JFK Assassination Documents to be released this year

[Fiver]

Specter confessed to Epstein. But apparently Epstein did not want to reveal it until after Specter was dead. It does not get any worse than this.

Edward Epstein was an early critic of the Warren Commission. He is not the first to wait until after a supporter of the Warren Commission was dead to claim the dead person said something that undermined or even denied things the person had said while they were alive.

[Fiver]

Fiver - Google. Jim Garrison January 31 1969 appeal for xrays and photos. I found it under Hood College.Edu

Thanks. Google is not as good at finding pdfs.

Here are Garrison's pleadings.

I find it amusing that it says Dr McClelland said that "the cause of death was due to massive head and brain injury from gunshot wound of the left temple. (Whereas the Warren Report specifies the right side.)"

So Garrison bases his claim on the only doctor to claim the bullet hit the left side and misidentifies where the Warren Commission said the bullet struck.

And here's an article on Garrison being denied the xrays and photos.

[Fiver]

Without these positive identifications, the prosecution's case is weakened because it cannot prove that the items currently in evidence are the same items the witnesses found.

And the fact that all of these same items were also originally described as something else, not only makes positive identification by the finder imperative, it leaves open the possibility that there was evidence tampering by authorities and that the items in evidence may have been substituted for the items originally found.

How do we explain five main pieces of evidence, found in different locations and at different times, and all originally described as something else, not positively identified by the people who found them ?

* The TBSD rifle was mistaken for a Mauser by some of the people present. It was marked and photographed on site, so it is provably the same rifle that was found.

* The jacket was never described as something else. It was seen by several people and positively identified by the man who picked it up.

* The stretcher bullet was never misidentified. It did pass through several hands before it was marked. Neutron scanning proved that bullet fragments in Connally's wrist came from the stretcher bullet.

* The three TSBD shells were not described as something else by anyone. They were marked and photographed on site, so they are provably the same shells.

* The three Tippet shells were not described as something else by anyone who had physical possession of them. They were marked by the police.

Your source claims that all of the items were originally described as something else. This is provably false.

Your source claims that all of the items were not positively identified by the people that found them. This is provably false.

Your source deliberately ignores the testimony of most eyewitnesses, the photographic evidence, the items being marked by the police, and the ballistics evidence.

And that's before we consider that a competent Conspiracy would plant the right rifle, the right jacket, the right expended shells, and the right bullet in the frst place.

Who's running this Conspiracy - Moe, Larry, and Curly?

[Fiver]

The video corroborates his testimony. Much of the main evidence against Oswald was never positively identified by the person who found it. This includes the four Tippit shells, the three shells found on the sixth floor, the "stretcher bullet" CE 399, the "tannish-grey" jacket and the C 2766 rifle.

This has been answered before.

The rifle was seen by multiple people, photographed, and marked.

The jacket was observed by several people before it was picked up.

We have the chain of custody for the stretcher bullet.

The three TSBD shells were seen by multiple people, photographed and marked.

The four Tippet bullet shells were seen by multiple people.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I thought I’d add a bit of worthwhile cutting and pasting. This rebuttal of conspiracy nonsense should be required reading….

A Conspiracy Too Big? Intellectual Dishonesty in the JFK Assassination

By Fred Litwin 1994-95

The critics of the Warren Commission claim there was a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. If we assume they are correct, then exactly how big was the conspiracy to kill JFK? Are we talking about one assassin with an accomplice or are we talking about something larger? If one were to believe the current literature, we are faced with not just "something larger" but a monster conspiracy that consists of several assassins, several accomplices, and the destruction and forgery of vital evidence. The critics have constructed a conspiracy so massive that it ultimately falls of its own weight.

From this page you can: Go to the Kennedy Assassination Home Page and Table of Contents Search all JFK assassination documents on this site Browse an alphabetical subject index Go to the Internet Newsgroup on the assassination Go to a list of links to other Kennedy Assassination Sites Go to the "Best of Assassination Web Sites" See a list of Recommended Books on the JFK Assassination

Where did such a monster conspiracy come from? In the sixties, the critical literature pointed out the many failings of the Warren Commission.[1] The most effective book of that decade, Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher, highlighted the many inconsistencies in the evidence and the many unanswered questions about the assassination. [2] Her book quickly went out of print and became an underground bestseller -- photocopies were widely sold within the assassination research community. Meagher went out of her way to ask more questions than to provide answers. In the seventies, the critical literature started to look at the political undertones of a possible conspiracy (especially after Watergate and the revelations of CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro) that ultimately led to a new investigation. That investigation, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), emphasized the scientific side of the assassination and concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had indeed fired and killed Kennedy. In addition, the HSCA concluded, largely on the basis of the acoustics evidence, that a gunman on the grassy knoll fired at Kennedy (but missed).[3]
The HSCA addressed many of the issues raised by the critics in the sixties. Since then, the literature has taken on a disturbing tone -- one that rejects any piece of evidence contrary to findings of conspiracy.[4] If the autopsy X-rays and photos show evidence of a single head- shot from the rear, well, they must be fakes. [5] If the wounds on Kennedy's body are consistent with a single-gunman, well, the body must have been altered. [6] If the neutron activation analysis shows the single- bullet theory to be correct, well, the evidence has been tampered with. [7] And, if you do not like the conclusions of a professional panel, well, they must have ties to the government. [8] One could go on and on. This is extremely dangerous. This development is exactly opposite to the legitimate process of theory-building and testing. In the clash between evidence and theories, theories have to be discarded. It's true that evidence is often weak and open to multiple interpretations, but to argue that evidence is fraudulent is to undermine the possibility that any theory might turn out to be "true". . . To argue in such a style is to cause the collapse of the entire empirical edifice of assassinology. However weak, evidence could at least refute theories; now the evidence can't even do that.[9]
So, the critics are doing two things. They are rejecting many pieces of evidence. This rejection then forces them to paint a monstrous conspiracy and cover-up. The table below examines the conspiracy that stares us in the face. The list, while incomplete, attempts to delineate the conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Has there ever been such a conspiracy in history?[10]

