P.J. Stahl
The REAL FAQ (v2.1), including Parts:
3A: Questions Concerning the Evidence
3B: The Destruction and Compromise of Evidence
ALT.CONSPIRACY.JFK : (REAL FAQ v2.1)
III. Questions concerning the Evidence:
A. What is the 'magic bullet' and 'single bullet theory'?
First, the single bullet theory - of which the 'magic bullet' is the
centerpiece. The single bullet theory was the brainchild of (then)
Warren Commission Assistant Counsel Arlen Specter. It is the
logical outcome if one has constrained the number of bullets to
three, and only three, as the Warren Commission did.
Thus, by process of elimination:
* one (the bullet that sprayed bystander Tague) is eliminated forthwith
* two - the fatal head shot, is eliminated
That leaves one bullet to make the remaining wounds in both
Kennedy and John Connally, to wit (e.g. 5, p434): "this one bullet
hit the President in the back, exited through his throat, passed through
Connally's body, breaking a rib, then shattered a bone in his wrist, and
finally entered his left thigh".
After negotiating this tortuous passage - including hitting a number of
bones, the bullet (designated Commission Exhibit 399, or 'CE399' for
short) is alleged to have emerged on John Connally's stretcher (ibid.).
In fact, the stretcher it was found on was "probably..of a little boy
at Parkland Hospital and not that of John Connally. This fact
constitutes another outright lie of the Warren Commission". (3, p60)
The key to the success of the theory, up to now, has been the 'success'
in explaining away the near pristine condition of the bullet. (And
incidentally, it did not even have microscopic traces of blood on it,
though it was slightly deformed.)
Dr. Jos. Dolcet, consultant in wound ballistics to the Army, has stated
he was given 100, 6.5mm bullets, by the Warren Commision, to fire at
cadavers. (Documentary, 'The Single Bullet Theory' video). In no case,
he went on, did any of the bullets come out pristine. In fact, all showed
significant deformity. In his own words (ibid.):
"No, it (CE399) could NOT have caused all the wounds.
Our experiments here show beyond any doubt that merely
shooting a wrist deforms the bullet drastically. In every instance,
the front or tip of the bullet was smashed. It's impossible for a
bullet to strike a bone, even at *low velocity* and still come out
with a perfectly normal tip."
To a lesser extent, the 'success' has also hinged on explaining away
the sheer serendipity of finding it on a stretcher . Not often in life,
does one have so many fortuitous circumstances (and coincidences)
falling so neatly into place - especially with the bullet nicely traceable
to the Mannlicher-Carcano (allegedly used by Oswald.)
But the focus really should be on the entry wound placement. Because
here is where the underpinning and cohesion of the theory rests. Indeed,
if the original placement is in error, then all derivative angles, entry
and egress points, and conclusions, are as well. And if these latter are
now disjointed - and displaced from efficacy and credibility -
then the 'theory' is itself defunct. This issue will be addressed further
down, where I show that the original placement of the wound was wrongly
reported in the Warren Commission - as being at the 'base of the neck'
when in fact it was significantly lower (upper back).
In fact, there is evidence that the autopsists deliberately falsified their
Warren Commission testimony, in order to have it comport with the
single bullet fiction.
This - of course, has direct bearing on the conspiracy thesis, since (5,
p435):
"Rejecting the single bullet theory means accepting that more than three
bullets were fired, and therefore that more than one gunman took part in
the assassination, since Lee Harvey Oswald- whom the Commission
identified as the assassin, could not possibly have gotten off more than
three rounds in the specified time."
1. Can all bullets and fragments be linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano?
Clearly, they cannot - and even CE399 is in doubt *, and as shown above,
the 'heritage' of that bullet is very much in doubt.
* As per note from W. Cakebread (personal communication): 'The original
CE399 was fired from a 6-groove barrel' while Oswald's alleged weapon
(Mannlicher-Carcano) 'had a 4-groove barrel.' This, however, is
countered by the other side, who rely on FBI measurements of the bullet.
Much of current NG debate hinges on the reliability of said
measurements.
On the assumption that CE399 is from the alleged Oswald rifle, the key
is whether the fragments recovered (e.g. in the limo) could be matched
to CE399 by composition. By incredibly favorable happenstance, a test
was actually performed (Neutron Activation Analysis) which has the
capacity to make such distinctions in chemical composition to within 2
or 3 parts per billion.(See next section for details of test).
Regarding the results of this test (which were not released until 1973)
J. Edgar Hoover wrote in a letter (7-18-64) to attorney G. Rankin (1,
p200):
"While minor variations in composition were found by this method, these
were not considered sufficient to permit positively differentiating
among the larger bullet fragments and thus positively determining from
which of the larger bullet fragments any given small lead fragment
may have come."
But - of course, in NAA, any deviation, no matter how minute - confirms
a difference in compositon. That is because the Neutron Activation
Analysis results is an 'all or nothing' test result proposition. Thus,
Hoover's reference to 'minor variations' was in fact an unwitting
(or witting) declaration that there were *conclusive* variations.
This may have been one reason why the NAA test results were
suppressed so long.(1, p200-01).
As Dr. Vincent Guinn, and his co-workers (*) also acknowledged in their
own conclusion (3, p62):
"the bullet which had killed the President wasn't even remotely related
to the fragment from the Governor's wrist. The NAA report had
demonstrated that two different types of bullets were involved and
since only one type could be associated with those loaded in the ammo
which was found with the Depository Carcano, the physical necessity of
at least a second weapon was obvious".
*
'Forensic Neutron Activation Analysis of Bullet Lead Specimens', in Gulf
Radiation Project 295 (June 30, 1970), National Technical Information
Service, Springfield, VA.
'Comparison of Bullet Lead Specimens By Nondestructive Neutron Activity
Analysis; (Lukens & Guinn), American Academy of Forensic Sciences.
The above result comports completely with the FBI and Secret Service
Report, which concluded that two separate bullets hit JFK and Gov.
Connally, in contradiction to the Warren Report.
2. What is Neutron Activation Analysis? What light does it shed on
the case?
The basic principles are described below, including an illustration of
its use (not specifically related to the bullet fragments of the JFK
case, though the principle is the same). The light shed on the case is
clear: the bullet fragments analyzed had to have come from two different
bullets, of entirely different composition. Hence, there had to be - at
minimum, one other shooter - thereby meeting the minimal definition for
a conspiracy.
NEUTRON ACTIVATION ANALYSIS: AN OVERVIEW - by P. A. STAHL
Purpose:
To show why the method of Neutron Activation Analysis is an 'all or
none' analytical method, and how it therefore has relevance in the JFK
case - i.e. in distinguishing bullet fragments. Thus - the 'minor
variations' referred to in J. Edgar Hoover's Memo to G. Rankin actually
indicate a positive NAA result: that the two fragments examined are
indeed different, and hence come from different bullets.
