A Hard Fact: All Necessary JFK Files HAVE Been Released To Expose Conspiracy

As is standard for the Neoliberal media, much hoopla is being made over the prospective  release of all documents to do with the Kennedy assassination, by October 25, 2017. For example, we are informed, by Josh Sanburn (TIME, 'JFK Assassination Secrets Scheduled for 2017 Release', Dec. 26, ) that "the last remaining documents pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are being processed, scanned and readied for release".

Adding:

"For those who believe the clues to who killed JFK are hidden somewhere deep inside the government files, this may be the last chance to find the missing pieces".

Totally missing the point. That is, that  most of the missing pieces have already been found - at least by those willing to dig and not be misdirected by propaganda. Sadly, it is clear most of those who write such articles are guided more by propaganda than the facts of the case. But this may be because like so many others who have arrogantly taken the case on (e.g. Michael Shermer, Tom Hanks, Scott Aaronson, Timothy Naftali et al) they are woefully uninformed and only content to skirt the details - preferring the outside superficialities of the events and aftermath. Which is easy to grasp, because scanning the sundry files takes work, and no one is going to do it for you.

The very emphasis on 'who killed JFK' is ludicrous because the "mechanics" - as we call them, are long since dead and in any case were mere tools for the execution of the plan. In terms of import chasing them down - or trying to - is more a fool's errand, because it is the de facto planners- architects  who bear much more scrutiny and in fact, can more easily be identified. (For example, William Harvey, who authorized the mutation of the original Staff D plan, with JFK the prime target). . But to read pieces like Sanburn's you'd never know that.

The more serious researcher is not distracted by trying to learn'"WHO" fired the kill shot, but rather addressing the key question (leading to a negative conclusion): Who didn't?   And it is clear to anyone who's invested in the physics of the events, including the actual rifle tests, that Lee Oswald didn't fire any lethal head shot.   The actual rifle - if indeed legit at all - was so fragile it couldn't be permitted to come in contact with serious handling, or likely even testing the bolt action. If it couldn't then it also meant it couldn't be used to perform any replicative tests.  To learn more, go to:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html

Beyond the fact the actual rifle was useless, one encounters the fact that the Warrenites had to alter the shot trajectory from the rear in order to make their fiction work. Most of this alteration was thanks to WC member Gerald Ford (the guy who also couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time). We have the actual 'smoking gun' for Ford's alterations in files released less than 20 years ago, e.g.

The report of the change also appeared in the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/ford-made-key-change-in-kennedy-death-report.html

To understand exactly why Ford had to go to this trouble, study this original WC diagram for the wound placements and subsequent alteration:


As noted before, moving the wound to the back of the neck as opposed to it being parallel to the third thoracic vertebra e.g. of the back, the WC believed it could get  people - many otherwise intelligent - to buy into the single bullet baloney  and dismiss the original improbable track.

The upper inclined blue arrow shows the trajectory of the bullet that the Warren Commission first believed would be needed in order to account for BOTH the JFK back wound AND the neck wound - then entering Connally to make his wounds.

The problem was that with the upward angle trajectory the shooter would've had to have been firing literally  from street level,   which would have eliminated a TSBD shooter (alleged to be Oswald). At this juncture, Gerald Ford realized for the SBT to work the Commission's drawing had to reset the placement higher - changing it to the light yellow trajectory through the base of the neck, and a downward angle..

The initial draft of the report(conforming to the blue upward trajectory)  had  stated:


"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine." 

Ford altered it to read:

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."
 
Clearly, Ford wanted the document to conform with the single bullet myth  (requiring now the yellow shot arrow) and would stoop to altering a document on record to attain the goal.  The problem for Ford and the Warrenites is one of basic anatomy. The original autopsy sheet, including the placement and description of the back wound, was signed and verified by Admiral George Gregory Burkley, personal physician to the president who directed the autopsy at Bethesda. He verified the back wound placement on November 24th .

That death certificate revealed the back wound to be, in the Admiral's own words, at the president's "third thoracic vertebra.”  The neck has seven CERVICAL vertebrae, and this observed and verified wound was described as three THORACIC vertebrae lower than the neck itself.

The final report then read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." Ford insisted this was “a small change, …intended to clarify meaning, not alter history”. But alter history is exactly what it did! For by altering the original autopsy report, Ford and his cohorts succeeded in conferring a measure of validity on Specter’s single bullet theory. This is despite the fact that analysis of the resulting trajectory doesn’t even conform to basic laws of Newtonian dynamics!

All of this was "out there" with the existing files that anyone with even a basic math or science education could have learned (even the Aussie WC groupie Timmy Brennan), so one could say the "facts were hiding in plain sight". And most have been for the past 25 years.

To get a further handle on this and the physics that eliminates Oswald as the assassin, note the diagram below:

The noticeable backward motion of JFK's head in the Zapruder film is attributed to the reaction of a forward spray outwards - in what has been called the 'jet effect". (Similar to the well known rocket effect, where fuel leaves the exhaust under pressure and the rocket moves in the opposite direction).

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't comport with Jackie's motion backwards over the limo trunk, i.e. in the rear direction- as shown in the lower left graphic.

