The CIA Did Not Do It!

[Pat Speer]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr. Fetzer, I respectfully disagree. I believe there are a number of people, many of them prominent historians and journalists, who will never be convinced of alteration or falsification of the medical evidence or assassinations films. In an effort to see things as they do, and better understand the lone-nut position, I decided about two years ago to temporarily ignore the claims of alteration and falsification, and attempt to study the evidence under the assumption it was legit. And what I found shocked me to my core. I found that the evidence clearly pointed to conspiracy. Unfortunately, I also found that virtually every expert called by the government, from the original autopsists to the FPP, was either incompetent, corrupt, or just in over his head. I mean, how hard is it to figure out if a photo shows the back of someone's head or his forehead??? How hard is it to tell the entrance of a military rifle bullet from a red mark? How hard is it to look at a photograph and estimate at what angle the subject is looking away from you? And yet the top forensic patologists in the country, including Dr. Wecht, all got it wrong? And a rocket scientist from NASA, got it wrong? And a nuclear physicist can't even understand his own test results? Surprisingly, yes. As a result, I've come to believe there is something VERY wrong with the AMA. At this point in time, I think that is the REAL story of the assassination. How could so many AMA members make so many blatant mistakes and how come so few doctors are willing to talk about it?

As one of the doctors who is willing to talk about it, your comments are very much appreciated. I'm especially interested in your own experiences. Have you uncovered any bias against doctors who acknowledge a conspiracy?

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Just to disabuse you of a false impression, I am a professor of philosophy and a former Marine Corps officer. My fields include logic, critical thinking, and the philosophy of science. So my "D." is a "Ph." rather than an "M." I am interested in your opinion about our research on the most basic evidence in this case. Do you think someone could study the work of David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and still believe that the X-rays are authentic? or the work of Robert B. Livingston, M.D., and still believe that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs is the brain of JFK? or still wonder about the placement of the Harper fragment after Mantik's piece on the medical evidence in MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA? or fail to appreciate his reconstruction of how the autopsy photographs were recreated? or continue to believe in the authenticity of the Zapruder film after reading the studies by John P. Costella, Ph.D., in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX? Have you had the chance to take a look at them? Do you like the "16 Smoking Guns" in MURDER? or the demonstrations of deception with which HOAX begins? I do think there is value in demonstrating that the government's own case is incoherent, however, so I like the general approach you are embracing. Have you summarized your findings somewhere for convenient access? I would be interested in reviewing them. None of us can be responsible for the lack of reason in other persons, of course, some of which may be feigned as a form of disinformation. Do you not agree that sorting out the authentic from the inauthentic evidence is crucial to discovering the truth about the assassination? How else could we possibly proceed? Your technique, after all, may show that it government has something wrong. But how do you know what is right when there is incoherence in the record?

Jim

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dr. Fetzer, I respectfully disagree. I believe there are a number of people, many of them prominent historians and journalists, who will never be convinced of alteration or falsification of the medical evidence or assassinations films. In an effort to see things as they do, and better understand the lone-nut position, I decided about two years ago to temporarily ignore the claims of alteration and falsification, and attempt to study the evidence under the assumption it was legit. And what I found shocked me to my core. I found that the evidence clearly pointed to conspiracy. Unfortunately, I also found that virtually every expert called by the government, from the original autopsists to the FPP, was either incompetent, corrupt, or just in over his head. I mean, how hard is it to figure out if a photo shows the back of someone's head or his forehead??? How hard is it to tell the entrance of a military rifle bullet from a red mark? How hard is it to look at a photograph and estimate at what angle the subject is looking away from you? And yet the top forensic patologists in the country, including Dr. Wecht, all got it wrong? And a rocket scientist from NASA, got it wrong? And a nuclear physicist can't even understand his own test results? Surprisingly, yes. As a result, I've come to believe there is something VERY wrong with the AMA. At this point in time, I think that is the REAL story of the assassination. How could so many AMA members make so many blatant mistakes and how come so few doctors are willing to talk about it?

