect as a tangential wound a la Dr. Clark's testimony. Furthermore, the x-rays establish that the large defect occurred before the transverse fractures which supposedly lead back to the cowlick entrance. It is from this I deduce that the fractures near the cowlick came as a result of the exploding bullet, and that the so-called slice of bullet is indeed just that, only a slice from the bullet that entered above the ear. Not coincidentally, this exploding slice of bullet explains the outward beveling apparent on the back of the skull when one properly reads the open cranium autopsy photo. Also not coincidental is the fact that when one reads of bullet slices, one finds that the bullets sliced upon tangential entry will often leave keyhole entries, and that when one looks at the Harper Fragment one can see that it mirrors the upper margin of a keyhole entry, with both inward and outward beveling. Thus, virtually every supposed anomaly of the medical evidence can be explained once one accepts the large exit was a tangential wound.

.

I'm sorry if you think my holding these views means I'm behind the times or unscholarly. I assure you I've read thousands of pages of medical testimony, and dozens of articles on forensic medicine and ballistics. And the more I read the more I'm convinced I'm right.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while most arguments for alteration and falsification are based upon the premise that the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film support the lone-nut theory, I reject that premise. If they were faked, which I'm acknowledging could be possible, they were faked stupidly and poorly, so that the evidence still points towards a conspiracy. It is to the shame of the AMA that these issues weren't resolved a long time ago.

Edited July 27, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

I have sent your post to David Mantik and invited him to comment, which I will post.

You are right about reviews in general, but Bugliosi's book is not yet pulished. One

of those negative reviews--the first!--was mine, which may suggest why we believe

he is having trouble "explaining away" our discoveries about the medical evidence.

Jim

19 of 37 people found the following review helpful:

BUGLIOSI'S SCAM, January 18, 2003

Reviewer: James H. Fetzer (Duluth, MN USA) - See all my reviews

Vincent Bugliosi's approach to the death of JFK has been telegraphed

in his BETRAYAL OF AMERICA, which makes a devastating case

against The Supreme Court for its abuse of power. But along the way,

its author, whom I greatly admire commits a colossal blunder that may take many Americans

by surprise. In particular, on pp. 32-33, this remarkable man asserts his

"conclusion" that THE WARREN REPORT was correct, that Lee Harvey Oswald

killed JFK, and that he acted alone. As he has confirmed for THE NATIONAL

ENQUIRER (21 January 2003), this is the position he elaborates and defends

in his new book, FINAL VERDICT.

He claims

most otherwise intelligent citizens have not thought intelligently

about this case, elaborating a "one minute" proof he

advanced to a group of 600 trial lawyers. He first asked them if they

had read criticism of the REPORT or seen the film, JFK. Many hands

rose. He was sure they would all agree that, before making up their

minds, they should hear both sides. With that in mind, he asked,

"How many have read THE WARREN REPORT?" Very few raised

their hands. Thus, most members of this audience had rejected the

commission's findings without bothering to actually read its

report.

But Bugliosi's argument founders on a subtle

fallacy. Suppose you were asked your opinion about astrology. Would it

be a mistake on your part if you had arrived at that opinion without

reading books by astrologers and "hearing both sides"?

Suppose you heard that a political leader advocated a program of

Ayrian supremacy, Jewish eradication, and territorial aggression.

Would it be a mistake on your part if you had concluded that those

views were corrupt and unworthy without bothering to actually read

MEIN KAMPF?

The situation with THE WARREN REPORT is highly

comparable. Its principal conclusions--that Jack was hit by a bullet

that allegedly passed through his neck and injured John Connally,

while remaining virtually unscathed; that another shot hit him in the

head and killed him; and that these shots were fired from a nearby

building by Oswald--are matters of common knowledge. Moreover, if they

are known to be false on independent grounds, then there is surely no

obligation to read the flawed report that supports them, any more than

you would want to take seriously a book claiming it never rains in

California when you are there in the midst of a storm!

These

conclusions have been proven false by studies published in many books,

including, most recently, ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) and MURDER IN

DEALEY PLAZA (2000). The "magic bullet" theory, as it has

come to be known, which was the brainchild of Arlen Specter, for

example, not only depends upon shifting the point of entry from

several inches below the collar to the base of the back of the neck

(which was arranged by commission member Gerald Ford, who had the

wound redescribed for publication) but has in fact been proven

anatomically impossible! Cervical verteba intervene to make the

proposed trajectory purely hypothetical.

