Here are some good books to read on the JFK Assassination

[Kit Carp]

Phil Dragoo wrote:KitI am finishing with the first, Volume I; having read V, VI, III, II.Amazing he was able to accomplish a thing with the board of Warren Commission-worshipping elitists.One comes away wishing the autopsists had been tased mercilessly.The multiple sightings of the wound to the right-front hairline, and the confirmation that the Bethesda witnesses agreed with, rather than contradicted, the Parkland witnesses in re the rear defect.Yes- Horne really bowled me over with the hard facts of the suppressed Bethesda autopsy witnesses testimony. The final House Select Committee on Assassinations were most explicit in claiming that none of the 26 Bethesda witnesses agreed with the Dallas doctors rear location of the head wound...and the HSCA then hid the pertinent witness interviews for what they desperately hoped would be 50 years. I've been struck by the audacity of what smacks as treason in the Committee's leadership attempting to hide the conspiracy in this way. It's hard evidence of a heinious crime. The HSCA could hardly use the WC weak excuse that they were "avoiding war with the Russians" by hiding the truth. How could they possibly justify these outright fabrications? All one has to do is read the HSCA's dreadful, dishonest, perjurous statement, and then read each witnesses actual testimony before the HSCA and again before the ARRB. No LNter can talk there way out of it or paint it as a pretty picture. It is what it is. The HSCA was party to a continuing conspiracy to hide the true murderers, socking away evidence that pointed to a shot from the front, that blew a big hole in the occipital of the President.Here is what the HSCA actually said about the Bethesda witnesses, versus the Dallas physicians:"Critics of the Warren Commission's medical evidence findings have found (sic) on the observations recorded by the Parkland Hospital doctors They believe it is unlikely that trained medical personnel could be so consistently in error regarding the nature of the wound, even though their recollections were not based on careful examinations of the wounds ... In disagreement with the observations of the Parkland doctors are the 26 people present at the autopsy. All of those interviewed who attended the autopsy corroborated the general location of the wound as depicted in the photographs; none had different accounts... it appears more probable that the observations of the Parkland doctors are incorrect." (HSCA Vol. 7, pg. 37-39)The truth is the whole legion of witnesses at Bethesda agreed the president had a big hole in the rear of his head, which, of course, isnt visible in the autopsy photos, and also isnt present on any of the xrays. This is beyond troubling, and while Doug Horne isnt the first person to write about this issue...he really does a superb job of putting it all in a single work where it kicks you between the eyes and pisses you off, so you can read the true testimony the Warren Report and House Committe were so very desperate to hide...and you also get the ARRBs most excellent interviews of most of these same witnesses, who mark where the wounds were on drawings to further bring the case home.This list of Bethesda witness testimony reads like a reprisal of what the Dallas doctors originally described. The two FBI men, the mortician, the radiologist, Boswell's lab assistant...in fact, all but one witness, who simply stated the wound was in the "top of the head" and didnt elaborate further, they all, each and every one, describe a wound that sits on the right rear side of the skull, clearly well into the occipital.The drawings are quite similar, and match quite neatly with drawings with the Parkland staff.If that werent enough, one of the books most amazing moments comes about when Dr. Boswell, 2nd in command of this wondrous autopsy, draws on a life sized model skull where the head exit wound was, as he remembered it.Guess what? He has the whole right half of the President's entire skull...including the very back, where it's apparently together in autopsy photos and xrays, and where the House placed the entrance wound....it's all gone!So, even Boswell agrees with the Dallas doctors....except the wound is much, much larger...like Lifton's thesus.And finally, the doctor calls the very long, straightish cut that goes from the very rear of Kennedy;s scalp and skull, into his forehead forming that bizarre triangle effect on his temple/forehead....an incision.Look that word up in a medical dictionary!There is so very much that Doug Horne covers in the greatest of detail in his five volumes that it is hard to even talk about.I think it's an amazing breakthrough, bringing all the medical evidence....and a great deal more, all into one work.Phil Dragoo wrote:Horne's effort is epic, having fought six months for the three-to-four-year position, then spent a decade plus in the compilation.A predictable anti-Lifton chorus of raspberries, but I had read Lifton long ago and would defend a unique Horne point of view.Namely, he establishes arrival at 18:35 with the Tim Allen Tool Time Cordless Skull Saw Lead Hunt from 6:45 to 7:00, 7:15. "Body alteration?" What was that, chopped liver?He spent 1187-1377 of Volume IV on Zapruder, establishing Event I & II at NPIC with Brugioni and McMahon, compartmentalized operations preparing separate briefing boards. The subsequent resistance of Zavada seems trivial and whining.The work of Mantik, the Bondo fake-o work on the lateral skull x-rays obliterating the suture.The exploding of the 6.5 mm artifact as assuredly fraud, thus destroying the AP skull, all three skull x-rays blown baddabing, baddabang, baddaboom—and two missing including one with fragments at C3/C4.How interesting that the Secret Service destroyed its pertinent records from April 24, 1963 for the year, the date Johnson first announced Kennedy would do lunch in Dallas.Taken with James Douglass' JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters, a very good season in the fight.Soon we shall have Tom Hanks in Toy Deposit Story 4: Dunkel & Posliosi Pursue the Magic Bullet to Helen Back.As we await the ultimate spontaneous combustion of the Senator from the State of Coup:Yes, the book by James Douglass is also extremely well done. It brings heart and an understanding about the forces at work in and around the case, and both works are exemplary, I think.Thank you, fellows, for the kind welcome to your website.

