Where Are They?
Walt
posts to this NG from ten years ago and was stunned by the huge
difference between the posters in this NG today, and the posters of
ten years ago.
Here's just a small sample of the posts that were routinely posted
back then......
The only hard evidence besides the substituted shells linking Oswald
to
the Tippit murder is a jacket he allegedly discarded on his way to
the
Texas Theatre. This remains puzzling, as Earlene Roberts did see him
leave his rooming house zipping up a jacket; but when arrested, he had
no
jacket with him. The Warren Commission presumed that the jacket found
near the Tippit shooting must, then, belong to Lee Harvey Oswald. But
did
it?
Commission Exhibit 162 is a light-weight gray zipper jacket. It was
found
underneath a parked car in a parking lot shortly after the Tippit
shooting, not far from the scene of the crime. As noted earlier, when
1026 North Beckley housekeeper Earlene Roberts was shown the jacket,
she
said, "I don't remember it. . . . It seems like the one he put on was
darker than that" (6 H 439). Helen Markham said the jacket was "kind
of a
grayish tan." When shown the CE 162 gray zipper jacket, Markham said
it
was too light to be the one worn by Tippit's killer (3 H 311-12).
Barbara Jeanette Davis said Tippit's killer wore a dark jacket, and
when
shown CE 162, the gray jacket, she said it wasn't the one she'd seen.
She
thought the killer's jacket might have been a sport coat (3 H 347).
William Arthur Smith, who saw the man flee, first said that he
thought
the killer wore "a sport coat of some kind. . . . I can't really
remember
very well." Shown the CE 162 gray jacket, he said, "Yes, sir; that
looks
like what he had on. A jacket" (7 H 85). Cabdriver William Scoggins
was
shown CE 162, and said, "I thought it was a little darker" (3 H 328).
Domingo Benavides tried to be helpful. First Benavides described the
jacket of Tippit's killer as a light beige zipper jacket. He also
said
the killer was about 5'11" and was somewhat in need of a haircut (6 H
450).
Mr. BELIN. I am handing you a jacket which has been marked as
"Commission's Exhibit 163," and ask you to state whether this bears
any
similarity to the jacket you saw this man with the gun wearing?
Mr. BENAVIDES. I would say this looks just like it (6 H 453).
In Accessories after the Fact, author Sylvia Meagher pointed out that
counselor Belin had goofed. Commission Exhibit 163 was not the gray
zipper jacket found near the Tippit shooting, which was Commission
Exhibit 162. Commission Exhibit 163 was the only other jacket in
evidence,
a dark blue zipper jacket found at the Texas School Book Depository
ten
days after the assassination. Marina Oswald identified this blue
jacket
as Oswald's.
Mrs. Charlie Virginia Davis, whose testimony immediately followed
Benavides', said the killer had on "a light-brown-tan jacket" (6 H
457).
No jacket was shown to her for identification -- "not even the wrong
one,
" Meagher dryly notes (Meagher, 276).
Ted Callaway, who saw the suspect walking from the scene, insists to
this
day that the man he saw "fleeing" the scene at kind of a moderate
"trotting" pace was Lee Harvey Oswald. He described the jacket as "a
light tannish gray windbreaker jacket." When shown CE 162, he said it
was
the same general type, but "actually, I thought it had a little more
tan
to it" (3 H 356).
A few witnesses, possibly to the Commission's relief, did identify the
CE
162 jacket as the jacket Tippit's killer wore, including Sam Guinyard
(7
H 401) and William Arthur Smith.
Even more unnerving than David Belin's demonstration of the wrong (CE
163) jacket to Domingo Benavides is the identification of the CE 162
gray
jacket by cabdriver William Whaley -- before Oswald picked up his
jacket
from 1026 North Beckley. No doubt the Commission was pleased to have
the
jacket question behind them, even if they could only conclude that
Tippit's killer was wearing a light-colored jacket, not necessarily
CE
162 (WR 176).
Marina Oswald told the Commission that Lee had owned two jackets: the
dark blue jacket found at the Book Depository (CE 163) and a gray
jacket
that was not the one in evidence (CE 162). Several facts support
Marina's
statement. First, she said that he purchased both jackets in Russia;
the
CE 162 gray jacket had a tag reading, "Created in California by
Maurice
Holman." Second, the jacket was size "M" medium when all his other
clothes were "small" size.
Although Oswald was known to occasionally leave his laundry off at
laundromats while living in Dallas, the CE 162 gray jacket had been
professionally cleaned several times, and not in any cleaning
establishment the FBI could find in New Orleans or the Dallas-Fort
Worth
area. There were numerous laundry marks and tags: "30" and "650" in
the
collar, "K-42" printed on a Tag-O-lectric type marking machine, and a
laundry tag sewn into the lining, reading "B-9738." Marina said that
Lee
never took his clothes to a dry cleaner. Gerald Posner, quite
reasonably,
has suggested that the frugal Oswald had purchased the garment used,
with
the dry cleaning tag from its previous owner. Unfortunately, the FBI
scoured all dry cleaners in the Dallas-Fort Worth and New Orleans
area,
and they could not locate the establishment that had sewn this
particular
tag into CE 162, so nothing could be proven one way or the other (CE
2003).
Researcher Larry Ray Harris noted that the earliest police reports
refer
to a white jacket, not the gray CE 162 (Probable Cause, June 1994).
Harris writes, "Dallas Police crowed all weekend about each new
development -- however circumstantial or tentative -- in the case
against
Oswald. But they were strangely silent about the jacket. Nor is it
mentioned anywhere in the dozens of police reports published in the
Report's 26 volume appendix. A police captain was erroneously
credited
with finding the jacket -- he explicitly testified he didn't find it
--
and there is no report from #279, the "unknown" officer who called
the
radio dispatcher to report his discovery. (In 1978 I identified and
attempted to interview this officer, who responded angrily when I
asked
what color the jacket was. 'That information might be something they
don't want given out,' he said tersely, terminating a brief
conversation.
)
"According to a Secret Service report, Oswald 'complained of a lineup
wherein he had not been granted a request to put on a jacket similar
to
those worn by some of the other individuals in the lineup.' Why would
Oswald want to wear a jacket if he had discarded the one he was
wearing
when he shot Tippit? And why didn't police facilitate the
identification
process by making him wear the white jacket in the line-ups?
" . . . Only one of six witnesses shown the gray CE 162 stated
positively
it was the one worn by Tippit's killer; their descriptions of the
gunman's jacket varied, and in several instances were significantly
inconsistent with the Commission garment. Oswald's landlady could not
identify CE 162 as the one he was wearing when he left his room at
1:04
[or probably later]" (Ibid.).
The available evidence that the historic gray zipper jacket designated
CE
162 belonged neither to Oswald or to the murderer of Officer J. D.
Tippit,
who was wearing a beige or tan jacket. CE 162 was just one more
square
peg the Commission tried to force into a round hole.
An example of one of the hundreds of leads never followed up by the
Warren Commission is another jacket of unknown description found
discarded at about the same time on Industrial Boulevard, not far
from
the Texas School Book Depository (Meagher, Accessories after the
Fact,
274).
To be concluded . . .
- Dave Reitzes
David Von Pein
Thankfully, Mr. Reitzes eventually realized the error of his ways
regarding the things he wrote in that post above (the full original
post is below, from 11/20/1998):
www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/79627919337fa6fe
Anybody who can't figure out the "jacket" puzzle shouldn't be looking
into this case at all.
To believe that the jacket found at the Texaco station wasn't Oswald's
is to believe in some incredible things regarding "jackets"...such as
believing that somebody ELSE, in addition to Oswald, decided to drop a
jacket similar to LHO's at the gas station on 11/22/63 (a gas station
where we KNOW Lee Oswald was also located around the time of the
Tippit murder, per the Brocks).
And we'd also have to believe that Oswald's jacket got itself "lost",
never to be seen again (like all unwanted CT evidence in this case,
like all of the non-C2766 bullets).
1.) 13 witnesses.
2.) 4 bullet shells from Oz's gun.
3.) The jacket along the flight path of the killer.
4.) Oswald being apprehended just 0.7 mile from 10th & Patton.
5.) Oswald acting "funny" and "scared" on Jefferson Blvd.