As one of the doctors who is willing to talk about it, your comments are very much appreciated. I'm especially interested in your own experiences. Have you uncovered any bias against doctors who acknowledge a conspiracy?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 27, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Dr. Fetzer, I'd known you were not an M.D., but needed a reminder. I recently watched a video of the 1993 conference/debate on the medical evidence, and saw doctor after doctor present his views, and found the lack of consensus and intelligent debate somewhat alarming. What particularly annoyed me was Dr. Lundberg's reliance upon the word of others... "I'd trust Dr. Humes with my life, etc.." From this, it became apparent that the AMA is quite the "gentleman's club," with an unwritten code that you do not second-guess your colleagues. Unless you hate his guts--as seems to be the case with Wecht and Lattimer. Wecht allowing Baden his nonsense and even protecting Baden against Artwohl seems to be more the norm. Anyhow, I'm sorry I took out my annoyance on you. I think I've read where your friend Mantik has left the AMA due to its lack of credibility on this issue.

Anyhow, I'm a relative newbie to the so-called research community. I developed the bug in early 03 and have been hard at it ever since. One of the first books I purchased was Assassination Science. After reading High Treason I and II, The Killing of the President, Assassination Science, and Best Evidence, I was fairly convinced that some sort of alteration occurred. Around that time someone loaned me the Great Zapruder Film Hoax. This left me in a quandary. While all these books proposed the government tampered with the key evidence, the books were contradictory as to which evidence was reliable and which was bogus. Groden swore by the Z film but doubted the photos, Lifton trusted the photos but believed the body was altered, etc. I decided the only way to resolve these issues was to wash my mind of what I was told the autopsy photos and x-rays revealed, and what the Z-film demonstrated, and try to figure out what they really demonstrated. And after hundreds of hours of reading of forensic journals and radiology textbooks, as well as the testimony of the many doctors involved with the case, I came to the conclusion the evidence points convincingly to conspiracy.

Last fall, I prepared an online seminar for this website which depicted some of my ideas. For whatever reason, it's been getting a lot of hits lately. I also spoke briefly on the presentation at last year's Lancer conference. Larry's invited me back this year, and I hope to present. I'm currently working on an update of my seminar--a few corrected measurements, a few new insights, and roughly five times the scope. I make no bones that my goal is to construct a convincing argument for conspiracy that the Peter Jennings and John McAdams of the world will be forced to acknowledge. I'd like to see that obnoxious phrase "there's not one scintilla of evidence"'--first used by Hoover, I believe--forever erased from discussion of the assassination. Lofty goals, I admit.

Edited July 29, 2005 by Pat Speer

[David G. Healy]

Don't let the "wanna-be" writer fool you, Dr. Jim -- Pat has his stuff together...

David

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

Pat,

Thanks for this very thoughtful post. As I may have mentioned, I have invited David to respond to your earlier post about the X-rays, so you may anticipate that coming in time. The matter of determining which evidence is authentic and which not is absolutely crucial to the case but also a subtle and complex business. It involves taking into account all of the available "evidence"--including the autopsy report, the X-rays, the diagrams and photos of the brain, the physical evidence, the eyewitness reports, and so on--to figure out the most coherent explanation for what we have. I am glad you have had access to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and to HOAX. I would presume that you find David's meticulous studies of the X-rays convincing. If not, I would like to know why, since they are expained in excruciating detail, his method is impeccable, and his optical density measurements are provided. PLUS I would assume that you accept the conclusion of a world authority on the human brain that the brain shown in the diagrams and photos at the National Archives cannot be that of JFK. If not, let me know why again! But your reading list seems to be incomplete if you have yet to read MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. David's synthesis of the medical evidence--one of three contributions to that volume!--has to be one of the most brilliant studies I have ever read. I think it will help you to sort through some of these issues. And, as for differences between students of the case, Harry has come around about the Zapruder film and even has a new book about it. Lifton is certainly right at least to the extent that either the body has been altered or the photos have been faked. Either way, the govenment has been engaged in altering the evidence. So I think there is less conflict between students of the case than you suppose. For some, like Groden, the issues are logically or psychologically beyond their ken. Our findings support the conclusion that Jack was hit at least four times--once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front. Connally was hit from one to three times, and three shots seem to have missed (one hitting Tague, one the chrome strip over the windshield, and one the grass to the left of the limo). If you haven't seen it yet, I believe that MURDER is going to be a revelation. So I encourage you to pick up at copy and get back to me. As a measure of our common understanding, do you agree with the argument advanced in "The 'Lone Nutter' Refutation" at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1fetzer1.pdf?

