 |
BOOK REVIEW -- "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"
=====================================================
BOOK REVIEW......... "RECLAIMING HISTORY:
THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY"
AUTHOR: VINCENT BUGLIOSI ===================================================== USA Release Date: May 15, 2007.
Published by W.W. Norton & Co.
1,664 Pages (plus 1,128 pages on accompanying CD-ROM).
40 Chapters, Plus Introduction.
32 Pages of Photos/Illustrations.
6 Pages of Charts/Diagrams.
71-Page Index.
Hardcover.
===================================================== Book Website:
http://www.ReclaimingHistory.com
Interviews with Vincent Bugliosi re. the book:
http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=917
http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=965
http://www.fora.tv/fora/fora_clip.php?cid=994
http://www.kmox.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=729008
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/episodes/2007/05/15/segments/78931
Vincent Bugliosi vs. Dr. Cyril Wecht (Radio Debate)(June 14, 2007):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/260403d21ac1e084
===================================================== REVIEW BY DAVID R. VON PEIN: I can remember thinking to myself many years ago....if I could choose just one person on the face of the globe whom I would want to have write an in-depth book on the JFK assassination, that one person would be Vincent T. Bugliosi.
"Reclaiming History: The Assassination Of President John F. Kennedy" was published by W.W. Norton and released on May 15, 2007. (The release date was moved up two weeks from the originally-announced publishing date of May 29, 2007, which would have been JFK's 90th birthday.)
Written over the course of a 21-year period by former Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Vincent Bugliosi, "Reclaiming History" was a daunting project indeed.
This massive 1,664-page book is accompanied by a CD-ROM, which contains an additional 958 pages of endnotes and another 170 pages of source notes. So the total number of pages adds up to a mind-blowing 2,792. (And that figure can be increased still further if the 32 unnumbered pages of photos are figured into the total; so that would put the final page count at 2,824.)
When counting the endnotes on the CD-ROM, this mighty publication logs in at 1,535,791 total words....an impressive stat by anyone's standards. (I didn't count every word myself, mind you; Bugliosi provides that statistic in one of the book's footnotes.) And what makes that seven-digit figure even more impressive is the fact that almost all of those 1.5-million words were written out in longhand by Mr. Bugliosi on Vincent's ever-present yellow legal pads.
In this era of computer word processors, I cannot imagine an author writing a gigantic book like this one (or any book, for that matter) in longhand with a 2 pencil. But evidently Mr. Bugliosi did just that....which, in my view, makes me respect Vince's dedication to this JFK subject all the more. (And the company that supplied Vincent with all those yellow legal pads must be in 7th heaven now. Because Vince probably kept that company afloat for two solid decades all by himself, with his large refill orders!) ~grin~
The endnotes are essential reading, containing many excellent anti-conspiracy arguments put forth by the author. The nearly 1,000 pages of endnotes on the CD-ROM also include several "clickable" Internet weblinks, providing still more information about certain sub-topics, although some of the links are non-functioning ones, being broken via the line structure used on the PDF document on the CD, necessitating a copy-and-paste into a separate browser.
An Audio-CD edition of "Reclaiming History" is also available (produced by Simon & Schuster). The audio version includes 15 compact discs, which contain approximately 18 hours of abridged material from the book, very nicely read by actor Edward Herrmann. The CD-ROM full of notes is not included with the audio package, however. .....
http://www.simonsays.com/content/book.cfm?tab=1&pid=526698
And as of this writing, Tom Hanks' production company (in conjunction with Home Box Office) is working on finalizing a deal that will bring "Reclaiming History" to the TV screen, in the form of a 10-part television miniseries.
In addition to the HBO miniseries, a companion documentary special is also in the works, wherein Mr. Bugliosi will appear on camera to thoroughly debunk all of the various conspiracy theories.
Bugliosi told "Daily Variety": "Many more people will see the miniseries than will read the book. With the integrity that Tom {Hanks}, Gary {Goetzman} and Bill {Paxton} bring, I think that we will finally be able to make a substantial dent in the 75% of people in this country who still believe the conspiracy theorists."
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117966398.html?categoryId=14&cs=1
This book, which was originally going to be titled "Final Verdict", was delayed for several years after its November 1998 release date was postponed. As of 1998, the book was slated to have 'only' 992 pages. Obviously, Mr. Bugliosi found a lot more to say about the case during those interim nine years....and found a few more conspiracy theories to destroy in the process.
If I were being forced to come up with a very brief two-word description of this book, I think I would probably choose the words "Staggeringly Comprehensive". For example, "Reclaiming History" contains more than 10,000 source citations, including 1,557 in the first chapter alone ("Four Days In November"), plus another 1,627 in the "Lee Harvey Oswald" chapter.
To illustrate the grandness of that number, the 888-page Warren Commission Report (which is stocked with an extremely large number of citations) has approximately 6,500 source references in it. But that number is dwarfed by Bugliosi's five-digit stat.
Mr. Bugliosi has meticulously examined and scrutinized the entire JFK assassination case here -- from Lee Harvey Oswald, to Jack Ruby, to J.D. Tippit (despite the lack of a specific chapter with Tippit's name attached to it; however, the details of the Tippit murder are chronicled very nicely in Chapter 1 and also over the course of several endnotes located on the CD-ROM disc), to all of the physical and circumstantial evidence, to the witnesses, to the autopsy, to the Warren Commission, to the HSCA, to the ARRB, and also to the enormous number of inaccurate conspiracy theories that have populated the landscape since 1963.
And Vince Bugliosi (who I'll refer to as "VB" many times throughout this review) has assessed this massive amount of information with his usual style of common sense, logic, thoroughness, and fairness....and has reached the conclusion (which I have fully agreed with for many years) that Lee Harvey Oswald, alone, shot and killed President Kennedy and Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit on Friday, November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas.
Given the evidence that VB has sifted through (again and again), there is no alternate conclusion even possible, other than to accept the original 1964 conclusion of the Warren Commission, i.e., Oswald was the sole assassin that day in Texas so many years ago.
Mr. Bugliosi has done something that no one else has done prior to the release of "Reclaiming History" -- he has taken each major conspiracy theory (and many minor ones too) and has looked beyond just the SURFACE ALLEGATIONS of conspiracy to dig deeper into them and reveal the inherent illogic, inconsistencies, and internal contradictions that exist in EVERY THEORY (without a single exception). It's a magnificent accomplishment by Bugliosi, in my opinion.
I've been interested in the JFK assassination since reading the first book I ever owned on the subject, David Lifton's "Best Evidence" (1980), which is a pro-conspiracy book that Mr. Bugliosi so thoroughly demolishes in Chapter 21 of "Reclaiming History" that it will make everyone wonder how on this Earth Lifton's book ever made it to the New York Times Best Sellers list.
In any event, during those many years since perusing Lifton's nonsense-filled tome, I've amassed a pretty decent amount of knowledge with respect to the events of November 22nd, 1963.
But even with a fairly vast amount of information stored up in my memory about the case, I still learned many additional details pertaining to that tragic day in Dallas by reading "Reclaiming History". One example being Vincent's "discovery" of a second soft-drink machine within the Book Depository (see pages 957 and 958 for details; and also check out the official Warren Commission document designated "CD496; Photo 7" for proof-positive of the existence of this long-overlooked Dr. Pepper machine).
"Reclaiming History" could almost be considered more of a "John F. Kennedy Assassination Encyclopedia", rather than a mere JFK "book". The heft and all-encompassing scope of this tome are certainly "encyclopedic" in nature, to be sure.
For years to come, these individual chapters are bound to serve as useful reference material for researchers regarding specific sub-topics within the vast landscape of the JFK case. Hence, some redundancy can be found throughout the book's text. But, in my opinion, it's required repetition.
Vincent's extensive and far-reaching knowledge of this whole case, coupled with his rational mind and logical way of evaluating evidence, is pretty much akin to turning a kid loose in a candy store.
I get the sense that VB is having a ball as he works his way from one unsupportable conspiracy theory to the next in the second half of this book, thoroughly reducing each and every theory to a pile of dust. And in most instances, even the dust doesn't stand a chance, as Vince blows that away as well.
When conspiracists go about the formidable task of attempting to dismantle Mr. Bugliosi's 21 years' worth of lone assassin-favoring research, I get the feeling that those "CTers" will, in essence, be trying to put out the Great Chicago Fire with a Dixie cup full of hot water. Such meager conspiracy-rescuing attempts won't be of much use at all.
Bugliosi began writing this book shortly after he successfully "prosecuted" President Kennedy's accused murderer during a 21-hour televised "Docu-Trial" produced in 1986 for the Showtime cable-TV network, "On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald".*
* = The webpage linked below features many interesting verbatim text excerpts from the "mock" LHO trial, including almost every single word of Mr. Bugliosi's "final summation" to the jury.... http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b3a8181c73cfa095
The Showtime Docu-Trial featured a real judge, a real jury from Dallas, two real lawyers battling it out in court (Bugliosi vs. famed defense attorney Gerry Spence), and real assassination-related witnesses as well, including Ruth Paine, Wesley Frazier, Marrion Baker, Cyril Wecht, Johnny Brewer, Charles Brehm, and many others.