6.) Oswald attempting to kill more cops in the theater.
To a CT-Kook like Walt (et al), all of the above points add up to
"Oswald is innocent".
A child of 5 could see that Walt is wrong. Dead wrong. As usual.
aeffects
damn son..... why not jump into some real questions... gird those
loins, boy.... Vince does authorize you to debate, yes? (If so, those
45 questions (1 a day) are out there, NOW.... Hop to son, show us your
stuff (not Vinnies or Timmies).....
aeffects
David,
sitting at the feet of Vin does NOT make you an assistant D.A. You
can't try a dead guy, son. You'd also lose in that if it was possible.
David Von Pein
ANSWERING 21 QUESTIONS ASKED BY A CONSPIRACY-HAPPY KOOK [which is a
number that has now grown to the "Absurd 45" of Ben "Mega-Kook"
Holmes].......
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
DVP: It's rather remarkable, isn't it, that the author of the above
question somehow knows for a fact what Mr. Chaney's testimony would
have been, even though no testimony exists?
Many of the closest witnesses were questioned at length about the
shooting, including other motorcycle officers, plus John & Nellie
Connally, Jackie Kennedy, Kellerman, and Greer.
The CTer who wrote this question seems to think that the Warren
Commission KNEW for a fact that Officer Chaney was going to say
something the WC desperately didn't want to have in the record of the
WR. Any chance of providing any proof that the WC didn't call Chaney
specifically because Chaney was going to say something that was
"conspiracy" oriented?
No, of course there's no proof of this. And this # 1 question here
only illustrates a rabid CT-Kook's desire to paint everything as
"hinky" and "shady" and "hidden" in some manner...despite any proof to
back up such notions.
Why did the WC call S.M. Holland...or Jean Hill...or various other
witnesses whose testimony didn't aid the "LN" scenario? Many witnesses
weren't called that could have been called, sure; but 552 people did
testify (or were interviewed). Why some CTers think Chaney's testimony
would have suddenly changed all the physical evidence in the case, or
would have somehow nullified the perfectly-logical SBT is a crazy CT
notion indeed.
Jackie Kennedy could (and should) have been questioned in a more in-
depth manner by the Commission, IMO. But she wasn't -- which was no
doubt out of deference to the grieving widow's feelings. The WC didn't
want to upset Jackie any more than was absolutely necessary. Although
I think she should at least have been asked, in a tactful manner,
where the wounds on JFK were located (seeing as how Jackie was
certainly the very best eyewitness to Mr. Kennedy's head wounds, as
she was literally holding his head during the ride to the hospital).
But Jackie wasn't asked such questions, and that leaves a bit of a
hole in the record concerning Mrs. Kennedy's 11/22 observations. But
it's something we'll just have to live with and accept. The same
applies to James Chaney and his lack of any official WC testimony.
I will say, however, that Chaney's "unofficial" comments made to ABC-
TV on 11/22/63 certainly do nothing at all (overall) to harm the SBT/
LHO/LN case. Chaney told ABC that he heard "three shots", and that
these shots all came from "over my right shoulder", which is
information that perfectly aligns with three Oswald shots coming from
the Book Depository.
Chaney's remark about seeing JFK being "hit in the face" is an
understandable misrepresentation of the true nature of the JFK head
wound (given the confusion and suddenness of the crime)....and is an
obvious error on the part of Mr. Chaney, since everybody knows that
President Kennedy was NOT struck "in the face" by any bullet that day.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(2) Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?" <<<
DVP: Did they dig a hole in the backyard for them or something? Was
JFK's brain placed in this hole too?
This # 2 question is another of those inquiries that a CTer demands a
perfect pro-LN answer to....and if such an LN answer isn't forthcoming
(or known), then that CTer thinks he gets to believe a bunch of kooky
shit with respect to the inquiry at hand. And (naturally) the answer
that a CTer provides in lieu of any FACTUAL data is an answer that
always leads to something "hinky", "conspiratorial", and "coverup-
related".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(3) Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?" <<<
DVP: See answer to # 2.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(4) Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?" <<<
DVP: Proof please. Names please. Who was fired? And who exactly did
the firing? And provide the precise reason(s) for such a "firing"
please. (And CT paranoid guesswork is not good enough.)
Any chance that a CTer can provide these needed hunks of verification
regarding this matter? Highly doubtful, as per the norm in such
instances of CTers who accuse people of doing things that are
perceived to be conspiratorial in nature, when a perfectly-logical non-
conspiratorial explanation is just as likely (and probably more so).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(5) Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?" <<<
DVP: Please provide ONE solitary example of KNOWN and verifiable
"intimidation" by the FBI in order to "get the statements they
wanted".
Number five here is merely more CT hogwash...much like the silliness
that was purported in Oliver Stone's high-handed 1991 motion
picture. .... E.G. (a fanciful conversation between Jean Hill and a
scary "Gummint" guy of some ilk): "Echoes! You heard ECHOES!! We have
three shots coming from the Book Depository! And that's all we're
willing to say!"
~LOL~ (That scene always induces a large laugh whenever it's cued
up.) :-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(6) What is the 6.5mm virtually-round object that no one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy? And why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?" <<<
DVP: Didn't Ebersole say he DID see this "object" on 11/22...and
mentioned to a colleague it was nothing but an "artifact"? I believe
this is the case. And if so, why isn't this explanation good enough to
calm the CTers in this regard?
Does a "6.5mm artifact" of some kind automatically indicate
"conspiracy"? If so...please say how you arrived at that fantastic
leap-of-faith judgment?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(7) How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?" <<<
DVP: In some cases, I suppose the spine might have been damaged by the
passing bullet. But in THIS (JFK) case, that did not happen (the CAT
scan stuff notwithstanding).
Does the CAT scan analysis prove that a bullet transiting in the way
CE399 is said to have transited JFK's body (via the AR doctors
themselves) MUST always hit JFK's spine in particular? If so...how was
this "proven"?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(8) Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?" <<<
DVP: Show me proof-positive that the doctors were FORBIDDEN to dissect
the neck/back wounds.
Humes stated that further probing of the back wound (after his stupid
pinky probe) might have caused a "false passage through the
body"...therefore he testified that no further probing was done.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(9) Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them." <<<
DVP: How do you know anything about stuff that apparently
"disappeared"? (The same way you assume that several bullets were made
to "disappear" on 11/22 too, perhaps? How can something that never
existed in the first place all of a sudden "disappear"?)
Also -- Do you truly believe another photo or X-ray (or two) would
undo what the other pictures and X-rays depict? Seems like a curious
notion if you think that. Which makes this pretty much another in a
series of moot CT points being raised in this "JFK quiz". Par for the
CT course (of course).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(10) Why did the CIA have a program of harrassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?" <<<
DVP: Huh?? I'll toss up my hands on this one and admit I haven't the
foggiest idea what this craziness is all about. (But, yeah, it sounds
like some more kooky CT-created crappola. But, who knows. And who
really cares? Does it somehow wipe Oswald's slate clean...yet again?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(11) Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body -- as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was NO valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas -- or was there? Can you provide it?" <<<
DVP: Sure. All of the other evidence (save the Book Depository
Building itself) in the case was being released to the FBI on 11/22.
The main FBI HQ was in Washington, and while killing the President
wasn't officially a "Federal" crime in 1963, I'm not surprised the
Feds took control of the case to a great extent. Why wouldn't they
have done so? And the limo was one of those pieces of evidence that
was "turned over" to the FBI in Washington.
The "jurisdiction" question is only hinky if one wishes to believe
that a massive cover-up was put into place almost immediately
following the shooting. But is that truly a "reasonable" assumption to
make? IMO...no, it is not.
And if the FBI was above-board with the evidence, moving things to
Washington for examination is not the least bit out of line...or, as
mentioned, the least bit surprising to me. I would have expected that
to happen in the case of a murdered POTUS.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(12) Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it." <<<
DVP: This is pure crap...plain and simple. The chain of evidence is
only weak because a CTer NEEDS the chain to be weak. No other reason.
Because if there IS a "chain" (and there is...for every single piece
of evidence in this case, including Tippit's murder), then Oswald is
guilty as sin, and even CT-Kooks must realize this is true.
