Did Oswald know his killer?

I drafted a much longer version of this post but decided to pare it down to the bullet-point essentials and get more directly to the topical question.

• I take the work of (most) every JFKa researcher in good faith. Even those who overreach by extrapolating from their evidence all-encompassing scenarios that seem wildly improbable, or which conflict directly with more solid research or even known facts. 
  
• Even those kinds of researchers generally having something to contribute. Truth arrives in bits and pieces in this case, over time, and it's a shame that gold nuggets get lost in a cloud of speculative malarkey, thus giving the establishment a brush with which to paint the researcher, and the critical community in general, as 'theorists" (to put it politely).
  
• I recently re-read The Men on the Sixth Floor. I don't know how the members here feel about that book, but the gold nugget therein might be the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint found on a box on the sixth floor. I have not come across any good-faith research which discredits that (and please point me to it if you know of any). The proposition of Wallace's involvement, including his presence on the sixth floor at some time, feels credible, though I struggle to believe it got there in the manner presented in tMot6F. The rest of the book, in fact, feels rather fantastic on re-read.
  
• I take particular issue with the idea of Jack Ruby having some active managerial role in the assassination itself. Furthermore, for reasons noted below, I find it hard to believe that he and Oswald knew one another prior to the alleged assassin's arrest.
  

My thinking is this: People are shot with handguns all the time. They don't always die. In fact, they recover pretty often. Considering the close quarters and the massive presence of armed law enforcement in that basement parking garage, it's remarkable that Ruby was able to get off a single shot. Surely no one counted on any more than that. Now, if the assassination was a conspiracy (and it was), and if Ruby was ordered or coerced into shooting Oswald (and he was), it doesn't make sense under these circumstances to send an assassin who is known to the target.

All it would take is a single moment of lucidity, lying on the stretcher in Trauma Room Two, for Oswald to mutter ... "Jaaaaack, why ... whhhhhy, Jack ... ugggggghhhh [death rattle]" and suddenly there is a massive can of worms open. Toothpaste out of the tube, so to speak. It's kind of amazing that nothing of that sort happened (ie, Oswald talking after being shot). The same problem would have arisen, likely worse, if Ruby's attempt had been foiled. 

Now, having stated all the above, I suppose there would have been ways to mitigate this risk. For instance, it doesn't really matter if Ruby knew Oswald (ie, perhaps Ruby had foreknowledge, or at least was not entirely ignorant about the planned assassination). The point is more that Oswald could not have known Ruby. In fact, if we take for granted that Ruby was ordered/coerced into killing the patsy, this feels like more evidence of Oswald's innocence. If Oswald was being silenced to prevent him from spilling what he knows, an assassination attempt is only going to ensure that he is not going to hold his tongue one more second. If he should happen to recover, game over.

On the other hand, if Oswald was, say, an FBI asset (or believed himself to be) who was following along and perhaps even trying to prevent the assassination (maybe even having a Coke just outside the front door of the TSBD as the shots were fired), it makes sense for the mob to send their bagman to eliminate him — not in order to prevent him from giving up the conspiracy, but to prevent him from being able to defend himself, now that the lone-nut scenario and "evidence" was taking shape, and thereby establishing the needed patsy.

In other words, Oswald not only didn't fire shots from the sixth floor, he didn't really know much about the conspiracy. In this scenario, it might (might!) be rational to consider that Oswald knew his killer. I suppose if my hypothetical utterance of "Jack ... why?" had happened before Oswald expired, it could be argued that Oswald was aware of Ruby because Ruby was a local D-list celebrity.

But I see no scenario in which Oswald and Ruby are hangin' at a safehouse prior to the assassination, looking at maps spread on the table and double-checking the parade route. No, no, no. In fact, I find it hard to believe that Oswald was ever in Jack's club. 

Does anyone know of any solid evidence, that is not hearsay, that Oswald and Ruby knew one another? Or, lacking that, are there any two (or more) witnesses who independently corroborate the same claim? 