Bugliosi believes that the '86 Docu-Trial is "the closest thing to a trial that Lee Harvey Oswald ever had or will have" (a VB quote from late 2005).
For me personally, another extraordinarily-informative and entertaining part of "Reclaiming History" is when author Bugliosi puts on display his amazing ability to (as the publisher [W.W. Norton] phrased it) "draw startling inferences" from certain facts surrounding the JFK case. I like to refer to these types of VB inferences as "Why Didn't I Think Of That?" moments. And Vince does this many times throughout the book, too (some examples provided below in my chapter-by-chapter analysis).
I'm a bit disappointed by the overall minimal number of photographs that appear in this massive book (there are two "slick" sections of pictures in the book, totalling 32 pages; and Vince has also included 6 extra pages of charts and diagrams as well, placed on unnumbered pages).
The JFK assassination was the most-photographed murder in history, and many hundreds of pictures were taken which would succeed, all by themselves, in telling a rich photographic tale. And I would have liked to have seen Vince augment his text here with more of the wealth of pictures that exist surrounding those four dramatic days in November 1963. Especially considering the author's boast about "Reclaiming History" being the "book for the ages" on the JFK case.
Although, to be fair to the author, I'm guessing that Vince probably didn't want to add still more girth to this heavy 6-pound volume; and filling up the book with pictures would obviously have tacked on many additional pages.
Another factor that might have kept the number of photos to a minimum is the very thin paper that has been used for these pages (the thin paper obviously also helping to minimize the volume's size).
I'm not an expert on such matters, but I'm guessing that printing photographs on extremely-thin paper stock is not a very good idea. And there are no assassination photos printed on any of the regular (numbered) pages within this stout publication. That's a shame, in my opinion. But it is understandable I guess, given all factors combined.
I do agree with Vincent, though, about this being a "book for the ages" on the assassination. But some more photographs within this tome would have, indeed, been nice, too. Although, the 32 pages of pictures and illustrations that are supplied offer up a few rarely-seen snapshots.
=====================================================
UP NEXT.......
"RECLAIMING HISTORY" CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER HIGHLIGHTS AND VERBATIM VINCENT BUGLIOSI QUOTES AND EXCERPTS (with some of my comments inserted as well, denoted by a "DVP" reference; some related weblinks have been included in various spots too).
I'd like to think of these excerpts as a kind of "The Best Of The Best" when it comes to Vince Bugliosi's impressive literary achievement known as "Reclaiming History":
FROM THE 36-PAGE "INTRODUCTION":
"I can assure the conspiracy theorists who have very effectively savaged {Gerald} Posner in their books that they're going to have a much, much more difficult time with me. As a trial lawyer in front of a jury and an author of true-crime books, credibility has always meant everything to me. My only master and my only mistress are the facts and objectivity. I have no others." -- VB
-------------------
"The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." -- VB
-------------------
"Waiting for the conspiracy theorists to tell the truth is a little like leaving the front-porch light on for Jimmy Hoffa." -- VB
DVP: Vincent's brand of humor has always been a favorite of mine (in every Bugliosi book I've ever read). And I'm very glad to see that that humor is alive and well in "Reclaiming History" too, with the above jab at "CTers" being the first of many such witty remarks interjected by the author during his non-stop assault on the conspiracy theorists. That Hoffa one was a real goodie too. ;)
-------------------
"When one removes the Dictabelt "fourth shot" from the HSCA findings, all that is really left is the HSCA's conclusion that Oswald killed Kennedy, and the fact that the committee found no evidence of any person or group having conspired with Oswald, the identical findings of the Warren Commission." -- VB
-------------------
"The Warren Commission critics and conspiracy theorists have succeeded in transforming a case very simple and obvious at its core--Oswald killed Kennedy and acted alone--into its present form of the most complex murder case, BY FAR, in world history.
"Refusing to accept the plain truth, and dedicating their existence for over forty years to convincing the American public of the truth of their own charges, the critics have journeyed to the outer margins of their imaginations. Along the way, they have split hairs and then proceeded to split the split hairs, drawn far-fetched and wholly unreasonable inferences from known facts, and literally invented bogus facts from the grist of rumor and speculation.
"With over 18,000 pages of small print in the 27 Warren Commission volumes alone, and many millions of pages of FBI and CIA documents, any researcher worth his salt can find a sentence here or there to support any ludicrous conspiracy theory he might have. And that, of course, is precisely what the conspiracy community has done." -- VB
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/27fe9802262b8672
-------------------
"And, of course, we know that humans, for whatever reason, love mysteries (which, to most, the JFK assassination has become), whether fictional or real, more than they do open-and-shut cases. For example, who killed JR?" -- VB
DVP: Oops. It seems that perhaps Vince isn't an avid fan of the TV series "Dallas". He thinks J.R. Ewing was "killed" by Kristin's bullets in March 1980. (J.R. was only wounded, of course; he wasn't shot dead.)
Vince should have said "Who shot JR?" above (instead of saying "killed"). That's one of only a handful of minor mistakes I found in "Reclaiming History", so I'm quite satisfied with the book's overall accuracy. (Conspiracy theorists will no doubt disagree with me on that point, however. No surprise there, though, huh?)
-------------------
"I am unaware of any other major event in world history which has been shrouded in so much intentional misinformation as has the assassination of JFK. Nor am I aware of any event that has given rise to such an extraordinarily large number of far-fetched and conflicting theories." -- VB
-------------------
"In my opinion, the Warren Commission's investigation has to be considered the most comprehensive investigation of a crime in history. Even leading Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg acknowledges that the Commission "checked into almost every breath [Oswald] drew"." -- VB
DVP: Mr. Bugliosi also points out in this extensive "Introduction" to the book that the 888-page Warren Report volume contains a "131-page chapter (by far the longest chapter in the report) dealing exclusively with the issue of conspiracy".
In addition, I was also glad to see Vince mention "the thirty-one-page appendix XII to the report", in which "the Commission responds to 126 speculations and rumors, some dealing expressly with the allegation of conspiracy, most dealing in one way or the other with the allegation".
To be perfectly technical, Vince has even slightly understated the matter (but by just a couple of pages). The lengthy chapter of the Warren Report entitled "Investigation Of Possible Conspiracy" actually takes up 132 total pages (inclusively). While the "Rumors" appendix Vince mentioned is actually 32 total pages in length.
This means, by pure percentages, that almost ONE-FIFTH of the entire Warren Commission Report (18.5%) is devoted SOLELY to the topic of possible conspiracy in the JFK case (164 of 888 pages). Most conspiracy promoters either don't have any knowledge of this impressive statistic, or they simply ignore it altogether.
-------------------
"Not the smallest speck of evidence has ever surfaced that any of the conspiracy community's favorite groups (CIA, mob, etc.) was involved, in any way, in the assassination. Not only the Warren Commission, but the HSCA came to the same conclusion.
"But conspiracy theorists, as suspicious as a cat in a new home, find occurrences and events everywhere that feed their suspicions and their already strong predilection to believe that the official version is wrong." -- VB ============================== CHAPTER 1 (317 PAGES) -- "FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER":
DVP: This first chapter in the book is a spectacular one. It runs for more than 300 riveting pages and includes a comprehensive narrative of events, written in the present tense (for the most part). This extensive and ultra-detailed chapter has a palpable "as it's happening" feel to it.
The narrative proceeds chronologically, beginning at 6:30 AM (CST) on the fateful morning of Friday, November 22, 1963, and continues through those shocking "four days", culminating with JFK's funeral on 11/25/63.
Per the source notes on the CD-ROM, Mr. Bugliosi garnered much of the detailed information for this chapter from Jim Bishop's excellent 1968 book "The Day Kennedy Was Shot", which contains practically a minute-by-minute account of the last day of John Kennedy's life. William Manchester's "The Death Of A President" (1967) was also a heavily-relied-on source for this chapter's richly-textured material.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d5bfef3e64392e4d
The following section of this "Four Days" chapter is one I was particularly intrigued by, as Vince tells the story of the chaotic and confused scene at the assassination site, with NBC newsman Robert MacNeil desperately searching for a ride to Parkland Hospital:
"Outside again, MacNeil rushes over to a policeman listening to the radio on a motorcycle. [MacNeil:] "Was he hit?" [Policeman:] "Yeah. Hit in the head. They're taking him to Parkland Hospital." ....
"MacNeil dashes out into the street, dodging the police cars whose wailing sirens are pulling up from all directions, bouncing over curbs, flowerbeds, and lawn. Not a taxi in sight. Traffic is beginning to jam. He sprints across Dealey Plaza to Main Street and leaps out in front of the first car that comes along. ....
"[MacNeil:] "This is a terrible emergency," he tells the driver. "The president's been shot. I'll give you five dollars to take me to Parkland Hospital." ....
"The driver, about thirty, not too swift, smiles and says, "Okay." The car is filled with packages that look like cake boxes. "Yeah, I heard something about that on the radio a couple of minutes ago," he says. ....
"[MacNeil:] "Where's the radio?" [Driver:] "I put it in the backseat." ....