Darrell Tomlinson has stated in the past that CE399 "looked like the
same bullet" he found at Parkland on 11/22/63. Why this isn't good
enough for some CTers is anybody's guess. (But, of course, not much is
good enough for those guys.)
Tomlinson stated that CE399 "looked like" the same stretcher bullet
that he found...period. And common sense alone tells any reasonable
person that CE399 HAD to have been inside John Connally on 11/22. Any
other explanation pales by comparison, and is laughable in every way.
More on that here.....
Vince Bugliosi sums it up nicely in the quotes below (and these words
come from an ex-prosecutor who knows of what he speaks re. "chain of
evidence" matters and what would be admissible vs. inadmissible in a
court of law):
"Oswald's rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons, was determined
by firearms experts to be the rifle that fired the two bullets that
struck down President Kennedy. .... There may have been fifty people
firing at President Kennedy that day; but if there were, they all
missed; only bullets fired from Oswald's Carcano rifle hit the
President." -- V. Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(13) Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?" <<<
DVP: This is more CT guesswork (and shows a CTer at work as he
attempts to sidestep the major issues of LHO's guilt by turning the
focus of attention on something peripheral and meaningless).
Does this "FBI"/"camera" stuff wipe out all of the evidence that tells
the world Lee Oswald was a double-murderer on 11/22/63? If it's of
major importance, please let us know why?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(14) Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released...even to government investigators?" <<<
DVP: What files (specifically)? And if something has never been
"released", please tell the world how you even know they exist?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(15) Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to LIE about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable -- they lied blatantly about the medical testimony...why??" <<<
DVP: It's not "disputable", eh? Please give one such example of a
verified "lie" from the HSCA. (A "mistake" does not qualify.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(16) Why have so many new "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard -- such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses"?" <<<
DVP: Those last two items had "never before" been heard of?? That's a
rather odd statement about the unreliable witness thing and the fact
that genuine photos WILL, in fact, most of the time trump sometimes-
unclear, hazy eyewitness recollections. Those things aren't "new" in
the slightest. They're basic common-sense things.
And the "jet effect" item is perfectly reasonable as well...except to
the CTers who will look for any excuse to dismiss certain "experts".
And if you want to bring up stuff that has "never before been heard
of", then we could go into several items on the pro-CT table that had
never before been seen in any case in history prior to the JFK murder
--- e.g.: the "Let's Frame A Lone Patsy By Shooting The One Slow-
Moving Target With Multiple Guns And Then Expect To Have All Of The
Unwanted Evidence To Magically Disappear Immediately" theory.
And then there's the theory that has two killers being needed to
murder J.D. Tippit on 10th Street (even though it's a point-blank
killing, requiring just one gunman)...with all of the evidence
surrounding this murder expected to also fall neatly into the "It Was
Oswald" pile.
Plus: There's the famous theory that has these silly plotters planting
the wrong rifle on the 6th Floor (they must have forgotten that their
Patsy didn't own a Mauser I guess).
And the smile-inducing "Umbrella Man Shoots JFK With A Poisoned
Projectile While Standing Out In Plain Sight For All To See And Film"
hunk of nonsense.
And lots more to be found here:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(17) Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?" <<<
DVP: This is CT-Kookshit and nothing more. The Altgens photo and the Z-
Film are certainly genuine articles....so this silly question is a
moot one. This CTer obviously is purporting that the Z-Film is fake in
some manner.
Conspiracy Kook Rule #16B applies here, which states -- "When all else
fails, just say something is "fake" or "phony" or "doesn't look quite
right", and the CTer is off the hook".
As Vince Bugliosi would say -- You can tell when someone has a very
weak physical-evidence case....because they'll start arguing
impossible-to-prove theories re. evidence manipulation or
contamination or cover-up, etc. This invariably occurs when there
simply is nothing else for the defense TO argue.
Attempts to deflect attention away from the basic core of ballistics
(and other) evidence in the JFK case (which all leads inexorably to
Lee Oswald) by crying "It's All Fake" is a sign of a patently-weak
case with which these kooks try to combat the physical evidence.
And, I'm sorry, but the "Nothing Is What It Seems To Be" argument with
respect to virtually everything surrounding the JFK assassination is
about as likely to be true (and provable) as a blizzard in Phoenix.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(18) How is it possible to not have a "first frame flash" at Z-133, as the engineers who designed the camera assert must happen?" <<<
DVP: If somebody can tell me what the heck this has to do with pretty
much anything relating to the question of "Who Shot JFK?", please let
me know. It's another attempt, I guess, at a "Z-Film Hoax" allegation.
But I've never heard of such an argument heretofore. Must be a new
kook-invented theory (circa 21st century) or something. Beats me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(19) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?" <<<
DVP: There was a "slowdown". There's no disputing this fact. The limo
never stopped however. Some witnesses might have thought the limo had
fully stopped due to its already-slow (then slower) speed at about the
time of the head shot, and due to the fact that the motorcycles
"overtook" the limousine to an extent at around that time, making it
appear to some witnesses the limo had completely stopped.
But one look at the Nix Film proves the limo did not fully stop. It's
very hard to see the "slowdown" on the Z-Film, because the whole film
frame (left-to-right) is taken up by the limo itself, with Zapruder
panning with his camera and keeping the limo centered. But Nix proves
without question the limo "slowdown", but not a full stop. (Or is Nix
supposedly "faked" too?)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(20) Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head, in contradiction to the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: A possible explanation is that they all saw blood and gore
"pooling" to the very back of the head, which obviously did occur.
Are we to actually believe that McClelland, Peters, Dulany, and
Jenkins were all "in" on the "plot" to conceal the truth concerning
JFK's head wounds when they all said that the photos they examined at
the National Archives in 1988 for "NOVA" television showed no signs of
tampering...i.e., the photos depict JFK the way he looked to each of
these doctors in '63 at Parkland.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
I will readily admit that I don't have all the answers to this odd
"BOH" matter re. the witnesses who said they saw a BOH hole in JFK's
head. It's my #1 "mystery" in the whole case. But it's not something
that must equate to conspiracy, IMO....because there are many things
contradicting these witnesses, including the Z-Film, which shows no
such BOH wound at all; plus the Z-Film shows no blood at the supposed
"exit" (BOH) point on JFK's head; not a bit of "spray" at the so-
called exit point. Impossible, if JFK had been hit from the front,
causing a massive BOH exit wound.
Plus there are the "authenticated by the HSCA and Clark Panel" autopsy
photos and X-rays.
Plus there's the huge "clue" of there being only ONE single entry hole
on the back of JFK's head (regardless of the exact millimeter on the
head this wound was located). There was no frontal entry hole, period.
That fact in itself (backed up by the autopsy report and the three
autopsists who signed that AR and testified multiple times to this
"One Entry Hole" effect) disproves the long-held CTer notion that
President Kennedy was hit in the head from the front -- regardless of
what ANY of the witnesses say about the location of JFK's wounds.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> "(21) Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?" <<<
DVP: The autopsy report does no such thing. The autopsy "Summary" is
perfectly consistent with the photos and the X-rays (and the SBT as
well). In fact, the autopsy report itself is really the genesis to the
SBT, with the writing of these words:
"The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the
neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior
surface of the neck. As far as can be ascertained this missile struck
no bony structures in its path through the body."
Re. the BOH question specifically, we find this in the autopsy
Summary:
"The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of
the external occipital protuberance. A portion of the projectile
traversed the cranial cavity in a posterior-anterior direction (see
lateral skull roentgenograms) depositing minute particles along its
path. A portion of the projectile made its exit through the parietal
bone on the right carrying with it portions of cerebrum, skull and
scalp. The two wounds of the skull combined with the force of the
missile produced extensive fragmentation of the skull, laceration of
the superior saggital sinus, and of the right cerebral hemisphere."
The author of Question 21 is no doubt, though, referring to this
passage in the AR (which also does not contradict the autopsy photo of
JFK's head; the CTer who poses the inquiry needs to look up the word
"somewhat"):
"There is a large irregular defect of the scalp and skull on the
right involving chiefly the parietal bone but extending somewhat into
the temporal and occipital regions. In this region there is an actual
absence of scalp and bone producing a defect which measures
approximately 13 cm. in greatest diameter."