If not, then Beverly Oliver is full of it.

Beverley Oliver is full of it.

Witnesses to Oswald being in the Carousel were actually seeing Crafard.

The young man ogling the dancer in the (Beer?) photo is just another generic young white male. 

Beverley Oliver is full of it.

Based on what I have learned over 20+ years, my conclusions fwiw

1. Oswald knew nothing.
2. He was patsyfied partly because he had been used previously by more than one alphabet agancy. This ensured the cover-up was universal.
3. Oswald and Ruby were unknown to each other.
4. Oswald was not killed to stop him talking. He was killed because the cops knew their shitty case would not fly in front of the world media.
5. Ruby was chosen for the job because he was a police groupie, and had vulnerabilities that could be exploited for his cooperation.
6. Mac Wallace? No.
7. The one shot death was ensured by aiming up through the body and by the cops taking Oswald into a private room before the ambulance arrived. Who knows what they did to him in there.
8. The idea that Jack was part of the plotting is possible but unlikely. The idea that he was a plotter, or was part of the assassination team, is predicated on the idea that he was "mobbed" up, and from his knowing about the FPCC - enough anyway to correct Wade at the press conference. In reality, Ruby was on the periphery of everything, but part of nothing. His knowledge of the FPCC is also blown way out of proportion. He knew about them simply because Oswald had already been publically associated with them and Ruby was actually an intelligent guy who read newspapers, listened to the news, and kept himself informed. 
9. Roy Truly was the plotters inside man at the TSBD.
10. If it wasn't for rampant paranoia, overwrought imaginations, industrial-scale narcissicism, an ongoing cover-up and a completely fucked-up media, this case could have been solved ages ago.

7. The one shot death was ensured by aiming up through the body and by the cops taking Oswald into a private room before the ambulance arrived. Who knows what they did to him in there.


Knock me down with a feather Greg. In all my reading on the case I've never come across this before. He was taken to a private room before the ambo arrived. Is this verifiable? Thanks for the info by the way.

Mick_Purdy wrote:7. The one shot death was ensured by aiming up through the body and by the cops taking Oswald into a private room before the ambulance arrived. Who knows what they did to him in there.


Knock me down with a feather Greg. In all my reading on the case I've never come across this before. He was taken to a private room before the ambo arrived. Is this verifiable? Thanks for the info by the way.

Verifiable as far as you can trust anything Leavelle says.


The doctor was not a doctor. He was a medical student whose main job was to patch up the victims of the cops extracting confessions.

And he was not in the basement. Believe it or not he was denied entry because he was not a cop or a journalist. 

Anyhow, Leavelle and friends had no doubt a good few minutes to do whatever before this young medic arrived just prior to the ambulance.

Thanks Greg, that's astonishing information, at least to me. (Not having seen it before) It certainly begs a question or two. Thanks for sharing mate.

Mick_Purdy wrote:Thanks Greg, that's astonishing information, at least to me. (Not having seen it before) It certainly begs a question or two. Thanks for sharing mate.

The medical student rode with Oswald in the ambulance (ambo drivers back then were just that merely drivers). He stated that Oswald fought him as he tried to provide medical assistance during the ride.

Was this because the cops were trying to kill him before that in the guise of "medical assistance"? He would not have known who the "doctor" was. Another cop for all he knew.

Judging by this photo taken just prior to being loaded in the ambulance I'm not so sure he had much fight left him.

Mate, hard to say from still photos. That said, I understand it is hard to believe.

But I see no reason for the young bloke to lie about it. What I was forgetting was that Leavelle and two other detectives also rode in the ambulance. Seeing them there could well have spooked Oswald quite a bit as the doc tried to help him. 

Dhority also rode in the ambulance.