[Bob]

Welcome to the forum Kit. I agree with your points about Douglas Horne and his book. You made excellent observations. Add to that...James Douglass' book...and we have had two of the most important books EVER written about the JFK assassination. I wonder if the 6th Floor Museum will have the works of Horne and Douglass on display soon?

[Brian White]

My top 5 books on the assassination:1) "Files on JFK", Wim Dankbaar (natch!) 2) "JFK- the CIA, Vietnam, and the plot to assassinate John F. Kennedy", L. Fletcher Prouty3) "The Taking of America 1-2-3", Richard Sprague4) "Kill Zone: A sniper looks at Dealey Plaza", Craig Roberts5) "Crossfire", Jim MarrsThose 5 should give anyone a pretty good education,especially beginners!Brian.

[Phil Dragoo]

Gaeton Fonzi's The Last Investigation is a fascinating attempt by the one true investigator in that HSCA(M).Kit, as you point out, the outrage committed was the lie that the 26 Bethesda witnesses agreed with the photos and disagreed with the Parkland medicos--when the reverse was true.Horne says repeatedly, shame on you, Robert Blakey. I would go farther: Blakey should be our guest in the Yuri I. Nosenko Motel 6 where we leave the light on for him. . .for about three years.Fonzi works with Veciana to establish Phillips as Bishop, and to place Phillips with Oswald. Dy-no-mite.And the picture of DeMohrenschildt beset by Dr. Mendoza, upset by Epstein, fearing Fonzi, being suicided with his own rook rifle--on the same day Chuckie Nicoletti was hit--glimpses of blinding clarity.BrianI was transcribing a couple of paragraphs from Jim Marrs, Crossfire, 1989, “The Mysterious Death of Jack Ruby” last night—granted a new trial December 1966; dead January 1967. And Craig Robert's Kill Zone has the killer comment by legendary sniper Hathcock that if he couldn't make the shots, how could Oswald.

[Kit Carp]

Robert's "Kill Zone" is one of the books I have not read. Can someone run down an overview of this book? I am a fairly demanding reader, and dont have the time for every single book that comes out, so I try to make my picks wisely. I've done a great deal of practical shooting myself, coming from a long line of outdoorsmen kind of fellows living in rural America. My dad, who is a 77 year old conservative Republican type of guy, who has always done his own hand reloading- and he writes articles on ballistics and hunting for magazines, he's always laughed at the claims made by those who support the carcano and Oswald's fabled feats. He is a retired chemist from a steel mill, who ran a spectograph on metal samples for a living, and has considerable expertise in pertinent fields relating to firearms.He thinks it's all complete hogwash....impossible. He bases his belief on a conspiracy purely on the fact it couldnt be done with the stiff action and dreadful trigger pull found on carcanos, and the rotten, cheap, toy scope Oswald is reputed to have used. Combined with Oswald's frankly lousy record on the firing range, he says he believes Oswald would have done better throwing rocks, because he certainly couldnt have aimed and fired three cartridges in the allotted time. He also claims only a "city-boy who has never shot at anything" would even try and make the claim that Kennedy's reaction to the head shot was anything other than a shot from the front. My dad has shot out more rifles than anyone I know. He should know how bullets impact and effect biological things, if there is anyone on earth who does. He's probably single handedly endangered the groundhog population in my state, (lol).The guy has no great love for Jack Kennedy, but he is an expert when it comes to bullets, practical first-hand experience and no nonsense.I expect he knows more about ballistics than anyone the Warren Commission talked to, except for Dr. Joseph Dolce....and we know what his position on the case was.If anyone ever has questions about what bullets ought to be doing, I'm always happy to pass him along questions...and the guy still loves to talk.Anyways....tell me about this book!