Table 1: The Limits of Conspiracy

FORGERY	1. The autopsy x-rays and photos of the Kennedy autopsy have been forged 2. Backyard photos of Oswald holding his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle were forged.
EVIDENCE TAMPERING	Numerous pieces of evidence have been tampered with which "points clearly to a conspiracy by elements within the government to cover up the origins of the assassination."[11]
MURDER	Witnesses are still dying of strange circumstances.
PLANTING OF EVIDENCE	1. Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was planted in the TSBD after a Mauser was found. 2. The palmprint of Oswald was planted. 3. The Hidell identification was planted on Oswald 4. CE399 was planted at Parkland Hospital.
MULTIPLE ASSASSINS	Assassins can be seen in various pictures and films of the assassination. Some conspiracy theorists feel there are up to five assassins at work in Dealey Plaza.[12]
POLICE COMPLICITY	The Dallas police, besides being sloppy, helped plant evidence and hide evidence of conspiracy.
EVIDENCE DESTRUCTION	Several bullets that were found have been destroyed.
IMPERSONATION	A second Oswald roamed Dallas and Mexico City.
BODY ALTERATION	1. JFK's corpse was altered before the autopsy. 2. Oswald's body was switched.

As you go down the rows in the table above, the conspiracy becomes bigger and bigger. But there is no need. The House Select Committee on Assassinations conducted many tests that answered or debunked many of the above allegations. Not surprisingly, it is indeed extremely difficult to find references to these important studies in the critical literature.[13] The time has come for the critics to jettison some of their sacred cows.

1. The Backyard Photographs The photographs of Oswald holding the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle in his backyard have been analyzed for forgery ever since Oswald claimed the photos were composites.[14] As more photos have emerged over the years [15] , the critics have been forced to find more examples of forgery. This has clearly made their task more difficult. The HSCA took these allegations very seriously and had the photographic panel spend a considerable amount of its time examining the backyard photographs. The panel conducted many tests -- all of which showed the photos to be authentic (see Table 2). The panel went to great lengths to answer all of the supposed "inconsistencies".

Table 2: HSCA Analysis of Backyard Photos

Analysis/Inconsistency	STEREOSCOPIC ANALYSIS: Two of the photos were taken a short distance apart of a single scene. This allows the pictures to be inspected with stereoscopic techniques. It is virtually impossible to retouch one or both images of a stereo pair without escaping detection. No evidence of retouching was found. PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ANALYSIS: Photometry is the science of ascertaining the positions and dimensions of objects from measurements of photographs of these objects. No evidence of fakery was found.
Unnatural Lines in Oswald's Chin	Microscopic analysis showed no evidence of fakery.
Unnatural and Inconsistent Shadows	Varying exposures indicate that the shadows are indeed normal. The shadows were also determined to be directionally consistent.
Identical Backgrounds	Photos contained such different shadow patterns that the time sequence in which these photos were taken could be determined.
Camera Identification	Most cameras leave particular frame edge markings on negatives and pictures-- typically in a pattern unique to a particular camera. Oswald's camera was positively identified as the camera that made the one existing negative and one of the photos (only one photo showed the frame edge markings).

Source: Photographic Authentication, HSCA, Volume VI, pp. 138-225.

Yet, the critics have continued with the exactly the same criticisms as before the panel. Groden spends three pages in The Killing of A Presidentanalyzing the backyard photos, but just mentions that the photographic panel found the photos to be genuine -- with no explanation. What's worse, the photographic panel actually addressed particular concerns raised by Groden in one of his earlier books.[16] Marrs, in his book Crossfire, spends four and a half pages on the photos. While he mentions the HSCA conclusions, his text makes it clear that their analysis was on very narrow grounds: This conclusion rested primarily on studies that showed markings on the edges of the negative of one of the original photographs were identical to markings on other photographs made by the Imperial Reflex camera. This ballistics-type evidence convinced the panel that the photos must be genuine.[17] Marrs neglects to tell the reader that the edge markings analysis was only one of many tests done by the panel (see Table 2). Marrs then brings up many of the same concerns that had already been addressed by the panel (sameness of backgrounds, conflicting shadows, etc.) -- without telling the reader that they had been addressed.

Marrs quotes Maj. John Pickard, commander of the photographic department at the Canadian Defense Department, as saying the photos "have the earmarks of being faked." Yet the Photographic Panel noted that "he (Pickard) had performed no scientific tests on the photos and that he had spent less than an hour examining the 'very poor copies' that were submitted to him."[18] Marrs chose to leave that detail out. Perhaps there is a conspiracy after all.