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DVP Post-Script:
In the final analysis, no matter how hard a CTer tries, that
conspiracist cannot debunk this statement made by my main man, Vincent
T. Bugliosi, in 1986:
"Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of President
Kennedy. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming that he carried out
the tragic shooting all by himself. In fact, you could throw 80% of
the evidence against him out the window and there would still be more
than enough left to convince any reasonable person of his sole role in
the crime." -- Vince Bugliosi
The hard physical evidence in total (coupled with a ten-mile-high pile
of circumstantial evidence, including Oswald's own actions before and
after 12:30 PM on 11/22/63) does NOT lead to multiple gunmen in Dealey
Plaza.
No matter what spin a conspiracy theorist wants to utilize regarding
this physical evidence (e.g., guns, bullets, fragments, shells,
prints, fibers, and eyewitnesses who saw Oswald kill two men on Nov.
22), the physical evidence will still remain on the table in the JFK
and Tippit murder cases. And it's evidence that points directly at one
man -- Lee Harvey Oswald. And it's evidence that undeniably points to
only Oswald's weaponry being used to murder John Kennedy and Officer
Tippit.
And anyone saying differently is only fooling themselves into
believing that many, many police officers, FBI agents, and SS agents
would have all possessed a UNIFIED DESIRE to want to frame an innocent
man for two 1963 first-degree murders.
And even if we were to accept the absurd notion that all of those DPD
officers would want to frame a man named Oswald for JFK's killing, and
possibly (per many CTers) the death of Officer Tippit as well (all the
while not giving a damn that the real killer/killers of their fellow
police officer was getting away scot-free with the murder of J.D.
Tippit), the amount of "real" (non-Oswald-implicating) evidence that
would have needed to be magically turned into "All Oswald" evidence in
very short order (times two murders) on 11/22 is pretty hefty.
And it defies logic to think that this could have been so perfectly
orchestrated on the spur of the moment by any number of "Let's Frame
Oswald" operatives...operatives from multiple law-enforcement agencies
as well.
It's just plain nonsense to think that such a massive switcheroo of
evidence could have been performed so perfectly -- from the bullets,
to the bullet shells, to the guns, to the witnesses who fingered only
Oswald (and they can't ALL be Government shills, can they?), to
somehow "controlling" the actions of a very guilty-acting "Patsy"
named Oswald just after 12:30 PM on 11/22, and right on down to
Oswald's many lies that he told to the nation on Live TV after his
arrest.
Larry Sturdivan possibly said it best in his book when he wrote this
excellent passage in that publication......
"While one of the pieces of physical evidence could conceivably
have been faked by an expert, there is no possibility that an expert,
or team of super-experts, could have fabricated the perfectly
coordinated whole...with superhuman abilities to fake physical
evidence that is in complete agreement with all the other faked
evidence." -- L. Sturdivan; Page 246 of "The JFK Myths"
Vincent Bugliosi, too, knows that the CTers are full of nothing but
empty theories and piecemeal guesswork:
"No one has produced one piece of evidence to support a
conspiracy theory. And the thing about a conspiracy is, you can't keep
it secret. More than 25,000 interviews have been conducted by the FBI,
the Warren Commission, and independent investigators. No one has come
up with one piece of solid evidence {to support a conspiracy theory}.
Just theories and motives." -- Vincent Bugliosi
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Allow me to close with a mini 1-question quiz of my own for CTers to
ponder......
Can anyone tell me why in the world ANY sane person (who wants to
succeed with their covert plan) would deliberately concoct a "1-Patsy"
assassination plot that involves multiple gunmen located in various
locations throughout Dealey Plaza in Dallas, all aiming at the same
target at pretty much the very same time?
How could any reasonable person planning such a crackpot plot think
for a single second that such a plan could have a prayer of
succeeding? Were these conspirators ALL high on some type of "Miracles
Are Possible" drugs?
And yet many CTers (including the likes of Oliver Stone and the late
"Conspiracy Kook Extraordinaire" Jim Garrison) actually believe(d)
that such a Multi-Gun, One-Patsy plot was planned ahead of time in
1963, and was somehow pulled off successfully to boot. Go figure out
that mindset. I sure haven't been able to.
www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/3200858-post.html
aeffects
the pay is better on the other side....knew this one would smoke Davie
VP out.....ROTFLMFAO....
David Von Pein
>>> "The pay is better on the other side....knew this one would smoke Davie VP out." <<<
I thought I was Reitzes.
aeffects
> >>> "The pay is better on the other side....knew this one would smoke Davie VP out." <<<
>
> I thought I was Reitzes.
NOW you don't know who you are..... wake up, son geeeeeez!
Walt
> Thankfully, Mr. Reitzes eventually realized the error of his ways
> regarding the things he wrote in that post above (the full original
> post is below, from 11/20/1998):
Money talks.... Eh Dave?? Yer nothing but a whore. Back in 98 you
were using you head and thinking..... Then along came McAdams with
his pocket full of taxpayers dollars....
Walt
> regarding the things he wrote in that post above (the full original
> post is below, from 11/20/1998):
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/79627919337fa6fe
>
> Anybody who can't figure out the "jacket" puzzle shouldn't be looking
> into this case at all.
>
To believe that the jacket found at the Texaco station wasn't
Oswald's
is to believe in some incredible things regarding "jackets"...such as
believing that somebody ELSE, in addition to Oswald, decided to drop
a
jacket similar to LHO's at the gas station on 11/22/63 (a gas station
where we KNOW Lee Oswald was also located around the time of the
Tippit murder, per the Brocks).
Whoa!! Hold on thar ya orney hoss..... Yer mixing apples and oranges
and makin a fruit salad.... Lets keep em separated.....
You nor anybody else can KNOW that Oswald was behind Ballew's gas
station just minutes after Tippit was shot and killed.....
You were right back in 98 when you said that ... "The only hard
evidence besides the substituted shells linking Oswald to the Tippit
murder is a jacket he allegedly discarded on his way to the Texas
Theatre. "
And you correctly pointed out that the vast majority of the witnesses
who saw Tippit's killer fleeing the scene testified that the killers
jacket was DARKER colored than the jacket found behind the Texaco
station.
As a percentage ....about 95% of the witnesses said that the killers
jacket was DARKER than the WHITE jacket ( later turned gray) that had
been found behind the Texaco station. The KEY persons who gave the
description of Tippits Killer were UNANIMOUS in agreement that the
killer's jacket was NOT WHITE. ... WHITE.... LIKE SNOW... WHITE
So the only possible description of the color of the jacket that could
have been broadcast over the police radio would have been a DARKER
COLOR than WHITE. Those witnesses were the ones who gave the cops the
description of the killer.
The WHITE jacket was found within minutes after the shooting....It was
found BEFORE all the cops rushed over to the LIBRARY that was about
three blocks to the EAST EAST EAST of the Texaco Station. Warren
Reynold's had called the police and reported a man with a gun running
WEST on Jefferson, and a swarm of cops appeared near the Texaco
station within minutes of Reynolds telephone call. The WHITE jacket
was already in the hands of the police BEFORE the Library incident.
If the man with the gun was running WEST on Jefferson why did they
abandon the area around the Texaco station and go EAST in search of
the killer??
Here's the major problem....At about 1:25, DPD officer # 279 sent
this radio message to the dispatcher ....
We have the jacket " belonging to the suspect on shooting this
officer out here. Got his white jacket. Believe he dumped it on this
parking lot behind this service station at 400 block East Jefferson,
across from Dudley Hughes, and he had a white jacket on. We believe
this is it."
There had been no previous radio broadcast giving the color of the
jacket as WHITE.... ALL of the witnesses who saw the killer and talked
to the police in the first minutes after they arrived at Tippit squad
car said the killers jacket was a color other than WHITE, so officer
279 could NOT have heard that " he had on a white jacket".
A few minutes later DPD officer HW Summers sent this message to the
dispatcher ..."The jacket the suspect was wearing over here on
Jefferson bears a laundry tag with the letter B-9738. See if there is
anyway you can check this laundry tag."
Six days later when the jacket was turned over to the FBI it was no
longer WHITE....It had become a GREY jacket. Probably to conform with
the color that 95% of the witnesses described.
Black and white news film footage taken at the time show a WHITE
jacket in the hands of a uniformed DPD officer.