Introduction:
Both chemical and spectral/spectrographic methods of materials analysis
have the disadvantage that small quantities of an element may go
undetected. Hence - in a sample in which small quantities are
crucial to a positive finding, these methods will yield 'null' or
'inconclusive' results. This is not the case with Neutron Activation
Analysis (henceforth referred to as NAA). For example, in 1961 an
NAA analysis of a sample of Napoleon's hair revealed high
concentrations of arsenic - supporting the thesis that he was slowly fed
arsenic over his lifetime.
In NAA, the material to be analyzed is irradiated by neutrons. This
results in neutron capture by the target nucleus - which changes the
atomic weight (A) but not the atomic number (Z). Thus for any sample
material: X(Z, A) we can write:
X(Z,A) + n(0, 1) -> X(Z, A+1)
That is, if one neutron (n(0,1)) is added, the atomic number will remain
unchanged (since the neutron is an uncharged particle: Z = 0) but the
atomic mass will increase by 1, since the neutron has 1 atomic mass
unit.
We call the right hand side an isotope of the sample nucleus. In
performing NAA, most such isotopes will be radioactive and will have
specific decay times. This decay will manifest as beta or gamma rays
that have specific energies . In effect, for any given sample X
subjected to NAA, a very specific 'signature' will be found -
composed of the half life (T 1/2) and the energies of the decayed
particles (E1, E2 etc.). Since these are so characteristic - of the
particular sample, there is no possibility of there being any confusion
about sample contents, or discriminating between samples of slightly
different composition.
Examples:
a) Using NAA to determine if a specimen contains copper -65:
The material is irradiated by neutrons. If copper-65 is present - one
will find:
Cu 65 + n 1 -> Cu 66 or more generally Cu (29, 65) + n (0, 1) -> Cu
(29, 66)
where the 1st number is always the atomic number (Z) and the second the
atomic weight (A).
Now, the presence of Cu 65 is deduced because the nucleus formed from
the irradiation is known to have a half life (T 1/2) = 5.1 minutes and
decays with emission of 2 beta particles of maximum energy 2.63 and
1.59 MeV * respectively. Also, a gamma-ray is emitted of energy 1.04
MeV. If the measured phenomena have these parameters then, indeed - the
sample had in Cu 65.
b) Slight differences in composition of the same element:
This is the case which most resembles that done for the bullet
fragments, by NAA.
Consider two fragments X1 and X2, of one-thousandth of a gram each,
subjected to neutron irradiation. One - we do not know which - is
composed of lead 207 (Pb 207) the other is composed of 'heavy' lead 210
(Pb 210). Can we *absolutely* tell which is which, or whether both are
the same (i.e. from the same overall specimen)?
Procedure:
i) Subject each one, X1 and X2 to neutron irradiation.
ii) Note any decay products and the time taken for decay (half-life)
iii) Match this against known half-lives and isotopes for lead.
Results:
X1: No measurable decay product(s)
X2: a measurable decay product with a measured half life of 36.1 mins.
What is known:
Lead 207: Pb (82, 207) + n (0, 1) -> Pb (82, 208)
- no measurable decay products
Lead 210: Pb (82, 210) + n (0,1) -> Pb (82, 211) - beta and
gamma particles, half life of 36.1 min for the decay: Pb (82, 211)
---> Pb (83, 211) + e (-1, 0)
where e (-1, 0) denotes the beta particle.
Deductions:
The sample fragment X2 is the 'heavy' lead (Pb 210) - since it alone
discloses a decay product with half life (36. 1 mins) known to be
exhibited by a lead-211 nucleus, after absorption of one neutron.
This difference is absolute - and would hold even if the respective
sample sizes were one-billionth of a gram each. Only one has the
specific atomic configuration (A,Z) that can yield a specific decay
product of specific duration (T 1/2 = 36. 1 mins) after neutron
irradiation. The only way both can do it is if both were from the same
exact source/sample.
Conclusion: A similar procedure to the above, though not necessarily
using the exact same nuclear components, would have led to similar,
precisely refined deductions concerning the origin of separate
fragments. And - to the extent the half-lives of the fragment samples
differed (within the uncertainty of associated standard error,) would
have shown them distinct.
* 1 MeV = 1.6 x 10^-13 Joule
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Could CE399 have caused all seven wounds in Connally in JFK?
We now come to the central issue of wound location and placement. If one
accepts the autopsy report (written) as accurate (**) it is placed (cf.
3, p41):
"in the upper right posterior thorax just above the upper border of the
scapula there is a 7 x 4 millimeter oval wound. This wound is measured
to be 14 cm from the tip of the right acromion process and 14 cm below
the tip of the right mastoid process."
** HSCA, Vol. 7, pp. 228-29, 223, 218,
! ! Neck
! x !_______
!Shoulder
C * !
The above simplified view (rear view) shows how far off this places the
correct bullet entry site (C)from the site which is not correct (x) -
but which was referenced(9, p73) by the Warren Commission Report. The
actual bullet wound in the back can be seen clearly in (2, 4th photo
page after p432). It can also be referenced with respect to the bullet
wound in the back, and the puncture made by the bullet in the jacket JFK
was wearing (7, p78).
This wound placement - as described in the autopsy report reference
(above) and shown in the photographs, is also clearly deduced by
reference to the detailed anatomical diagrams in Gray's Anatomy (8, cf.
Mastoid process, p. 31 -top, p. 216; and Acromion Process, p. 88, p.91).
The Mastoid Process is the concave bone structure just behind the ear.
The Acromion Process is the peak or summit of the triangular shaped bone
overlying the scapula, and is "flattened from behind outwards, directed
at first a little upwards, ,so as to overhang the glenoid cavity. Its
upper surface, directed upwards, backwards and outwards, is convex,
rough and gives attachment to some fibers of the deltoid."(8, p88).
All of the above, mean that the position reported by the Warren
Commission, is at the very least erroneous (4, p25-26), and quite
possibly prevarication (3, p41). Certainly, the misplacement of this
crucial back wound undermines the entire underpinning of the single
bullet theory.
Worse, it discloses that the autopsists themselves may have been
complicit, lied, to make the single bullet theory work. This claim is
reinforced by the fact that on their Autopsy Body Chart, they *did*
correctly identify the location - not in the base of the neck (as their WC
testimony averred) but six inches lower (as depicted in the diagram
above). Thus, either they falsified the facts in their testimony, or the
Warren Commission itself did, to make it compatible with their single
bullet nonsense.