[Dealey Joe]

KitI have some questions for your father if he does not mind.I myself help nearly eliminate ground hogs from the southern part of Indiana.Ask him to view the Zapruder frames around the head shot, before and after Z313.See what he has to say about a possible double shot one from the rear almost simultaneously with the right front.Can he explain what we see in 313? assuming a 50 +- grain 222 bullet. possibly with a mercury load?I myself have no knowledge of Mercury in a bullet.In other words does 313 look realistic? How would he explain what he sees.

[Kit Carp]

Heh, do I call you "Dealy", or "Mr. Joe", that is the question.I'll see my dad tomorrow night, and ask him further on these points. He and I have already had similar discussions about what the film shows on the head shot, but I cant recall exactly his words. I will share my own insights.I'm not new to studying the case myself. I've had a fascination for the evidence for maybe 25 years. I've always tried hard to not take "firm" stances on things, unless it was something that was really, solidly supported by hard evidence. Much of the business with intrepeting the head shot is difficult, because it's caught on 8mm film, with all the imperfections of human home movie technology from the period.That being said, I've quite recently gone from being an "agnostic" on the matter of film alteration, to actually being reasonably certain that yeah, someone has farked with this footage. I've never found a lot of the various alterationist's work particularly convincing...not that I am disparaging anyone personally...it just strikes me that a lot of the work dealing with the film can be summed up as opinions that you cant actually prove. People are quick to jump from the Z film being altered to other films too...and they tend to do so rather more hastily than I'm comfortable with.Things like the witnesses saying the car stopped too, are not particularly convincing to me standing alone. After all, the car does slow down dramatically as Greer either stupidly, or purposefully brakes. If you and I saw that, and were in the plaza...and saw the cars behind the president's car all bunching up, and the parade grinding to a halt, we very well might think the car "stopped", even though it merely had drastically slowed. These are just not the sort of things I need to be convinced the film has been altered.Now, altering doesnt have to mean that the whole car has been moved around, or people put from sidewalk to street. Altering a film like this...the "easy" things that could be done, would be doing things like the removal of frames, the copying a film several generations to make it "fuzzier", and the masking out of specific damning details. These sorts of changes are the sorts of changes no one can argue the "technological capabilities" of. Anyone could do this in '63 with simple editing equipment, and maybe paint and brushes. Obviously, these are the first things any analytical person should be looking for, precisely because they are the easiest things to accomplish. Once one had established, with absolute certainty that there are simple alterations, then it's time to ponder huge and technically challenging fraud in the film.The second thing a researcher ought to look for, I should think, would be the opportunity in the record to make these relatively simple changes.So, why have I changed my mind, from neutral "maybe-er" to firm believer in film alteration?First off, Horne's 2009 book firmly establishes the CIA's slinky photo folks having possession of the film on two distinctly seperate nights and visits immediately after the assassination, with attempts being made in-house to keep that information from people who ought to have known, as they were higher up people working there. It's not a case that "maybe" these photo intelligence people had ahold of it....they obviously did. Horne' proofs are rock solid here.There is the "opportunity". The motive for the CIA to do this I think, everyone here aready knows.So, you ask curiously, where and what is the rock solid evidence of alteration that is apparent in the extant film?It's right in those frames you mention, immediately following the apparently explosive head shot, on frame 317.This isnt an issue where you can explain what you see as anything but