Jim

Dr. Fetzer, I'd known you were not an M.D., but needed a reminder.  I recently watched a video of the 1993 conference/debate on the medical evidence, and saw doctor after doctor present his views, and found the lack of consensus and intelligent debate somewhat alarming.  What particularly annoyed me was Dr. Lumbergh's reliance upon the word of others... "I'd trust Dr. Humes with my life, etc.." From this, it became apparent that the AMA is quite the "gentleman's club," with an unwritten code that you do not second-guess your colleagues.  Unless you hate his guts--as seems to be the case with Wecht and Lattimer.  Wecht allowing Baden his nonsense and even protecting Baden against Artwohl seems to be more the norm.  Anyhow, I'm sorry I took out my annoyance on you.  I think I've read where your friend Mantik has left the AMA due to its lack of credibility on this issue.

Anyhow, I'm a relative newbie to the so-called research community.  I developed the bug in early 03 and have been hard at it ever since.  One of the first books I purchased was Assassination Science.  After reading High Treason I and II, The Killing of the President, Assassination Science, and Best Evidence, I was fairly convinced that some sort of alteration occurred.  Around that time someone loaned me the Great Zapruder Film Hoax.  This left me in a quandary.  While all these books proposed the government tampered with the key evidence, the books were contradictory as to which evidence was reliable and which was bogus.  Groden swore by the Z film but doubted the photos, Lifton trusted the photos but believed the body was altered, etc.  I decided the only way to resolve these issues was to wash my mind of what I was told the autopsy photos and x-rays revealed, and what the Z-film demonstrated, and try to figure out what they really demonstrated.  And after hundreds of hours of reading of forensic journals and radiology textbooks, as well as the testimony of the many doctors involved with the case, I came to the conclusion the evidence points convincingly to conspiracy.

Last fall, I prepared an online seminar for this website which depicted some of my ideas.  For whatever reason, it's been getting a lot of hits lately.  I also spoke briefly on the presentation at last year's Lancer conference.  Larry's invited me back this year, and I hope to present.  I'm currently working on an update of my seminar--a few corrected measurements, a few new insights, and roughly five times the scope.  I make no bones that my goal is to concoct a convincing argument for conspiracy that the Peter Jennings and John McAdams' of the world will be forced to acknowledge.  I'd like to see that obnoxious phrase "there's not one scintilla of evidence"'--first used by Hoover, I believe--forever erased from discussion of the assassination.  Lofty goals, I admit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited July 28, 2005 by James H. Fetzer

[Pat Speer]

Pat,

Thanks for this very thoughtful post. As I may have mentioned, I have invited David to respond to your earlier post about the X-rays, so you may anticipate that coming in time. The matter of determining which evidence is authentic and which not is absolutely crucial to the case but also a subtle and complex business. It involves taking into account all of the available "evidence"--including the autopsy report, the X-rays, the diagrams and photos of the brain, the physical evidence, the eyewitness reports, and so on--to figure out the most coherent explanation for what we have. I am glad you have had access to ASSASSINATION SCIENCE and to HOAX. I would presume that you find David's meticulous studies of the X-rays convincing. If not, I would like to know why, since they are expained in excruciating detail, his method is impeccable, and his optical density measurements are provided. PLUS I would assume that you accept the conclusion of a world authority on the human brain that the brain shown in the diagrams and photos at the National Archives cannot be that of JFK. If not, let me know why again! But your reading list seems to be incomplete if you have yet to read MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA. David's synthesis of the medical evidence--one of three contributions to that volume!--has to be one of the most brilliant studies I have ever read. I think it will help you to sort through some of these issues. And, as for differences between students of the case, Harry has come around about the Zapruder film and even has a new book about it. Lifton is certainly right at least to the extent that either the body has been altered or the photos have been faked. Either way, the govenment has been engaged in altering the evidence. So I think there is less conflict between students of the case than you suppose. For some, like Groden, the issues are logically or psychologically beyond their ken. Our findings support the conclusion that Jack was hit at least four times--once in the throat from in front; once in the back from behind; and twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front. Connally was hit from one to three times, and three shots seem to have missed (one hitting Tague, one the chrome strip over the windshield, and one the grass to the left of the limo). If you haven't seen it yet, I believe that MURDER is going to be a revelation. So I encourage you to pick up at copy and get back to me. As a measure of our common understanding, do you agree with the argument advanced in "The 'Lone Nutter' Refutation" at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1fetzer1.pdf?