"MacNeil grabs the little transistor and holds it out the window to clear the antenna. They are already bogging down in the rapidly jamming traffic. He begs the driver to speed, take risks, run red lights, anything--MacNeil will pay the fines. All the police cars are headed in the opposite direction, back toward the Texas School Book Depository." -- VB; Page 49
------------------
"Officially, the president is logged into the hospital register at 12:38 p.m. as "No.24740, Kennedy, John F."" -- VB; Page 55
-------------------
"The oft-stated belief is that since the bubble top was plastic and not bulletproof, it wouldn't have made any difference if it had been used in Dealey Plaza. But that presupposes that Oswald would have shot Kennedy if the bubble top was on the car, and we don't know that. The limousine being a presidential one, he may have assumed the top was bulletproof and therefore concluded that he could not shoot and kill Kennedy." -- VB; Page 22 of Endnotes
DVP: This topic of the limo's bubbletop roof comes up in the following discussion I had with a conspiracy theorist in late April 2007, where I hint at the same thing VB hints at above: HAPPENSTANCE OR CONSPIRACY?:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/5a5c5eddcc8290c7 -------------------
"Other than {conspiracy author Sylvia Meagher} and her colleagues' insatiable passion for pointing out normal (not to them) inconsistencies in the recollections of witnesses, nowhere does Meagher tell her readers what the relevance of these inconsistencies was.
"Was it her point that {Bonnie Ray} Williams was lying, that the chicken eater was the assassin in the sniper's nest (who wasn't, Meagher would assure us, Oswald), or Williams was not lying, but the assassin in the sniper's nest was also eating chicken while he waited to kill the president?
"I wish the theorists would tell us the relevance of the many inconsistencies they cite in the Kennedy case instead of feeling that the inconsistencies are an end in themselves and nothing else has to be shown or argued." -- VB; Page 23 of Endnotes
-------------------
"Critics have questioned whether Howard Brennan was really the source of {Dallas Police Inspector J. Herbert} Sawyer's detailed description {of the TSBD assassin} and the dispatcher's subsequent broadcast. .... The affidavit that Brennan gave at the sheriff's office within an hour of the shooting includes {a} description of the gunman...nearly identical in language to Sawyer's {12:44 P.M.} broadcast. .... There can be little doubt Brennan was, in fact, the source." -- VB; Pages 35-36 of Endnotes
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a83751f6ce319004
-------------------
"Hugh Aynesworth...covered the assassination story from ground zero {and} said that he went out to {Lee Oswald's} rooming house right after the police had searched Oswald's room on the afternoon of the assassination and interviewed {housekeeper Earlene} Roberts in depth. "She never said a word about any police car honking its horn outside the rooming house around the time Oswald was there earlier in the day."
"In fact, Aynesworth said he interviewed Roberts at least two more times thereafter and she never said a word about the alleged incident. {Jim} Ewell, he said, had also interviewed Roberts separately and she never mentioned the incident to him either." -- VB; Page 40 of Endnotes
DVP: It's also worth mentioning here, with respect to Earlene Roberts, that Roberts told the Warren Commission that it wasn't all that uncommon for a police car to stop in front of the Beckley Avenue roominghouse and toot its horn. Roberts claimed that such an event had occurred on other occasions prior to November 22, 1963.
So, the very fact that police cars had a pre-11/22/63 HABIT of stopping in front of 1026 North Beckley and honking the car horn should tell a reasonable person that even if a similar occurrence DID take place on the day of the assassination, it probably wasn't any kind of a CONSPIRATORIAL event. Instead, it can be considered a NORMAL thing to have occurred at that location (assuming Roberts was being truthful about the pre-November 22 horn-honking incidents).
-------------------
"{Jack} Tatum sees a man in a light tan-gray jacket start off in Tatum's direction, hesitate at the rear of the police car, then step back into the street and fire one more shot, right into the head of the officer {J.D. Tippit} on the ground. .... [Mr. Bugliosi's Footnote:] I asked Tatum at the {1986} London trial {"On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"} if he got "a good look" at the man who shot Tippit and whom he identified at the trial. "Very good look," Tatum responded. I asked if there was "any question in your mind" that the man was Oswald. "None whatsoever," he answered. (Transcript of "On Trial", July 23, 1986, p.200)" -- VB; Page 79
DVP: The above book passage turned out to be a surprising revelation for this writer, because I had no idea (until reading page 79 of this book) that Jack Tatum had testified at the TV Docu-Trial in 1986. And that's because my video copy of the 5.5-hour trial does not include Tatum's testimony at all.
But, considering the fact that nearly 75% of that 21-hour mock trial was not seen by the general public on television, it's not too surprising to learn of some portions of the trial that I had previously been unaware of. -------------------
"The doors to the theater are slammed open as a wedge of officers bursts into the sunlight {with suspected police killer Lee Harvey Oswald in handcuffs}. .... The suspect complains that the handcuffs are too tight. Detective Paul Bentley isn't too sympathetic, thinking to himself that Oswald was in much better shape than Tippit was. He reaches back and tightens the cuffs even more." -- VB; Pages 106-107
-------------------
"{Dallas medical examiner Earl} Rose sees the casket bearing the president's body being pushed out of Trauma Room One, Mrs. Kennedy at its side. .... A crush of forty sweating men are clustered around the wide doorway as curses fly back and forth. One of them looks like he might belt the medical examiner at any moment. .... "In a homicide case, it's my duty to order an autopsy," {Theron} Ward says. .... Ken O'Donnell pleads with him, "Can't you make an exception for President Kennedy?" Incredibly, Ward tells him, "It's just another homicide case as far as I'm concerned." O'Donnell's response is instantaneous. "Go fuck yourself," he yells. "We're leaving!"" -- VB; Page 110
-------------------
"[Quoting LBJ:] "We'll get as many people in here as possible. If anybody wants to join in the swearing-in ceremony, I would be happy and proud to have you." .... UPI reporter Merriman Smith wedges himself inside the door, and for some reason begins counting. There are twenty-seven people in the room." -- VB; Page 117
------------------
"The unmarked squad car pulls up in front of the rooming house on North Beckley in Oak Cliff and four men, armed with a search warrant, climb out. .... Over the next hour and a quarter, they nearly strip the room {that Lee Harvey Oswald rented under the alias "O.H. Lee"}, using the pillow cases and one of Oswald's own duffle bags to carry everything to the waiting patrol cars. Only a banana peel and some uneaten fruit are left behind when they leave just after 6:00 p.m." -- VB; Pages 135-136
------------------
"The doorbell rings {at Ruth Paine's home in Irving at 9:40 PM on 11/22/63} and two men from LIFE magazine appear unannounced. .... Marguerite {Oswald} is fuming...because she's beginning to realize that LIFE magazine is going to do a "life story" segment and she wants to be paid. In her paranoid mind, Marguerite is beginning to suspect that Ruth Paine invited LIFE magazine to come over and that she and Marina, while speaking in Russian, have conspired to sell Lee's life story without her." -- VB; Page 168
DVP: The above passage had me laughing aloud. I think Vince has probably hit the nail on the head here too. Marguerite Oswald was a strange and rare bird, to say the least.
The above speculation by VB re. the LIFE magazine thing puts me in mind of another classic "Marguerite Moment" -- her spectacularly-ludicrous (although tearful) "cemetery declaration" about her recently-murdered son, Lee Harvey. Mrs. Oswald actually said this to the rolling cameras and reporters at the cemetery:
"Lee Harvey Oswald, my son, even after his death, has done more for his country than any other living human being." -- Marguerite Oswald
(I'll understand if any readers need to take a five-minute laugh break after having read the above verbatim quote from the lips of Marguerite.)
By the way, the remainder of page 168, and also page 169, of this book are also quite intriguing, as they reveal additional details I had never heard before regarding the visit of the LIFE magazine reporters to Ruth Paine's home on the evening of November 22, 1963. Marguerite evidently put on quite a show that night at the Paine residence. Go to pages 168 and 169 to read the rest.
------------------
"He {Jack Ruby} called his sister Eileen, in Chicago {on Friday afternoon, 11/22/63}, and was crying. .... "Maybe I will fly up to be with you tonight," he suggested, but she reminded him that Eva {another sister of Jack's}, who had just returned home from the hospital from abdominal surgery, needed him now more than she did. "You better stay there," she told her brother." -- VB; Page 172
DVP: Now, the above conversation between Lee Harvey Oswald's eventual murderer, Jack Ruby, and Ruby's sister is quite illuminating (in a "non-conspiratorial" sort of way). Because if Jack Ruby had been a "hit man" for the Mob (or whoever) and had been assigned to "rub out" Oswald (as many people firmly believe was the case), then why is he offering to fly to Chicago on the night of the assassination to be with his sister? It doesn't add up.
And, per page 172 of VB's book, Ruby might very well have gone to Chicago too, if his sister, over the phone, had not persuaded him not to make the trip.