what it is. It doesnt require seeing fuzzy "what are these" or an image full of maybes. The alteration is a crisp, straight edged, jet black, obviously painted on patch exactly where all the doctors, nurses, Bethesda medical technicians, pair of FBI agents, and secret service men always said it was. Right over that rear blowout on JFK's head.This patch is perfectly visible in the forensic copy of the film at the National Archives, it's visible on the guarded-at the hell-hole storage copies on the 6th floor museum, and it's perfeclty visible on the individual digital TIF frames made from a dupe negative on 35mm film by the "Hollywood Film Group" mentioned in Doug Horne's book.And yes, I have seen this in one of those versions myself. It's quite apparent when viewing the images that throughout the entire film, JFK's light brown hair, in the shadows, is lighter in color that Jackie's, Greers, Nellie's or Kellerman's. This turns to an obvious jet black starting with frame 315, and it remains this way throughout the film. Retouching seems to have generally been done to the "edges" of this black patch, except in frame 317, where the raw alteration sticks out at you, with impossible straight edges beyond which the president's hair is the lightest of anyone in the car, as the side of his head is falling into the bright sunlight.There is no explanation for this. It even looks exactly like artwork. It's little wonder the government has expended so very much energy desperately trying to keep the actual film out of The People's hands. All other later generation copies seem to drastically fuzzy out the harsh lines found in this frame, at least, the copies I have personally seen. If anyone has a really good copy of the film, dig it out, and check on frame #317. (The image I actually viewed was equivilent to a 72.8 MB photo...that is one frame of the film. That is amazing amounts of information in one image, and I feel lucky and honored to have gotten to study this.)***Getting back to the double head shot. If what we are seeing is really what is happening in the film, isnt everyone on camera moving forward in their seats from the car braking starting in about frame 308 or 309? This continues, rather more obviously as time passes, for the better part of a second. It happens as Greer turns to look back at the President, making the braking logical. Kennedy's forward movement falling is perhaps interrupted by the shot. Is it possible that he begins falling forward faster than Jackie,because he was hit in the throat earlier, and isnt balancing himself, like others in the car?i think it's very important, when looking at that forward motion of Kennedy's head, to not just look at Kennedy at 312-313, but also earlier, and also in the context of how everyone else is reacting to the forces around them. Everyone moves forward.It's not that I think a double hit is unlikely. Under these circumstances, if there were multiple folks all trying to shoot the President in the head, there would be a natural tendency for the shots to be fired at about the same instant, after the initial shots.I can think of a couple hunting trips with my father, where we both shot at the same deer at the same moment, and had to puzzle out who actually took it down, after wards. It happens a lot more than you would suspect, firing within the same second.The logic of why this happens has to do with the limited window of time avaialble to shoot, and man's similar reaction times when using weapons similar to one another,(like everyone using a bolt action rifle as we do.)My dad and I have discussed this very issue before, remembering similar deer hunting incidents.As you can see, I am not 100% decided on how the head shots hit the President. I'm only certain that he had a large and visible rearward hole in his skull starting at frame 317. It could be all of the visual damage in 313 is artwork. After all, the windshield of the secret service followup car was splattered gruesomely according to the agents, and the motorcycle cop behind the President thought he was himself hit, such was the force he was splattered with debris...where is that on the film?I hope I am not overly long-winded on my posts, and that my drawn out opinions dont make me seem like a know-it all.Just my thoughts on the subject.Kit