2. The Autopsy X-Rays and Photographs

Back in 1966-67, there was widespread demand for the examination of the autopsy X-rays and photographs.[19] The testimony of the Parkland hospital doctors and the botched autopsy necessitated urgent examination. Since 1972, they have been examined by the original autopsists, the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Panel, the HSCA Panel, and many independent forensic pathologists and radiologists. The conclusions of all of these panels and individuals are remarkably similar: One shot, fired from the rear, traversed Kennedy's neck exiting through the throat. One shot, fired from the rear, hit Kennedy in the head. Even Cyril Wecht, a long-time critic of the Warren Commission, agrees with the above two statements. In 1973, Dr. Wecht wrote in Forensic Science that " The available evidence assuming it to be valid, gives no support to theories which postulate gunmen to the front or right-front of the presidential car. The wound in the President's head, as evidenced in the autopsy photographs and X- rays, can only have been fired from somewhere to the rear of the President... If any other bullet struck the President's head, whether before, after, or simultaneously with the known shot, there is no evidence for it in the available autopsy materials." [20] In 1975, Wecht testified before the Rockefeller Commission that Kennedy was shot in the head from the rear with "reasonable medical certainty." In 1979, Wecht testified before the HSCA that "with reasonable medical certainty" there was not a shot fired from the side which struck Kennedy.[21] He has never wavered from that position. [22] The critics have now been forced to argue that the autopsy X-rays and photographs are forgeries. It is the only way they can sustain their belief in a head-shot fired from the front of Kennedy. Leading the charge is Harrison Livingstone who, in his book High Treason II, claims that there is a discrepancy between the autopsy x-rays and the autopsy photographs. [23] However, not one forensic pathologist who has examined the original materials agrees with his assessment. [24] And, the authentication panel of the HSCA was quite clear in their conclusions that all the material was authentic (see Table 3). Interestingly enough, Livingstone dismisses their conclusions with little analysis.

Table 3: Authentication Panel of the HSCA

Analysis	--
Anthropological	Premortem x-rays of Kennedy were compared to the autopsy x-rays. A number of unique anatomic characteristics confirmed that the x- rays were of the same individual.[25]
Dental	Dr. Lowell Levine examined three skull autopsy x-rays and compared them with premortem dental x-rays. He concluded that the x-rays were of the same person.[26]
Stereoscopic	Several stereo pairs of photographs were analyzed. There was no evidence of alteration in the stereo pairs of the back of the head, the top of the head, the large skull defect, and the back of the head from the front right.[27]
Radiological	Dr. Gerald McDonnel examined the premortem and postmortem x-rays for alteration. He particularly looked for any differences in density, any discontinuities of bone structure, and any abnormal patterns. He found no evidence of alteration.[28]
Metric & Morphological	The person in the autopsy photographs are indeed John Kennedy. [29]

In addition, four of the Parkland Hospital doctors (Jenkins, Delaney, Peters, and McClelland), the original autopsy doctors and John Stringer (the autopsy photographer) and John Ebersole (the autopsy radiologist) have all said the materials in the National Archives are authentic. But, if you don't believe that the autopsy X-rays and photographs are forged, then how about body alteration (see section 9). I hesitate to think what next.

3. The Head Shot & The Zapruder Film

One of the biggest sacred cows of the research community is Kennedy's backward head-snap starting in frame 313 of the Zapruder film. How could Kennedy's head go backwards if he was shot from behind? Well, analysis by Luis Alvarez, a Nobel-prize winning physicist, shows that the mass excreted from a head shot can propel the head backward -- "the jet [of brain matter] can carry forward more momentum than was brought in by the bullet and the head recoils backwards, just as a rocket recoils when its jet fuel is ejected."[30] Alvarez concludes that "the law of physics are more in accordance with the conclusions of the Warren Commission than they are with the ones of the critics." [31] Yet, the critics still argue the case for a shot from the front. Groden publishes frame 313 of the Zapruder film with the following caption, "The fatal head shot, coming from in front of the President's car, rapidly pushes his head and body rearward and to the left." [32] Nowhere in his book does he discuss Alvarez's conclusions. Of course, the backwards head-snap did not bother any of the forensic pathologists on the House Assassinations Committee. The forensic pathology panel said that the majority of the panel believes that there is a possibility that this movement may have been caused by neurologic response to the massive brain damage caused by the bullet, or by a propulsive effect resulting from the matter that exited through the large defect under great pressure, or a combination of both. Whatever the cause of the President's movement, the majority of the panel concludes that only one bullet struck the President's head and that entered at the rear and exited from the right front. [33]

Further, the autopsy x-rays and photographs show that the back of Kennedy's head was intact with a large gaping exit wound in the right parietal area of the head. This is consistent with a shot from the rear. And, if you watch the Zapruder film, you will notice that the back of Kennedy's head does remain intact and that there is a rather noticeable exit wound exactly where the autopsy materials show it to be. [34] The Moorman photograph, taken seconds after Kennedy was hit in the head, also shows the back of his head to be totally intact. [35] Thus, the photographic evidence is consistent with the autopsy materials -- all of which support a shot fired from behind Kennedy. This has led some critics to claim that the Zapruder film was doctored by the CIA at the NPIC right after the assassination (see Section 4). Of course, if the film was doctored, why not also change the head-snap?

4. The Single-Bullet Theory

The single-bullet theory remains one of the more controversial elements of the JFK assassination. The Warren Commission concluded that one bullet (found at Parkland Hospital and labeled as Commission Exhibit 399) went through Kennedy's neck, hit Connally in the back, broke a rib, exited his chest, went through his right wrist, and caused a small wound in Connally's left thigh.[36] Over the years, critics have dismissed the single bullet theory as being impossible for three main reasons: 1. Kennedy and Connally were not properly aligned. 2. The Zapruder film shows Kennedy and Connally reacting to their wounds at different times. 3. CE399, because of its relatively pristine condition, could not have caused all the wounds in Kennedy and Connally. Let's examine each one of these objections. First, the HSCA proved that Kennedy and Connally were indeed properly aligned.[37] Their trajectory analysis, conducted by Thomas Canning of the NASA Ames Research center, used a survey map prepared specially to locate all the important structures in Dealey Plaza, wound information from the forensic pathology panel, and the photographic record supplied by the photographic panel. [38]

Canning's analysis supported the single-bullet theory and found that the bullet would have had to have been substantially deflected by passing through the President in order to miss the Governor. It seems almost inevitable that the Governor would be hit with the alignments that we have found. [39] Of course, it is not hard to believe that a bullet exiting Kennedy's throat could travel on and hit Connally.[40] In addition, Calvin McCamy of the Photographic Panel testified that the positions of the two men were examined on these films just prior to the time that the limousine went behind the sign, and it was agreed 15 to 1 that the men were in positions that were consistent with the single- bullet theory. [41] The HSCA trajectory analysis and the testimony of Canning and McCamy have been largely ignored by the critics. Groden, in his book The Killing of a President, says that "the single bullet theory, when depicted in pictures or diagrams, can seem plausible, the effect of angle or trajectory can be easily manipulated or obscured." [42] Yet Groden goes on to show not one, but three separate mutually-exclusive diagrams of the single-bullet theory (see Table 4). What Groden doesn't show is the HSCA diagram of the single-bullet theory -- and it clearly shows that Kennedy and Connally were in alignment.[43]

Table 4: The Many Trajectories of Robert Groden

Diagram/Allegation


1.) Diagram shows a bullet totally missing Connally (pp. 126).