Jim

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I actually purchased Murder In Dealey Plaza last night. As you said, my readings on the medical evidence are incomplete without it. That Dr. Mantik has demonstrated the so-called magic bullet would have had to pass through Kennedy's cervical vertebrae was news to me; this was something I'd uncovered in my own research, usng cross-sections of human torsos and the HSCA trajectory analysis. It's gratifying to know that Dr. Mantik and I agree on this point.

As far as alteration, I hope to finish my analysis on what the evidence shows, before making any firm decisions regarding the vaildity of the evidence. This may seem non-sensical to you, but, as I said, I'm hoping to construct (In my last post I said "concoct," but I believe "construct" is more accurate) an argument based purely on the government's own tests and exhibits. I'm hoping this argument will gain the support from others in the research community, even if they disagree with me on my specific conclusions. As a newbie, it's greatly discouraging to find that you and Thompson seem to hate each other, and that Lifton and Livingstone hate Groden, etc. I'd like to think we can agree to disagree, and set our collective sights on getting the major networks and newspapers to finally acknowledge JFK was killed by more than one shooter, and that we're not all Mark Lane's inbred children set loose upon an unsuspecting world. I'd like for all the researchers who've put in time to be able to stand by each other and smile when Posner and Bugliosi, and Peter F###in Jennings finally admit they're wrong.

Edited July 29, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

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}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jim;

Since we both wear the distinction (or whatever) of having been Artillery Officers, perhaps there is some "common ground".

Actually, as David will no doubt inform you, I was fully aware of the alteration to the Z-film in the early 1990's and this information was duly transmitted to persons who had the capabilities to begin proper examination of it.

Some of whom have written for your book, and some of whom you reference.

Therefore, perhaps we have more in common than even you are aware of.

However, "massive" alteration would not be that difficult to recognize. Therefore, I am, and have always been of the opinion, that the alteration centers around three key elements which are:

1. Blocking out of foreground & background reference items.

To the extent possible, this was done for a combination of reasons.

In the early portions of the film it can be demonstrated that the WC re-enactment versions were not taken from the same position as was the Z-film.

This has several reasons which include:

a. The physical movement of the road sign as well as an increase in the height of the sign prior to the WC having conducted their re-enactment.

b. Completely phony positioning of the JFK stand-in for photo-taking and recording.

c. Removal of objects which would represent benchmarks in the film which could be utilized in determination of vehicle speed.

d. A reason not yet discussed except with select persons.

2. Alteration to the film to demonstrate a larger sign which, from what we now see, blocks the view of JFK from the film and view of Mr. Zapruder.

This alteration presents a sign that is both wider as well as having had a greater vertical dimension than did the original sign.

3. Extraction of frames of the film in order to represent that the Presidential Limousine was travelling as slowly as it actually was and thereby present that no third shot could have been fired after the head shot at Z-312/313 through the time period when Clint Hill was fully aboard the Presidential Limousine.

4. Physically creating an image which deletes the impact of the third and final shot.

In this regard, one should fully examine frame# Z-341 in relationship to the previous frame (Z-340) & that frame following (Z-342).*

*In this regards, one should observe Mr. Altgens clearly in the background, moving his camera to his eye, and thereafter check out his testimony.

In all instances, the original film appears to have been utilized to create this additional "illusion" of the facts of the assassination.

As with many of the other aspects of the WC lie, there is for the most part only a "single key" to unlock and prove absolutely this hypothesis, and it would appear that David is fully aware of what this key is and where it lies.

None of which supports multiple assassins; body kidnappings; altered X-rays & photographs; etc; which are far beyond the realm of keeping from having been found and revealed.

Tom

[Pat Speer]

So, Tom, if I'm to understand you, you're saying that the Z-film was changed in order to make it match the re-enactment, and the re-enactment was faked to disguise the fact that Kennedy was hit in the head twice? And that we're to believe that, even with all this mischief, the evidence points to one shooter, Oswald? Am I reading this correctly?