Walt
Researcher Larry Ray Harris noted that the earliest police reports
refer
to a white jacket, not the gray CE 162 (Probable Cause, June 1994).
Harris writes, "Dallas Police crowed all weekend about each new
development -- however circumstantial or tentative -- in the case
against
Oswald. But they were strangely silent about the jacket. Nor is it
mentioned anywhere in the dozens of police reports published in the
Report's 26 volume appendix. A police captain was erroneously
credited
with finding the jacket -- he explicitly testified he didn't find it
--
and there is no report from #279, the "unknown" officer who called
the
radio dispatcher to report his discovery. (In 1978 I identified and
attempted to interview this officer, who responded angrily when I
asked
what color the jacket was. 'That information might be something they
don't want given out,' he said tersely, terminating a brief
conversation.
> A few minutes later DPD officer HW Summers sent this message to the
> dispatcher ..."The jacket the suspect was wearing over here on
> Jefferson bears a laundry tag with the letter B-9738. See if there is
> anyway you can check this laundry tag."
>
> Six days later when the jacket was turned over to the FBI it was no
> longer WHITE....It had become a GREY jacket. Probably to conform with
> the color that 95% of the witnesses described.
>
> Black and white news film footage taken at the time show a WHITE
> jacket in the hands of a uniformed DPD officer.
>
>
>
> > And we'd also have to believe that Oswald's jacket got itself "lost",
> > never to be seen again (like all unwanted CT evidence in this case,
> > like all of the non-C2766 bullets).
>
> > 1.) 13 witnesses.
>
> > 2.) 4 bullet shells from Oz's gun.
>
> > 3.) The jacket along the flight path of the killer.
>
> > 4.) Oswald being apprehended just 0.7 mile from 10th & Patton.
>
> > 5.) Oswald acting "funny" and "scared" on Jefferson Blvd.
>
> > 6.) Oswald attempting to kill more cops in the theater.
>
> > To a CT-Kook like Walt (et al), all of the above points add up to
> > "Oswald is innocent".
>
> > A child of 5 could see that Walt is wrong. Dead wrong. As usual.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt
I'm a little confused, Pea Brain.....
Who was the man who asked officer #279 about the color of the Jacket?
Was that you,or was it Harris,who confronted officer #279 in 1978?
>
>
>
> > A few minutes later DPD officer HW Summers sent this message to the
> > dispatcher ..."The jacket the suspect was wearing over here on
> > Jefferson bears a laundry tag with the letter B-9738. See if there is
> > anyway you can check this laundry tag."
>
> > Six days later when the jacket was turned over to the FBI it was no
> > longer WHITE....It had become a GREY jacket. Probably to conform with
> > the color that 95% of the witnesses described.
>
> > Black and white news film footage taken at the time show a WHITE
> > jacket in the hands of a uniformed DPD officer.
>
> > > And we'd also have to believe that Oswald's jacket got itself "lost",
> > > never to be seen again (like all unwanted CT evidence in this case,
> > > like all of the non-C2766 bullets).
>
> > > 1.) 13 witnesses.
>
> > > 2.) 4 bullet shells from Oz's gun.
>
> > > 3.) The jacket along the flight path of the killer.
>
> > > 4.) Oswald being apprehended just 0.7 mile from 10th & Patton.
>
> > > 5.) Oswald acting "funny" and "scared" on Jefferson Blvd.
>
> > > 6.) Oswald attempting to kill more cops in the theater.
>
> > > To a CT-Kook like Walt (et al), all of the above points add up to
> > > "Oswald is innocent".
>
> > > A child of 5 could see that Walt is wrong. Dead wrong. As usual.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
YoHarvey
Such as easy question to respond to. Walt? Considering you are one
of the queens of ludicrous postings, why not question your fellow
CT's? This isn't rocket science. You have the reigning idiot from
Ma. posting JFK was coughing up a bullet. JFK was shot by Connally.
You have the resident loon from Vegas stating Zapruder didn't exist.
You have the dojo queen from Ca. stating a lady in yellow appeared on
the ZAP film.....Walt? You people are legendary for stupidity. What
part of this do you fail to comprehend?
Walt
Well, I like to keep the questions simple.....considering I'm dealing
with simple minded folk
Considering you are one
> of the queens of ludicrous postings, why not question your fellow
> CT's? This isn't rocket science. You have the reigning idiot from
> Ma. posting JFK was coughing up a bullet. JFK was shot by Connally.
> You have the resident loon from Vegas stating Zapruder didn't exist.
> You have the dojo queen from Ca. stating a lady in yellow appeared on
> the ZAP film.....Walt? You people are legendary for stupidity. What
> part of this do you fail to comprehend?- Hide quoted text -
YoHarvey
I agree Walt. CT's are simple minded but of course, they have to be.
Theirs is a world of shadows and mirrors. You know what I mean Walt,
don't ya?
tomnln
"YoHarvey" <bail...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2fae1e62-9335-4855...@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
WHY tour wife Replaced you with a DILDO/BOA ! ! !
Don't forget these>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
YoHarvey
> "YoHarvey" <bailey...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Walt? Wouldn't you agree Rossley proves my point? Be honest.
tomnln
If you ever knew ANYTHING about "honesty", you would NOT be Runnin from your
own evidence/testimony>>>
http://whokilledjfk.net/PROVEN%20LIES.htm
http://whokilledjfk.net/CASE%20DISMISSED.htm
Even Bin Laden doesn't have as many Aliases as you do.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Holmes
aeffects says...
Didn't someone just get through claiming that DVP isn't a troll because he
presents facts on the assassination?
Now is DVP's opportunity to *really* convince people... simply explain the
evidence that I've been bringing up questions on. (In a non-conspiratorial way,
of course...)
David Von Pein
>>> "Yer nothing but a whore." <<<
Nice.
Guess what I think you are?
(I'll give you one guess. Think you can hit it?)
David Von Pein
>>> "You were right back in 98 when you said..." <<<
Oh goodie! Another kook thinks I'm Mr. Reitzes! Nice.
Can I be Vinnie tomorrow?!! Pretty please!
David Von Pein
>>> "Now is DVP's opportunity to *really* convince people... simply explain the evidence that I've been bringing up questions on. (In a non-conspiratorial way, of course.)" <<<
Already done that--many times.*
* = Back when Ben's batch of silly Qs was only at 21, that is. I have
no idea what the last 24 so-called "unanswered questions" contain, and
I have no present interest in knowing what they are, to tell you the
truth. The contents of my blog speaks for me, and covers most things
connected to the JFK case. It doesn't cover nearly enough things for
kooks like Ben, of course. But, to borrow from Bud again, could the
opinions of conspiracy-loving kooks possibly matter less?
REPRISE (PLUS SOME "SMOKING GUNS" TOO).......
=======================================
ANSWERING 21 QUESTIONS ASKED BY A CONSPIRACY-HAPPY KOOK [which is a
number that has now grown to the "Absurd 45" of Ben "Mega-Kook"
Holmes].......
--------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> "(1) Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder, who just coincidently would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, was never questioned by the FBI or WC prior to the release of the WCR?" <<<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_M._Chaney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/novadocs.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DVP Post-Script:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
==========================================================
==========================================================
==========================================================
16 "SMOKING GUNS"? OR 16 MISFIRES?:
--------------------------------------
"James Fetzer...wrote me on January 23, 2001:...[Quoting
Fetzer:] "What would it take to convince you of the existence of a
conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK? .... Are none of our
[Fetzer's and Dr. David Mantik's] major discoveries--our '16 smoking
guns,' for example--convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, then
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?" [End Fetzer quote.]
"Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." --
VINCENT T. BUGLIOSI; PAGE #974 of "RECLAIMING HISTORY" (c.2007)
www.amazon.com/DVP-REVIEW-RECLAIMING-HISTORY/review/RZD82270D69E8
==============================================
BEN HOLMES SAID THIS ON AUGUST 22, 2007:
>>> "DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever. He can't. Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page number *to* cite." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/6d550fa4cb5c8792
AND KOOK HOLMES SAID THIS ON NOVEMBER 4, 2007:
>>> "Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking Guns", and surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the opposite direction. DVP, Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated that Bugliosi *DID* answer the 16 smoking guns, but can't cite it." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/2a45aaa342d10998
DVP SAID THIS ON AUGUST 19, 2007:
>>> "Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns". .... Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure out a CT-Kook from one day to the next. I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS", that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items. They are all answered very well in various places throughout "Reclaiming History"." <<<
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/17f7219e09435dfb
==============================================
The so-called "16 SMOKING GUNS" (by James H. Fetzer):
www.assassinationscience.com/prologue.html
==============================================
Each of Fetzer's supposedly-conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" is
discussed and thoroughly dealt with and refuted/debunked within
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY". (Book title hereafter in
this post shortened to "RH".)