Improper angles and improper positioning of Kennedy's wounds.

2.) Diagram shows a bullet zigzagging into Connally (although in this diagram, the bullet would not have missed Connally). (pp. 129)

Once again, improper positioning of the bodies and wounds make it appear the bullet had to change flight paths.

3.) A connect-the-dots diagram that shows CE399 changing direction several times (pp. 139).

Totally incorrect positioning of Kennedy's neck wound

Marrs, in his book Crossfire, and Cyril Wecht, in his book Cause of Death, also show the same third "connect-the-dots" diagram that Groden uses.[44] Cyril Wecht should know better -- the diagram positions the Kennedy's entry wound as being 5 3/4" below his collar which is not where the forensic pathology panel positioned the wound (and with which he agreed). There is absolutely no mention of the HSCA trajectory analysis in either books. Groden is certainly correct in his assertion that diagrams can be misleading. Secondly, while the Zapruder film appears to show Kennedy and Connally reacting at different times, we must remember that the speed of the film can render misleading judgments. Each frame of the Zapruder films represents only 1/18th of a second -- so a delayed reaction of just one second (well within the realm of possibility) translates into 18 frames of the Zapruder film. This begs the question of [how] far apart was their reactions. Even Groden admits that "the Zapruder films shows both men reacting to being shot three-quarters of a second apart."[45] That translates into 13 frames of the Zapruder film. Is it impossible for two men to react to different wounds within three-quarters of a second (and possibly even less). [46] The forensic pathology panel of the HSCA certainly didn't think so, saying that "the majority of the panel believes that the interval is consistent with the single-bullet theory." [47] Human reaction to bullet wounds are incredibly varied -- it is not a "hard physical science". [48] Why do critics refuse to explore such a simple explanation? Lastly, Cyril Wecht has continually challenged his fellow forensic pathologists to come up with just one bullet that has done as much damage as CE399 without being damaged. Well, Michael Kurtz, in his book Crime of the Century has come up with one. [49]

It is indeed possible for a bullet to remain relatively unscathed. However, according to Dr. Michael Baden, Chairman of the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, it is not surprising that there are few other examples: The problem is that although in New York City we see more than 1,000 gunshot wound deaths a year, in a civilian population it is most unusual to encounter military ammunition; and in military practice where people are killed by rifle bullets, autopsies and follow-up correlations are not performed as in the civilian death situation. Very few people, if any, have any autopsy experience with the Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 millimeter ammunition in a civilian population.[50] The final clincher to the argument came through neutron activation analysis which proved that the fragments removed from Connally's wrist came from CE399.[51] The critics must realize that there is quite a bit of difference between the impossible and the possible.[52]

5. Evidence Tampering & Planted Evidence

As we have seen, critics have charged that the autopsy X-rays and photographs and the backyard photographs have all been forged. In addition, the critics also charge that many of the assassination films have been tampered with (see Table 5). Such widespread tampering implies a conspiracy that is massive -- after all, one imagines that it must have been difficult in 1963 to forge X-rays and be able to fool experts 30 years later looking for forgery. Is it even possible?

Table 5: Tampered Evidence

ZAPRUDER FILM (1)	Documents show that the film was at the CIA's National Photo Interpretation Center (NPIC) after the assassination. Lifton claims this compromises the film's value as evidence.[53]	It is unclear exactly when the Zapruder film was at NPIC. Even there is no objective evidence of any tampering.
ZAPRUDER FILM (2)	Groden writes that "the film has again been tampered with at frame 207 and it is spliced, with four frames removed to frame 212 where the Warren Commission placed the first shot. Why? We now know that frames 208-211 have all been removed."[54]	Life magazine accidentally damaged six frames (207-212). Before that happened, Zapruder had ordered three prints. The so-called missing frames were printed in Josiah Thompson's book, Six Second in Dallas, which was published years before Groden's book.[55]
AUTOPSY X-RAYS AND PHOTOS	Autopsy material has been forged to hide a gunshot to the head from the front	See section 2.
BACKYARD PHOTOS	Photos are composites with Oswald's face and somebody else's body.	See section 1.
NIX FILM	Livingstone quotes a critic who claims a frame is missing after the head-shot which would show a "large piece of skull fragment in the air coming from the back of the head."[56] Jack White also thinks the film was altered.[57]	There is no evidence that a frame is missing from the Nix film.
OSWALD SIGNATURES	Groden writes that "The Oswald signatures on so many documents could have been easily forged and in fact, to any amateur, do not appear to be by the same man."[58]	The HSCA handwriting panel gathered 50 documents and concluded that "the signatures and handwriting purported to by Oswald are consistently that of one person."[59]

Besides directing an "incredible" cover-up, the conspirator also planted lots of evidence to incriminate Oswald (see Table 6). Instead of concluding that Oswald was guilty (a simple explanation), the critics have spun a tale of sinister conspirators successfully planting evidence to fool the police and FBI. If you don't like the evidence, just question its legitimacy!