Her motion attests to the fact (from Newtonian mechanics, transfer of linear momentum) that the kill shot was fired from the front, in order to hurl a piece of skull (occipital bone fragment later recovered) to the rear. Jackie's own secret testimony affirmed she was attempting to retrieve a piece of Jack's skull.  Further substantiating this is Bethesda Naval Hospital lab tech Paul O'Connor's sketch of JFK's head at the autopsy, e.g.


The massive rear cavitation end path shows just how much of the skull had to be reconstructed using mortician's plaster to give the illusion of an intact back of head.  Floyd Riebe, the medical photographic technician who took photographs of the body at Bethesda, also noted the President had a "big gaping hole in the back of the head" .

He further indicated it displayed more damage than could possibly be done by a military jacketed bullet. The bullet was more likely the explosive or frangible type.  Parkland surgeon Charles Crenshaw also validated the rear of the head being blown out and readers interested can obtain his excellent book, 'JFK - Conspiracy of Silence' .  This link to a .pdf version of Dr. Crenshaw's superb book can be found below:

http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

Dr. Crenshaw later was shown (and related this in his book, page 10) one of the Warren autopsy photos and asked by Gary Shaw of the Sixth Floor Museum whether it matched what he observed when attending to JFK.  Dr. Crenshaw was incredulous, immediately spotting the fake and ascertaining  that the head had been "manipulated", clearly showing a conspiracy at work.  Below is shown the fake at left, and actual autopsy photo at right. Again, note the rear massive damage discloses the kill shot came from the front, not the rear and the Texas Book Depository where Oswald was claimed to be.

Any actual rear head wound would have been obliterated by the frontal shot's cavitation path backward. In effect, anyone subscribing to such a rear head shot is more than likely misdirected  by the bogus mortician's plaster reconstruction which was used to sell the TSBD shooter location.

Again, ALL of this could have been learned by anyone with the skill and will to do so, without succumbing to media distractions,  Warrenite  groupie naysaying or the rants of known disinformationists, like John McAdams.

The whole point is that taken together these salient physical facts show Oswald could not have been the killer, hence the negative conclusion: Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin.

This leads us back to Sanburn's article in which he notes the time for final release of remaining files is October 26, 2017 when we will finally behold "3,000 never before seen documents and 34,000 previously redacted files".  Do I expect to find some "smoking gun"? Nope, because we already have the indirect "gun" in hand, from the material presented above (based on already released files, photos, letters etc.), that Oswald didn't do it!

Despite this, Sanburn plays the role of media dupe, writing:

"Many of the files trace back to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from the 1970s and promise to be less about second shooters and grassy knolls and more about what the government - particularly the CIA - might have known about assassin Lee Harvey Oswald"

Again, repeating the "Oswald dunnit" canard despite all the evidence presented showing that Sanburn is either too lazy (i.e.to dig it up himself)  or too dumb and uneducated to process. As for the HSCA investigation, I already described in detail how it was literally compromised from the start, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html

 After Richard Sprague was replaced (he had intended to go full bore) and  after CIA "Information and Privacy Coordinator"  Jim Lawderman wrote ( on July 27, 1977)  the terms of the CIA’s control of Blakey’s investigation. (Mellen, J., ‘Farewell to Justice’, p. 345).  One of the terms cited was (ibid.):

“ Certain areas relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should be entirely disregarded based upon our contention they are without merit or corroboration”

.
Of course, those "areas" included additional shooters and shots from the grassy knoll. As I noted in the previous link:

"The HSCA’s own acoustic tests showed it (kill shot) originated on the grassy knoll (also corroborated by the Parkland surgeon’s own testimony and the actual autopsy photos.)  Thus, the weird attempt of the HSCA to "square the circle" - finding for conspiracy while retaining the original Warren Commission location for the head shot's origin"

I believe then, as I do now, the HSCA contorted itself in order to try to satisfy Lawderman's  demands. And yet, incredibly, despite all that - the final HSCA conclusion was for a conspiracy (96 % probability)   As to what the CIA knew about Oswald or how they used him, we already have ample evidence of their framing thanks to the diligent work of Peter Dale Scott. We thereby learned the extent to which Mexico City station chief David Atlee Phillips employed  fake cables to paint Oswald as the guy in the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

This despite the fact he was nowhere around and besides,  the image (right) taken by the CIA was not of Oswald at all, e.g.

Thus, Sanburn's claim that the CIA station in Mexico City is where "Oswald showed up weeks before Kennedy's death" is pure hogwash. A myth.  Oswald never went to Mexico City, period, and this is one of the litmus tests to distinguish a serious JFK researcher from a pretender.  The photo at right above, taken by actual cameras mounted outside the Mexico City station (and appearing originally in John Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA') show incontrovertibly that the person who showed up was an impostor. A heavy set guy bearing no resemblance to Lee.

But what I would like to finally see are all the CIA files associated with  key spook George Joannides. He was a second  key link to the framing of Lee Oswald in conjunction with Atlee Phillips. (But as I already noted,  the absence of  the Joannides' files doesn't mean the CIA didn't frame Oswald. It merely means we don't have the full picture of Joannides' additional role in doing so via the Cuban Student Directorate, or DRE..)