I recently re-read The Men on the Sixth Floor. I don't know how the members here feel about that book, but the gold nugget therein might be the Malcolm Wallace fingerprint found on a box on the sixth floor. I have not come across any good-faith research which discredits that (and please point me to it if you know of any). The proposition of Wallace's involvement, including his presence on the sixth floor at some time, feels credible, though I struggle to believe it got there in the manner presented in tMot6F. The rest of the book, in fact, feels rather fantastic on re-read.

 Loy Factor just made up his story. He is not credible at all. As for the alleged Wallace fingerprint Joan Mellon debunked it in her book "Faustian Bargains".

Chest compressions are a big no with a shot in the abdomen, I am no medical know it all, but I doubt these compressions helped.

Fred A Bieberdorf WC Testimony.
https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh13/html/WC_Vol13_0047a.htm

He was 'privileged' to give uncle Jack a rectal exam.

Vinny wrote:Loy Factor just made up his story. He is not credible at all. As for the alleged Wallace fingerprint Joan Mellon debunked it in her book "Faustian Bargains".

Thanks. It sounded a little too good to be true. Judging by the rest of that book, I figured it probably wasn't. I've never read anything of Mellon's. Might have to change that.

greg_parker wrote:Mate, hard to say from still photos. That said, I understand it is hard to believe.

But I see no reason for the young bloke to lie about it. What I was forgetting was that Leavelle and two other detectives also rode in the ambulance. Seeing them there could well have spooked Oswald quite a bit as the doc tried to help him. 

Good point about looking at still photos, his left arm hanging from the stretcher would suggest however he's probably in an altered conscious state (maybe) and unless I'm misunderstanding Beiberdorf's wording he is applying cardiac massage on route to the Hospital. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the "thrashing about" and resisting efforts to support his life may have been his own body's reflex actions. Of course I'm no Doctor so he certainly could have been "fighting" with them but because Oswald expired not long after the journey to hospital it would make sense that he was in the stages of "dying" on route to Parkland. However, the caveat on all of this is that we now know what these Dallas cops were really like, and it's not beyond the realms that they made sure Oswald was cooked as they travelled to hospital. We have 3 Dallas cops and a student doctor in the rear of the station wagon.....It's more than possible that Beiberdorf was coached in what to say after the event in my opinion. Again thanks for highlighting this for me.

https://cutt.ly/84AZzTB

Oswald's Autopsy findings:



https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth337932/m1/11/

C'mon guys!!

EVERYONE knows,  Richard Charnin even proved it to a scientific certainty ( to within .03 Megajuddufkis, and even Juddufki herself only managed .02145), it was really toupee sporting  midget FBI agent James Bookhout,  who fake shot his fellow DISC/ CIA asset, HARVEY Oswald ( who played along,  expecting Clay Shaw and David Atlee Phillips to spirit him off to a secret tropical love nest,  where his Judy would be waiting)

Seriously though,  the whole Loy Factor yarn- Loy, Mac Wallace,  the mysterious Ruth Ann and an apparently hypnotized Lee Oswald,  all up on the 6th floor- is yet another,  distinctly underwhelming piece of conspiracy pulp fiction. 

I'm pretty sure Joan Mellon drove a stake through the heart of the lingering zombie remains of the Mac Wallace fingerprint claim. 

Mac Wallace himself is a figment of the highly ( un) imaginative proponents of the LBJ dunit subsection of the ghoulish assassination related cottage industry. 

My opinion is Ruby was available,  malleable, expendable and highly suggestible ( susceptible). Wired up to the eyeballs on amphetamines, manipulated into thinking he'd be a hero, only serve a minimal sentence and,  perhaps crucially,  have his debts wiped. 

The whole Ruby/ Nixon/ Prescott Bush fairy tale is just more conspiracy friendly hokum. 

Could he have been involved in some low level gun running? It's certainly possible,  and Larry Hancock's scenario: Ruby being tapped as some street grade mr fixit,  a conduit for corrupt cops etc, is plausible,  although I personally I have my doubts. 