Table 6: Planted Evidence

OSWALD'S PALMPRINT	After Oswald's death, a palmprint arrived at the FBI lab, supposedly taken from the assassination rifle.[60]	The HSCA confirmed that Oswald's palm print was on the rifle and that Oswald's fingerprints were found on the paper bag used to bring the gun into the Texas School Book Depository.[61] Not one witness has every come forward to say that the palmprint (or the fingerprints) were planted.
HIDELL IDENTIFICATION	Identification card with the name Alek Hidell was planted on Oswald by the police.[62]	Oswald admitted having the card. The signature on the card was proved to be Marina Oswald's (and she admitted signing the card).[63]
ASSASSINATION RIFLE	There are reports of more than one rifle found on the day of the assassination.[64]	The photographic evidence panel compared the relative lengths of parts of the alleged assassination rifle with that in many photos and films. The panel found the dimensions to be entirely consistent. Further, the panel compared identifying marks which indicate that both the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various post assassination photographs."[65]
SINGLE-BULLET (CE399)	The bullet found at Parkland hospital was planted. Some have even suggested it was planted by Jack Ruby.[66]	An absurd theory. How could the conspirators have known the nature of the wounds to take such a chance to plant "another" bullet?

To date, not one witness has come forward who can provide any evidence of forgery or planting of evidence.[67] 6. Strange Deaths?

As if multiple assassins and wide-spread evidence tampering and forgery weren't enough, how about murdering inconvenient witnesses? Over the years, various assassination researchers have catalogued every suspicious death involving people associated with the assassination.[68] Two recent books continue the myth -- The Killing of a President and Crossfire. Crossfire has a complete chapter called Convenient Deaths.[69] Marrs lists all the mysterious deaths in chronological order, saying that "the possibility of convenient deaths leads one into a well of paranoia, yet this long list cannot be summarily dismissed."[70] Marrs even implies that the CIA induced Jack Ruby's cancer. [71]

Check out a detailed analysis of the "mysterious" deaths connected to the assassination.

Another person on his list (and Penn Jones' list) is Earlene Roberts who died in January, 1966. Roberts was Oswald's landlady and died of a heart attack. Jacqueline Hess, a researcher for the HSCA testified that: He [Penn Jones] then states that she had important evidence to contribute. The implication is that Mrs. Roberts death is mysterious. While it is clear that Mrs. Roberts did indeed have important evidence to contribute, there is no indication in the records relating to her death, or in Mr. Jones' book, as to what exactly was mysterious about a 61-year-old woman with large calcium deposits and a case of pneumonia, dying of acute heart failure. [72] Hess's conclusion was that the "available evidence does not establish anything about the nature of these deaths which would indicate that the deaths were in some manner, either direct or peripheral, caused by the assassination of President Kennedy or by any aspect of the subsequent investigation."[73]
Marrs does quote the above conclusion but rejects it saying that "these deaths certainly would have been convenient for anyone not wishing the truth of the JFK assassination to become public." [74] Perhaps Marrs' theory would carry more weight if he himself was on the list. In The Killing of a President, Groden presents sidebars on many pages on the "HSCA Mysterious Death Project". Many of the deaths (like Earlene Roberts above) seem decidedly non-suspicious: David Goldstein, who has assisted the FBI in tracing the revolver used in the Tippit killing, died in 1965 of seemingly natural causes. [75] What exactly is one to make of such "assertions"? Why add the adjective "seemingly" without any clarification? Groden also includes a side-bar on Earlene Roberts. Like Marrs, Groden quotes the conclusions of Jacqueline Hess -- yet by including 43 such sidebars, Groden tilts the weight of his book against Hess' conclusions. One would think both authors could find better material.

7. Mexico City and an Oswald Impostor

When the CIA erroneously released photos taken at the Soviet embassy in Mexico City that was obviously not Oswald, it was seized upon as evidence of an Oswald impostor. Yet, now there is direct evidence from three Soviet embassy employees (including the infamous Kostikov) that Oswald was indeed at the embassy.[76] Peter Dale Scott, one of the more respected critics, spent time with Nechiporenko (one of the employees) and came away impressed with his story. [77] Paul Hoch feels that "the impostor hypothesis gets more attention than other aspects of the Mexico puzzle for non-evidentiary reasons -- that is, as historical baggage which we picked up when we had much less information." [78] As time passed, it became very unlikely that this man was an Oswald impostor -- for one thing, he was photographed again when Oswald was supposed to be in the U.S. -- and he does not fit the description given by Sylvia Duran, now the leading impostor witness. In other words, if we first came to the Mexican evidence now, we might not find an impostor such an appealing explanation of the confusion. [79]

Of course, the critics still publish and refer to the photos originally supplied by the CIA. Groden prints the pictures and writes that "The CIA was aware of at least one impostor using the name Lee Harvey Oswald. The photographs of the same man (right), posing as Oswald, were taken by the CIA on two separate occasions at the Cuban and Soviet embassies." [80] A CIA mistake is thus transformed into a CIA "conclusion" that Lee Harvey Oswald was being impersonated.

8. Photographic Evidence of Multiple Assassins

After the assassination, there were several witnesses who saw shots being fired from the Texas School Book Depository.[81] There were no eyewitnesses to any other assassins in Dealey Plaza. There were ear-witnesses to shots from other locations, but no eyewitnesses. Many critics allege that many of the films and photos of the assassination do indeed show other assassins and that certain films show evidence of a second person on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (see Table)

Table 7: Photographic Evidence?