------------------
DVP: Vincent Bugliosi's incredible attention to the smallest of seemingly-unknowable details concerning the events of November 22-25, 1963, borders on the supernatural.* Such microscopic details are utterly fascinating to me. Here's one such example, among literally hundreds sprinkled throughout this publication:
"On an impulse he {Jack Ruby, at around 10:15 PM on November 22} stops at Phil's Delicatessen on Oak Lawn Avenue and tells the counterman, John Frickstad, to cut him ten corned beef sandwiches with mustard. And ten soft drinks--eight black cherries and two celery tonics. He chats a bit with the owner, Phil Miller. .... The sandwich bill only comes to $9.50 plus tax--Frickstad made only eight sandwiches instead of the ten Jack ordered." -- VB; Pages 174-175
* = Upon doing a little additional research of my own regarding Ruby's purchase of the sandwiches and drinks on the night of November 22, I discovered (by way of Mr. Bugliosi's ultra-complete source notes on the CD-ROM that comes with this book) that Vince obtained the detailed information about the type of sandwiches and exact flavors of the cold drinks from Warren Commission Exhibit 2252, which is linked below.
CE2252 also gives additional information re. Ruby's late-night deli order that VB doesn't have in the book. Quoting from CE2252: "He {Ruby} also ordered three cups of butter, one-half loaf of bread, and some extra pickles. Potato salad and pickles were provided with each sandwich".
That is just one of many examples of the thoroughness of the Warren Commission's investigation (and, of course, exemplifies the comprehensive nature of Mr. Bugliosi's research for this book as well). ....
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0103b.htm
------------------
"Conspiracy theorists, eager to find an extra fourth bullet...and hence a conspiracy, got very excited when they learned that the receipt for the two fragments turned over to FBI agents Sibert and O'Neill on November 22, 1963, and signed by the two agents, refers to a "receipt of a missle [sic]."
"But the HSCA concluded that "the receipt was in error." Chester H. Boyers, the navy corpsman who typed the receipt, gave HSCA investigators an affidavit under penalty of perjury that contained his handwritten notes at the time of the autopsy, in which he jotted down during the autopsy that "there were bullet missile FRAGMENTS recovered."
"Both Agents Sibert and O'Neill confirmed to the HSCA that they received two bullet fragments, not a missile." -- VB; Pages 76-77 of Endnotes
------------------
"The Dallas police have done an incredible, some would even say a near-impossible job over just the last eleven and a half hours. In that short span since the president's murder, they have apprehended the man they believe is responsible, and amassed evidence against him that is destined to withstand years of intense scrutiny.
"Despite the thousands of government man-hours yet to come, the basis of the case against Oswald is collected and assembled by the Dallas police in these first crucial hours. It is a feat the world would soon forget." -- VB; Page 182
------------------
"11:05 a.m. {Sunday, November 24}...Altogether, there are around 70 members of the Dallas Police Department in the basement {of the Dallas City Jail} to make sure there are no problems." -- VB; Page 265
------------------
"11:10 a.m. {Sunday, November 24}...Fritz realizes that Oswald is only clad in a T-shirt. "Do you want something to put over your T-shirt?" he asks. "Yes," Oswald says." -- VB; Page 267
DVP: An interesting quote by DPD Captain Will Fritz there. I had always thought it was Oswald who had asked for the additional clothing, thus delaying his jail transfer just a little longer. But, evidently, per Mr. Bugliosi's chronology of quotes above, it was actually Captain Fritz who initiated the slight "clothing delay".
Well, perhaps that will be something else for conspiracy theorists to sink their teeth into....as they can now claim (if they haven't already) that Captain Fritz deliberately delayed Oswald's transfer until "hit man" Ruby got into position in the basement.
But to think that 30-year police veteran J. Will Fritz was a part of some kind of conspiracy to "silence" his prisoner is to believe in a silly fairy tale that would have had Fritz intentionally subjecting his very own police department to public ridicule for years to come, due to a Presidential assassin being killed right inside the Captain's own police station while surrounded by dozens of armed officers.
That's a theory that doesn't sound very realistic to this writer.
On page 1073, Vince tells the flip-side to this clothing tale, with Oswald being the one who requests the wardrobe adjustment, instead of Fritz. In an endnote, however, Bugliosi acknowledges the ambiguity of the situation with the following remarks:
"The recollections of those present are in conflict as to whether Oswald was asked if he wanted to put something on over his T-shirt or whether Oswald himself made the request." -- VB; Page 104 of Endnotes
------------------
"11:21 a.m. {Sunday, November 24}..."BANG! The shot {from Jack Ruby's .38 Colt revolver into Lee Harvey Oswald's abdomen} reverberates through the basement garage. .... The Ike Pappas tape recording is available at the National Archives and reveals that the shot was fired 1 minute and 58 seconds after Oswald left the third-floor Homicide and Robbery office." -- VB; Page 273
------------------
"Are we just left with conjecture to reach a conclusion on the issue of how Ruby entered the police basement? No, there is evidence, common sense, and Ruby's knowledge of events that prove he entered through the Main Street ramp. ....
"The virtual proof that Ruby came down the Main Street ramp is that within a half hour of his arrest, and right after he was taken from the basement to the jail on the fifth floor (which was long BEFORE {DPD officers} Pierce, Putnam, Vaughn, and Maxey had been interviewed and given their statements), Ruby told Dallas police detective Barnard Clardy and other detectives that he had entered through the Main Street ramp and had seen Pierce driving out of the ramp.
"How could Ruby possibly have known this if he hadn't, in fact, been at the entrance to the Main Street ramp? I mean, Pierce himself didn't even receive instructions to drive out of the Main Street ramp until around 11:15 a.m., just six minutes before Ruby shot Oswald." -- VB; Pages 108-109 of Endnotes
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/77edb3f67ec3350a
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e0230f9473550a56
------------------
"Approaching midnight {on Monday night, November 25th}, Bobby Kennedy, alone with Jacqueline on the second floor of the White House, says quietly, "Should we go visit our friend?" .... They arrive at the cemetery at 11:53 p.m. in their black Mercury. .... The attorney general and former First Lady drop to their knees and pray silently. .... Together, they turn and walk down into darkness and into lives that would never be the same." -- VB; Pages 313-314
------------------
DVP: Before I move on to Chapter 2, I'd like to add a semi-related footnote to this top-notch "Four Days" chapter of VB's book by putting in a plug for another production titled "Four Days In November", that production being the 1964 motion picture which features the exact same title as this first chapter of Mr. Bugliosi's book.
In fact, I was somewhat expecting Vince to use portions of that exquisite "Four Days" documentary film (which is an excellent chronicle of the events surrounding JFK's death) as reference material throughout his book, but the film isn't mentioned at all in VB's book.
That Academy Award-nominated movie, which is generally based on the Warren Report (which, of course, is one of the biggest reasons it's so darn good), could have been used by Vincent to cite various quotes from witnesses, including unique references to Johnny Brewer, Wesley Frazier, Linnie Mae Randle, Earlene Roberts, and William Whaley. Each of those witnesses provided information and direct quotes during the movie's intriguing "re-created" scenes.
None of the above witnesses said anything in the movie that could be considered a 'bombshell' or something strikingly different from their WC testimony, but their individual statements made on film could have been cited by Vince as an extra source of information to back up certain lone-assassin-leaning assertions.
One good example: The scene where cab driver Whaley says in the film that he positively dropped Oswald off at "Neely and North Beckley" (instead of "Neches") on the day of the assassination. In earlier statements, Whaley was confused about the street names, as he mixed up the two similar-sounding streets, Neely and Neches.
In any event, even though the 1964 documentary feature film "Four Days In November" isn't referred to in "Reclaiming History", I'd still recommend it very highly to people who want to take a two-hour visual tour of the sad events of November 1963. Much more information concerning that film can be accessed by clicking the link below:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.video/msg/5093634b419405d5
==============================
CHAPTER 2 (62 PAGES) -- "THE INVESTIGATIONS":
"The {Warren} Commission {quoting Arlen Specter}..."chose men of outstanding reputation, like Joe Ball of California, a leader of the California bar for many years...Similar selections were made...from New York and Chicago and Des Moines and New Orleans and Philadelphia and Washington, so that every conceivable pain was taken to select people who were totally independent, WHICH IS HARDLY THE WAY YOU SET OUT TO ORGANIZE A TRUTH-CONCEALING COMMISSION"." [Bugliosi's emphasis.] -- VB; Page 342
DVP: I couldn't agree more, Vince. And another thing that goes to this issue of Commission credibility is the fact that the WC decided, at great cost*, to publish the WC's 26 volumes of supporting testimony and exhibits for the public to scrutinize.
And if Earl Warren's Commission had been engaged in a "cover-up" mission of some sort from Day 1, why on Earth would they have endorsed the release of those 26 volumes? Did the Commission WANT to be called liars and conspirators by the public in future generations?
The notion that the Warren Commission participated in one big "lie" with respect to its work in 1963 and 1964, but then just went ahead and published 26 volumes of material that they certainly didn't have to publish, is just simply ridiculous.
* = Per VB's book (page 356): "The cost of printing the {Warren} report and the first 1,500 copies of its 26 volumes eventually came to $608,000."
-------------------
"The conspiracy theorists have converted Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to squelch RUMORS that had no basis in fact into Katzenbach's and Warren's desire to suppress the FACTS of the assassination.
"But how could Katzenbach and Warren have known way back then that they had to spell out that ONLY false rumors, rumors without a stitch of evidence to support them, had to be squelched for the benefit of the American public?