But, you're absolutely spot on absinthe ( great name by the way) ,  someone as unstable,  volatile,  not to mention as notoriously indiscreet as Ruby being entrusted with any significant details,  much less being involved in the actual planning , is pure unadulterated bullshit. 

Likewise Babushka Bev, with her ever changing,  ever expanding tale(s). Roscoe White in uniform,  up on the knoll,  being introduced to " my friend Lee Oswald from the CIA" , having her film mysteriously confiscated by shadowy CIA agents,  who were thoughtful enough to identify themselves,  even the whole Yashica Super 8 camera story, not forgetting her regular appearances at the annual Juddufki Thons,  including her heartwrenching warbling on the Grassy Knoll...

She should have stuck to the day job. Compared to touting( and concocting) a load of ghoulish tripe about the assassination,  and showing up at events hosted by disreputable grifters,  she should have stuck to singing hymns,  with her hand stuck up the piny rear of a ventriloquists dummy. At least her previous profession was a lot more honest,  and relatively speaking,  far less humiliating( For once Stevie Gaal's illiteracy came in handy! If he hadn't mistaken Monopoly money for Mexican currency,  he would have made it to Tijuana, to undergo a highly revolutionary surgical procedure,  amputating his four limbs,and his rib cage, and having them replaced by wood( from the Carousel club of course!! His limbs were to be the legs of Sparky's desk, while his new ribs were to be fashioned from the tabletop Juddufki and Jada performed an impromptu fan dance on, the night Jimmy Files,  Chuckie,  Tosh, Barry Seal and the boys showed up) 

Apart from being an actual  Oswald  doppelganger, or even a Donald  Norton, or co pilot in the plane that flew Robert Vinson to Roswell,  or being Mr Myra DaRouse,  or Mrs John Armstrong,  according to,  and dependent upon his current hormonal supplement usage , Stevie's all time fantasy ( well the ones that are printable and non liable to condemn me to decades worth of therapeutic hell) is to be the Babushka Ladies ventriloquists dummy..

Feel her surprisingly muscular arm slithering inwards before he starts miming " Onwards Christian Soldiers "

Armstrong have mercy on us all

I appreciate the good information and feedback in this thread.

My original draft was much longer because I was working on a point and giving some examples. I'll fill in some of that here.

It feels like anyone with a serious interest in the assassination requires at least a decade, preferably two, of fairly intense study to sort through the various theories and evidence and counter-evidence before he can begin to sort the wheat from the chaff from the utter BS. Not sure what made me re-read tMot6F except that I happened to come across it while searching through my Kindle library and it's short. Also, the premise of the book is right there in the title, and since I've come to believe over the years not only that Oswald was not on the sixth floor, but perhaps no one shot from there at all, I wondered how the book would feel upon re-reading it. And I did recall the Mac Wallace fingerprint evidence. I recently read Roger Stone's book implicating LBJ and thereby his minions, and I was curious if the Mac Wallace tale would jive well with that.

To Greg's point in his first response, a major barrier in this case has always been the paranoia and creative leaps of many "researchers." After reading this thread, I guess Sample & Collum are another example. Another that's always bothered me is the Zapruder alteration theories of Jack White. Talk about overreach. There is no aspect of the Z-film, from the people to the buildings to the vehicles to the lampposts, that White seemed to believe weren't just CGI'd in the year of our Lord 1963. My innate response to this, 20 years ago, was to simply conclude the opposite: The Z-film has not been altered in any way.

In more recent years, due to the work of Mantik and Doug Horne (I'm currently working through his 5 volumes), I've come around to the view that the film was in fact altered, in a much more minimal and realistic (and effective) way. Of course Mantik's work on the Z-film has been around for quite some time, but due to a sort of cross-pollination effect, because White and Mantik were both talking Z-film alteration, in spite of his impeccable credentials Mantik felt a little tainted to me. I've only recently taken a deeper dive into his work. So you see, if it were not for Jack talking about a woman who was 8 feet tall in the Z-film I might have been open to this a lot sooner. 