In mid-1963, one of the main responsibilities of Joannides was the handling of the DRE (Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil ) whose members were all at forefront of the fight to eliminate Fidel Castro. A once-secret memo with portion noting the use of the DRE originally came under control and oversight of Gen. Edward Lansdale and described how the DRE operatives were to be deployed in Miami and New Orleans. (Not long after, Oswald was filmed on Canal Street in New Orleans in an altercation with Bringuier.)

Here’s what we do know: According to declassified CIA records corroborated by interviews, Joannides served as chief of the CIA's anti-Castro psychological warfare operation in Miami in 1963. The operation was run out of the largest CIA station outside of Langley, called JM/WAVE. More than 300 CIA agents directed over 3,000 Cuban agents and subagents, out of a front corporation called 'Zenith Technical Enterprises, Inc.' near (the then)  Crandon Park.  (My family used to often visit Crandon Park, especially its popular zoo.)   More than 50 other dummy fronts and organizations were also used for the employment of the anti-Castro (exile) Cubans, such as Carlos Bringuier.

Bringuier himself was also likely a member of the DRE, given it was one of the biggest and most active CIA-backed groups in Miami. In mid-1963, one of the main responsibilities of Joannides was the handling of the DRE whose members were all at forefront of the fight to eliminate Fidel Castro, first via Operation Mongoose, later through the CIA’s own covert assassination program, ZR Rifle.  But their use in mid -1963 was to assist in painting Oswald as a fellow-traveler and communist sympathizer. In fact, the evidence from Oswald's CIA files suggests he was trying to infiltrate the group.

According to a CIA memo found at the JFK Library, Joannides was giving $25,000 a month (about $147,000 in today's dollars) to the DRE at the time when the group's New Orleans delegation decided to collect intelligence on and publish propaganda about Oswald.

The bottom line is that most of the salient information and key files have already been released and have been sitting under people's noses for two decades or more. The fact is additional files, with the exception of the Joannides CIA ones, will add very little to our insights.  This is something to keep in mind as more and more media mouthpieces start exaggerating the importance of remaining files as we near the release date.

What amazed me the most in Sanburn's piece is a quote he attributed to long time researcher Jefferson Morley:

"Sometimes I think we are going to win. Sometimes I think it's a fool's errand. But we're going to find out."

In fact, we've already won, but most - like Morley  - fail to see it, for one reason or other. Maybe they are looking for an actual signed letter (accompanied by group photo) of all the assassins.  As I showed in this post, the available material ALREADY exculpates Lee Oswald as the assassin of JFK. "Winning" then, means refusing to be a player in the endless disinfo games set up by the WC hacks and their associates - whether in the corporate media, Google groups, or other venues.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/12/skeptics-society-still-tilting-at-jfk.html

Bill O'Reilly - As Big A Dolt on Reagan As He Was On JFK

As I noted in a previous post, Bill O'Reilly is no historian. He's a hack from FAUX News masquerading as one. This was exposed fully in his earlier book, 'Killing Kennedy' as it has been in his recent book, 'Killing Reagan'.  I pointed out all the lies, fictitious reporting in the first, and now George Will (realizing his forte isn't climate science) has exposed all the pretentious baloney and nonsense - make up history in the second.

Recall in my post on O'Reilly's mucking up the Kennedy assassination, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/03/oreillys-lies-in-killing-kennedy-show.html

how I pointed out a major lie of O'Reilly's in his book, to wit, his claim of tracking George de Mohrenschildt (Oswald's Dallas  handler for the CIA), to his Florida home then being there to hear the gunshot that killed him.

To paraphrase investigator Jefferson Morley: "No way could O'Reilly have heard a gunshot from 1200 miles away." 

As I noted, if O'Reilly would lie about this event what would stop him from lying about any aspect of the JFK assassination?

Other gaffes of varying magnitude reported in multiple sources since publication of the JFK book:

-  O'Reilly's claim that the death of de Mohrenschildt was a "suicide" when it was a hit, to keep him quiet so he couldn't testify before the HSCA about his mentoring of Oswald for the CIA;

- Describing an argument between Oswald and Cuban consulate officer Eusebio Azcue. (p. 219). Omitted is that Azcue went to the movies two weeks after the assassination and saw a newsreel of Oswald being shot by Jack Ruby. Azcue was stunned because the man he saw being shot in the newsreel was not the man he argued with in Mexico City.

- Totally leaving out any mention at all of the Zapruder film which, despite some nominal defects, IS the real time recording of the assassination.  It can be argued that ANY author that omits this film - often called the "Rosette stone" of the assassination - can't be considered a serious contributor to body of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination.

- Unable to come to grips with the fact Oswald was a lousy shot (called "Maggie's drawers") O'Reilly and co-author Dugard simply changed the facts and wrote that “Oswald was a crack shot in the military.” (p. 15)  Total absolute nonsense. See, for example:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html

As author Jim DiEugenio notes: "The authors source this to the Warren Report. However, upon finding the relevant section — pages 681-82 — the reader will see that nothing even approaching this kind of description appears on those pages."

To be blunt, O'Reilly and his writing assistant Dugard were making it all up.