ALTGENS PHOTOGRAPH	Man on fire escape appears startled after shots. "Was it close proximity of gunshots that startled the man on the fire escape?"[82]	Impossible to investigate. Lots of people in Dealey Plaza were startled by gunshots.
WILLIS PHOTOGRAPH	Groden writes that the figure shown in the Willis photo was "crouching behind the retaining wall, perhaps to fire upon the President."[83]	The photographic panel concluded that there was indeed a human standing behind the wall. However, the panel was unable to conclude that there was any rifle or any other weapon associated with the person.[84]
MOORMAN PHOTOGRAPH	A photo taken by Mary Ann Moorman shows Kennedy within half a second of being shot in the head. Numerous researchers have claimed there is an image of a policeman firing a gun (known as the Badgeman). [85]	The photographic panel sent a high-quality negative copy to the Rochester Institute of Technology. A series of photo enlargements were made. No evidence of a person on the retaining wall could be found. No enhancement work was carried out in the area of the stockade fence because the photo was so underexposed. [86]
NIX FILM	Groden writes that "the important things about this film is that you can see what appears to be one of the gunmen aiming a rifle at Kennedy."[87]	Object in the Nix film was not identified as a human being. No evidence of a puff of smoke was found. So-called classic gunman was not a gunman since there was no evidence of human flesh tones. [88]
ZAPRUDER FILM	Groden includes a drawing of Frame 413 that shows a helmeted man with a rifle. [89]	Analysis shows the head is indeed human but not in the bushes. The so-called rifle was only one of a number of twigs in the bush. [90]
HUGHES FILM	Robert Hughes filmed the motorcade as it turned onto Elm Street. Groden claims his film reveals movement in several windows on the sixth floor. [91]	Eighty-eight frames were processed for computer enhancement and motion analysis. Motion in the films is random and is not consistent with human motion, but is attributable to photographic artifact. [92]
BRONSON FILM	Charles Bronson filmed the Texas School Book Depository about six minutes before the shooting. According to Groden, "his film caught the movements of figures in the alleged sniper's window and two adjacent windows on the sixth floor." [93]	Apparent motion seems to be random. [94] Tests run for the special Frontline show on PBS also show the movement to be random.[95]

As such, the HSCA concluded that "There is no definitive visible evidence of any gunmen in the streets, sidewalks, or areas adjacent to Dealey Plaza. Nor was any evidence discerned of a flash of light or a puff of smoke."[96] The panel also concluded that motion in the windows adjacent to the open sixth-floor windows of the TSBD can be "attributed to photographic artifact."[97] However, these conclusions have not stopped the allegations -- allegations that are made without telling readers of the HSCA conclusions. [98] Never before have "dots" or "checks" been entered as evidence of conspiracy.

One of the best stories is told by Bill Gurvich who worked for Jim Garrison before quitting: "He (Raymond Marcus) came in the office and he had some large blowups of what he said was the picket fence area in Dallas, in Dealey Plaza. And these photographs would support what Garrison was saying about multiple assassins. Behind the fence. Behind the wall. So these photographs had been enlarged so many times that they looked like a checkerboard - they were black and white squares. Which was a printer's screen, enlarged. You couldn't distinguish anything. I joked with them when they showed it to me, and I said it looked like a Purina checkerboard sign." [99] To get people to see these "multiple" assassins, critics have resorted to painting in assassins to aid the eye. On page 200 of Groden's book, there is a colour picture of the "Badgeman". The caption reads "An extreme enlargement of a portion of Mary Ann Moorman's photograph shows a distinct image of a man in a uniform, especially when the shadowy images are colored in as in the illustration above" (emphasis added). Because if you don't add that assistance, well, you can't see nothing.

9. Body Alteration

Another bizarre claim was put forth by David Lifton in his book Best Evidence.[100] Lifton believes the autopsy x-rays and photos are authentic. But, in order the bridge the gap between the observations of the doctors at Parkland Hospital [101] and the autopsy report, Lifton claims that Kennedy's wounds were altered before the autopsy. Why was the body altered? Altering the body provided a means of hiding basic facts about the shooting. Surgery on the wounds changed the bullet trajectories and concealed the true locations of the shooters. Bullet retrieval insured that bullets and bullet fragments from the weapons that actually murdered the President would not reach the FBI Laboratory. If the navy autopsy is viewed as the first in a sequence of federal investigations, then it could be said that the results of that investigation -- results on which all others relied --were manipulated through the alteration of the body. [102] Another way of reading the above paragraph is that the existing evidence is consistent with a lone-gunman. And, not to belabor the point -- it is impossible to forge wounds. Even Cyril Wecht would admit that.[103]

Is the Case Closed? The critics are practising intellectual dishonesty on a massive scale. The conspiracy they paint is too big. One must remember that the Watergate cover-up failed despite being run by a sitting President. Iran-Contra also failed despite a sitting (albeit sleeping) President that gave free rein to his administration. Yet, we are to believe that a conspiracy of multiple gunmen, massive forgery and tampering of evidence, impersonation, planting of evidence, etc. could survive without a single crack. It belies belief. This doesn't mean that there aren't legitimate areas of inquiry. The major problem is that the critics have not yet developed a talent to filter out the unwarranted charges and focus on the more important issues. This need to throw out some sacred cows and begin to focus on the real issues cannot be overstated. Posner's biggest mistake was in claiming that the case was closed. It's not. Dr. Gary Aguilar sums up some of the outstanding medical issues in a cogent article in the Fourth Decade.[104] There are still questions on the acoustics evidence. [105] Oswald's possible relationships with various intelligence agencies are in question. [106] So, the case is still very much open. [107]

However, just as the "lone-nutters" must admit there are areas that remain to be investigated, the "conspiracy freaks" must start discarding some of their many sacred cows.

[Fiver]

From 1986's "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".



It took just 27 sec, Oswald would walk free .


Dallas Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone admits that when he was shown the rifle in evidence, CE 139, during his WC testimony, he could not identify it as the rifle he found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acRdJM25jwk&t=26s&ab_channel=GilJesus

This has been answered before.