[Pat Speer]

As a measure of our common understanding, do you agree with the argument advanced in "The 'Lone Nutter' Refutation" at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1fetzer1.pdf?

Jim 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I agree with your argument. It's a good example of what I'm talking about--using information already accepted by the lone-nutters--to demonstrate how wrong they are. If we could find a way to bring this argument to the attention of the mainstream historians, they'd have a hard time rejecting it.

A few points, not intended to be divisive but to explain some subtle differences of opinion.

On page 2 you discuss Burkley's placement of the wound at the 3rd thoracic vertebrae. I think the argument can be made that he placed it there after looking at the face sheet, which presented the back wound lower on the back than it appears on the photos. The FPP placed the wound around the first thoracic vertebrae, and this is consistent with the photos. I believe this is correct. Although a trajectory connecting this entrance with an exit in the throat is slighly possible should JFK have been leaning forward, the Z-film shows he was not leaning forward.

On page 4 you bring up the placement of the back wound on the face sheet. I think there has been much misunderstanding on this. The problem wasn't with the doctors lying as much as it is with the face sheet itself. The body shape is distorted with an extra-long neck. As a result, Boswell had the choice of marking the wound on the face sheet in comparison to JFK's shoulder or comparison to his head, as it couldn't be true to both. Initiially, he chose the shoulder. After the conspiracy crowd started after the doctors, however, he decided that the proper placement of the wound was in comparison to the head, even though this moved it onto the neck and made the placement of the wound no longer true to the shoulder. After reading everything I can on Boswell, it's clear he's a bit fuzzy-headed, and may not even have understood just what he'd done.

On page 6 you discuss the placement of the chalk mark during the FBI's re-enactment, and note that it was clearly on the back. Until recently, I also found this disturbing. After reading Shaneyfelt's and Frazier's testimony, however, it's clear they used the face sheet when placing the chalk on the jacket. Well, why didn't they use the Rydberg drawings, you might ask, which showed the entrance up at the base of the neck? Well, the answer to this can be summed up in one word: ARLENSPECTER. Specter admitted to U.S. News and then again in his memoirs that Thomas Kelley showed him a photo of the back wound on the day of the re-enactment. From this he knew the Rydberg entry was bogus. The photo on page 7 of your paper is incredibly damaging then because it shows Specter measuring the trajectory using a second chalk mark matching the Rydberg drawings, added AFTER the re-enactment. In other words, he did the right thing and tested the real entrance but then added on and tested the Rydberg wrong entrance when the trajectories didn't add up!!!!! People have had Specter wrong all this time!!! He did not conspire with the doctors to create deliberately deceptive drawings; he did however use these deceptive drawings even though HE KNEW THEY WERE WRONG in order to avoid having to tell Warren and Rankin etc. that the evidence didn't add up. I think Specter got scared, said "close enough" and has been running ever since. No grand conspiracy, just typical bureaucratic cowardice...

If anyone knows how to bring this post to Specter's attention, I'd love to read his response. If he claims the autopsy photos supported the Rydberg entrance he should be declared mentally incompetent and removed from office.

On page 7 you bring up Ford's role in changing the report, and officially moving the wound on the back to the back of the neck. While I find Ford's snitching out the commission to Hoover reprehensible, I take him at his word on this, and he says he thought that description was more accurate. Due to Specter's COMPLETE and UTTER COWARDICE, and his pathetic weak-kneed inability to bring to the commission's attention that the photos contradict the Rydberg drawings HE placed into evidence, Ford was under the mistaken belief that the Rydberg drawings fairly represented the wounds, and his changing of the description is not unwarranted. (Or should I say not unWarren-ted?)

On page 9 you show a CAT-scan with the supposed trajectory of the magic bullet, courtesy of Dr. Mantik. As previously stated, I found this most gratifying, as I have had similar results while trying to place the trajectory through anatomy cross-sections.

Congratulations on a fine article, with a well documented argument. I'm curious, have any of the lone-nutters tried to respond? McAdams? Rahn? Myers? Zimmerman?