Other discoveries reported

there include that autopsy X-rays have been altered to conceal a

massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot that entered

his right temple (in the case of the right lateral X-ray) and by

adding a 6.5 mm metallic object in an evident effort to implicate a

6.5 mm weapon (in the case of the front-to-rear X-ray). And a world

authority on the human brain has concluded that the brain shown in

diagrams and photographs at the National Archives cannot be the brain

of John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

Bugliosi knows these things because I

am the editor of these books and have made sure that he has them. It

is ridiculous to ask citizens interested in the case to draw

conclusions from a report prepared in 1964 when so much new evidence

and many alternative hypotheses have since become available. One of

the very first studies of the government's investigation, ACCESSORIES

AFTER THE FACT (1967), for example, proved that the Warren

Commission's conclusions are contradicted by the testimony and

documents published in its 26 "supporting" volumes!

So

why is Bugliosi indicting Americans for not reading THE WARREN REPORT?

The only hypothesis the commission considered seriously is that Oswald

committed the crime. The only evidence presented to the commission was

filtered by the FBI. We now know that the government's own inquiries

(including the reinvestigation by the House Select Committee in

1977-78) were based upon fabricated evidence. And thanks to the

Assassination Records Review Board, we now have 60,000 documents and

records that were not even made available to the members of the

commission!

It would be a waste of time, under these conditions,

for most of us to read an outdated report that has long since been

superceded. Bugliosi tells us he is completing a two-volume study that

supports his views. But it is crucial to consider his

methodology. Those with whom I have collaborated adopted the approach

of going back to the most basic evidence in this case--the autopsy

X-rays, the autopsy report, the Zapruder film--in an effort to

ascertain which among them is authentic and which is not. We have had

stunning success.

This research has been carried out by physicans,

scientists, and scholars. Bugliosi, however, is none of the above. So

I have asked him how he intended to proceed. "Since there are

authors and evidence on every side", I asked, "how are you

deciding which to accept and which to reject? What are your principles

of acceptance?" He has advised me that he is simply too busy to

reply to my questions now. But they suggest why, in spite of his

brilliance in other instances, his work on JFK should not be taken

seriously.

The most extensive discussion of the Harper fragment may be found in a study by David W. Mantik that appears in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).  And in case some of you may not know it, Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are both on the same side in relation to the death of JFK.  Bugliosi is completing a two-volume work that is supposed to prove that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was right!  Astounding, alas!, but true.  It was planned for publication in 2003, but he appears to be having difficulty "explaining away" discoveries about the medical evidence. And since Purvis is putting up copies of every letter he ever wrote, let me observe that Gary Aguilar's most important article appears in this volume with several by Mantik, who, in my estimation, is the most important student of the case in its history. I recommend everyone become familiar with his work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr. Fetzer, I took a look at Buglisi's book on Amazon the other day and it already has 9 reviews! Even though no one has read it! I think it was 5 raves and 4 disses. Either way, it's clear that certain people use Amazon to attack books or praise books based upon their personal agenda. I assume this is part of the reason your books have been rated fairly low. A quick look at your negative reviews would almost certainly reveal that many of those quoted are devotees of Posner and McAdams et al. I find your books and the articles therein fascinating even when I disagree with them.

In Dr. Mantik's article on this Forum he mentions the Harper fragment. He agrees with Dr. Angel that it could be parietal, but that if this were so it would place the lead bullet wipe signifying an in-shoot near the temple, near the outshoot visible on the Zapruder Film. And he insists that this is unthinkable and that no one has conjectured such a thing.

Except me. In my studies of the photos and x-rays, I am 99% convinced there were two shots from behind that hit Kennedy in the head. The EOP entrance is readily visible on the photos but is inconsistent with the damage done to the brain if the exit was the large one by the ear. I suppose from this that this bullet exited from the throat. Which leaves the large defect as a tangential wound a la Dr. Clark's testimony. Furthermore, the x-rays establish that the large defect occurred before the transverse fractures which supposedly lead back to the cowlick entrance. It is from this I deduce that the fractures near the cowlick came as a result of the exploding bullet, and that the so-called slice of bullet is indeed just that, only a slice from the bullet that entered above the ear. Not coincidentally, this exploding slice of bullet explains the outward beveling apparent on the back of the skull when one properly reads the open cranium autopsy photo. Also not coincidental is the fact that when one reads of bullet slices, one finds that the bullets sliced upon tangential entry will often leave keyhole entries, and that when one looks at the Harper Fragment one can see that it mirrors the upper margin of a keyhole entry, with both inward and outward beveling. Thus, virtually every supposed anomaly of the medical evidence can be explained once one accepts the large exit was a tangential wound.

.