(And as far as Beverly Oliver, I've had my suspicions about her ever since an episode of The Men Who Killed Kennedy opened with her singing "Amazing Grace." There are others I'd like to believe but am highly skeptical about—including Ed Hoffman and Gordon Arnold. I don't understand the psychology behind the desire to insert yourself into history, but apparently there is no age limit).

I'm 50 and having been reading assassination books since I was 19. But my eyesight has made reading anything not on a Kindle device increasingly challenging over the past 10 years. I'd been meaning to read Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics since I first became aware of it in the 90s. For whatever reason, it has never been made available in ebook format. I finally decided to get myself some glasses and a good reading light and just buy the damn paperback (along with Doug Horne's 5 volumes and Mantik's latest book). I've always had the instinctive feeling that there are some underlying uber-truths in Deep Politics.

absinthe wrote:I appreciate the good information and feedback in this thread.

My original draft was much longer because I was working on a point and giving some examples. I'll fill in some of that here.

It feels like anyone with a serious interest in the assassination requires at least a decade, preferably two, of fairly intense study to sort through the various theories and evidence and counter-evidence before he can begin to sort the wheat from the chaff from the utter BS. Not sure what made me re-read tMot6F except that I happened to come across it while searching through my Kindle library and it's short. Also, the premise of the book is right there in the title, and since I've come to believe over the years not only that Oswald was not on the sixth floor, but perhaps no one shot from there at all, I wondered how the book would feel upon re-reading it. And I did recall the Mac Wallace fingerprint evidence. I recently read Roger Stone's book implicating LBJ and thereby his minions, and I was curious if the Mac Wallace tale would jive well with that.

To Greg's point in his first response, a major barrier in this case has always been the paranoia and creative leaps of many "researchers." After reading this thread, I guess Sample & Collum are another example. Another that's always bothered me is the Zapruder alteration theories of Jack White. Talk about overreach. There is no aspect of the Z-film, from the people to the buildings to the vehicles to the lampposts, that White seemed to believe weren't just CGI'd in the year of our Lord 1963. My innate response to this, 20 years ago, was to simply conclude the opposite: The Z-film has not been altered in any way.

In more recent years, due to the work of Mantik and Doug Horne (I'm currently working through his 5 volumes), I've come around to the view that the film was in fact altered, in a much more minimal and realistic (and effective) way. Of course Mantik's work on the Z-film has been around for quite some time, but due to a sort of cross-pollination effect, because White and Mantik were both talking Z-film alteration, in spite of his impeccable credentials Mantik felt a little tainted to me. I've only recently taken a deeper dive into his work. So you see, if it were not for Jack talking about a woman who was 8 feet tall in the Z-film I might have been open to this a lot sooner. 

(And as far as Beverly Oliver, I've had my suspicions about her ever since an episode of The Men Who Killed Kennedy opened with her singing "Amazing Grace." There are others I'd like to believe but am highly skeptical about—including Ed Hoffman and Gordon Arnold. I don't understand the psychology behind the desire to insert yourself into history, but apparently there is no age limit).

I'm 50 and having been reading assassination books since I was 19. But my eyesight has made reading anything not on a Kindle device increasingly challenging over the past 10 years. I'd been meaning to read Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics since I first became aware of it in the 90s. For whatever reason, it has never been made available in ebook format. I finally decided to get myself some glasses and a good reading light and just buy the damn paperback (along with Doug Horne's 5 volumes and Mantik's latest book). I've always had the instinctive feeling that there are some underlying uber-truths in Deep Politics.

The case is a complete mess due to incompetent investigation, deliberate lies and coverups, grifters trying to make a buck and crazy theories that refuse to die no matter how thoroughly debunked.