Boone was not the only one to see the rifle. It was seen by multiple people, photographed and marked on site.

[GBinOz]

What is to be seen in the Zapruder film is this:
Between frames 225 and 230 Connally turns from a position where he’s looking to his right to a position where he looks straight ahead, while lowering his right shoulder & flipping his hat up and down; that’s 0.27 seconds. Going from frame 223 to 224 it's to be seen that not only the right lapel of his jacket flips or bulges, but also that his right shoulder moves slightly forward.

Between 230 and 235 he keeps looking straight ahead, before beginning to turn to his right again; that’s another 0.27 seconds.

This turning to his utmost right lasts until about frame 265, all the while holding his hat with his right hand until it disappears from view in frame 280.

Then, at frame 288 or 289, Connally starts to turn back to his left while leaning back onto his wife’s lap. He stays that way until frame 307, when he slightly turns his head to his left, away from the president.

Then, between frames 315 and 330 Nellie Connally pulls her husband’s head on her lap while she turns forward and ducks. On especially frame 321 it to be seen that governor Connally still holds his hat in his right hand.

Then, frames 225 to 231 show the president raising his elbows & hands. Between frames 232 and 251 he stays in that position and between frames 252 and 260 he relaxes his arms and slumps towards his wife. After that, he probably continues to slump somewhat, but, if so, it's hardly visible.

That’s what is to be seen in the Zapruder film, regardless of how many shooters there actually were and from where they may or may not have shot.

If Mrs. Connally’s memory was correct, then her husband was hit between frames 230 and 235 or after 289. After frame 289 seems impossible, as Connally had his back towards his wife and was leaning back onto her lap. And between frames 230 and 234, his right hand is to be seen at the level of his right shoulder. By frame 235 he lowers his hand slightly, but he keeps it at shoulder level and it stays there until it disappears from view in frame 280.

It seems very unlikely to me that one bullet could have entered in his back close to the armpit, traverse downward & slightly obliquely through his body hitting the fifth rib, exit below the right nipple and go through the wrist he was holding at or just below his right shoulder. For that to happen, he had to have held his hand in front of him, below the exit wound.

All the best,
Frank

Hi Frank,

The right lapel movement is often quoted, although I have yet to see a copy of the film that is clear enough to show it. Looking at the footage of the presidential limo as it turned into Houston St from Main St, it can be seen that the flags on the car indicate a strong wind from the NNW. I think it would have been the wind lifting the lapel rather than a bullet as indicated by this photo of Connally's coat.



I see the shoulder movements as part of the turning process. Nell Connally said that when her husband was hit he reared up like a horse. There is certainly no indication of this in the frames around the 230s. I would estimate that he was hit around frame 295 as he is turning back to the left, but it is difficult to see as the film is showing only the neck and head. I agree that one shot through the abdomen would be unlikely to also hit the back of the wrist, but I see a violent movement around frame 326 that could account for a second shot/wound.

The whole single bullet theory falls at the first hurdle. Hume said the back wound did not transit the body. Boswell sketched the back wound at 5 1/2 inches below the shoulder line and Burkley signed off on this location. SS agents Bennett and Hill observed the wound 4" and 6" respectively below the shoulder line. Sibert and O'Neill said the back wound was shallow and considerably below the throat wound. Sibert was quoted as saying about the single-bullet theory and Arlen Specter, "What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above - how far above I don't know." The holes in the coat and shirt indicate about 5 1/2" below the shoulder line. At the Clay Shaw trial in 1969, Pierre Finck said, "The back wound's depth was the first fraction of an inch." Gerald Ford moved the wound from the back to the neck as a "clarification" of the SBT.

Regrettably, we are still at odds with our observations and opinions, but there it is.

Best regards, George

[FrankO]

In addition, the Zapruder frames show that when Kennedy is hit ( around frame 225) , Connally does not react. In fact at 18.3 frames per second he does not react until almost 1 second later.

The governor was certain he was not hit before Z234, and the Zapruder film confirms this.

What is to be seen in the Zapruder film is this:
Between frames 225 and 230 Connally turns from a position where he’s looking to his right to a position where he looks straight ahead, while lowering his right shoulder & flipping his hat up and down; that’s 0.27 seconds. Going from frame 223 to 224 it's to be seen that not only the right lapel of his jacket flips or bulges, but also that his right shoulder moves slightly forward.

Between 230 and 235 he keeps looking straight ahead, before beginning to turn to his right again; that’s another 0.27 seconds.

This turning to his utmost right lasts until about frame 265, all the while holding his hat with his right hand until it disappears from view in frame 280.

Then, at frame 288 or 289, Connally starts to turn back to his left while leaning back onto his wife’s lap. He stays that way until frame 307, when he slightly turns his head to his left, away from the president.

Then, between frames 315 and 330 Nellie Connally pulls her husband’s head on her lap while she turns forward and ducks. On especially frame 321 it to be seen that governor Connally still holds his hat in his right hand.

Then, frames 225 to 231 show the president raising his elbows & hands. Between frames 232 and 251 he stays in that position and between frames 252 and 260 he relaxes his arms and slumps towards his wife. After that, he probably continues to slump somewhat, but, if so, it's hardly visible.

That’s what is to be seen in the Zapruder film, regardless of how many shooters there actually were and from where they may or may not have shot.

If Mrs. Connally’s memory was correct, then her husband was hit between frames 230 and 235 or after 289. After frame 289 seems impossible, as Connally had his back towards his wife and was leaning back onto her lap. And between frames 230 and 234, his right hand is to be seen at the level of his right shoulder. By frame 235 he lowers his hand slightly, but he keeps it at shoulder level and it stays there until it disappears from view in frame 280.