I'm sorry if you think my holding these views means I'm behind the times or unscholarly. I assure you I've read thousands of pages of medical testimony, and dozens of articles on forensic medicine and ballistics. And the more I read the more I'm convinced I'm right.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while most arguments for alteration and falsification are based upon the premise that the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film support the lone-nut theory, I reject that premise. If they were faked, which I'm acknowledging could be possible, they were faked stupidly and poorly, so that the evidence still points towards a conspiracy. It is to the shame of the AMA that these issues weren't resolved a long time ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The most extensive discussion of the Harper fragment may be found in a study by David W. Mantik that appears in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).  And in case some of you may not know it, Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are both on the same side in relation to the death of JFK.  Bugliosi is completing a two-volume work that is supposed to prove that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was right!  Astounding, alas!, but true.  It was planned for publication in 2003, but he appears to be having difficulty "explaining away" discoveries about the medical evidence. And since Purvis is putting up copies of every letter he ever wrote, let me observe that Gary Aguilar's most important article appears in this volume with several by Mantik, who, in my estimation, is the most important student of the case in its history. I recommend everyone become familiar with his work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr. Fetzer, I took a look at Buglisi's book on Amazon the other day and it already has 9 reviews! Even though no one has read it! I think it was 5 raves and 4 disses. Either way, it's clear that certain people use Amazon to attack books or praise books based upon their personal agenda. I assume this is part of the reason your books have been rated fairly low. A quick look at your negative reviews would almost certainly reveal that many of those quoted are devotees of Posner and McAdams et al. I find your books and the articles therein fascinating even when I disagree with them.

In Dr. Mantik's article on this Forum he mentions the Harper fragment. He agrees with Dr. Angel that it could be parietal, but that if this were so it would place the lead bullet wipe signifying an in-shoot near the temple, near the outshoot visible on the Zapruder Film. And he insists that this is unthinkable and that no one has conjectured such a thing.

Except me. In my studies of the photos and x-rays, I am 99% convinced there were two shots from behind that hit Kennedy in the head. The EOP entrance is readily visible on the photos but is inconsistent with the damage done to the brain if the exit was the large one by the ear. I suppose from this that this bullet exited from the throat. Which leaves the large defect as a tangential wound a la Dr. Clark's testimony. Furthermore, the x-rays establish that the large defect occurred before the transverse fractures which supposedly lead back to the cowlick entrance. It is from this I deduce that the fractures near the cowlick came as a result of the exploding bullet, and that the so-called slice of bullet is indeed just that, only a slice from the bullet that entered above the ear. Not coincidentally, this exploding slice of bullet explains the outward beveling apparent on the back of the skull when one properly reads the open cranium autopsy photo. Also not coincidental is the fact that when one reads of bullet slices, one finds that the bullets sliced upon tangential entry will often leave keyhole entries, and that when one looks at the Harper Fragment one can see that it mirrors the upper margin of a keyhole entry, with both inward and outward beveling. Thus, virtually every supposed anomaly of the medical evidence can be explained once one accepts the large exit was a tangential wound.

.

I'm sorry if you think my holding these views means I'm behind the times or unscholarly. I assure you I've read thousands of pages of medical testimony, and dozens of articles on forensic medicine and ballistics. And the more I read the more I'm convinced I'm right.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while most arguments for alteration and falsification are based upon the premise that the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film support the lone-nut theory, I reject that premise. If they were faked, which I'm acknowledging could be possible, they were faked stupidly and poorly, so that the evidence still points towards a conspiracy. It is to the shame of the AMA that these issues weren't resolved a long time ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, you are 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

Correct.

Tom.

P.S. Z-312/313 is, was, and will always remain the second shot to the head if that is of any assistance in this.

Tom

P.P.S. An email could result in other portions of the puzzle if you desire.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

The most extensive discussion of the Harper fragment may be found in a study by David W. Mantik that appears in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000).  And in case some of you may not know it, Vincent Bugliosi and Gerald Posner are both on the same side in relation to the death of JFK.  Bugliosi is completing a two-volume work that is supposed to prove that THE WARREN REPORT (1964) was right!  Astounding, alas!, but true.  It was planned for publication in 2003, but he appears to be having difficulty "explaining away" discoveries about the medical evidence. And since Purvis is putting up copies of every letter he ever wrote, let me observe that Gary Aguilar's most important article appears in this volume with several by Mantik, who, in my estimation, is the most important student of the case in its history. I recommend everyone become familiar with his work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr. Fetzer, I took a look at Buglisi's book on Amazon the other day and it already has 9 reviews! Even though no one has read it! I think it was 5 raves and 4 disses. Either way, it's clear that certain people use Amazon to attack books or praise books based upon their personal agenda. I assume this is part of the reason your books have been rated fairly low. A quick look at your negative reviews would almost certainly reveal that many of those quoted are devotees of Posner and McAdams et al. I find your books and the articles therein fascinating even when I disagree with them.