Here now are some citations and excerpts from Mr. Bugliosi's book
which directly deal with the above-linked "Smoking Guns"....which are
"Guns" that a Super-Kook named Holmes insists that "Bugliosi did NOT
address" anywhere in "RH":
======================
SMOKING GUN #1:
"[Per the WC and the HSCA] JFK was hit at the base of the back
of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck without hitting any
bony structures and exited his throat at the level of his tie. [This]
is an anatomical impossibility, because the bullet would have had to
impact bony structures."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The bruises in the neck region [of JFK]...COULDN'T have been
caused by the tracheotomy because the circulation of blood in the body
was nearly nonexistent at that point. Without blood, there could be no
bruise--that is, there could only be damage to tissue, not
discoloration of the tissue.
"The bruising of the neck muscles and right lung HAD to have
been caused while the president's heart and lungs were still operating
sufficiently to permit a bruise to occur. [Source Note #132 = Dr.
Humes' WC testimony @ 2 H 368.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0188b.htm
"In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the
president's back and his throat wound, COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR
TO THE INCISIONS THAT WERE MADE AT PARKLAND HOSPITAL (i.e., they had
to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage
found there had to have been the result of a bullet ENTERING THE
PRESIDENT'S BACK AND EXITING THE THROAT. [All emphasis Bugliosi's.]
"Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by
fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the
Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the
president's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle"
through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to
left lateral direction," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging
in the front of the president's neck. ....
"This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the
bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA's panel of
forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet
was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it." [Source Note
#134 = 1 HSCA 230-231.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 402
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0117b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0118a.htm
~~~~~~
"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered
the president's back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology
panel's 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy.
"The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four
radiologists, that X-rays of the president's neck and chest showed
evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely
a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy
incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse
process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra,
located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA
202-203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0102a.htm
"The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic
vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or
by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority
of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral
bone (1 HSCA 305, 317).
"Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed "no evidence of any
metal or bone...fragments in the neck area" (1 HSCA 305). Although the
1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission
stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal
fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the
president's neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that
these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting
into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process--a
rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304-305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel
Report, pp.13, 15)." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 244-245 of Endnotes (on CD-
ROM)
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0154b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #2:
"The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
[President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 500
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol6/html/HSCA_Vol6_0024a.htm
~~~~~~
"Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0068b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #3:
"The weapon, which was not even a rifle [??? LOL], could not
have fired the bullets that killed the president."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Smoking Gun" is so incredibly stupid and
ridiculous it doesn't even amount to a wet sparkler. But, I'll deal
with it anyway. Bugliosi, in various places throughout his book,
easily refutes this third of Fetzer's silly "Guns", particularly
within Chapters 6 and 7, entitled "Oswald's Ownership And Possession
Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth Floor" and "Identification Of The
Murder Weapon".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
automatic and natural thing for him to say be, "Yes, that's of course
my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
killed the president." Instead, Oswald told one lie after another
about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder
weapon." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 815
======================
SMOKING GUN #4:
"The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-
jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have
caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not
explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head (the image of his
head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic
debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could
not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to
have used, thereby exonerating him."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons." [End Petty quote.]
"In fact, all eight of Dr. Wecht's colleagues on the HSCA
forensic pathology panel rejected his frangible-bullet hypothesis as
well as any hypothesis concerning a bullet striking the president's
head in the area of the exit wound [i.e., in the right-front portion
of JFK's head]. ....
"Additionally, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry
Sturdivan, concluded that the bullet was not a frangible one. [Source
Note #14 = 1 HSCA 401.]
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0203a.htm
"Dr. James Humes also dismissed the frangible-bullet theory for
the head wound. [Quoting Humes:] "Had this wound...been inflicted by a
dumdum [frangible] bullet, I would anticipate that the [wound] would
not have anything near the regular contour and outline which it
had" [End Baden quote]." [Source Note #15 = Dr. Humes' WC testimony @
2 H 356.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 863
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh2/html/WC_Vol2_0182b.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #5:
"The axis of metallic debris [in JFK's head] is inconsistent
with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the
area of the right temple."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"When I also reminded Dr. Wecht that the autopsy X-rays of the
president's head did not show any metallic fragments from a bullet
proceeding from the right side of Kennedy's head to the left, only
from the back to the front, he conceded this was another problem with
the theory postulating a shot from the president's right side." -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 863
======================
SMOKING GUN #6:
"The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40
eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and
photographs."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden:] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 407-408
~~~~~~
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president.
"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the
eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by
the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.
"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"On the Ida Dox drawing of the autopsy photograph of the back of
the president's head showing the entrance wound (see 7 HSCA 104), the
numbers on the ruler are not visible, even with a magnifying glass,
but the entrance wound does not seem to be four inches above where I
would imagine the external occipital protuberance was on the
president's head, and does not appear as high up as the round black
circle signifying the entrance wound on the HSCA sketch (see 1 HSCA
406).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0057b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0205b.htm
"It may be that the location of the entrance wound was somewhere
between where the autopsy surgeons and the later pathologists said it
was. But if, indeed, the autopsy surgeons were correct on the lower
location of the head entrance wound, how this would affect the
trajectory analyses, and be compatible with the minute missile
fragments traversing on a line from back to front higher up on the
head, is beyond my knowledge and expertise.
"However, we mustn't forget that since the president's head was
inclined slightly forward at the time of the head shot, a bullet
traveling on a downward trajectory would be proceeding on a higher
path, anatomically, through the president's head. (See discussion on
this issue in main text with respect to the president's back wound.)"
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 231 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #7:
"These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the X-
rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways."
"RH" BOOK CITATION (Replay from above):
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner" (7 HSCA 41)." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol7/html/HSCA_Vol7_0026a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #8:
"Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of
the brain of someone other than JFK."
[DVP Interjection --- This "Gun" is yet another incredibly-stupid one,
with absolutely zero granules of truth in it whatsoever, and is a
theory that should make anyone purporting it turn various shades of
crimson due to the embarrassment at having even written it down.
Mr. Bugliosi handily and humorously (and with ample citations to
testimony from Humes, Boswell, Finck, and other sources), deals with
the "Two Brains" idiocy on pages 434 to 447 of the main text in "RH";
and pages 282 to 287 of the CD's endnotes. A few excerpts follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"Easily one of the most obscenely irresponsible documents ever
promulgated in the assassination debate, and yet one whose contention
is being hailed and widely accepted today in the conspiracy community,
is the one written by Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for
military records. ....
"Unbelievably, Horne said that the depositions taken by the ARRB
caused him to conclude that there were two (not one) supplemental
brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second one--are you
ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another brain from
some anonymous third party. ....
"Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was
only one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a
different brain?
"Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing Humes and
Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the true
facts of the assassination. ....
"Horne does his best to protect his credibility on his
memorandum by burying in a footnote near the very end of it some
information that severely damages the credibility of his star witness,
autopsy photographer John Stringer. (But it's too late. There is
nothing that can possibly restore the credibility of Doug Horne for
the main conclusions he sets forth in the body of his memorandum.)" --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 434-435, 439, and 441
======================
SMOKING GUN #9:
"Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs claim that
parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or
destroyed."
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS (with many more conspiracy-smashing cites
concerning this sub-topic to be found on pages 260-280 of the CD's
endnotes):
"What does Doug Horne conclude from all of this? For Horne, the
implications are staggering. If the navy was correct in saying that
the camera it provided "was indeed the camera used at the
autopsy" (the navy only said the camera was "believed to be" the
autopsy camera), then either, he says, (1) all the autopsy photographs
are authentic and were indeed taken by John Stringer, and a benign but
unknown explanation exists for why the HSCA photographic experts
believed the autopsy photographs could not have been taken by the navy
camera they examined (e.g., the lens of the camera used to take the
photographs was different from the 135-millimeter Zeiss Jena Tessar
lens supplied by the navy)...