Now we come to the book 'Killing Reagan' in which even the title betrays a wrong-headed take since Reagan didn't die from the assassination attempt on him! But O'Reilly used the same lies and sloppy scholarship to translate wounds into a "death" - meaning he construed the wounds to Reagan were so traumatic they converted Reagan into a member of the walking dead for the next 23 years.

 George Will, in his article 'Bill O'Reilly Slanders Ronald Reagan.', delivered an initial takedown of this piece of trash in his WaPo piece. He wrote::

"The book’s pretense of scholarship involves 151 footnotes, only one of which is even remotely pertinent to the book’s lurid assertions. Almost all contain irrelevant tidbits (“Reagan’s hair was actually brown”). At the Reagan Library, where researchers must register, records show that neither O’Reilly nor Dugard, who churn out a book a year, used its resources. The book’s two and a half pages of “sources” unspecifically and implausibly refer to “FBI and CIA files,” “presidential libraries” and travel “around the world.” They also cite Kitty Kelley’s scabrous 1991 Nancy Reagan “biography,” a sewer of rumors and innuendos that probably is the source of the sexual factoids O’Reilly and Dugard recycle."

All this alone would put the book on the same level of faux history as the earlier Kennedy book. But what would you expect from a clown that works at FAUX News?

Most damning from any would-be author's perspective:


"Cox put the book’s publisher in touch with Annelise Anderson, who, with her late husband, Marty, a longtime Reagan adviser, has authored and edited serious books about Reagan. She was offered $5,000 and given just one week to evaluate the manuscript. Having read it, she declined compensation, saying mildly, “I don’t think this manuscript is ready for publication.”

Holy crap! Not ready for publication? When an author (or authors) are told this it means one or more of the following: The sources cannot be trusted, what the sources (actual) claim cannot be verified, the listed footnotes do not mesh with actual sources (one of the problems many of us uncovered in Gerald Posner's 'Case Closed'), the descriptions of the events do not match the actual historical records from many eyewitnesses, or from ballistics research.

In other words, a vicious slap in the face for any purported authenticity and credibility. It means also the authors themselves were not ready for "show time".  This is what Will is pointing out.

Finally:

"The book’s perfunctory pieties about Reagan’s greatness are inundated by its flood of regurgitated slanders about his supposed lassitude and manipulability. This book is nonsensical history and execrable citizenship, and should come with a warning: “Caution — you are about to enter a no-facts zone.”

See also:

https://consortiumnews.com/2012/10/13/bill-oreillys-outdated-killing-kennedy/

And:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/10/09/garbage-total-bs-reagan-aides-and-biographers-b/206068

Scott Aaronson : In Over His Head On The JFK Assassination (Part One)

"How do we know that our own rational rejections of conspiracy theories are not themselves infected with beliefs so strong that they are, in effect, conspiracy theories too?" - Matt Ridley in 'Maybe We're All Conspiracy Theorists', The Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10-11, 2011

Scott Aaronson seems to believe that because he’s a quantum physicist that he’s also knowledgeable enough to make intelligent comments – in his blog – on the JFK assassination. He isn’t. He comes across as yet another overconfident, under-informed  proxy  "expert" (using his quantum physics bona fides) but who probably couldn’t tell Oswald’s  OS-351- 164 file from his  201- 289 248 CI/SIG file or his 74-500 file. All as reported in the Appendices of  Military Science professor John Newman’s book, ‘Oswald and the CIA’ – from freedom of information act documents.

But this is the typical BS that serious assassination researchers have to put up with – because these semi-educated (on the assassination) critics only serve to clutter the blogosphere with yet more disinformation and ignorance when some of us are attempting to educate our countrymen as to what really went down – based on actual documents released on the basis of the JFK Records Act – not half-assed speculations or conjectures.

Look, I will try to go easy on this guy – given he’s a quantum physicist – but I will not back away from calling out balderdash when I see it, the same as I would with SPLC writer Marilyn Elias, Miami Herald columnist, Glen Garvin, and Dr. Steve Mason.

For those who want to see all of his dreck you can dredge it up here:

http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1596

I will stick only to the distilled claims extracted from his bilge.  My points in the order in which he elicits them in his forlorn preface to his "20 reasons for believing Oswald was the lone assassin".

1-     The use of the term “buffs” is a derogative term as has been pointed out by Dr. Michael Parenti in his paper, The JFK Assassination  - Defending the Gangster State. Parenti notes:

“These investigators have been described as "assassination buffs." The term "buff" is a diminishing characterization, describing someone who pursues odd hobbies. For the same reason that we would not refer to "Holocaust buffs," so should we not refer to these serious investigators as "assassination buffs." Their efforts reveal a conspiracy to assassinate the president and an even more extensive conspiracy to hide the crime. “

By invoking the term “buffs” in the JFK case, one can suspect that – logically – Aaronson would also label Simon Wiesenthal as a “Holocaust buff” because he’s pursued further research into the Nazi butchers who ran the camps – especially those that pulled the levers to release Zyklon B.