[Dealey Joe]

It is hard to discuss this subject in a few words,I think a case can be made for either alteration or no alteration.My view is, what is the purpose>I have the copy of life magazine that has the first black and white pictures shown of the Assassination.It is fairly obvious the back of the head was blacked out in the photos but that is easily explained by the fact that in 1963 gory pictures like that were not in good taste. there seemed to be no effort to hide the blackout.Life actually signed an agreement with Zapruder that they would not show the head shot frames to the public.I take the stand of no purposeful alterations.Most films that have been seen are third and fourth generation copies.But I try to keep an open mind about the alteration possibilities. I am likely the only one on this forum who feels the film is as original as possible given all the technology in 63. I can well remember running home videos back them and burn out was a common problem, everyone had a splicer and used them regularly. I may still have my old splicer tucked away somewhere.I am interested to hear what your father says and to compare my thought to his.

[Kit Carp]

Hello again Mr. Joe,I would agree with you that Life magazine blacking out the damage to the very rear of President Kennedy's head in it's publication 40 years ago could be a sign of concern for the gory image being seen by children. They dont have that excuse for painting in a scope of Oswald's alleged carcano on the cover of their magazine, however. They would need to come up with a different "innocent excuse" for that little exercise in chicanery.Maybe it was a "printing error", like the switching around of the backwards movement in key frames of the Z film found in the Warren Comnission's 26 volumes.That said, it's one thing for their magazine publication of a Zapruder frame to have the back of Kennedy's head with an artwork patch on it, and really quite another for the actual, forensic copy of the Zapruder film in the National Archives of the United States...which is the earliest version extant, to have obvious, unexplained alteration to it...especially since it is presented as the "unaltered Zapruder film". Which means, it is unique, key evidence in the crime.It would be the same thing as if they took Oswald's rifle, after he was shot by Jack Ruby, and went to the morgue, took dead Oswald's fingerprints, and put them on the rifle, and then lifted them again, so that they could present the fingerprints as being found "on" said rifle.It would be akin to taking photos of the President's corpse, after the autopsy, and after his head was reconstructed by morticians, and presented the rear as if it were undamaged by a bullet....and presenting those photos as having been taken at the beginning of the autopsy, before anything had begun.It would be the same handling of the evidence, wouldnt it, of say....finding a mauser at the crime scene, having numerous witnesses see it and read "mauser" clearly written on the weapon, having sheriff deputies write sworn affidavits about finding it, and having two CIA reports exist describing the mauser.....but then calling the existance of said mauser "a rumor" in the Warren Report, because, after all.....Oswald could hardly have shot two rifles at the same time....no matter how incredibly supermanish he was reputed to have been on the marine rifle range.In short, once a person actually sees this crystal clear artwork patch on frame 317, and realizes it isnt a shadow, because it has a crisp geometric line around it, it isnt even where a shadow would be, if it were actually a shadow..up until this point, for countless frames....the back of the President's head is brown, suddenly it becomes jet black, and it is precisely where 20 to 30 odd mostly professional observers all saw an orange sized hole in the president's rear skull...once one really contemplates this...one comes to a pretty darn inescapable conclusion.The real topper to this is that the ARRB got the Bethesda autopsy doctor, Boswell, to draw this on a life size skull. The back of the skull, right where all these people have always said it was....had that great big hole.Boswell claims that the side and top were missing too...but how on earth does this explain the xrays which show the back intactHow can you explain the autopsy photos not showing damage to the back of his head?Why, since everyone agrees the occipital had a hole in it, doesnt this show on the xrays, the autopsy photos...and how in the world can anyone not at this late date, not be mortally suspicious of a Z film that specifically has artwork on this particular spot?Obviously, I have jumped the gun for everyone who has not yet looked at looked at the super high quality images the Hollywood Resarch Group has had made. I'm a bit frustrated at the one single failing of Doug Horne's book, which, wasnt his fault, but the simple fact that he was forced to self publish.The photos in his book are black and white and of poor quality. Mr. Horne, I expect, simply did not have resources for the presentation these frames deserve. A real pity.I really think these digital Tif images of the Z film will be the final straw in the back of the creaky, old, dishonest camel that is the Warren Report.I suspect that when Tom Hanks brings out his shiny HBO atocity based on "Rewriting History", that exactly the opposite of it's intended effect will occur.There will be renewed interest in the case, and these images will surface. They are exactly the easy to understand and digest sorts of obvious proof of misdeeds that the magic bullet is, or that the "back and to the left" movement imparts.People will look at the obvious artwork on Kennedy's head aghast, and maybe at last this lie perpetrated on the American people will crumble, like the terrible old stale cookie that it is.***I asked my dad about the general head shot moments and mercury bullets.He thinks the business of mercury bullets is generally spy novel stuff. He said-"If you are going to shoot someone in the head, you really dont need to screw around with exotic ammunition. All you need to do, is use a weapon that you can actually hit them in the head with. You do that, you will most likely kill them."On the matter of the head shot "looking real"."I dont know. It certainly looks to me like he is hit from his front right. I will bet you ten dollars that if the government ever comes clean, and tells everyone they screwed up and hid the truth, that they will admit it came from his front right someplace. And...I will win that bet."I asked him if he thought he was hit twice at about the same time, and tried to explain and show him the little forward movement."I dont see anything blastin' him forward. Maybe he nods cause he was hit in the neck earlier. If he was hit at the same time from the front and back, wouldnt he stay right the **** where he was, and collapse right on down? Two forces from opposite directions would tend to cancel each other out. You saying the second hit was a cannon?"My dad sometimes thinks he is a comedian.I hope this post was of some interest.

[Dealey Joe]

Thank your father for his comments.I am not ready to say that Life people were involved at this time.I can see where they well could have been but no real proof.Most of the researchers here are Hornetts but not being able to do extensive reading I must take their observations to contemplate his work.I tend to be sceptical of what book writers say as fact.I do think we were screwed with at every turn in some fashion like withholding the Zfilm for years.If not for Garrison we most likely still would not have seen it.You say Hollywood crew? where can we find out what they found?