That it remains a point of debate, is even more perplexing and shows
the other side has possibly not done adequate independent
checking, preferring to accept the word of thw Warren
Commission as ultimate authorities.
First, the displaced position - now significantly (5-6")lower down -
alters the angle of entry from a downward one to a slightly upward one.
Two superposed views, showing the diverging angle can be seen
(7, p. 79). Note that the downward-directed path is for the single
bullet theory, so that - with the angular change (roughly 19-20 degrees)
that can no longer apply.
As for John Connally, he is clearly hit at two different times, around
Z236, where he is seen dropping his right shoulder and puffing out his
cheeks (7, p27), and still with Stetson in right hand (so no wrist
bullet could have entered by then) and then later at about Z328, when
the hat is no longer held (since the wrist has been hit).
Connally's wife, Nellie, the lone limo survivor - also bears this out in
a recently produced diary from that fateful day, in which she pointedly
notes *two* shots - separately to her husband and JFK (prior to the
fatal head shot). This was noted in a recent interview ('TODAY',
Nov. 19).
This totally refutes the Warren Commission's egregious 'magic bullet'
theory. While Mrs. Connally still accepts their 'lone gunman' conclusion,
this diverges from her own observations of 2 separate bullets. (Since
if one disposes of the 2-for-1 shot compression, a de facto 'minimal'
conspiracy scenario materializes - as there are now too many shots
in the allowed time frame. This was the reason the Warrenites needed
the artifice of the 'single / magic bullet' theory to begin with).
In effect, if one rejects the Warren Commission's 'magic bullet' theory
they also (logically) must reject its 'lone gunman' conclusion, whether
they realize or appreciate that or not.
Reinforcing this is the fact that, had Gov. Connally been hit at frame
230 (as single bullet adherents posit) he would have had to continue
holding his heavy white Stetson for about another second and a half,
AFTER being shot in the right wrist.
Anatomically this is nonsense. Close examination of the key frames
discloses he retains his Stetson between right thumb and forefinger.
It is the *ulnar nerve* which permits this apposition. But any bullet fired
into the wrist (i.e. at Z-230) would have severed that nerve, making any
grasp of his Stetson totally impossible.
As for the usual lone nut rejoinder that he 'suffered a delayed reaction'.
This is also nonsense. Stretching the laws of physical, anatomical nature
- just as violently as the single bullet lunacy tortures the Newtonian laws
of physics. Why are these biological/neurological and mechanical laws
being so desperately convoluted and deformed? To serve a politically
expedient solution and a whitewash that seeks to dismiss the *real*
evidence. Hence, we see it is the lone nut advocates that are the
real pseudo-scientists throughout this case.
The tally of results disclose, logically, that CE 399 could have
caused none of the wounds detected in JFK and John Connally.
Logically, the results also comport with the absence of any traces
of blood or tissue, even *microscopic*, on CE399.
Connally's doctor, Dr. Robert Shaw, in an interview ('The Single Bullet
Theory') has stated flatly:
"I am sure the bullet that hit Governor Connally was fragmented much
more than this bullet shows."
Finally, tests conducted by the Warren Commission itself - using similar
bullets, even fired into cotton - showed more deformity than did CE
399 (3, p61). The probability is 100%, therefore, that CE399 is spurious,
and merely 'interjected' at the scene to link the bullet to the rifle purportedly
used by Oswald.
4. Did the FBI tie Oswald to the rifle carrying bag or not?
Yes and no. That is, depending on which memo you accept. Both memos are
shown side by side (1, opp. P. 181), and the key passage from the
original (Dallas 89-43:11-29-63) reads in the key section:
"Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in
packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was
examined by the FBI laboratory and found not to be identical with the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
paper gun case found at the scene of the shooting."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
However, a subsequent 'memo' was also generated - bearing the same
document numbers and date, read(ibid.)
"Truly furnished similar brown paper from the roll that was used in
packing books by the Texas School Book Depository. This paper was
examined by the FBI laboratory and found to have the same observable
characteristics as the brown paper bag shaped like a gun case which
was found near the scene of the shooting on the sixth floor of the Texas
Book Depository Building."
An interesting question to ask is: What if the second memo was the only
one available - the first being destroyed? Serendipity does sometimes
occur for the conspiracy side too (e.g. in the form of fortuitous
oversights) The problem is, for how many is this a 'major issue'?
The reader is left to draw his/her own conclusions. In the end, it seems
likely that conspiracy viewpoint advocates will elect to grant validity to
the original memo, while lone nut adherents will bestow benediction on
the later version. (This is also an illustrations of what I call 'subjective
complementarity' - this filtered selection of evidence that supports one
case, while neglecting the counterpart evidence).
5. Is it true that several different snipers nests were set up?
Yes, at different times up to a half dozen different versions were
'created'. Two of these can be seen in (1, 1st photo section, 12 pages
after p126). One of these (left) appears to be the one finally
'chosen' for Warren Commission Exhibit No. 1301(9, 14th page into Photo
section). In the version uncovered by Depty. Roger Craig (filmed
interview) all the spent casings were perfectly aligned in the same
direction, and within 1 to 3 inches of each other. A highly improbable
happenstance to say the very least.
6. How good a rifleman was Oswald?
From the records available, Oswald's highest rating was achieved on Dec.
20, 1956, not long after entering the Marines. This was 'sharpshooter'.
(6, p41). Three grades are used in all: expert marksman, sharpshooter,
and marksman. The shots made in Dallas - on 22 November, 1963 - if made
by one person, on the moving targets specified - would have required a
'master expert marksman' level of skill, or the 'best of the best'
(ibid.)
By the time Oswald was discharged from the Marines, he was barely able
to qualify in any defined shooter category - with a 191 score (or
Marksman). Corporal Nelson Delgado, the marine most familiar with
Oswald's skills, referred to his being tagged with the label of
'Maggie's Drawers', meaning he was a lousy shot. (See Part 3D) In effect,
what we see is just the opposite of what one would expect for the
alleged assassin. His shooting skills never adequate to begin with, then
deteriorate over time, as opposed to improving!
Logically, also, bear in mind that regular practice would have been
required in the Marines and Oswald deteriorated in skill even in this
environment. It is rather illogical, therefore, to suppose that in an
environment ('civilian') which required no regular training (and for
which no evidence of any extraneous 'practice' exists) Oswald's skills
would have significantly improved to the level of being able to make the
shots attributed to him on Nov. 22, 1963.
7. Why is it so difficult - even with facts such as the above - to
showing unambiguously that a conspiracy occurred?