"How could they have known back then that there would actually be people like Mark Lane who would accuse men like Warren, Gerald Ford, John Cooper, and so on...of getting in a room and all deciding to deliberately suppress, or not even look for, evidence of a conspiracy to murder the president...or that there would be intelligent, rational, and sensible people of the considerable stature of Michael Beschloss and Evan Thomas who would decide to give their good minds a rest and actually buy into this nonsense?" -- VB; Pages 367-368
-------------------
"Did {Earl} Warren subsequently order the sealing of great numbers of Warren Commission documents? Not only didn't he do so, but instead he and his Commission encouraged the release of all the records to the American people. ....
"No special handling of Warren Commission documents was invoked to keep the truth about the assassination from the public. The records were sealed {for a mandatory 75 years} under a general {National Archives} policy that applied to all federal investigations by the executive branch of government. ....
"The belief that any alleged conspirators who plotted Kennedy's assassination would commit to paper anything that expressly, obliquely, or in any other way referred to the murderous plot is ridiculous on its face. ....
"If that were the case, these people would simply destroy these documents, not leave them in any file. If they were immoral enough to murder Kennedy, or do whatever they could to cover up for those who did, surely they would eliminate an incriminating document; ....
"Three things are very clear: First, after an unprecedented and historic four-year scavenger hunt by the ARRB for all documents "reasonably related" to the assassination, no smoking gun or even a smoldering ember of conspiracy was found. The reason is that no such smoking gun or ember ever existed.
"Second, if it did exist, it would never have been left in any file for discovery. And finally, assassination researchers and conspiracy theorists will never be satisfied, not even when the cows come home." -- VB; Pages 134-137, 140, and 149 of Endnotes
-------------------
"Apart from all the elegant and esoteric mathematical computations that {HSCA acoustic expert James} Barger and his associates used, simple common sense tells us that the open mike was not, as the HSCA concluded, in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. ....
"Clearly, {Police Officer H.B.} McLain could not have been the one with an open microphone on his motorcycle, nor could anyone else in the motorcade, since both amateur films {Hughes' and Dorman's} prove that there were no other motorcycles at the location and time that the acoustic evidence demanded. ....
"In the final analysis, the validity of the HSCA's acoustic evidence collapses under the weight of its own requirements." -- VB; Pages 203 and 216-217 of Endnotes
==============================
CHAPTER 3 (68 PAGES) -- "PRESIDENT KENNEDY'S AUTOPSY AND THE GUNSHOT WOUNDS TO KENNEDY AND GOVERNOR CONNALLY":
DVP: This chapter brings about a "closure" (of sorts) for me with respect to the single biggest "question mark" that I personally have had regarding the entire JFK case -- that being: How could so many different witnesses claim to see a large hole in the BACK of President Kennedy's head on 11/22/63 (at Parkland and at Bethesda)?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/886319d63cf23021
I've scratched my head more than a few times when thinking about those back-of-the-head wound witnesses. But at the same time, I have also always realized that there is a bunch of evidence that totally contradicts those witnesses (regardless of how many of them there might be). That contradictory evidence includes: The official autopsy report (signed by three doctors), the autopsy photographs and X-rays, the Zapruder Film, and the never-wavering testimony of all three autopsy doctors (with each doctor agreeing that President Kennedy was hit by only two bullets, with both of those bullets coming from "above and behind" John F. Kennedy). And all of this evidence is also pointed out numerous times by Vince Bugliosi in this chapter as well.
Vincent doesn't pull some magical rabbit out of a hat when he discusses this often-heated controversy about the head wounds of the late President. Instead, he relies on basic sound judgment and common sense (like always) to try and figure out a reasonable answer for why the many Parkland witnesses thought they saw what they said they saw.
And Vincent's primary explanation re. this matter is actually an explanation offered up by someone else, HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel member Michael Baden:
"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden] "The head exit wound was not in the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were wrong," {Baden} told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the head" [End Baden quote]." -- VB; Pages 407-408
DVP: The above explanation is one that I, too, have postulated as the probable answer to this enduring "head wound" mystery over the years:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/06a93e60c9987e2b
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/aae44871116dc9e9
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/03e53e998792e202
One other point that I think is worthy of mentioning here is the fact that (as far as I'm aware) there wasn't a single witness at Parkland or Bethesda who claimed to have seen TWO large wounds of exit in JFK's head on 11/22/63.
This fact would certainly suggest that there was, indeed, only ONE large wound in Kennedy's head, and that wound was located, per the autopsy and the authenticated autopsy photographs, "chiefly parietal" (i.e., the side and top of the head). .....
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/AUT10_HI.jpg
http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/skull3.gif
-------------------
DVP: On page 410, VB provides some additional strength to the "No Exit Wound In The Back Of JFK's Head" rope, when he says:
"Lest anyone still has any doubt as to the location of the large exit wound in the head...the Zapruder film itself couldn't possibly provide better demonstrative evidence. The film proves conclusively, and beyond all doubt, where the exit wound was.
"Zapruder frame 313 and frame 328 clearly show that the large, gaping exit wound was to the RIGHT FRONT of the president's head. THE BACK OF HIS HEAD SHOWS NO SUCH LARGE WOUND AND CLEARLY IS COMPLETELY INTACT." [Bugliosi's emphasis.] -- VB; Page 410
-------------------
"A popular theory in the conspiracy community is that the reason why a particular autopsy photo of the back of the president's head shows no large defect is that one of the autopsy doctors, before the photo was taken, took the flap of scalp that had come loose on the right side of the president's head and pulled it all the way backward to cover and hide the large defect, thereby making the back of his head look normal.
"I will not devote one word to responding to this insanity. But I WILL ask the zany conspiracists, Who was present in the presidential limousine after the president was shot to pull the flap back and make the back of the president's head look undamaged in the Zapruder film?" -- VB; Page 249 of Endnotes
DVP: I, too, would like to know the answer to that question that Vince asked. Naturally, the conspiracists cannot answer it (without making fools of themselves at any rate), because the back side of JFK's head is intact, per Mr. Zapruder's motion picture just after the head shot, and the large, gaping exit wound is located just where the autopsy report and the autopsists said it was (i.e., to the right-front of the head, above the right ear)....as is fully demonstrated by way of this Z-Film still frame:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/z335.jpg
-------------------
DVP: In the endnotes located on the CD-ROM included at the back of the book, Bugliosi goes into additional detail with respect to the precise location of the exit wound in JFK's head:
"On the issue of the locus of the head exit wound, perhaps the most overlooked piece of medical and scientific evidence in books on the assassination that proves the exit wound was in the right front of the president's head is the fact that of the three fragments of the skull found inside the presidential limousine, the HSCA forensic pathology panel said that autopsy X-rays show that the largest one, triangular in shape, contained "a portion of the right coronal suture." {i.e.:}...The juncture between the parietal (side and top) and frontal bone.
"Although the bullet fragmented upon striking bone in the president's head, the HSCA concluded that the main part of the bullet literally exited along the coronal suture line to the right front of the president's head.
"Dr. Michael Baden {of the HSCA's pathology panel} told me, "The autopsy photographs clearly show that the semicircular defect was half of a bullet wound with an exit beveling, and this caused most of the damage to Kennedy's parietal and frontal bones" (Telephone interview of Dr. Michael Baden by {Vincent Bugliosi} on January 8, 2000)." ....
"The fact that the largest fragment found of the president's skull was along the coronal suture, that this triangular fragment was one of three that, in the aggregate, lined up, on reconstruction, with the large defect to the right front of the president's skull, and that this large fragment of bone was beveled on its outer surface, rather than its inner surface, provide conclusive evidence of an exiting bullet to the right front of the president's head." -- VB; Pages 235-236 of Endnotes
-------------------
"The "Harper fragment," was discovered around 5:30 p.m. on November 23, 1963, by Billy A. Harper. .... Dr. {J. Lawrence} Angel...declared the Harper fragment to be "clearly parietal bone" that had come from "roughly the middle of the right parietal" area (i.e., above the right ear)." -- VB; Pages 236-237 of Endnotes
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/harper.htm
-------------------
DVP: On the subject of the entrance wound in President Kennedy's head, we find this convincing passage:
"What this means is that...SEVENTEEN PATHOLOGISTS, even Dr. {Cyril} Wecht, ALL agreed that the wound to the back of the president's head was an entrance wound." -- VB; Pages 394-395
-------------------
DVP: With respect to the controversial bullet hole in the front of JFK's throat (a wound that so many conspiracists seem to think was positively an entry wound), Vince B. offers up this logical and perfectly-sensible observation:
"Common sense tells us that seeing only the wound to the front of the president's neck {and not seeing the corresponding entry wound in Kennedy's back at any time}, the Parkland doctors would instinctively have been more inclined to think of it as an entrance wound. Almost anyone would be so predisposed." -- VB; Page 414
-------------------
"Though conspiracy theorists are almost unanimous in believing that the president was shot from the front and his throat wound was an entrance wound, they are strangely silent as to what happened to this bullet after it entered the president's throat. .... It would be virtually impossible for a bullet entering the soft tissue of the neck at a speed of 2,000 feet per second to stop inside the neck and not exit the body." -- VB; Page 416
DVP: Gee, that excellent argument sounds very familiar.....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/6951e9702addec2c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bed05a055b2f4133
-------------------
"Perhaps the clearest visual evidence of the fact that the entrance wound in the {President's} back was definitely above the exit wound in the throat appears in one of {the} autopsy photos taken of the left side of the president's head as he is lying on his back, his head on a metal headrest.