2-     Aaronson claims when the “scales were peeled from my eyes” he found the Warren Commission claim that Oswald fired exactly 3 shots with his Mannlicher –Carcano from the Texas School Book Depository “compelling”. REALLY? Then either Scott didn’t examine the WC evidence diligently enough, or he was incapable of applying the most basic geometry and physics – not to mention being unable to peruse files more recently released via the JFK Records Act – including Gerald R. Ford’s abominable revision of the (upper back) wound placement, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_15.html

Let’s make it clear Aaronson - as a physicist  -  could have done the same analysis as I did above, if he’d have gotten off his ass and actually obtained the requisite files (FOIA requests from the National Archives), examined them and proceeded.  Did he? Clearly not! In fact, he’s not even remotely aware of how the Warren Commission itself was compromised ab initio. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_13.html

and:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html

3- Aaronson claims “And as for Oswald’s motives, I think I understand them as well and as poorly as I understand the motives of the people who send me ramblings every week about P vs. NP and the secrets of the universe.”  

I don’t think so, pally. If you didn’t access his CIA files, how the hell could you possibly know anything about his motives?  As Michael Parenti notes (ibid.):

“Lee Harvey Oswald spent most of his adult life not as a lone drifter but directly linked to the U.S. intelligence community. All of his IQ tests show that he was above average in intelligence and a quick learner. At the age of eighteen in the U.S. Marines he had secret security clearance and was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, a top secret location from which the CIA launched U2 flights and performed other kinds of covert operations in China. The next year he was assigned to El Toro Air Station in California with security clearance to work radar. “

In regard to the last, examination of his CI/SIG file showed that Oswald had clearance – access for all the following:

“The locations of all bases on the west coast, all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, strength of all squadrons, the number and type of aircraft in each, names of commanding officers, and authentic codes of entering and exiting all ADIZ radar ranges.”

If indeed Oswald was as lame as Aaronson claims, he’d never have been entrusted with any of these, period!  Hell, he’d not have been entrusted with the CIA Director’s pet poodle. Moreover, he'd never ever have been let out of the States, and with the ease of dispatch the document trails disclose.

Once again, this glaring failure of perception – because Aaronson hasn’t done his homework- shows he’s not qualified to comment on any aspect of the assassination.

4-Aaronson claims he began his thinking by allowing something like a “10 % probability” for conspiracy in the JFK assassination and then – after presumably investigating (which he clearly didn’t – as shown from the previous critiques), he then goes on to aver:

 “Now, though, I’d place the JFK conspiracy hypothesis firmly in Moon-landings-were-faked, Twin-Towers-collapsed-from-the-inside territory.”

Really? And you call yourself a physicist? You ought to turn in your diplomas, degrees! This bloviation discloses he can’t discern an actual conspiracy from a loony bin conspiracy “theory” or paranoid speculation.  The clearest example of the latter, apart from the ones he conflates with the JFK assassination conspiracy, is one cited by Joe Klein in the latest TIME (Oct. 20, ‘A Troubled American Moment’, p. 28).  That is, the “federal government buying tons of ammunition for the post office in order to raise the price of ammo for gun owners.”

Now THAT is a "conspiracy theory" at least by the standard of common mocking and ridicule as present in the mainstream media and too many blogs! In fact, it’s little more than a wild speculation because there’s  NO evidence offered at all. It is based on a feeling or more accurately a paranoid suspicion. This type of  subjective foolishness is impossible to prove or disprove because it’s in some psychological la-la land where no evidence would even be accepted by the paranoid, anti-government speculators.

 Compare that to the fake Moon landing bilge which can easily be disproven (assuming the proposers are open to science) by referencing the lunar laser ranging experiments (to determine the precise distance from Earth to the Moon). These use lasers fired from Earth to reflectors left on the Moon’s surface by the Apollo Moon landing teams. (If they contend that “robot craft” could have left them there the logical retort is, “Well if we could send robot craft to the Moon why not manned craft? Once you can compute the necessary trajectory 99% of the problem is solved!)

In the case of the JFK assassination, physics works the reverse way to show why a conspiracy – had to exist.

Let’s first bear in mind when we write or speak of conspiracy we mean  a three-layered configuration, as noted by Peter Dale Scott in his ‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics: Revelations from  CIA Records on the Assassination of JFK’.  The layers include:  1) The framing of Oswald, 2) the actual assassination and the 3) the cover up of (1) and (2).  The error of the corporate media and too many dilettantes is they do not separate the parts, which renders any analyses incomplete and misguided from the start.

The framing itself was accomplished using: 1) fake cables, dispatched from the Mexico City station, 2) an Oswald impostor who was photographed going into the Cuban consulate in Mexico City, and 3) raising false speculations about Cuban-Soviet involvement. For a lengthy accounting of the details go to these links:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

Again, this isn’t speculation – but based on actual CIA files that disclosed what went on – especially in the Staff D purview as well as David Atlee Phillips shenanigans!

Regarding Staff D, as Peter Dale Scott observes (op. cit., p. 18), after referring to the letter D on the cover sheet of Oswald’s 201 file:

“Staff D was a SIGINT or Signals Intelligence operation, run in conjunction with the National Security Agency or NSA. Because of the ultra-secrecy of the NSA and SIGINT, Staff D became a hiding place for other CIA ultra-secrets as well. In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D he was assigned the task of developing the CIA’s assassination program, ZR-Rifle, because ‘D’ was the perfect cranny in which to tuck a particularly nasty bit of business.”

 Which was to assassinate any head of state. Even a U.S. head of state who assorted powerful interests (Joint chiefs, Military defense contractors,  CIA  etc.) felt had betrayed them.