Ed Hoffman’s story was convincingly debunked by Duke Lane in his essay “Nowhere Man”. Gordon Arnold claimed to be standing in front of where “Badgeman” was supposedly shooting. Badgeman was subsequently debunked and there are no photographs of anyone where Arnold claimed to be nor can anyone explain how a “government agent” was able to forcibly remove the film from his camera unnoticed by people who swarmed into the area near the fence after the assassination.

Mantik has a PhD in physics an accepts the witness statements that the limousine stopped but evidently didn’t consider to apply simple physics taught to college freshmen about deceleration rates and breaking distances to     see if that was even possible without a collision with the Secret Service followup car and the movement of passengers in the limo. There is a very long thread on the EF that also assumes the witnesses who say the limo stopped are correct and therefore the Z-film must be altered. I think he is the only one that understands his theory. I can’t comment on Mantik’s assessment of the autopsy x-rays.

About the only certainties in the case are 1) Don’t believe anything Marina Oswald says and 2) whenever something strange takes place, it usually involves the Paines.

Absinthe, you wrote:


"In more recent years, due to the work of Mantik and Doug Horne (I'm currently working through his 5 volumes), I've come around to the view that the film was in fact altered, in a much more minimal and realistic (and effective) way. Of course Mantik's work on the Z-film has been around for quite some time, but due to a sort of cross-pollination effect, because White and Mantik were both talking Z-film alteration, in spite of his impeccable credentials Mantik felt a little tainted to me. I've only recently taken a deeper dive into his work. So you see, if it were not for Jack talking about a woman who was 8 feet tall in the Z-film I might have been open to this a lot sooner." 


G'day Absinthe, I'm curious. Specifically, in your opinion how and what part of the film was altered? 


"I've come around to the view that the film was in fact altered, in a much more minimal and realistic (and effective) way."  Minimal - as in excised frames?

Effective? In what way?


Don't get me wrong, I'm open to any solid evidence which might support some alteration to the film but in my research I've found nothing so far to convince me that the film has been altered - apart from two frames possibly having been excised.

Mick_Purdy wrote:G'day Absinthe, I'm curious. Specifically, in your opinion how and what part of the film was altered? 


"I've come around to the view that the film was in fact altered, in a much more minimal and realistic (and effective) way."  Minimal - as in excised frames?

Effective? In what way?


Don't get me wrong, I'm open to any solid evidence which might support some alteration to the film but in my research I've found nothing so far to convince me that the film has been altered - apart from two frames possibly having been excised.

Evidence which is not only credible and convincing per se, but which also comports with other patterns of evidence—especially when those other patterns are independently developed—is increasingly credible. Credibility increases, by orders of magnitude, as more patterns fit together (with the caveat, of course, that one is wary of simply seeing what one wants to see). 

Some of the most well-developed and voluminous evidence in this case involves the back-of-the-head blowout witnessed by the Parkland professionals, SS agent Hill, and numerous others, including at Bethesda. The pattern of medical dissembling and outright forgery is so glaring here, denying it is not a tenable position. 

What does this tell us? A couple of things. First, that concealing evidence that the back of the President's head was blown out in the occipital area was the top priority, of extraordinary importance to those in authority who were in control of the situation at that moment in time. Secondarily—and this can be extrapolated to every other area of the case—it tells us that we cannot appeal to authority because the authority has sacrificed integrity. Simply put, if the medical authority will go to such incredible lengths, compromising the core values of the profession, to lie on this scale about one thing, why wouldn't they lie about something else? Or a dozen somethings?

But to reiterate the point above: Concealing evidence that the back of the President's head was blown out in the occipital area was THE top priority, of extraordinary importance to those in authority who were in control of the situation at that moment in time. It is arguable that pointing to a single shooter from the rear was the primary directive at that time (since by the time of autopsy, LHO's face and employment at the TSBD had encircled the Earth), but concealing the occipital blowout was essentially the same thing. You cannot have the one without the other. 