In 'Psy Ops' - a form of information warfare, the strategy is always to
prevent espionage or unwanted disclosure by tainting all unwanted
information with multiple possible 'causes' or 'agents'. All end up
being doubted. Any emerging certainty is quashed by the interjection of
doubts or alias 'explanations'. Indeed, even people in the loop - who
may actually come out and speak about what they actually saw and heard
(like Parkland Surgeon Charles Crenshaw) can then also be undermined by
having their own testimony rendered dubious, by an assortment of
'talking heads' or 'experts' dredged up by the opposition. Harrison
Livingstone has perhaps articulated the dynamic best (2, p177):
" Take a look at the conflicts in the case, in areas other than the
medical evidence, and we are looking at an intelligence or military
operation. One might call it 'Psy Ops' or psychological warfare. Some
say only three shots were fired in Dallas, but extensive evidence
indicates that 6 or more were fired. There was no Alek Hidell
identification on Oswald when he was arrested, but it turned up shortly
therafter, and the alias was attributed to him after the arrest. There
were no fingerprints or palmprints on the weapon attributed to him at
the time of the arrest. There was no evidence that the weapons had been
fired. There was no remote proof that Oswald was in the alleged
assassin's window.There was evidence that Oswald was in fact, a
government agent, perhaps working for two or more agencies.
"Witnesses saw other gunmen, smoke from other guns, heard other guns,
felt bullets go by, placed gunmen in other locations around the Plaza.
False Secret Service credentials were shown at the Plaza.
"Films and cameras were seized from witnesses and disappeared from the
evidence. Transcripts of testimony were altered. Witnesses were coached,
intimidated, ignored or bullied. Much evidence disappeared from the
National Archives. Other evidence appears to have been planted.
"Much evidence in the case appears to be forged and gives conflicting
information. False information was planted in the media and ever since.
Investigations were clearly co-opted and rigged.
"There is a fog over the evidence, something only a military or civilian
intelligence operation can do."
And that 'fog over the evidence' is what the conspiracy proponent
must be cognizant of. That no matter what evidence he or she pulls
out, it won't be long before a 'psy op' probes and neutralizes it by
sowing doubts. (See also PART 5).
Disbelief at such tactics usually is predicated on a naive faith that it
'takes too much energy' or is too research intensive. They forget that
those who forged these tactics have been doing it for many years, and
for them it is like breathing. Indeed, they actually relish the
challenge! It's like a game of chess or 'GO'.
And that is why this conspiracy, as some are wont to ask, has been
able to 'survive' so long, without any essential compromise. Even a
possible 'leak' can be instantly shut down merely with a specious
counterclaim that provides another cloak of doubt and round of
second-guessing. In a word, too many false 'mirrors' have already been
created. These have dramatically magnified an inhering 'subjective
complementarity' of evidence and data. A condition which, in this
author's opinion, renders the case permanently insoluble. In effect, the
conspiracy advocate seems destined to forever have his sources
questioned, and evidence denied, while official adherents have their own
documents and evidence denied as 'tainted' or 'compromised' or
forged/faked (e.g. the autopsy photos and x-rays). In effect, an
intractable condition prevails - which could however, have been
*deliberately* set - from the conspiracy viewpoint.
The benefit is clear: no one will ever be able to piece together enough
evidence to *prove* conspiracy. So at the minimum, the official version
will continue while critics are pooh-poohed as...well 'conspiracy
theorists' (or the standard pejorative: 'buffs'). This FAQ is one
attempt to expose some of the underbelly, to show the possible dynamic
at work, while getting some of the hitherto more concealed facts out.
I do this because I realize that most people do not have the time or
patience to sort through umpteen books - and do tedious cross-checking
to attempt to ferret out all the possible misdirections and false turns,
and dead ends. Part 3B is to follow.
Sources:
1 'High Treason', 1989: Groden, R.L. & Livingstone, H.E., Conservatory
Press.
2. 'High Treason 2', 1992: Livingstone, H.E., Carrol & Graf Publishers.
3. 'Killing the Truth', 1993: Livingstone, H.E., Carroll & Graf
4. 'The Last Investigation', 1993: Fonzi, G., Thunder's Mouth Press.
5. ' The Assassination of John F. Kennedy', 1992: Duffy, J.P. and
Ricci, V.L., Thunder's Mouth Press
6. 'Treachery in Dallas', 1995: Brown, W., Carroll & Graf Publishers.
7. 'The Killing of a President', 1994: Groden, R., Viking Penguin
Books.
8. 'Gray's Anatomy', 1994 ed.: Gray, Henry, F.R.S., Dorsett Press, New
York.
9. 'The Report of the Warren Commission of the Assassination of
President Kennedy', Bantam, New York Times Edition (1964).
--------------------------------------------------
3. B. The Destruction and Compromise of Evidence.
1. What happened to the limo windshield?
The limo windshield was totally replaced+, with several actually bought
before the final version was installed (3, p63).
1a. Were there bullet holes in it, any photos of such?
Yes, and these can be clearly seen (e.g. 1, photo section, page before
p127; 7, p36, 41). (Footnote: Some controversy has arisen over whether
'holes' actually appear and where. In my opinion this is more a matter
of semantics, and obscures much of the discussion. Let us say then there
were specific and definite 'defects' in the wake of the shooting, and
these are shown in the above referenced photos. The point is - they were
certainly caused by bullets)
1b. If this windshield had evidence of shots, why was it treated this
way? Was this deliberate?
+Evidently, the Secret Service maintained possession of the car and
transported it back to Washington. While there, "a spokesman for the
agency rejected a request to inspect the vehicle. He declined to discuss
any hole that might be in the windshield" (3, p64).
1c. What is the conclusion here? The Secret Service was in on a cover up
too?
+Painful as it is to acknowledge, the Secret Service had to at least be
guilty of obstruction, by not being forthcoming about allowing the
evidence to be examined and retained for further investigation. But
this does not mean the Secret Service necessarily 'controlled'
that situation. Their orders may have come from elsewhere - from an
agency or authority higher up - that enlisted their cooperation, for
whatever reason.
Taking the conservative route, therefore, we would prefer not to say the
Secret Service engaged in a 'cover up' - but rather, was 'uncooperative'
(to the point of being obstuctive) regarding the availability of the evidence.
The reader is left to draw whatever other conclusions he may.
2. What happened to the limo, after the assassination?+
The limo was taken to Detroit and rebuilt (3, p63). Again, the reader
is left to draw his or her own conclusions.
+ (see also FAQ Addendum: re: cleaning of the limo, and loss of
evidence)
3. Were the original autopsy notes destroyed? Who did it?
Yes. The original autopsy notes were burned by Dr. J.J. Humes,
Commander, USN (1, p73; 4, p24). Again, graciousness will prevail, and
we will say that Humes 'erred', rather than assert he maliciously and
willfully destroyed a vital record. The reader is left to decide for
himself when to say 'when'.