 Now let’s get back to what the physics discloses in term of the conspiracy element (2).

The image of interest from the Zapruder film is shown below:

Carefully note the direction of her motion! It is toward the direction of the limo rear or toward the Book Depository.

According to her secret Warren testimony (excised from original published Report, see e.g  Appendix E):

"I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

In other words, parts of JFK (hair, at least one occipital bone – later recovered) were being hurled back across the trunk. Such motion is impossible for a rear shot such as from the Book Depository, because the direction of linear momentum is always in the direction the bullet travels. Hence, the shot had to have come from the opposite side of the limo – or where the stockade fence of the grassy knoll stood.

That  this never even occurred to Aaronson, as a physicist, is even more startling and suggests again he didn’t do squat in terms of even looking at the films available (Nix and Zapruder) before jumping to his absurd conclusions.

As for the cover up, that part of the conspiracy is also solid, as I already showed (check the earlier links) for my FAQ parts 4a, 4b and 5 on the bullet wounds. Only a dilettante or slacker would fail to see the obvious hands of cover up if the details are read and understood.

Does Aaronson want to do this?

5- Nope. Aaronson, in the clearest evidence yet that he’s unfit to take on something as big as the JFK assassination,  blabs:

“I’ll give twenty reasons for believing that Oswald acted alone.  Notably, my reasons will have less to do with the minutiae of bullet angles and autopsy reports, than with general principles for deciding what’s true and what isn’t.  Of course, part of the reason for this focus is that the minutiae are debated in unbelievable detail elsewhere, and I have nothing further to contribute to those debates”

Oh, okay, so basically Aaronson confesses from the outset he can’t be bothered by any “details” which have been argued “elsewhere”.  He will instead provide us with “general principles” for deciding what’s true and what isn’t.

Hmmm….”general principles” minus the actual physiological, physical and documented  facts (e.g. from CIA files)  before him. Sounds like a guy conducting a séance or voodoo to me. Abracadabra! Here is reality …..based on my general principles of truth, honor and the American (media) way!

I guess that based on his aversion to details, Mr. “General Principles” can tell us the tunneling probability for a particle through a rather steep Coulomb barrier, without even knowing the wave functions for the different regions or the height of the barrier. Makes sense, no? I mean if he can offer general principles of truth for the JFK assassination without even dirtying his hands with "details"  or glancing at a single CIA file for Oswald - certainly he can do that quantum tunneling trick too. Right?

As I will show, this historical event is far above his head and no macroscopic tunneling is available to help him penetrate the ignorance barrier. . Maybe he needs to stick with quantum tunneling!

Next: Response to Aaronson's twenty reasons for believing that Oswald acted alone.

 See also:
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/09/switzerland-destination-for-kennedy.html

Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination (Pt. 8): The Nix and Zapruder Films and the Evidence Therein.

What is the difference between Nix and Zapruder films?

The Nix film was filmed by Orville Nix, just on the opposite side of Elm St. from where Abraham Zapruder filmed his. More precisely, he was located at the corner of Main and Houston Streets. Both films show various details of the fatal head shot though, to be sure, the Z-film (as the Zapruder film has been called) has been the more extensively studied, and is perhaps the most analyzed film in history.


A frame from the Nix film may be seen in Robert Groden’s pictorial record of the assassination, (The Killing of a President, p32). There are also Nix film versions available on the internet (Youtube), but none of the ones I’ve seen are the original. How do I discern the original? It is the one featured in stop-motion on the Italian documentary The Two Kennedys which uses a reference circle for an obvious piece of dislodged skull hurtling over the rear of the limo. This is the film that needs to be seen. One can also clearly see a smoke puff rising from behind the fence of the Grassy Knoll - just as described by a number of witnesses standing on the Elm St. Overpass including: Richard Todd, and S.M. Holland (see, the video 'Rush to Judgment' and segments of interviews with Holland, Todd, Lee Bowers and others therein).

Re: the fragment of skull (occipital) bone seen rocketing over the trunk of the car in 'The Two Kennedys', there is not the least doubt in my mind that this is indeed a dislodged skull fragment, and more than likely the selfsame fragment (occipital) found by William Harper subsequently, about 25-35' behind where the limo was when the shot was fired.(Also noted by Mr. Charles Brehm who was standing only 30' from the limo at the time, but never called by the Warren Commission). A missing occipital bone would also comport with the hole in the head as described, for example, by Parkland surgeon Charles Crenshaw[1].

From a purely physics point of view, the motion of the fragment over the trunk clearly shows the direction of the projectile’s linear momentum.  Its motion is also perfectly consistent, and matched to the other kinetics visible. This also indicates irrefutably, that the shot that produced this backward propulsion of bone had to have come from the front. (Note Jackie can also be seen in the film starting to move over the trunk in an attempt to snatch the flying fragment (cf. Z-film  frames 325-58)and her own testimony appearing in transcripts confirms it[2]:

"I was looking this way, to the left, and I heard these terrible noises. You know. And my husband never made any sound. So I turned to  the right. All I remember seeing is my husband, he had this sort of quizzical look on his face, and his hand was up, it must have been his left hand. And just as I turned and looked at him, I could see a piece of his skull and I remember it was flesh-colored."