[Here's the photo Mr. Bugliosi is referring to, turned sideways for better orientation:]
http://www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/jfk_zeroang.jpg
"Only the wound to the throat is visible, not the wound to his upper right back. However, it couldn't be clearer from this photo that the wound to the back was definitely ABOVE the exit wound in the throat." -- VB; Page 424
DVP: Another "deja vu moment":
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d1d7ea222703d800
Note -- To be perfectly fair and honest here, I feel I must point out an apparent inconsistency in this book with respect to the locations of President Kennedy's back and neck wounds. Just one page prior to the quote I cited above, Mr. Bugliosi seems to be arguing in favor of the HSCA's conclusion (which I vehemently disagree with), which is a conclusion that has JFK's throat wound being higher (anatomically) than the upper-back wound.
However, in Bugliosi's FINAL analysis re. this subject (on page 424), he positively endorses a scenario in which the back wound is "definitely ABOVE the exit wound in the throat" (VB's emphasis).
-------------------
DVP: To add further confusion to the matter concerning the "downward vs. upward" flight path of the bullet through JFK's back and neck, Vince offers this in an endnote:
"It would seem to be that by straightening Kennedy's body out into an anatomic position, not only does the bullet track (which is always downward) go upward anatomically, but since the entrance wound is a part of that track, it too is now abraded upward.
"If that's not the answer, then the language in 7 HSCA 87 is simply incorrect, which certainly would not be the first time for the HSCA. Indeed, when I spoke to two members of the HSCA forensic pathology panel about the language in 7 HSCA 87, their attempted explanations were so incomprehensible and incoherent that they don't lend themselves to repeating." -- VB; Page 255 of Endnotes DVP: But I'll repeat my thoughts on this subject again -- I cannot disagree more strongly with the HSCA's determination that JFK's throat wound was "anatomically" higher than his back wound. And the reason I disagree so strongly is because the HSCA was so obviously wrong concerning this matter. And the previously-linked autopsy photo proves beyond all doubt that JFK's back wound was higher than the throat wound (even when Kennedy is placed in a ramrod-straight posture).
-------------------
"A point that conspiracy theorists have raised over and over in their books is that the entrance holes in the president's coat and shirt were more than 2 inches lower in the back than the actual entrance wound in his body. But even if there wasn't an explanation for this, so what?
"Like virtually all criticisms by...conspiracy theorists, it doesn't "go anywhere." The typical critic just points out the discrepancy and then moves on. But the discrepancy would only mean something if one were able to thereby conclude that the president was shot twice in the back, once where we know the entrance wound in the back was, and once below that where the holes in the coat and shirt were.
"But one can't conclude this because there is no evidence of a second entrance wound to the president's back, and no evidence of any holes to the back of the president's coat and shirt other than one to the coat and one to the shirt." -- VB; Page 241 of Endnotes
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/3b0c2cd76e4bcfcb
-------------------
DVP: Among the many laughable theories that Vince systematically destroys in this tome is Doug Horne's "Two Brains" hunk of idiocy. A sampling:
"My God. RFK somehow finds out that Humes and Boswell, as part of an apparent conspiracy to cover up the assassination of his brother, used a brain other than his brother's to conduct their examination. So he {RFK} goes out and finds, seizes, and then gets rid of his brother's substitute brain {instead of taking the proper action to prosecute these criminal autopsists to the fullest extent of the law}. Is there any end to this silliness?" -- VB; Page 443
DVP: An obligatory "LOL" is required here. BTW, the "second brain" that Horne thinks was examined by Humes and Co. was, per Horne, a brain that was way too big to have been JFK's damaged brain.
So, just like all other crazy plots, evidently this "Double Brain" charade was being carried out by total morons who couldn't even simulate the size of Kennedy's real brain correctly. But, who's gonna notice that, right? (Only Mr. Horne evidently.)
The goofball plotters who messed with JFK's brain must have been the same ones who orchestrated the Jim Garrison/Oliver Stone-endorsed theory that has several gunmen firing at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza within the PRE-ARRANGED context of a "Let's Frame Lee Oswald As Our Lone Patsy" assassination scheme.
Speaking of brains...it appears perhaps that the "second brain" that Horne thinks was substituted for JFK's probably belonged to one of those conspirators that CTers seem to think existed in 1963. Because I'm nearly positive somebody on that Conspiracy Team has lost theirs.
-------------------
"How would this "fake 6.5 mm {X-ray} object," as {Dr. David} Mantik calls it, implicate Oswald? .... What possible advantage would the conspirators have gained by forging the object onto the X-ray film? The thought that they would risk getting caught doing this to implicate Oswald in a case in which he and his rifle were ALREADY OVERWHELMINGLY CONNECTED TO THE ASSASSINATION is irrational on its face.
"One should add that if, indeed, Dr. Mantik's conspirators were willing to do something so extremely risky and completely unnecessary to frame Oswald, wouldn't they have found some way to bring it to the attention of the FBI or Warren Commission in 1964?
"Instead, if Dr. Mantik is correct, we have to learn about the sinister implications of the "cardboard artifact" for the first time 35 years later when he published his findings in the book "Assassination Science"? Isn't this silly, again, on its face?" -- VB; Page 222 of Endnotes
-------------------
"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes with ABSOLUTE AND IRREFUTABLE CERTAINTY that the autopsy photographs have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....
"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images IDENTICALLY, which is, {photographic expert and HSCA panel member Frank} Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....
"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner." This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the president.
"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.
"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered (which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- VB; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0a74025900f77968
-------------------
"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing" autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of people from various official investigative agencies...examining and working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people through whose hands they passed." -- VB; Page 275 of Endnotes
-------------------
"In addition to the allegedly missing or doctored photographs, conspiracy theorists often refer to the missing "draft notes" that Dr. Humes burned in his fireplace in the early morning hours of November 24 after he handwrote a draft of the autopsy report. Critics see this act as highly suspicious, and consequently conspiracy books cite the burning of the draft notes as evidence of some cover-up. ....
"It apparently has not entered the minds of the conspiracy theorists...that since we're dealing with the same person, Humes, if one believes that Humes was willing to lie on his autopsy report (his draft notes reflecting the true and different situation), why wouldn't he likewise have been willing to lie on his notes, thereby obviating the need to destroy them?
"Did those behind the assassination come to Humes AFTER he wrote the first draft and convince him, FOR THE FIRST TIME, to join the conspiracy, he agreed, and then they told him what they wanted his autopsy report to say? But what about Drs. Boswell and Finck? Did they join the conspiracy too? Because if they didn't, how is it that their conclusions just happened to coincide with Humes's new, conspiratorial conclusion?" -- VB; Pages 276-277 of Endnotes
DVP: The above is yet another very good common-sense inference brought forth by Mr. Bugliosi (among dozens of other such inferences sprinkled throughout this book and CD-ROM).
Along similar lines, I can offer up another non-conspiratorial inference with respect to the "Humes Burned His Notes" sub-topic, detailed in the links below (along with some other comments about the case and Dr. Humes).
Vince Bugliosi, by the way, also mentions the very same thing I talk about below. I thought for a little while that VB wasn't going to make that logical inference re. Humes' note-burning episode, but, yielding to his implacable CS&L (Common Sense & Logic), I was pleased to see Vince bring it up at the very end of the Humes-related endnote on page 280 of the CD. .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/470db330973c7717
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0bc05459437ae426
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7d4034ff53074470
-------------------
DVP: Many conspiracy promoters love to cite the (false) notion that the majority, or at least a large portion, of President Kennedy's brain was "missing" at the time of the President's autopsy. But VB dispels such nonsense in an endnote attached to Chapter 3 of the book:
"The answer is that the president's brain did NOT lose much brain matter. .... As {Dr. Michael} Baden said in his {HSCA} testimony, the {Ida Dox} diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report says nothing about any significant part of the brain being missing. ....
"{Baden said:} "Basically, the president's whole brain was still there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the cranial cavity"." -- VB; Pages 283-284 of Endnotes
-------------------
DVP: VB's ability to process and logically present witness testimony in a fair and balanced way (and in the proper order and CONTEXT) comes to the forefront in the CD's endnotes when Vince totally demolishes Dr. David Mantik's claim that Dr. Humes made an "astonishing confession" during Humes' 1996 ARRB testimony.
Go to page 285 of the endnotes and watch Mr. Bugliosi systematically wipe out Dr. Mantik's silly assertion with respect to Dr. Humes. It's brilliant.
-------------------
DVP: If you want a rip-roaring laugh to lift your spirits, just go to page 271 of this book's endnotes on the Compact Disc and check out the hilarious set of fairy tales told by one Joe O'Donnell. That guy just might rival Aesop in the "fable" department.