It should be noted in passing, that Humes was the only autopsist to have
claimed to see a bullet wound in the rear of JFK's head (3, p69, 5, pp
237-38) but then, he burned his (original) notes, so perhaps his memory
was not as unfailing as he believed. Some small pieces of bone were
subsequently found, purporting to reveal the a "small hole of entrance"
- but "there is no chain of evidence to prove where the bone came from"
(3, op.cit.)
3a. Did a CIA agent interfere with the autopsy photos during the HSCA
hearings?
An HSCA staffer - with authorization, had removed some of the photos,
but forgot to secure (in a locked safe) them when she left. On
returning, she noticed that one of the photos was left outside its
protective plastic jacket. (4, p218)
"It was as if someone had removed it for examination and then perhaps
hearing her return, quickly tossed it back without putting it in its
protective jacket." (ibid.)
This also shows that major security breaches occurred right under the
nose - as it were - of an official investigation. So much for those who
insist any attempts at fakery or manipulation of evidence is 'not in
the cards'. (Interestingly, Blakey attributed it to 'curiosity' but even to
a naive defender, that is stretching things, and humongously!)
Blakey subsequently called the FBI on being notified of this, and they
took fingerprints. It was found out that analysis disclosed a print
belonging to one Regis Blahut, the CIA's security representative.
Evidently, Blahut was resolute in denying he had anything to do with it
- but, after three consecutive polygraph test failures, 'fessed up.
(ibid.). He blurted to a reporter (op. cit. P219)
"There are other things involved that are detrimental to other things."+
The astute reader is left to deduce for her-/himself what this cryptic
statement might mean. One possibility:
Blahut's words could have been an oblique reference to the cold-blooded
black ops hit on William Bruce Pitzer (Head of the Audio-Visual Unit of
Bethesda Naval Hospital,) who had access to an original, unedited 16 mm
film of the autopsy, as well as 35 mm slides of same, in 1966.
This is noted by Pitzer's associate, Petty Officer Dennis Davis, who
worked with him at the Film Unit, in the video 'The Men Who Killed
Kennedy', Pt. 6 of the Nigel Turner BBC series.
Interviewed, Mr. Davis noted that three or four days after the
assassination, Pitzer had shown him in his office.
* a 16mm film of the autopsy
* Slides: including tissue slides and also slides showing JFK
while on the table at the morgue
Davis pointed out two slides specifically, one of which clearly showed a
small hole in the upper temple, and the other a large gaping hole in the
back of the head. In his words:
"The wound was a frontal entry wound, opposed to what the Warren
Commission said."
Also interviewed in the same video was Lt. Col. Dan Marvin, who attended
the CIA-run Guerilla Warfare and Terrorist 'school' in Ft. Bragg, NC
(1965) which included 'assassination techniques for a head of state'.
Marvin noted the folloing in the interview:
- He overheard one CIA instructor commenting to another: "Things really
did go well in Dealey Plaza, didn't they" and referred to a mock layout
of the Plaza, showing where the shooters were and the routes to the
hospital. Marvin added:
"We really felt, before the end of the Assassination training was over,
that one of those CIA instructors could himself have been involved in
the assassination."
and
"Perhaps its the way that soldiers of fortune are, but I just convinced
myself as did my friend, that it had to somehow be in the best interests
of the United States government. Otherwise, why would our own people
have done it?"
- His training group was explicitly told:
"Oswald was not involved, he was a patsy".
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- He was summoned to meet with a CIA official ('company man') along with
a training mate, David H. Vanek. Marvin said: He asked me if I would
volunteer to kill a man, a United States citizen, a U.S. Naval officer,
at Bethesda Naval Hospital." He initially accepted, on the understanding
it would be overseas, and was given the name: William Bruce Pitzer. He
related that he subsequently refused on learning it was to be done
inside the U.S. - against all the edicts of even the black ops brigade.
According to Marvin:
"This wasn't the way it was supposed to be. We were supposed to be
used as their assets - the CIA's assets - for assassinations overseas."
Marvin noted that on his refusal, the official then went over to talk to
Vanek, though he did not hear what he talked to him about. But "I never
saw David Vanek again after that day. That was in the first week of
August, 1965"
However, he felt that one of those he was training with in the
Guerrilla Warfare school (a David Vanek) had accepted that duty. Less
than a year later Pitzer was killed - and they left it looking like an
apparent suicide, with a .38 at his side and a bullet wound to his right
temple. However, they forgot to put the weapon in Pitzer's left
hand, possibly forgetting he was a left hander. This is the giveaway.
- When Marvin pursued the issue of where Vanek was, after learning of
the hit on Pitzer, he was sent a letter that 'no such person existed' -
however, he had the presence of mind to retain a copy of the Special
Army Orders listing those attending the Special Warfare Center when he
did, and sure enough there was Vanek's name.
3b. What assurance do we have that Marvin is sincere?
Why would this gentleman put himself in jeapordy, subject his family to
slurs or worse - to fabricate a story more than 30 years after the fact?
It makes no sense at all. Indeed, at every point in the video, Marvin is
seen producing documentation of his training, where he was, when - which
specific dates, with whom and so forth. It beggars the imagination - as well
as insults the man, to question or impugn him merely because his
statements violate one's (anti-conspiracy) temperament. It is also
disingenuous to question his memory or recollections of the events, while
at the same time paying homage to, say, Nicholas Katzenbach's
'recollections' of why he wrote his infamous memo on Nov. 25 ( Part 4).
However, the best suggestion is for anyone in doubt to view the video
for themselves. They can then judge whether Lt. Col. Dan Marvin, a
well-decorated veteran, is sincere or not. Personally, I suspect one
glance at his interview will dispel any lingering doubts forthwith.
3c. I heard some study was done and autopsy x-rays were found to be
fake. True or not?
Dr. David Mantik (Ph.d,Physics, MD) of the University of Wisconsin did
what is called an optical densitometry analysis in 1993, and found
regions of significantly disparate optical density (degree of
brightness) . He found (Duluth News-Tribune, March 19, 1994, p7A, 'JFK
Autopsy X-Rays Belie Official Findings'):
"The x-rays appear to have been fabricated by superimposing images on
authentic x-rays to create composites, rather like double exposing a
film in a camera."
The same report also notes:
"The discovery that they have been constructed to conceal a large defect
at the back of the skull has the effect of completely discrediting the
House Select Committee's Report. Which was based on the assumption that
the x-rays were authentic and the eyewitnesses wrong."
He also performed another analysis - using simple geometry, to trace
the path of the bullet (from the back wound) and discovered there were
no broken vertebrae as one would expect - to enable the bullet to pass
out from the front (required for it to hit Connally as the'single bullet
theory' demanded). In Mantik's words, the vertebrae (spinal column)
formed "an impenetrable barrier" to the bullet's passage.