It seems very unlikely to me that one bullet could have entered in his back close to the armpit, traverse downward & slightly obliquely through his body hitting the fifth rib, exit below the right nipple and go through the wrist he was holding at or just below his right shoulder. For that to happen, he had to have held his hand in front of him, below the exit wound.

All the best,
Frank

[Fiver]

According to Horne, “After Best Evidence was published, a Michigan newspaper and a Canadian news team located and interviewed Donald Rebentisch, one of the sailors in Dennis David’s working party, who had been telling the same story independently for years.” (Horne, volume 3, page 675.)

Rebentisch did tell a two casket story, but his story does not match Dennis David's story.

* Rebentisch does not state what the casket looked like.
* Rebentisch does not state an arrival time.
* Rebentisch said the casket was wheeled in, while David said it was carried.
* Rebentisch said he doubted most of Lifton's claims.

Rebentisch's account is supported by Robert Munma. Munma was also dismissive of Lifton - "Evidently the guy wrote the book to make some money."

So, you have a Marine sergeant and two sailors, whose statements unequivocally confirm that Kennedy’s body was carried into the Bethesda morgue in a plain shipping casket at 6:35 p.m.

Only David's account mentions a shipping casket. All three accounts appear to differ on the time. Sgt. Boyajian said there was only one casket.

[FISHY1118]

[QUOTE=Fiver;n850794]

The David Lifton theory is that all bullets that hit JFK were fired from the front.

Previously you endorsed.

Someone else firing from the TSBD (with Oswald not firing at all) and a Grassy Knoll gunman.

Oswald and two other men firing from the TSBD. (The Mac Wallace version)

Shooters in the TSBD, Daltex Building, and the Grassy Knoll, none of them Oswald. (The Oliver Stone version.)

All four of these theories contradict each other, yet you have endorsed them

Your mixing up "contradiction" with possible outcomes . The 3 you mentioned could all have happened just as the evidence provided suggest .

I'll leave to contradictions to you and the false warren commission. .

[FISHY1118]

I chose the "you cannot change the laws of physics approach.

Switching caskets would require actual magic. Either the body has to be transferred between airplanes in mid-flight without anyone noticing or you need a second body close enough to JFK's body that it will fool x-rays and dental records.

And yet you were showed how it was done , and couldn't disprove it . Just your running commentary reply which means nothing .

[FISHY1118]

Dennis David's account contradicts Sgt. Boyajian's report - both claimed to have been put in charge of securing the entrances. Neither mentions the other. Dennis David's account also makes it clear that he assumed JFK's body was in the shipping casket, but that he didn't see the casket opened.

Good, im glad you see now the W.C contradiction are plentiful.

[Fiver]

In 1963, E-6 Navy hospital corpsman Dennis David was stationed at the Bethesda National Navy Center, where his job consisted of reading medical textbooks and transforming them into Navy correspondence courses. David later became a Navy officer and served in that capacity for 11 years in the Medical Services Corps. He retired from active duty in 1976.

On November 22, 1963, David was serving as “Chief of the Day” at the Navy medical school at Bethesda. According to an official ARRB interview conducted by Horne on February 14, 1997, David stated that at about 5:30 p.m. he was summoned to appear at the office of the Chief of the Day for the entire Bethesda complex (including the medical school). When he arrived, there were three or four Secret Service agents in the office. He was informed that President Kennedy’s autopsy was going to be held at the Bethesda morgue. David was ordered to round up a team and proceed to the morgue and establish security. He rounded up several men from various barracks, proceeded to the Bethesda morgue, and assigned security duties to his team.

Dennis David's account contradicts Sgt. Boyajian's report - both claimed to have been put in charge of securing the entrances. Neither mentions the other. Dennis David's account also makes it clear that he assumed JFK's body was in the shipping casket, but that he didn't see the casket opened.

[Fiver]

On November 22, 1963, Marine Sgt. Roger Boyajian was stationed at the Marine Corps Institute in Washington, D.C. On that day, he received orders to go to the Bethesda Hospital to serve as NCO in charge of a 10-man Marine security detail for President Kennedy’s autopsy.

Four days later — on November 26 — Boyajian filed a report of what happened. Here is what his report stated in part:
The detail arrived at the hospital at approximately 1800 [6:00 p.m.] and after reporting as ordered several members of the detail were posted at entrances to prevent unauthorized persons from entering the prescribed area…. At approximately 1835 [6:35 p.m.] the casket was received at the morgue entrance and taken inside.” (Bracketed material added.)

If you would like to see a copy of Sergeant Boyajian’s report, it is posted here on the Internet as part of the online appendix to Horne’s book.

The Joint Casket Bearer team said they transferred the body from Air Force 1 to the ambulance at 6:10pm. "Estimated weight of casket without the President's body was 800 pounds." They do not say when they arrived at the Bethesda morgue, but that the casket was brought inside at 8pm.

Sgt. Boyajian was was in charge of the Marine security detail guarding the Bethesda morgue during JFK's autopsy. "He said he remembered very little about the events in question, except that their principal task was to keep media reporters away from the morgue."

"One thing bothering me is that I can't recall seeing the casket arrive, yet I state in the report that it arrived at 1835 hours."

Sgt. Boyajian made it clear that his team was providing security. He never claims that his team brought the casket inside. Nor does he claim that there was a plain shipping casket. He definitely doesn't mention JFK's body arriving twice.

This shows a disagreement over when the casket arrived. It does not show that two caskets arrived.

It's also clear that the press was present. If JFK's casket arrived twice, how could they have missed that?

[Fiver]

I’m not posting for debate anymore...

So glad to hear that. I thought for a moment that just when you thought you had gotten out they managed to pull you back in. But since your post was not for debate....

c.d.

I'm not posing for debate, as it is clear some posters have no interest in debate.

I'm posting for the people who haven't already made up their minds.