After reading the part where O'Donnell supposedly, himself, altered the Zapruder Film at the REQUEST OF JACKIE KENNEDY, I thought I'd never be able to stop the laughter. My sides still hurt from reading about this O'Donnell kook. ============================== CHAPTER 4 (63 PAGES) -- "THE MOST FAMOUS HOME MOVIE EVER, THE 'MAGIC BULLET', AND THE SINGLE-BULLET THEORY":
DVP: Vincent Bugliosi's Single-Bullet Theory timeline has me puzzled a little bit. I, myself, believe beyond all reasonable doubt that the specific "SBT" point-of-impact Zapruder Film frame can be established....and that frame is almost certainly Z224 (and not "somewhere between Z frames 210 and 222", as Mr. Bugliosi says in his book on page 463).
Although, VB says in an endnote on the CD-ROM (on page 25 of the notes) that the SBT shot occurs "at Z223-Z224"; so I'm not quite sure which exact Z-Film frame Vince totally endorses, if any. Plus, on pages 325 to 327 of the CD's endnotes, Bugliosi acknowledges the very real possibility (via Dr. John Lattimer's 1994 "lapel bulge" tests) that a single bullet could have passed through both Kennedy and Connally at Z224.
Vince actually mentions a three-frame range of Zapruder frames in this "lapel" regard, which seems a little strange to me....but at least VB admits the possibility of the bullet striking at the correct frame (IMO) of Z224, when he says this on endnote page 325: "A bulging of the right lapel of the governor's suit coat may pinpoint the moment Governor Connally is hit to be at Z222–224".
Another oddity is that even though Vince supports a "Z223-Z224" and/or a "Z222-Z224" SBT hit at various stages in the book's endnotes, in other portions of the main text he also seems to be endorsing the notion that Governor Connally was reacting to already having been hit by a gunshot as early as Z222, which I totally disagree with.
I can't detect any such Connally "reaction" at Z222 at all. The first firm "reaction" on Connally's behalf comes later, at Z225, just after having been struck at Z224 (again, IMO).
However, there's another indication in the book that VB advocates the exact same frame for the SBT that I, too, endorse (Z224). That occurs on page 40, when Vince says the second shot (the SBT shot) occurs "3.5 seconds" after the first shot which missed the limousine, a first shot which, elsewhere in the book, VB says comes at Z-Film frame 160.*
And the only frame that is precisely "3.5" seconds after Z160 is Z224 (given the "round-off" mathematics that VB is utilizing on pages 40 and 41 and Mr. Zapruder's camera speed of 18.3 frames-per-second).
* = A "First-Shot Footnote" -- I completely agree with VB's "Z160 first shot" timing. However, I disagree with him on the exact scenario of how bystander James Tague was wounded by this first bullet fired by Lee Oswald on November 22.
Vince thinks the probability is high that the Z160 missed shot hit the concrete on Elm Street and then the bullet (or a portion thereof) went on to strike yet another hunk of street pavement over on Main Street, which resulted in a bullet fragment or concrete fragment slightly injuring Tague's cheek. (See page 471.)
I just cannot quite believe such a scenario myself. I think it's much more likely that Oswald's first shot struck a portion of the nearby oak tree, with the bullet then probably fragmenting (at least partially), sending the majority of the lead portion of the bullet out to Main Street, resulting in Tague's wounding, while the metal jacket of the missile possibly struck the pavement on Elm near JFK's car, resulting in the "sparks" that a few witnesses reported observing.
But, of course, realistically, the only thing that can be done with respect to any "missed" shot is to simply guess about what happened, since no physical bullet was recovered with regard to the shot that missed the limousine's victims.
Another possibility concerning Tague's injury is that he was struck by a fragment of the bullet that hit JFK in the head (shot 3 from Oswald's rifle). I, however, don't like that theory much either, since that bullet would have probably been pretty much spent and out of gas by the time it travelled the many additional yards from the President's car to Main Street to meet Tague.
Back to the subject of the SBT:
Many things begin to happen to Governor Connally beginning at Zapruder frame 224 -- TOO many things, in my opinion, to believe that the SBT bullet passed through both Connally and JFK at any other time.
Obviously, Vince is simply placing on the table ALL potential "SBT" possibilities throughout his immense publication. I, however, would have preferred more consistency in this book with regard to the timing of the SBT bullet strike.
But Bugliosi evidently feels that the precise "impact" frame cannot be definitively established on the Zapruder Film for the SBT shot. But I believe it can be established on the film, via John Connally's sudden "right shoulder drop" at exactly Z224. .....
http://216.122.129.112/dc/user_files/4594.gif
But even with a bit of ambiguity in his SBT timeline, at least Mr. Bugliosi knows (as do I) that a "Single-Bullet Theory" Z-Film frame DOES exist somewhere within Mr. Zapruder's 26-second home movie.
And I'm pleased to see that Vince doesn't endorse the notion that all three bullets fired by Oswald hit a limo victim on 11/22/63, which is an unusual lone-assassin theory that was postulated by author and former LAPD detective Mark Fuhrman in his 2006 book "A Simple Act Of Murder". .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/4c7616a35ac60e22
Fuhrman claims that the bullet that went through JFK's back and neck somehow missed John Connally and then bounced out of the car. IMO, that theory is silly. And VB thinks so too (see endnote on pages 298 and 299 of the CD).
To be fair to Mr. Fuhrman, however, the FBI's initial report on the assassination (dated December 9, 1963) also came to the conclusion that each of Oswald's bullets hit a victim. But when the shooting was examined in more depth in the following months by the Warren Commission, it became obvious that the FBI report was incorrect.
The FBI, though, certainly wasn't perfect when it came to some other conclusions it reached in the early stages of its JFK murder investigation either. The exact moment when the controversial "SBT" shot struck John Kennedy and John Connally has been debated for many, many years, of course. Even the two major U.S. Government inquiries into the assassination had differing views on this important matter, with the 1964 Warren Commission offering up a 15-frame range of Zapruder Film frames when they said the single bullet struck JFK and Connally (Z210 to Z225).
But the House Select Committee in 1977-1978 placed the SBT strike at approximately Z190, which, by the way, is the timing that was seemingly endorsed by Bugliosi at the TV Docu-Trial in which he served as prosecutor in 1986; although I strongly suspect that the reason for such a VB endorsement in '86 was due to the fact that Bugliosi's main "SBT" witness/expert at the London mock trial (Cecil Kirk) was a member of the HSCA panel, which itself endorsed the absurdly-early Z190 SBT timeline.
So, as we can see from the pages of "Reclaiming History", Vincent T. Bugliosi, in the intervening years, has gotten closer to the Z224 SBT hit.
It turns out that I disagree (for the most part) with Vince with respect to the exact timing of the Single-Bullet Theory, but certainly not by very much; so I'm not inclined to call a "2-frame" difference of opinion a major or all-important disagreement. And, as I mentioned, there are references in this book that seem to indicate VB's possible belief in a "Z223-Z224-Z225" SBT hit too (which will no doubt have conspiracists attacking Bugliosi's credibility and lack of consistency throughout the book on this "SBT timing" point, which, indeed, appears to be warranted criticism when you read the whole tome, plus the endnotes).
However, in my opinion, as stated previously, the most important point is the fact that Vince Bugliosi supports the SBT, regardless of exactly when on the Z-Film the SBT is occurring. And this SBT support is due in large part to plain ol' common sense....because the sum total of all the evidence in this case makes the Single-Bullet Theory a virtual certainty.
Or, to use Vincent's own words (from page 482 of this book) -- "The overwhelming evidence is that whenever Kennedy and Connally were hit, or first reacted to being hit, they were both struck by the same bullet." -- V. Bugliosi
(See the links below for more SBT talk.)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bb22792c022c5a2e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/fb001573e51658aa
-------------------
"The very fact that the Warren Commission, by its noncategorical language ("very persuasive evidence"), did not unequivocally rule out the possibility that Kennedy and Connally were struck by separate bullets (in effect, not ruling out the possibility of a conspiracy) is itself extremely powerful evidence that not only didn't the Commission, or any portion thereof, set out to suppress the truth from the American people, but that its conclusion of no evidence of a conspiracy was not, as conspiracy theorists believe, a predetermined conclusion." -- VB; Page 457
-------------------
"We can have all the confidence in the world, by an examination of the physical evidence and the utilization of common sense, that {a single bullet wounded both JFK and Governor Connally}. When you can establish the single-bullet theory by reference to evidence other than the {Zapruder} film, you necessarily know that the film itself cannot, by definition, show something else. .... Since we KNOW Kennedy and Connally were not hit by separate bullets, we know, before we even look at the film, that it CANNOT show otherwise." -- VB; Pages 457-458
DVP: The above VB quote is brimming over with still more common sense (with such common-sense observations flowing like water over Niagara Falls from every page of this book).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/7360799fec7f549d
A quote from my forum post linked above:
"Regardless of what exact Z-Film frame the SBT equates to, the point is: There IS a Z-Frame (somewhere on that film) that DOES equate perfectly to the "SBT". There is no way there's NOT such a Z-Frame given the totality of the evidence with respect to the initial wounding of both victims." -- DVP; May 23, 2005
-------------------
"In the final analysis, even if one were forced to rely only on the Zapruder film, we have seen that from the film alone, there is strong evidence of three, and ONLY three shots, fired during the assassination. This is completely consistent with all the physical evidence in the case, and flies in the face of over four decades of allegations made by conspiracy theorists that the film contains conclusive "proof" of two or more assassins." -- VB; Page 489
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/32668ce6dd515ced
-------------------
"With respect to the second shot fired in Dealey Plaza, the "single-bullet THEORY" is an obvious misnomer. Though in its incipient stages it was but a theory, the indisputable evidence is that it is now a proven FACT, a wholly supported conclusion. .... And no sensible mind that is also informed can plausibly make the case that the bullet that struck President Kennedy in the upper right part of his back did not go on to hit Governor Connally." -- VB; Pages 489-490
DVP: I couldn't agree more strongly with Mr. Bugliosi here. And I've said so...many times:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/a7cf61c59d09bc05
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/d16a5df97cccb32c
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/0b30398a449c05b7
-------------------
DVP: On the goofball issue of "Zapruder Film Alteration", Vince B. had me actually physically applauding him after I read these common-sense words:
"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any bearing on the president's murder. ....