3d. But wasn't Mantik's analysis found to be erroneous or something?
Hardly. In fact, Mantik's analysis remains one of the best there is, and
perhaps - for that reason, the target of a dedicated ambiguation
campaign, by psy ops tacticians. Often, the technique involves one or
more of the following strategies:
i) Impugn Mantik for having Ph.Ds in *both* medicine and physics, and
hence not being enough of a qualified specialist.
ii) Impugn him for being a radiation oncologist.
In fact, this is a tremendous asset in such an analysis as he carried out.
As Mantik himself has noted (from letter appearing in 'Killing Kennedy-
The Hoax of the Century' by H. Livingstone, 1995):
"Because cancers must be precisely targeted in radiation therapy, this
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
is the one specialty in which specific and precise correlation between
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
external and internal anatomy is critical. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That means, coincidentally, there is the highest probability of correct
analytical placement, using x-rays, since the oncologists' positions are
much more likely to be reliable, faithful, than anyone else's. They have
to be, since their patients' lives depend upon precision! (Not harming
collateral organs, tissues with gamma rays etc.) Having worked for a
radiotherapy software corporation, the author has personally seen
the software's location capabilities (in conjunction with Anterior-
Posterior, Lateral x-rays) with administration of dosage in centigray,
to the nearest *millimeter*)
Hence, this is yet another obfuscatory red herring.
iii) Splitting hairs over fine definitions.
Yet another tried and true tactic. If both the above fail, split hairs.
Including the meaning of what the original autopsists really meant
when they anatomically referenced the back wound. But, the language,
read in its strictest anatomical interpretation, leaves not a scintilla of
doubt. It was in the upper back, near the T3-T4 vertebral position,
not near T1, or the base of neck. Mantik's analysis fully confirms
that.
4. What was the wound placement and how does it compare with the
official version?
Let's take the official version (9) first:
There are two wounds entering Kennedy:
a) A wound in the base of the neck (9, p73)
b) A wound in the rear of the head. (ibid.) - the fatal head shot,
causing his head to jerk backward
Wound (a) is from the 'magic bullet', and the first point for the
'single bullet theory'.
Based on more critical and comprehensive analysis, however, (see also
section 3A- posted yesterday) we have, in the order of their occurrence:
a) throat wound (1, p59, 3, pp65-66; 10, p85)
b) back wound (not 'base of neck') - 3, pp68-69;
c) wound to front of head, with large exit in rear, "obliterating part
of the temporal and all of the parietal and occipital lobes before
it lacerated the cerebellum." (10, p86) - the fatal head shot.
This last completely comports with Charles Crenshaw's own descriptions
(10, p. 86) and also the slides described by the associate of William
Bruce Pitzer's at the Bethesday Naval Hospital Audio-Visual Unit.
Two other wounds to Connally were entirely separate from the preceding
and caused by different bullets.
Thus, there were at least 5 shots that hit their target - and at least
six shots in all(including the one that sprayed bits of pavement on
Tague).
4. What was the reason for appointing a new acoustic team in the HSCA
investigation?
The original acoustic team, including Dr. James E. Barger and Mark
Weiss, had found (4, p260):
"that there was a 95 % probability that a fourth shot was fired from the
Grassy Knoll."
This was based on a detailed analysis of impulses on a dictabelt
recording made at the time, as well as simulations of the same (7,
pp172-75)
Some time later, however, after a rock 'n roll drummer (Steve Barber)
acquired a disk copy of the dictabelt recording from a 'Gallery' magazine
insert, he challenged the HSCA original report - based on his personal
analysis of the 'Gallery' mini-record. This led to the hypothesis of 'crosstalk'
being on the tape, as well as a Carillon bell*, which the FBI had insisted
could not be in Dealey Plaza(1, p215). Hence Barber's contention that
-whatever was on the recording - 'was not shots'.
The matter was then handed over to the Department of Justice, which went
to the National Academy of Sciences to get a new acoustic team together,
headed by Dr. Norman Ramsey.
5. What did the new team (Ramsey Panel) find?
Ramsey and his colleagues found a number of errors in the Weiss et al
analysis, including mistaking motorcycle backfire for gunshots, and
confusion of recordings between two channels used at the time. (cf. 1,
pp.222-23) It is important to note, however, that the methodology was
never questioned (1,p222).
"since the physics and geometry of the approach had been accepted
scientific fact for over fifty years."
Nonetheless, the word got out that the dictabelt tape bearing the
gunshot impulses was actually contaminated by 'crosstalk' , i.e. from
another source (presumed to be the open channel of one of the Dallas
motorcycle officers mikes).
This occurred after rock 'n roll drummer, Steve Barber - pulled a mini-
record of the purported dictabelt recording out of a copy of 'Gallery'
magazine. ('Gallery' was a downscale imitation of PLAYBOY, at
least at the time). Evidently, Barber analyzed this little 'freebie' (that
came bound in with the particular issue of the magazine) and
determined that all the so-called 'shots' occurred after the assassination,
and therefore could not have been shots at all - but rather motorcycle
backfires or something similar.
Barber presented his findings in a self-published booklet called 'Double
Decker'. The effect of this was to apparently nullify the '95% conspiracy;
finding since it triggered the introduction of a new(National Academy of
Sciences) team, who negated the earlier results, i.e of the earlier team
of experts. But as Gaeton Fonzi emphasizes (4, p260, footnote):
"The National Academy of Sciences reviewed the tape of the gun shots and
decided the shots were not all gun shots, perhaps just static. Committee
expert Dr. Barger defended his analysis, claiming his methodology was
musch less subject to error than the Academy's. Blakey too, blasted the
Academy, for ironically, failing to do a complete enough study. In a
memorandum printed in the Congressional Record three years after the
Committee's Report, Blakey also pointed out that the Committee's
findings of a shot from the grassy knoll was based on factors other than
just the sounds from the police radio tape, including testimony of
witnesses near the grassy knoll who heard sounds of gunfire. "
Author David Scheim, MIT mathematician, offered this comment
on the NAS analysis of Ramsey et al(11, 35-36):
"While the panel offered some valid criticisms of the methodology used
in the House acoustical studies, it introduced complex and controversial
assumptions and made several errors of its own. In a letter of February
18, 1983, Dr. Barger noted enigmatic features in a recording upon which
the National Academy of Sciences panel relied and pointed out it 'did
not examine the several items of evidence that corroborated our original
findings'. Barger stood by the acoustical determination of a grassy
knoll shot as accepted by the House Select Committee on Assassinations."