Adding:

"You know, then, there were pictures later of me climbing out the back, but I don't remember that at all."

And from her secret (secluded) testimony (excised from original version):

 
 

"I was trying to hold his hair on. But from the front there was nothing. I suppose there must have been. But from the back you could see, you know, you were trying to hold his hair on, and his skull on."

 

Charles Brehm in a video interview ('Rush to Judgment', 1986) also notes  the displacement of what he believed to be a skull 'particle' to the left  and rear of the limo.

Reference has been made to Martin Shackelford commenting that "it seems like a skull fragment flying through the air would be in more than one frame"[3] - but it is clear that what Shackelford was looking at was not the original - intact Nix film, but rather a doctored substitute that emerged after "the original film was  lost during the HSCA investigations"[4].   As to the most plausible method for doctoring the image, it would have been aerial imaging photography.

Thus, the actual original Nix film was projected frame by frame onto the rear of a glass screen, This corrupted copy was then filmed frame by frame and when the frames nearing the skull fragment were approached, appropriate “touch ups” were performed to eliminate the unwanted whitish blob. It may have appeared then, at most, in one frame – but no more. Since only a few frames would have had to be re-filmed, and the touchups were generally non-descript, no one would have been the wiser. Why go to all this trouble? Because a key evidentiary piece (showing a shot from the grassy knoll) would be obfuscated.

Certainly, the version of the Nix film I have (from 'The Two Kennedys') shows more than one frame and, as I indicated, it is tracked with the aid of a reference circle (estimated duration: 0.5-0.6 s ). It’s evident to me that more than one version of the Nix film is in circulation, and that there is no assurance that anyone looking at a copy minus the reference circle is seeing the intact version.  Orville Nix himself (interview, 'Rush to Judgment' video) notes that there was an original of his film (which went to UPI) and a copy of which went to the federal investigators. When his film was returned to him by the government, Nix pointedly noted that it was not the same as the one he’d originally given them. In fact, he observed "a frame here and there was missing". Assuming that no one knows his film better than Nix himself, this leads one to suspect that at least three versions of the Nix film are in circulation:

- The original (UPI) unedited version (also in 'The Two Kennedys')

- The tampered version returned to Nix (frames missing)

- A 2nd tampered version - after a copy 'disappeared' during the HSCA investigation

Harrison Livingstone notes [5]:

"Doug Mizzer reports evidence of forgery with this film, with a frame having been removed following the headshot. His theory is that the first frame shows the vapor from the brain shot at the moment of impact on the front of the head, and the following frame shows a large piece of skull fragment in the air coming from the back of the head. This would be conclusive proof that the shot came from the front."

 
 

Mark Lane also notes, in regard to the Nix film, that it[6]:

 

"provides graphic evidence that she (Jackie) apparently was reaching for a portion of the President's skull that seemed to be driven over the back of the automobile.”

By contrast, the version of the Nix film shown at the beginning of Part 3 of the Nigel Turner  (BBC) series 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy' is decidedly different. It’s shorter (estimated 1/10 sec - 1/20 sec) and the bone fragment can’t be seen other  than in the very initial part of the sequence, maybe then for 1/10 second. Indeed, the fragment shot is so ephemeral that one could indeed come away with the impression it is an artifact or 'light trick'. I have little doubt that a similar version is the one viewed by Martin Shackelford, from which he opined that such a fragment should be visible in more than one frame.

Obviously, however, the perpetrators haven’t been able to get all copies replaced, since  as I indicated, mine shows the whole trajectory.  But does it really matter? Bear in mind as author Noel Twyman (Bloody Treason)  has put it, the cover-up conspirators were totally pragmatic in their methods. Obviously, they realized they only needed to compromise one or two versions then circulate them – with the clear objective to arouse ambiguity and obfuscate the identity of the real Nix film.

As with every other piece of evidence that made it though the covert net of concealment, the fallback defense is one of neutralization by counterpoint and spurious information. This has been the ongoing predicament faced by conspiracy researchers. The psy-ops warriors and pawns who have deliberately tainted the evidence, have kept the didactic dynamic in a state such that "anything can be believed" but "nothing can be known".

I have an intact (so far as I can ascertain) copy of the Nix film, but 'Joe Schmoe' will simply assert: “So what? How can you prove your version is more authentic than any others out there?”

2.  Was the Zapruder film tampered with? How?

Yes, according to H.E. Livingstone and photo-optics specialist Robert Groden[7]: "the only available print of the Zapruder film at the time was extensively tampered with. Frames 155 and 156 do not exist".  The film was spliced initially at this location, though the owner (TIME-LIFE, Inc.) denied this was the case.  Also: "the Warren Commission only began to print the film starting with frame 171".[8]

Eventually, the story making the rounds was that a 'junior employee' - put to work on it in the course of enlarging, 'damaged the key frames' [9]. Some personal (e-mail) communications (by persons referring to various copies of the Z-film (like the Nix film) assert it appears to have the skull fragment airbrushed out. (Jackie is seen pursuing it over the trunk - but now it isn't there).  Also, there has been speculation, still highly controversial, that the Z-film  was altered to conflate two separate shots into one, or 'nearly' one, near frames Z312-13.  In this case, if the alteration hadn't been done two rapid shots in succession would have been evident: the first from the rear propelling JFK slightly forward (and causing the forward blood spatter) and the second- from the front, or grassy knoll,  driving him backwards.