Edited July 30, 2005 by Pat Speer

[Thomas H. Purvis]

So, Tom, if I'm to understand you, you're saying that the Z-film was changed in order to make it match the re-enactment, and the re-enactment was faked to disguise the fact that Kennedy was hit in the head twice?  And that we're to believe that, even with all this mischief, the evidence points to one shooter, Oswald?  Am I reading this correctly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. There are more than one single reason for the minor alterations to the Z-film.

2. The deletion of the third shot was well on it's way in the WC questioning, long before the re-enactment.

The re-enactment was merely to be the final convincing factor in selling the SBT.

3. Many believe the Civil War was fought over slavery. Although the issue, the war was fought over whether a state had the right to secede from the union.

In that regards, the third shot and the damage it caused is comparable.

The issue is the third shot. This is not however the reason.

4. It is actually quite irrelevant to me as to what anyone accepts or believes on the subject.

This is primarily why I walked away from it many years ago as I found that there was obviously little difficulty in getting some people to believe most anything.

5. There are far more reasons for us to have not been provided the truth than just covering up for some multiple assassin scenario.

Tunnel vision seldom observes the surrounding world and events which shape it.

And yes, there was only a single/lone assassin.

[Thomas H. Purvis]

As a measure of our common understanding, do you agree with the argument advanced in "The 'Lone Nutter' Refutation" at http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n1/v1n1fetzer1.pdf?

Jim 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I agree with your argument. It's a good example of what I'm talking about--using information already accepted by the lone-nutters--to demonstrate how wrong they are. If we could find a way to bring this argument to the attention of the mainstream historians, they'd have a hard time rejecting it.

A few points, not intended to be divisive but to explain some subtle differences of opinion.

On page 2 you discuss Burkley's placement of the wound at the 3rd thoracic vertebrae. I think the argument can be made that he placed it there after looking at the face sheet, which presented the back wound lower on the back than it appears on the photos. The FPP placed the wound around the first thoracic vertebrae, and this is consistent with the photos. I believe this is correct. Although a trajectory connecting this entrance with an exit in the throat is slighly possible should JFK have been leaning forward, the Z-film shows he was not leaning forward.

On page 4 you bring up the placement of the back wound on the face sheet. I think there has been much misunderstanding on this. The problem wasn't with the doctors lying as much as it is with the face sheet itself. The body shape is distorted with an extra-long neck. As a result, Boswell had the choice of marking the wound on the face sheet in comparison to JFK's shoulder or comparison to his head, as it couldn't be true to both. Initiially, he chose the shoulder. After the conspiracy crowd started after the doctors, however, he decided that the proper placement of the wound was in comparison to the head, even though this moved it onto the neck and made the placement of the wound no longer true to the shoulder. After reading everything I can on Boswell, it's clear he's a bit fuzzy-headed, and may not even have understood just what he'd done.

On page 6 you discuss the placement of the chalk mark during the FBI's re-enactment, and note that it was clearly on the back. Until recently, I also found this disturbing. After reading Shaneyfelt's and Frazier's testimony, however, it's clear they used the face sheet when placing the chalk on the jacket. Well, why didn't they use the Rydberg drawings, you might ask, which showed the entrance up at the base of the neck? Well, the answer to this can be summed up in one word: ARLENSPECTER. Specter admitted to U.S. News and then again in his memoirs that Thomas Kelley showed him a photo of the back wound on the day of the re-enactment. From this he knew the Rydberg entry was bogus. The photo on page 7 of your paper is incredibly damaging then because it shows Specter measuring the trajectory using a second chalk mark matching the Rydberg drawings, added AFTER the re-enactment. In other words, he did the right thing and tested the real entrance but then added on and tested the Rydberg wrong entrance when the trajectories didn't add up!!!!! People have had Specter wrong all this time!!! He did not conspire with the doctors to create deliberately deceptive drawings; he did however use these deceptive drawings even though HE KNEW THEY WERE WRONG in order to avoid having to tell Warren and Rankin etc. that the evidence didn't add up. I think Specter got scared, said "close enough" and has been running ever since. No grand conspiracy, just typical bureaucratic cowardice...

If anyone knows how to bring this post to Specter's attention, I'd love to read his response. If he claims the autopsy photos supported the Rydberg entrance he should be declared mentally incompetent and removed from office.