Researcher W. Antony Marsh makes these points (13):
"The NAS did not allow any dialogue with critics to review and challenge
such a study. The NAS did not allow any dialogue with critics. They
worked in total secrecy. In fact, they did not even make their raw
materials available so that other researchers could try to duplicate
their work."
The above is extremely pivotal, since in any bona fide scientific
milieu, reproducibility of results is all important. Since the Ramsey
analysis - whatever its merits or otherwise - lacks the benefit of
confirmation, even the most dogged anti-conspiracy adherent must
concede it is not completely valid. Nor should it be unreservedly
accepted until and unless such confirmation is completed. Up to
this writing it has not been.
This further reinforces the valid view that the HSCA's original
conclusion: that "there was a '95% probability' that a fourth shot was
fired from the grassy knoll" (4, p260) cannot willy-nilly be 'scotched',
eradicated, nullified or peremptorily dismissed. In fact, it must stand
so long as the Ramsey analysis remains unreproducible. Since the HSCA
original conclusion points to at least two shooters - satisfying the
minimum definition of conspiracy (see Sec. 1) then clearly the
conspiracy position remains wholly valid (some would say 'exclusively'
so) until such time that the Ramsey conclusion is duplicated. If one
purports to go by or adhere to the ways of science, then this must be
unalterably accepted, irrespective of how it may violate one's
subjective temperament or interests. The observed fact that lone
nutters gravitate to a finding that belongs in 'The Journal of Irreproducible
Results' says much about the paucity of their position.
Other questionable aspects, which certainly need to be reveiwed in any
attempted confirmation of the Ramsey findings, are noted by Marsh
(ibid.)
"The central argument of the NAS study which I believe is totally
unfounded is that a message by Sheriff Decker, known as Dallas 1, was
transmitted on channel 2 and somehow cross-talked onto channel 1."
And (13a):
"In my opinion, the Ramsey panel was not a 'new acoustic team."'I don't
think any of the members could be described as an acoustical scientist.
And they assiduously avoided doing any acoustical studies by bypassing
the issue when they stated that the "shots" were at the wrong time and
therefore not worthy of study."
It should also be noted that the Ramsey panel tapes appear to have
been shrouded in secrecy, and indeed at one point "the
government even denied owning them" (ibid.) When their existence did
finally become irrefutable, the Dept. of Justice refused to release them,
and continues refusing to do so. This, despite the fact that one FOIA
request has been in effect for over 17 years.
Clearly, those who are continuing this policy do not understand the
extent to which it co-opts the Ramsey claim, and indeed undermines it.
Since there is no reproducibility evident - and one cannot reject the
original HSCA conclusion without it. (Even with it, it is difficult to
reject the HSCA formal conclusion, since as Blakey noted, it did not
rest on the Ramsey Report/Analysis alone (4, p260)
Finally, it is well to bear in mind, that even in the event that Barber's
and the NAS' results are confirmed independently, this still does not
undermine the conspiracy premise, since it is not predicated exclusively
upon the acoustics. Or even on the presumed identification of impulses
with gunshots as a primary 'proof'. Indeed, as Harrison Livingstone (3)
once noted: 'only a fool would rely entirely on the acoustic evidence' to
support conspiracy.
And the REAL FAQ underscores this, since barely 1/50 th is devoted to
the acoustic issues
As has been reiterated so many times, the validity of the conspiracy
thesis rests on a *multitude* of facts taken in concert, not on one or
two assumptions or premises. It is precisely the *concatenation* of
these facts - documented throughout this FAQ, that bears out that JFK
was sacrificed in a conspiracy. (Just as it is the concatenation of
improbable 'accidents', and 'coincidences' that renders the lone nut
hypothesis implausible).
6a. Was a bone fragment dislodged from JFK's head?
Yes - a piece of occipital bone, as identified by Billy Harper. It is
known as the 'Harper bone fragment' (7, p34. It was identified as
'occipital' by a Chief Pathologist at Dallas' Methodist Hospital (1,
p198). This also is consistent with the description of the head wound as
described by Charles Crenshaw (10, p86-7). As he notes (p86):
"From the damage I saw, there was no doubt in my mind that the bullet
had entered his head through the front, and as it surgically passed
through his cranium, the missile obliterated part of the temporal and
all the parietal and occipital lobes before it lacerated the cerebellum.
The wound resembled a deep furrow in a freshly plowed field."
In the very rough sketch below, the key regions are depicted. A more
exact rendering may be found in Gray's Anatomy (8, p466).
Occipital lobe
! * *
!* * ----Cerebrum
Cerebellum *! *
-----*-- * * *
*
Crenshaw's description, and the relative positions referenced, clearly
indicate the bullet would have travelled through the cerebellum frontal
region and through the region at the back and base of the brain.
Note that soon after Crenshaw's book (10) came out, a scrurrilous
personal attack was launched by George Lundberg and the JAMA to
attempt to discredit him. They tried to do this by publishing the original
autopsists' opinions as scientific 'facts' in the journal. Crenshaw, not to
be cowed, or settling to have his good name defamed, took the matter
into litigation. The JAMA defendants ultimately agreed to pay Dr.
Crenshaw, and Gary Shaw, over $200,000 and to reimburse them for
court costs. (14, p79) The settlement was a total vindication of Crenshaw,
and his book JFK- Conspiracy of Silence'. One may surmise, on this basis,
that all those who attempt to impugn Crenshaw, or his observations of the
head wounds, are patent disinformants, and possibly psy ops tactictians.
In effect,, on exiting, it is most probable that the occipital bone
- or significant fraction thereof - would have been blasted out. (If one
examines the skull diagram in Gray's Anatomy (8, p68) this can quickly
be discerned.)
This fragment, in the author's opinion, can also be seen clearly flying over
the trunk of the limo in a good (untampered) copy of the Nix film.+
(I would recommend getting the video 'The Two Kennedys' - in which the
fragment remains highlighted all through its trajectory.)
The fragment referenced above - subsequently became kown as 'the Harper
Bone fragment' because it was recovered by William Allen Harper "in the
grassy area to the left of Elm Street, opposite the grassy knoll". (5,
p211). However, it was also observed in flight by Mr. Charles Brehm who
noted in an interview that "it landed to the left and rear of the
limoousine." ('Rush to Judgment')
Harper brought it to his uncle at Dallas Methodist Hospital, who in turn
"gave it to the hospital's chief pathologist, Dr. A.B. Cairns
who..identified it as a piece of bone from the rear of a human skull"
(ibid.)
The bone was subsequently sent to the FBI lab in Washington where
difficulty in matching it to the skull was found (ibid.)