"...or (2) many or all of the autopsy photographs were taken by
a photographer other than John Stringer, and the photographs Stringer
said he took were removed from the official autopsy photographic
collection (Doug Horne's memorandum for file, pp.5-6).
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/staff_memos/DH_BrainExams/html/d130_0001a.htm
"This second possibility is apparently meant to conjure up
images of a mysterious, unknown photographer shooting a second set of
autopsy photographs after the autopsy was completed (a set of images
that presumably concealed the true nature of the president's wounds),
which were then substituted for the official set of photographs taken
by Stringer.
"Horne's memo suggests that the latter is true (i.e., the
autopsy photographs are substitutes, taken by someone other than
Stringer). But this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all.
"We know through stereoscopic analysis that the photographs in
evidence (even if they are substitute photographs of the autopsy taken
by someone other than Stringer) are authentic and unaltered. We also
know from the HSCA anthropologists and the odontologist that the skull
is that of John F. Kennedy.
"What this all means is that irrespective of the camera and
lens, whatever the photographs show must be the true condition of the
president's body at the time of the autopsy. Since the photographs
clearly show that the president was struck from behind by two bullets,
what possible purpose could be served by substituting or removing
photographs? Neither Horne nor [Gary] Aguilar say.
"The authentication of the existing photographic collection
eliminates the possibility that any photographs that might have
disappeared from the collection, either by removal or by substitution,
could show anything other than what we now see.
"After all, there was only one body and the wounds in that body
either show that shots were fired from the front or they don't, no
matter how many photographs are substituted or removed. Surprisingly,
this obvious fact seems to have escaped the conspiracy theorists." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 226-227 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"There are several other tales of photographs allegedly taken
during the autopsy that critics claim have since vanished, but I
should emphasize that even if these alleged missing photographs exist
somewhere (or did exist at one time), they can't possibly show
something that contradicts what we already know to be true about the
president's wounds.
"How do we know this? Again, simply by virtue of the fact that
the autopsy photographs and X-rays that are available are authentic
and unaltered and depict the condition of President Kennedy's body on
the night of the autopsy. So, any additional photographs or X-rays
that might exist (or might have existed) can't depict something else.
"Therefore, when someone comes forward with a story about
photographs that supposedly showed something other than what we know
to be true (i.e., the president was struck from behind by two shots),
we know, of necessity, that the person telling the story is either
honestly mistaken or deliberately lying. One hundred or one thousand
sworn testimonies about missing photographs would not change this
unshakable truth.
"One of these other tales that critics are convinced is evidence
of a completely different (and unusual) set of autopsy photographs was
told by Saundra Spencer, an E-6 photographer's mate first class who
was in charge of the White House photo lab, a small room located
inside the three-story facilities of the Naval Photographic Center
(NPC) at Anacostia, Maryland, across the river from Washington,
D.C. ....
"Spencer said that none of the photos showed the scalp peeled
back on the skull. Also, unlike the photographs in the National
Archives inventory today, Spencer said that the president's eyes and
mouth were closed and that he appeared to be in "a rest position."
Spencer said that other than the wound to the back of the president's
head, she saw no other wound to the head. "The prints that we printed
did not have the massive head damages" shown in the official autopsy
photos. ....
"Spencer's testimony, of course, has raised the question in the
conspiracy community of whether there was a second set of photographs
taken of Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy (a set conspiracy
theorists presume showed the "true" nature of the president's wounds)
and that this second set was squirreled away as part of the cover-
up. ....
"But was Spencer's testimony accurate? For starters, keep in
mind that Spencer's recollection of events was thirty-four years after
the fact. But more importantly, her recollection is at odds with
almost the entire official record. While the official autopsy
photographs were processed, as Spencer remembered, at the NPC, the
rest of the documentary record details a completely different and
rather divergent series of events which, I think you'll agree, is
quite unlike Spencer's account. ....
"In this case, like many others where eyewitnesses are
confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra
Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when
she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center
of the back of the president's head.
"Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy
surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively,
and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time
of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described. ....
"[Robert L.] Knudsen's version of events has been tarnished as
well. .... In May 1996, Gloria Knudsen, widow of Knudsen, and two of
his four surviving children were interviewed by the ARRB. .... They
said that Robert Knudsen told them sometime after the assassination
that he alone had photographed the autopsy.
"Knudsen also told them that he witnessed and photographed
probes inserted in the president's body, and that the Secret Service
took his film as soon as he had exposed it. (ARRB MD 230, Meeting
Report, Interview of Gloria Knudsen and children Terri and Bob, May
13, 1996, p.1)" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 263-266, 268, and 272 of
Endnotes
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md230/html/md230_0004a.htm
======================
SMOKING GUN #10:
"The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited
using highly sophisticated techniques."
[DVP Interjection --- Bugliosi spends a good deal of time and devotes
quite a few pages to the "Z-Film Alteration" nonsense. Here are the
"RH" page numbers associated with the "Zapruder Film Fakery" topic:
Pages 452 and 504 through 512 of the main text in the hardcover book;
plus Pages 347 and 348 through 359 of the CD's endnotes. Excerpts
below.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they
have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder
film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of
what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner
of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
bearing on the president's murder. ....
"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after
the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were
moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 506-507
~~~~~~
"Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that some supersecret
technology did exist in 1963, when would the conspirators have
accomplished all these tasks? Not even the conspiracy theorists who
hold to the alteration theory agree on a time frame. ....
"As set forth in the main text, the master or original Zapruder
film never left the physical possession of [Abraham] Zapruder until
some time after 9:00 a.m. in his office, on Saturday, November 23,
1963, the day after the assassination. .... So we see that the
original Zapruder film, which the forgers would have had to have as a
sine qua non to their alteration plans, was never out of the physical
possession of Abraham Zapruder and Life magazine during the period
when the alteration supposedly took place. ....
"One exception among the steadily increasing number of
alterationists is David Lifton, who acknowledges that "it is
implausible, if not impossible, to believe that, if the Zapruder film
was altered, that other films were not also altered...the complete
photo record had to be altered, not just one record [the Zapruder
film]" (David W. Lifton, "Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,"
in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.416).
"But then Lifton, who had written in numbing detail about the
complexities of altering the Zapruder film and where it was altered,
doesn't go on to write one paragraph, one sentence, or even one word
about the forgers actually coming into possession of all or any one of
these other films, and where and when they altered them. I can't
imagine why he didn't." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 352, 356-357, and 359 of
Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #11:
"The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports
on radio and television about two shots fired from the front."
[DVP Interjection --- Here are the "RH" page numbers that focus
attention on the allegation of "SHOTS FIRED FROM GRASSY KNOLL":
Main Text: Pages xxii, xxxv, 377, 380, 390, 394, 398, 406, 412,
439-440, 445, 483, 506, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1057-1058.
Endnotes: Pages 18, 153, 236, 250, 313-314, 331, and 345.
Many additional pages, mainly between pages 847 and 887 of the main
text, cover the sub-topic of "WITNESSES AND THE GRASSY KNOLL".]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6
witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8
witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses
heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is
right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any
question? ....
"[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential
limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of
[Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of
London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired
from two directions?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 849
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/7b06a89bd4042363
======================
SMOKING GUN #12:
"The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and
even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit
eyewitness reports."
[DVP Interjection --- This twelfth idiotic "Gun" has already been
covered thoroughly via the cites for "Guns" numbered 7, 9, and 10.
Since it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that NONE of the
things Kook Fetzer claims have been "fabricated", "altered", and/or
"edited" have actually been fabricated, altered, or edited, this 12th
"Gun" is a moot (and worthless) item....just like all 15 of the others
too, for that matter.]
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
of the most modern technological advances available in film and
photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
done back then. ....
"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- V.
Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes
======================
SMOKING GUN #13:
"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the
assassination occurred on the part that had been changed."
[DVP Interjection --- Why Mr. Fetzer still believes in this ridiculous
conspiracy myth is anyone's guess. But, it is indeed difficult at
times to figure out the mindset of an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy
theorist.] .....