On page 7 you bring up Ford's role in changing the report, and officially moving the wound on the back to the back of the neck. While I find Ford's snitching out the commission to Hoover reprehensible, I take him at his word on this, and he says he thought that description was more accurate. Due to Specter's COMPLETE and UTTER COWARDICE, and his pathetic weak-kneed inability to bring to the commission's attention that the photos contradict the Rydberg drawings HE placed into evidence, Ford was under the mistaken belief that the Rydberg drawings fairly represented the wounds, and his changing of the description is not unwarranted. (Or should I say not unWarren-ted?)

On page 9 you show a CAT-scan with the supposed trajectory of the magic bullet, courtesy of Dr. Mantik. As previously stated, I found this most gratifying, as I have had similar results while trying to place the trajectory through anatomy cross-sections.

Congratulations on a fine article, with a well documented argument. I'm curious, have any of the lone-nutters tried to respond? McAdams? Rahn? Myers? Zimmerman?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Although I have never had any communications with Mr. Meyers, Rahn/McAdams/& Chad have been duely informed of the errors of their assumptions.

Not unlike most on this subject; tunnel vision affects the LN/Lone Assassin theorist almost as much as it does the CT/Multiple Assassin theorist.

Human nature makes it difficult for virtually any of us to accept that we are wrong in many things.

[Pat Speer]

Okay, Tom, so you have my interest. Just why do you think the WC covered up the third shot, if it was Oswald pulling the trigger? Am I missing something? Do you think they deliberately disguised the truth to create a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists? Why so evasive?

[Thomas H. Purvis]

Okay, Tom, so you have my interest.  Just why do you think the WC covered up the third shot, if it was Oswald pulling the trigger?  Am I missing something?  Do you think they deliberately disguised the truth to create a cottage industry of conspiracy theorists? Why so evasive?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. The WC was no doubt convinced that LHO was the assassin.

2. The WC knew little of what we know today as regards LHO & his various interconnections, to include the backgrounds of those with whom he came in contact with. Therefore, the progression from Lone Assassin to Lone Nut Assassin with no assistance whatsoever was quite logical in it's assumption by the WC.

3. Historically, the first misrepresentation of the facts of the assassination came when JEH & Company attempted to take the third/last/final shot which impacted JFK some 30-feet farther down Elm St. than the Z-313 headshot, and thereafter move this shot up too close to the first shot.

As any researcher should know, this was "debunked" by the Z-film speed/operating time of the rifle.

4. As with most, when a xxxx is caught, he usually attempts to continue to lie in order to cover the original lie.

However, in this instance, he had assistance from several sources.

Tom

P.S. Think "Politics"!

[Charles Black]

"The WC was no doubt convinced that LHO was the assassin".

"The" assassin or an assassin? Are you implying that the entire WC believed that LHO was what we refer to as "The" lone nut assassin?

Tom, this isn't true. This statement can in no way be justified. When several somewhat truths are strung together, they can give no more than a somewhat true picture. There, for the most part, is "somewhat truth" in everything that researchers look into. These "somewhat truths" have kept us chasing our tails for a good number of years.

Charlie Black

Edited July 30, 2005 by Charles Black

[Thomas H. Purvis]

"The WC was no doubt convinced that LHO was the assassin".

"The" assassin or an assassin? Are you implying that the entire WC believed that LHO was what we refer to as "The" lone nut assassin?

Tom, this isn't true. This statement can in no way be justified. When several somewhat truths are strung together, they can give no more than a somewhat true picture. There, for the most part, is "somewhat truth" in everything that researchers look into. These "somewhat truths" have kept us chasing our tails for a good number of years. 

Charlie Black

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Each of those responsible persons of the WC signed off that LHO was the Lone Assassin of JFK.

A couple of these persons were certainly not convinced of the SBT and clearly demonstrated so. Thus began the "War of the Words".

Original drafts were to present that the SBT was virtually the absolute facts.

Those who were not in on the "con" objected, and therefore a re-wording was done on the WC Conclusion.

As it stands today, there is still no proof of anyone other than LHO as the triggerman, just as there is no proof of other than a single/lone assassin.

That one can not for whatever reason understand the rationale for obfuscation of the factual evidence is not prima facia evidence of other than a lone assassin.

It is merely indicative that the evidence has become so manipulated and confused that the assassination is not understood.

Tom