In Dr. Mantik's article on this Forum he mentions the Harper fragment. He agrees with Dr. Angel that it could be parietal, but that if this were so it would place the lead bullet wipe signifying an in-shoot near the temple, near the outshoot visible on the Zapruder Film. And he insists that this is unthinkable and that no one has conjectured such a thing.

Except me. In my studies of the photos and x-rays, I am 99% convinced there were two shots from behind that hit Kennedy in the head. The EOP entrance is readily visible on the photos but is inconsistent with the damage done to the brain if the exit was the large one by the ear. I suppose from this that this bullet exited from the throat. Which leaves the large defect as a tangential wound a la Dr. Clark's testimony. Furthermore, the x-rays establish that the large defect occurred before the transverse fractures which supposedly lead back to the cowlick entrance. It is from this I deduce that the fractures near the cowlick came as a result of the exploding bullet, and that the so-called slice of bullet is indeed just that, only a slice from the bullet that entered above the ear. Not coincidentally, this exploding slice of bullet explains the outward beveling apparent on the back of the skull when one properly reads the open cranium autopsy photo. Also not coincidental is the fact that when one reads of bullet slices, one finds that the bullets sliced upon tangential entry will often leave keyhole entries, and that when one looks at the Harper Fragment one can see that it mirrors the upper margin of a keyhole entry, with both inward and outward beveling. Thus, virtually every supposed anomaly of the medical evidence can be explained once one accepts the large exit was a tangential wound.

.

I'm sorry if you think my holding these views means I'm behind the times or unscholarly. I assure you I've read thousands of pages of medical testimony, and dozens of articles on forensic medicine and ballistics. And the more I read the more I'm convinced I'm right.

So I guess what I'm saying is that while most arguments for alteration and falsification are based upon the premise that the autopsy photos, x-rays, and Zapruder film support the lone-nut theory, I reject that premise. If they were faked, which I'm acknowledging could be possible, they were faked stupidly and poorly, so that the evidence still points towards a conspiracy. It is to the shame of the AMA that these issues weren't resolved a long time ago.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, you are 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

Correct.

Tom.

P.S. Z-312/313 is, was, and will always remain the second shot to the head if that is of any assistance in this.

Tom

P.P.S. An email could result in other portions of the puzzle if you desire.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Pat & All

Unfortunately, due to elation in having found additional persons who have recognized certain key elements of the assassination, a minor grammatical error was made:

Clarification:

Z-312/313 is the SECOND shot fired in the shot sequence

Z-312/313 was the FIRST of the two shots to impact the head of JFK.

Tom

[Thomas H. Purvis]

While Tom might be over-stating the case, it is indisputable that the New Orleans docks were regarded as the birthplace of the American mob.  While other cities like Chicago and New York had dueling families and ambitious politicians fighting for position throughout the twentieth century, New Orleans' political and social life was completely saturated with olive oil and tomato juice.  For most of the century, the local DA and the local FBI just pretended it didn't exist.

That said, I find no evidence in Oswald's statements or behavior that he had even the slightest concern for his family or his heritage, beyond his Russian wife and their two daughters..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Testimony by associates in the MC present a somewhat different picture.

Not unlike his brother (Robert E. Lee Oswald) who claimed some fourth or fifth cousin status to General Robert E. Lee, LHO mentioned this to at least two of his MC associates.

Tom

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Just a small point, but do you appreciate that the film has been subjected to massive alteration, not only by removing frames and sequences of frames but by putting new foregrounds together with different backgrounds using the sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects? David Healy, who is an expert in this area, can explain it, if you are interested. So correlations with the extant film, alas!, are not going to settle much of anything.

quote=Thomas H. Purvis,Jul 26 2005, 02:45 PM]

While Tom might be over-stating the case, it is indisputable that the New Orleans docks were regarded as the birthplace of the American mob. While other cities like Chicago and New York had dueling families and ambitious politicians fighting for position throughout the twentieth century, New Orleans' political and social life was completely saturated with olive oil and tomato juice. For most of the century, the local DA and the local FBI just pretended it didn't exist.

That said, I find no evidence in Oswald's statements or behavior that he had even the slightest concern for his family or his heritage, beyond his Russian wife and their two daughters..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Testimony by associates in the MC present a somewhat different picture.

Not unlike his brother (Robert E. Lee Oswald) who claimed some fourth or fifth cousin status to General Robert E. Lee, LHO mentioned this to at least two of his MC associates.

Tom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>