Mantik documents the work of Sydney Wilkinson and her husband, who created a high-resolution 6k scan of the Z-film from a 35 mm dupe negative purchased from the National Archives. Among their findings is a black shape masking the back of Kennedy's head in frames following the headshot at Z-313. This black shape is incredibly unnatural in appearance, with even contours and depth of color. It has been described by Hollywood SFX artists (known to Wilkinson and her husband as that is their primary field of work) as a crude and obvious added effect.

This is best seen in high-res blowups of Z-317.

Now, while the observations of really smart people do not constitute "proof," let us return to something we do know: that concealing evidence that the back of the President's head was blown out in the occipital area was the top priority, of extraordinary importance in the hours and days immediately following the assassination. It therefore follows that extraordinary measures would be taken, expediently and sparing no expense, to any extent possible in order to conceal this evidence.

The work of Douglas Horne has uncovered further corroborating evidence that the custody of the Z-film is quite different from what the public has been lead to believe. I will leave it to you to read his work and watch his videos. Suffice it to say that Dino Brugioni strikes me a witness of peak credibility. This, combined with evidence that the film was sent to "hawkeyeworks" in Rochester, NY in between two separate trips to the APIC lab, demonstrates that there was time and means for this sort of alteration to be done.

To answer your question, this Z-film alteration (blotting out the back of the head) was "effective" because ... well, because we are having this discussion at this moment. It was effective because it was simple and highly focused, and thereby went undetected for decades, allowing the Warren Commission and the lone-nut myth to snowball its way through American and world history. 

Let me state that while I now believe this alteration took place, I am at least open to arguments to the contrary. The evidence is not quite definitive. Then again, what evidence is (especially in this case)? My greater point here is to do with the nature of evidence overall, be it in this case or any other. The case for alternation of this precise nature is buttressed because the pattern shows that concealing the blowout in the back of JFK's head was an absolute critical priority to those handling the situation—bearing in mind also that we are talking about people for whom there was no higher authority, and who had any and all means available to them.

I believe Mantik, Horne, and others have speculated on some other aspects of the film having been altered, but I have not closely considered those. But again, anything which is "simple" and done in the interest of concealing the nature of JFK's wounds is well within the bounds of believability. 

Moving lampposts around on Elm street, not so much.

absinthe,

Presumably, disguising a blowout wound in the back of the head seen in the film would be to hide evidence of a shot from the front. A shot from the north knoll near the fence corner where some saw smoke or near the triple underpass would have transited JFK’s head from right to left, not from front to back. How would that cause a blowout wound in the back of the head, a direction roughly 90 degrees from the bullet trajectory? A shot from the south knoll would be more compatible with a rear blowout wound and while such a shot is theoretically possible, wouldn’t the ejected exit matter go back and to the right? Yet the motorcycle cops in that position were not covered with blood as were those to the left of the limo.

I think Horne is correct that two independent NPIC teams examined copies of the film on subsequent nights. What would be the need for a second NPIC set of briefing boards if the first team (Dino Brugioni’s) did not find evidence of a crossfire? My guess is that there was some bureaucratic duplication of effort compounded by secrecy oaths.

Seems to me that too many people would have critical roles in an alteration scenario as described by Horne even assuming it’s technically possible. It would have been easier to have another assassin from behind than have to choreograph alteration of the Z-film, the body and the x-rays to hide the presence of a second assassin.

No link to the actual hi-res image itself, but here is the image Mantik provides in his latest book. This is supposedly from the forensic copy made from the 35 mm dupe negative at NARA2, provided by Thom Whitehead (Wilkinson's husband):

Thanks for posting the image absinthe.

Just to highlight the point about consistency in the shadow areas here is a resized scaled down but not cropped version of the photo you posted.





The shadows in the frame are consistent with one another - uniform. The hinge flap we see in this frame and in the photo I've posted above agrees with the eyewitness statements reported from Parkland Hospital.