 Again, the aim of such film altering is obfuscation and ambiguation so that no clear, incontestable evidence exists. The aim of all the cover-up artists is to keep discussions going endlessly and never have anything resolved - so the Warrenite version always becomes the default.

Photo-analyst Mark Crouch has been quoted[10]:

“The truth about the Z-film is that it was never meant to be micro-analyzed the way it was…The ‘real evidence’ of the Z-film is more subjective than objective. If you believe- as I do-  that a trained and directed team of assassins was in the Plaza, then you must assume they observed Zapruder standing up there with his camera. The assassins would have no way of knowing if he innocently panned his camera toward them just before or during the assassination”

Crouch goes on to assert said assassins would thus have had to be “very concerned with what Zapruder’s camera recorded” …which would have necessitated the attention to manipulating the Z-film – and by extension, confiscating as many others as possible. (Since the Nix film was made from across Elm Street and may also have caught the assassins).  Again, aerial imaging photography would have been used to reduce blood spatter or back spatter – including any dislodged skull fragment.

3. Who was Abraham Zapruder?

 

While the media scuttlebutt is that Abraham Zapruder was just a little clothing store owner who happened to be at the right place and right time to film the assassination, researcher Russ Baker points out ('Family of Secrets', p. 116):

 

 

"Innocent he may well have been but hardly unknown in Dallas intelligence circles. It turns out that the short, bald recorder of history was also a former colleague of Mrs. de Mohrenschildt, who worked with her at Nardis when she first moved to Dallas. Zapruder also sat on the board of Neil Mallon's Dallas Council on World Affairs."

 

 

Meanwhile, some researchers have speculated that when the CIA's Mafia Axis (useful in the ZR/Rifle program)  recruited Italian mob assistance for a 3rd (GK) sniper  (via Carlo Marcello), their (Mafia) operatives wanted proof of the kill shot to be delivered to them intact. This came via the Nix film, and at least this same version was obtained by the Italian film maker Giovanni Bisach for his (1976) documentary.

 

 

4. Are there any other films of which we ought to be aware?

 

 

Yes, and perhaps the foremost one is (Mary) Muchmore's  film near the time of the shot. See a comparison of four still images from excised frames of four films here :

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/badgeman_5.htm


Based on a computer-enhanced analysis of the next to last frame of the Muchmore film  by Jack White at least one assassin was caught in outline on the grassy knoll- aiming his rifle. The flash of a badge discloses he was wearing a police uniform. The interesting aspect here, is that from White’s analysis (see in episode 6 of ‘The Men Who Killed Kennedy’) the shooter was within about 1-2 m of the position assigned using the acoustic testing evidence, and reconfirmed by D.B. Thomas in his (2001) analysis.

5. Would tampering with the Zapruder or Nix film affect out interpretations of the events in terms of the dynamics? If not, why not?

The computation of putative changes is based on what’s called the ‘hypergeometric p-function’ assuming a sonar model of  the acoustic impulses is used in conjunction with the film(s).  What I did is (based on the rifle tests carried out in Dealey Plaza by the HSCA in August, 1978), assume that at least 4-5 frames of the Z-film have been tampered with- then asked how this would have affected the actual echograms of the shots that day. The primary effect would be to introduce an uncertainty into the position of the grassy knoll shooter, such that one must remove (subtract) one degree of freedom from the statistical computations. With the single degree of freedom subtracted, the new hypergeometric p –function is calculated from the set {M, N, n,i} = {86, 10, 8, 5}.  The new result yields: p= 0.000333  = 3.3 x 10^-4 .

Or about 3 in 10,000 odds against the null hypothesis.  (The null hypothesis is that which states the echo patterns recorded can be explained by random noised, i.e. the backfires of motorcycle engines).  Similar results apply for supposed tampering in the Nix film – since again, a grassy knoll shooter is  assumed there as well.

 

---

[1] The Harper bone fragment itself (found 25' behind the limo) was later identified as a piece of the rear skull, Or "occipital region" bone. The report of the "occipital bone" missing would comport with the statements of Drs. Carrico and Crenshaw (in his book, JFK: Conspiracy of Silence, 1993) and also with the finding of the occipital bone fragment - which had clearly been dislodged.

 

[2] WC Testimony, Vol. V, p. 180

[3] H.E. Livingstone, Killing The Truth, pp. 76-77

[4] G. Fonzi, The Last Investigation, p. 78.

[5] Livingstone, op. cit., p. 77.

[6] Mark Lane, 1992: Rush to Judgment, Thunders Mouth Press, p. 57.

[7] Groden and Livingstone, op. cit., p. 185.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Op. cit., p. 186.

[10] Livingstone, op. cit., p. 140. Crouch also goes into extensive detail on the following page to do with how  minor touchups” could have concealed the extent of head damage and also “conceal the evidence of a bullet striking the forehead at the hairline”. All this would be to assist in reinforcing the perception of Oswald as the perpetrator – while hiding the key evidence that the kill shot came from the right front.