WAS THE MOTORCADE ROUTE CHANGED AT THE LAST MINUTE?:
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fbacd51dfe2f074c
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"On Tuesday, November 19, 1963, three days before the shooting,
the Dallas Morning News described the route as passing through
downtown Dallas on "Harwood to Main, Main to Houston, Houston to Elm,
Elm under the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Expressway and on to the
Trade Mart" (CE 1363, 22 H 615). The afternoon Dallas Times Herald
provided a nearly identical description the same day (CE 1362, 22 H
614). ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0322b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/html/WH_Vol22_0323a.htm
"However, on the morning of the assassination, the Dallas
Morning News published a map of the route which seemed to show the
motorcade entering the freeway from Main Street, without making the
jog north on Houston to Elm, then west on Elm, past the Depository, to
Stemmons Freeway (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963, p.1A). (It
was this map that led some to believe that the motorcade route had
been changed when, in fact, the map was simply inaccurate in its
detail.)" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 460 of Endnotes
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dmnmap2.gif
======================
SMOKING GUN #14:
"Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The Fromme, Moore, and Hinkley [sic] cases [referring to the
two 1975 assassination attempts against Gerald Ford and John
Hinckley's 1981 attempt against Ronald Reagan] are far more egregious
examples of a lack of adequate Secret Service protection than the
Kennedy assassination, yet the conspiracy theorists remain silent
about them.
"Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Secret
Service was involved in the assassination, its performance left
something to be desired, the HSCA concluding that "the Secret Service
was deficient in the performance of its duties."
"Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter put it
better: "The Secret Service had the responsibility to protect the
president and they did not protect the president." -- V. Bugliosi;
Page 1245
======================
SMOKING GUN #15:
"Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could
have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else
for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy
photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film,
to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could
any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee
Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The only theories
that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are
those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a
crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the
clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government
covered up the crime because those same elements of the government
committed the crime."
[DVP Interjection --- Once again, Fetzer's redundancy factor rears its
ugly (and unsupportable) head. These "fabricated", "substituted", and
"altered" issues have already been tackled earlier on Fetzer's
"Smokers" list.
But I guess if the CTer repeats the same unprovable allegation two or
three different times, it's supposed to acquire additional validity.
But these things, of course, are all still "misfires" from Mr.
Fetzer's supposedly-smoldering conspiracy gun. A few bonus conspiracy-
debunking VB quotes follow.....]
"RH" BOOK CITATIONS:
"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....
"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
through whose hands they passed." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The president's brain did not lose much brain matter. .... As
[Dr. Michael] Baden said in his [HSCA] testimony, the [Ida Dox]
diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of
the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a
large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report
says nothing about any significant part of the brain being
missing. ....
"[Baden said:] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still
there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less
than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the
cranial cavity" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 283-284 of
Endnotes
~~~~~~
"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy
murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to
my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination
has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 1274-1275
~~~~~~
"No one, ever, has produced one piece of evidence connecting
[FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover with Kennedy's death, and your more
responsible conspiracy theorists don't devote any space to the charge.
Indeed, the very thought that J. Edgar Hoover decided to murder
President John F. Kennedy is too far-fetched for any but the most
suspicious and irrational minds." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1238
~~~~~~
"Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald
killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the
CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very
deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so
because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S.
intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1195
~~~~~~
"Even if it could be shown that the Secret Service was
responsible for the selection of the luncheon site and the motorcade
route [which was not the case for JFK's trip to Dallas in 1963], the
notion that the Secret Service was behind the assassination is, like
virtually all the conspiracy theories, ridiculous on its face.
"What conceivable motive would the Secret Service have had? In
fact, even if Secret Service agents got away with it, it would only
hurt their individual careers in the Secret Service that the president
had been killed on their watch." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 1241-1242
======================
SMOKING GUN #16:
"Many individuals knew details about the assassination before
and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more [than] a
patsy."
"RH" BOOK CITATION:
"The more Joseph Milteer talked, the more it became obvious that
before the assassination, he knew as much about what was going to
happen as you or I (though William Somersett tended to believe that
Milteer had foreknowledge, not believing Milteer would be able to
guess that Kennedy would be shot with a rifle from a window).
"Milteer now, after the assassination, wanted to lead Somersett
to believe that he was part of the group that was behind it. He said
he was connected to a group Somersett had never heard of, the
International Underground, an organization, he said, of American
patriots, and this group had infiltrated Oswald's pro-Castro group in
New Orleans. (By now Milteer had undoubtedly already heard over the
news that Oswald was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in
New Orleans. What no one knew at this point, including Milteer, was
that that committee, or group, only had one member, Oswald, so
Milteer's organization could not have infiltrated a group that did not
exist.) ....
"When Milteer and Somersett met the following day, Sunday, with
the four members of the Ku Klux Klan...he also told them about his
group being behind the assassination. ....
"Somersett was of the opinion that the four Klansmen had never
met Milteer before and met with him because he had asked for the
meeting. So here we have Milteer confessing to being part of the
conspiracy to murder Kennedy not only to his friend Somersett, but
also to four virtual strangers.
"Somersett didn't say whether or not he heard Milteer confess to
the waiter at the restaurant." [~LOL Break~] -- V. Bugliosi; 724-725
of Endnotes
[DVP Interjection --- Also see "RH" Pages 1265-1272 for lots more
debunking of the "Joseph Milteer Knew About The Assassination In
Advance" theory.
Bugliosi's book also contains ample cites regarding Santo Trafficante,
Carlos Marcello, Johnny Roselli, and Sam Giancana (among others of
this "Gangster/Mob" ilk) and the various conspiracy theories that
those individuals have been implicated in.
==============================================
FINAL "SMOKING GUNS" ANALYSIS:
When all is said and done (and evaluated), James H. Fetzer's sixteen
"Smoking Guns" have very little (if any) firepower behind them at all
when compared with the hard evidence that is presented in massive
doses in "RECLAIMING HISTORY" by author and former Los Angeles
prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi.
In fact, "substance"-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
Mr. Fetzer's 16 "Smoking Guns" have gone....up in smoke.
==============================================
Walt
> Thankfully, Mr. Reitzes eventually realized the error of his ways
> regarding the things he wrote in that post above (the full original
> post is below, from 11/20/1998):
>
> www.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/79627919337fa6fe
>
> Anybody who can't figure out the "jacket" puzzle shouldn't be looking
> into this case at all.
>
> To believe that the jacket found at the Texaco station wasn't Oswald's
> is to believe in some incredible things regarding "jackets"...such as
> believing that somebody ELSE, in addition to Oswald, decided to drop a
> jacket similar to LHO's at the gas station on 11/22/63 (a gas station
> where we KNOW Lee Oswald was also located around the time of the
> Tippit murder, per the Brocks).
>
> And we'd also have to believe that Oswald's jacket got itself "lost",
> never to be seen again (like all unwanted CT evidence in this case,
> like all of the non-C2766 bullets).
95% of the witnesses who saw Tippit's killer said that he was wearing
a a jacket that was a darker color than "white". The colors reported
ranged from gray to brown to black.....all darker than white. The
jacket that was photographed after being taken from a car in the
parking lot behind Ballew's station appears to be WHITE in the
photo. The cops said that they looked under and INSIDE the cars as
they searched for the killer who was last seen in the parking lot.
( Later there was a report of the suspect being in the library) Photos
show that several of the cars have the windows open at that time. One
of the cops spotted the white jacket on the seat of a car and grabbed
it because he thought the suspect had tossed it into the car as he ran
through the parking lot. A photographer was there with a video camera
and filmed the cops with the WHITE jacket.
On that same film there are photos of the cops examining a wallet. The
video film obviously was taken in the alley behind Ballew's Texaco
station because the tail lights of the 61 Chevy is seen in severly
cropped cuts from that film. Apparently there was a wallet in that
WHITE jacket pocket
and the cops knew that the ID cards in that wallet were NOT Lee Harvey
Oswald's ID cards.
It was AFTER the discovery of the jacket that the color of the
killers jacket changed from GRAY to WHITE. However since virtually
ALL of the witnesses said that Tippit's killer's jacket was NOT white
they could not show then a WHITE jacket and expect them to identify it
as the Killers jacket. So six days later when the jacket was turned
over to the FBI the WHITE jacket had become GRAY.