However, if the head/skull was altered (e.g. using Mortician's plaster
or other accessories) this would not be surprising. Nor would it be
surprising if the lab were issued an imperative *not* to fit it, since
there is already evidence (see ref. to Dr. Mantik's optical densitometry
findings earlier) that tampering was in place for the x-rays - and
probably the (available) autopsy photos as well.
Clearly, this is not to be treated lightly or easly dismissed,
particularly in the wake of the 1966 black ops hit on William Bruce
Pitzer, head of the Bethesda Naval A-V Unit, who had a 16mm film of the
original autopsy - and 35 mm slides. However, his murder disclosed that,
under no circumstances, could the truth of the faked photos/autopsy be
allowed to surface in any unambiguous fashion. Those who have concealed
the genuine nature of the wounds have clearly gone to great lengths to
do so - and to keep it concealed.
*
Footnote: Much discussion has focussed on whether the head was 'blown
out'. Again, I suspect this is more semantics than anything else. (How
does one define 'blown out', or 'exploded'? 30% of skull missing, 50% +
60% of brains, etc.?) What we do know is major head trauma occurred -
even if one is relcutant to use the term 'exploded: as JFK's brain
tissue flew all over a motorcycle officer riding behind, as well as on
Jackie. The Nix film definitely shows a bone-head fragment flying off
and Jackie's own testimony confirms she was attempting to retrieve such
fragment exactly as she appears to be doing (Warren Commission
-Transcripts, Vol. V, p. 180).
6b. I understand only artist's drawings were provided in the Warren
Report, no photographs. Is this true?
Unfortunately yes, and this can be regarded as yet another compromise of
the evidence. As James Di Eugenio observes (12, p98-99):
"Supposedly 45 photographs and 20 x-rays were taken of the body....In
fact, these seemingly critical exhibits were not even subpoenaed by the
Warren Commission, which accepted artist's drawings in their place.
Moreover, the drawings were not rendered from the original pictures, but
from the doctor's memories of the wounds!"
And let us recall a couple of items here: 1) Humes destroyed his
original notes (see earlier); and 2) Neither autopsist at this military
operaton (which is what it was), had any experience in bullet wounds
(ibid.). Both were essentially Administrators, called to preside over
what was (arguably) one of the most critical autopsies ever.
If truth and objectivity were any factor at all, the autopsy
ought to have been done at Parkland, where at least many
doctors familiar with gunshots were available. Hijacking the body
to Bethesda, where legally the autopsy ought to have been done
in Dallas, broke the chain of evidence (the body being the key
connector).
And using novices in gunshot wounds - under military supervision,
merely established one more nail in the coffin of the official version.
It also disclosed that there never was any genuine attempt or effort
to find the truth. Otherwise, real professionals - with first hand
experience of bullet wounds - would have been enlisted for the job.
Arguably, the autopsy of the century.
7. Is it true that a message was sent to all FBI offices warning of the
assassination? What happened to it?
An FBI teletype, dated November 17, 1963, "directed all field offices to
contact CIs (confidential informants) to determine whether a military
revolutionary group was a potential threat to the president during his
Dallas trip of November 22-23. (6, p77).
It began by saying - from verbatim copy made (authenticity confirmed
by former FBI agent and author William Turner, ibid.):
"Revolutionary group may attempt to assinated President Kennedy on his
proposed trip to Dallas Texas November TwentyTwo Dash Twenty Three
Nineteen Sictythree" (words as they appear)
(See also original copy: 1, 8th photo page past p180)
No official response was made to the teletype, and it "curiously
disappeared from most FBI files after November 22." (ibid.)
8. There was a LIFE photo of Oswald and a rifle - was it fake or real?
All the indications are that it is a fake.
All the images (CE-133A-C; 1, 6th photo page after p180) show
differential shadow lengths in the photograph - for example, one set of
shadows (for the face) not matching the other shadows thrown elsewhere -
in length. (cf. 1, p177-78)
As anyone who has ever built a simple sundial is aware, it is the shadow
length of the gnomon (the upright-vertical part of the dial) that is
projected against a calibrated dial to give the time. The principle is
the basis of all clocks that read apparent solar time. This is based on
the fact that the length of shadows cast varies during the course of the
day - being minimal when the sun is at the zenith (noon point) and
maximal when near the horizon (sunrise -sunset points). In the LIFE
photo, the differential shadows can clearly be seen with reference to
LHO's nose, and any object selected in the background.
Even a cursory comparison shows significant differences, with the facial
shadow consistent with a time near noon - possibly up to one hour later,
and the other foreground and background shadows consistent with late
afternoon.
Since gnomonics is an exact science - based on spherical trigonometry,
one would logically choose to side with the deductions from that science
rather than what a 'talking head' may assert about the photos. (For an
excellent and readable account, see 'Theory of the Sundial' in
'Mathematics for the Million' by Lancelot Hogben, 1968, W.W. Norton &
Co., pp. 329-333.
Sources:
1 'High Treason', 1989: Groden, R.L. & Livingstone, H.E., Conservatory
Press.
2. 'High Treason 2', 1992: Livingstone, H.E., Carrol & Graf Publishers.
3. 'Killing the Truth', 1993: Livingstone, H.E., Carroll & Graf
4. 'The Last Investigation', 1993: Fonzi, G., Thunder's Mouth Press.
5. ' The Assassination of John F. Kennedy', 1992: Duffy, J.P. and
Ricci, V.L., Thunder's Mouth Press
6. 'Treachery in Dallas', 1995: Brown, W., Carroll & Graf Publishers.
7. 'The Killing of a President', 1994: Groden, R., Viking Penguin
Books.
8. Gray's Anatomy, by Henry Gray, F.R.S., Dorsett Books.
9. 'The Report of the Warren Commission of the Assassination of
President Kennedy', Bantam, New York Times Edition (1964).
10. 'JFK - Conspiracy of Silence', 1992: Charles A. Crenshaw, Penguin
Books.
11. Scheim, D. S., 1992: 'The Mafia Killed President Kennedy',
Virgin Publishing Ltd., London, UK.
12. Di Eugenio, J.: 1992, 'Destiny Betrayed', Sheridan Square Press, New
York.
13. Marsh, W.A. "The Ramsey Report," DATELINE: DALLAS,
volume 1, numbers 2 and 3, Summer/Fall 1992, pp. 14-16.
13a. Marsh, W.A., personal (e-mail) communications
14. 'On The Trail of The Character Assassins' by D. Bradely Kizzia,
J.D, in 'Assassination Science': 1998, Ed. James H. Fetzer, Carus Publications.
Video - 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', Part VI (Nigel Turner,
Producer) BBC Productions (1995)
* Video - 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', Part I, BBC Prod., 1988
* Video - 'Rush to Judgment', Emile de Antonio, MPI (1986)