"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their palate?" -- VB; Pages 506-507
For a few additional laughs re. the "Z-Film Hoax" nonsense, check out the following weblinks:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f6c0a6dec30e8ce1
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/msg/e5f75aab67fa7b9e
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/102b3923010e8c71
-------------------
"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any of the most modern technological advances available in film and photography could do what the buffs said was done {to the Zapruder Film} over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been done back then. ....
"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC {National Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.} was not equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over 40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- VB; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes
DVP: And I'm still waiting for a kooky "Z-Film alterationist" to tell me (with a straight face) why on this Earth a band of sophisticated film-fakers decided to alter the Zapruder movie and yet NOT ALTER the very thing that spells out "conspiracy" to most people viewing the movie -- i.e., THE REAR HEAD SNAP?
Were the film-alterers simply too pre-occupied with the color of Mary Moorman's shoes and socks to worry about such trivialities like that head snap to the rear (which, more than any other single thing, was probably the prime catalyst that sparked the creation of the HSCA in the late 1970s)?
Or: Were the film-fakers just freaking idiots?!
~shrug~
-------------------
DVP: Re. Warren Commission member Richard Russell (who went on record as having been opposed to the WC's pro-SBT conclusion):
"What Russell essentially said {in a 1970 interview} is that there were too many things he had questions about, and because of these unanswered questions, instead of concluding he didn't know what happened, he tended to believe there was a conspiracy.
"Maybe if Russell had acted like a responsible public official, he would have learned the answers to his questions. But he did not. .... His attendance at the hearings where 94 witnesses testified before the Commission was nothing short of disgraceful, Russell only attending the testimony of 6 witnesses. And if Russell had a little more common sense, that would have also helped.
"Russell is the same person who on October 22, 1962, right in the middle of the Cuban missile crisis...actually urged war rather than a peaceful resolution to the crisis. ....
"Can you imagine that? To Russell, possession of nuclear weapons wasn't a deterrent to war but a golden opportunity to blow up the planet. I must confess: when a mental giant like Russell says he believes there may have been a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination, I listen." -- VB; Pages 297 298 of Endnotes
DVP: LOL! I've also had many of the same types of thoughts when it comes to Senator Richard B. Russell of Georgia. Every time I ever heard him speak, the word "goofball" would immediately enter my mind. (I'm just glad there were six other more responsible people on that 1964 Presidential Commission.) .....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/b9af777b0e813fd7
-------------------
DVP: In the Chapter-Four endnotes, VB offers up some interesting observations regarding the genesis of the SBT and the architect(s) of the Warren Commission's single-bullet conclusion:
"From the first moment that I heard that {Arlen} Specter had come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.
"Since {the members of the WC staff} all knew that the bullet, fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw it? ....
"When I asked {Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005} if, indeed, Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously." When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself, Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....
"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team player only interested in doing his job well. ....
"If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to respond to this issue {via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005}, and he declined." -- VB; Pages 302-304 of Endnotes
-------------------
"The big problem for the conspiracists is that if the head shot was fired, as they claim, from the grassy knoll, since their grassy knoll gunman was approaching being perpendicular to the president, using their law of physics theory the president's head should have been pushed much more to the LEFT than to the REAR. Yet we know the precise opposite happened, which argues strongly for the HSCA's neuromuscular-reaction theory, and against the shot-from-the-grassy-knoll theory." -- VB; Page 332 of Endnotes
-------------------
DVP: I was pleased to see that assassination researcher Dale Myers is given some "air time" in Mr. Bugliosi's book, including a very nice overview of Mr. Myers' excellent computer animation project within the CD's endnotes:
"As technology has continued to evolve, computers have been brought to bear on the concepts of the single-bullet theory. .... Neither the {1988} Nova nor the {1992} FAA computer studies attempted to create an animated computer model that matched the entire filmed record as captured by Abraham Zapruder's camera.
"Emmy Award–winning computer animator Dale Myers took on that challenge with the belief that the resulting computer re-creation of the Zapruder film would, for the first time, allow historians to examine the entire motorcade through Dealey Plaza in three dimensions. ....
"To ensure a high degree of accuracy, Myers based his three-dimensional computer models on the historic record. Blueprints of the {TSBD}...were used for the first time to create a finely detailed computer model of the infamous building. .... A survey map of Dealey Plaza, and calibration photographs taken by Myers, were used to build a model of Dealey Plaza, Elm Street, and its surrounding structures. The original blueprint of the modified 1961 Lincoln convertible in which the president was riding...served as a guide in modeling the presidential limousine. ....
"The result of Myers's efforts is a remarkably compelling view of the assassination of President Kennedy that is consistent with the Warren Commission's and HSCA's conclusion that Kennedy and Connally were, indeed, struck by the same bullet, Myers concluding at frame Z223." -- VB; Pages 346-347 of Endnotes
DVP: More information about Dale K. Myers' exacting and detailed work on the JFK case can be found below. The second link shows a still frame from Myers' 3D computer animation at the approximate time of the "SBT" shot, as seen from the point-of-view of Oswald's sniper's perch.
As can be seen, a bullet going through JFK's back and neck had nowhere else to go except into John Connally's back. (And keep in mind that the photo depicted in that link is an image that Mr. Myers has based almost exclusively on the Zapruder Film itself, with the Z-Film being "Key Framed" into Dale's three-dimensional computer animation.).....
http://jfkfiles.com/index.html
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/SOH_1061.jpg
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/ed8d8ab92a74c7ee
-------------------
"{Richard} Trask's magnificent 1994 book, "Pictures of the Pain", which I've quoted from often in this book, was the result of ten years of meticulous research on the photographic history of the assassination. Presented in a coolly objective way, the book's 638 pages are chock-full of much information and detail Trask unearthed that had never been previously published. The book is an absolutely invaluable reference that has been widely relied upon by the assassination research community." -- VB; Page 358 of Endnotes
DVP: Hear, hear! I totally concur with Vince's assessment of Mr. Trask's fabulous book ("POTP"). In addition, Trask's follow-up volume to "Pictures" (1998's "That Day In Dallas") is also a very worthwhile addition to anyone's JFK library.
Plus: Trask's 2005 book all about the Zapruder Film ("National Nightmare On Six Feet Of Film"), which is also referenced several times in "Reclaiming History", is by far the best book I've ever seen on Abraham Zapruder's famous home movie.
And I defy any "alterationist" out there to read "National Nightmare's" 392 pages and still somehow work into the chronology a way for the Z-Film to have been spirited away from Dallas in order for massive fakery to be performed on the film. Such talk is just flat-out nutty.
==============================
CHAPTER 5 (276 PAGES) -- "LEE HARVEY OSWALD":
DVP: This lengthy chapter contains a wonderfully-written biography on President Kennedy's murderer, Lee Harvey Oswald. A more complete, detailed account of the 24-year life of this strange young man named Lee you'll not likely find anywhere than that which exists on these pages (although Jean Davison's "Oswald's Game", written in 1983, comes close).
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/9c2238388f0a72c3
After reading this engaging chapter, I felt as though I had literally been right alongside Lee Harvey Oswald during his entire twenty-four years on this Earth.
As with all other parts of "Reclaiming History", the microscopic detail that exists inside this Oswald chapter is phenomenal, including a look at Lee's grades in various school subjects over a several-year period, plus a notation about a KGB report made on Oswald about his activities on May 1, 1960, wherein the KGB agents following Oswald around in Minsk (U.S.S.R.) actually noted the trivial fact that Lee had purchased "200 grams of vanilla cookies" at a local bakery.
I'm surprised the agents didn't record the brand name of the confections and the color of the box. ;)
Bugliosi, on page 600, even pokes fun at the KGB's ultra-detailing of Oswald's movements -- "None of this escaped the notice of the KGB, whose dogged appetite for banality was insatiable."
We also find out that when Lee returned to the USA from Russia, he boarded Delta Airlines flight 821 for the last leg of his excursion, from New York to Dallas, on June 14, 1962.
Plus -- Did you also know that Lee shot a "ring-tailed cat" while hunting with his brother, Robert, during a two-week leave from the Marines in early 1957? (This is the level of detail this chapter and book contain.)
"Perhaps the even greater incongruity was someone like Oswald, who was fiercely independent and resisted any type of authority, joinin |
