It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
13 June 2010
Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated 42 years ago in the midst of his campaign for the U.S. presidency. Largely overshadowed by the death of his brother, President John F. Kennedy, the official account of RFK’s tragic end, allegedly shot down by a lone gunman, like his brother, has received vastly less attention. In both instances, we are looking at staged events that fit into a recurrent pattern in U.S. and world history where innocent individuals (or “patsies”) are baited and framed for cover-up purposes. Professor James H. Fetzer, an expert in the scientific study of assassinations, provides a sketch of how we know what happened to them and why, where RFK’s assassination was in part intended to prevent a reinvestigation into his brother’s death.
A persistent myth of American history is that lone assassins were responsible for the deaths of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King and Robert Francis Kennedy. But four of the Lincoln conspirators were hanged from the same gallows at the same time . On June 5, 1968, after RFK won the Democratic primary in California, he was shot down as he passed through the pantry of the Ambassador Hotel. The official account maintains that he was taken out by a lone, demented gunman, Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian who had written, “RFK must die!”, over and over in a notebook. Like the lone, demented gunman accused of assassinating his brother, John, both murders were products of conspiracies, where Sirhan Sirhan, like Lee Harvey Oswald, was designated as the patsy.
In spite of their history, most Americans continue to believe that their nation is “an exception” and that, while conspiracies occur elsewhere, including Europe and the Middle East, especially, they do not occur at home. The truth, of course, is that conspiracies are as American as apple pie. All that they require is collaboration between two or more individuals to bring about an illegal end. Most American conspiracies are economic, but many are political, too. Franklin Delano Roosevelt observed long ago that, if something important happened in politics, you could bet it was not by accident. And that is certainly the case regarding the brothers.
Oct 18, 2010
In a recent article (“JFK and RFK: The Plots that Killed Them, The Patsies that Didn’t”), I cited the identifications of three officials of the CIA at the Ambassador Hotel when Bobby was shot, by Bradley Ayers, who knew all three, and by Wayne Smith, who knew one of them very well. Objections have been raised to these identifications by Jefferson Morely and David Talbot, who claim that they have disproven them. Their argument is based upon a fallacy known as “special pleading” by only citing part of the evidence, which does not satisfy the requirement of total evidence, which insists that reasoning be based upon all of the available relevant evidence. Moreover, since they fail to identify the parties in question, they did not actually disprove Ayers and Smith but, at best, have only raised doubts about them.
As more and more of the witnesses’ testimony is taken into account and subjected to a systematic assessment, the strength of support for the identifications by Ayers and Smith becomes increasingly stronger and the evidence against weaker. Ironically, Shane O’Sulllivan, who was largely responsible for uncovering the evidence that the three officials of the CIA were at the Ambassador, eventually concluded that at least two of them were Bulova Watch Company employees. That inference is substantially overridden by the weight of the evidence, however, where the only mistake that he appears to have made was drawing the conclusion that he had initially been wrong.
In my article on Voltaire.net, I reported that three prominent CIA officials -- George Joannides, David Sanchez Morales, and Gordon Campbell -- had been identified as present at the Ambassador. Bradley Ayers, an Army captain assigned to the CIA at JM/Wave in Miami from May 1963 to December 1964, had met all three and IDed two of them -- Morales and Campbell -- in video from the Ambassador . Gordon Campbell had even been Ayers’ case officer while he was working for the agency.
Wayne Smith, who served as an ambassador with the Department of State from 1957-1982 with JFK’s Latin American Task Force, also knew Morales . When he viewed the same footage as Ayers, he immediately recognized Morales. As he later told Shane O’Sullivan, “Bobby Kennedy is assassinated [and] David Morales is there? The two things have to be related” . So they both confirmed the person in the video as Morales and they were both emphatic, as can be seen in Shane’s DVD .
Abstract: The application of logic, critical thinking, and principles of scientific reasoning, involving collaboration between physicians, scientists, photographic analysts, and philosophers has transformed our knowledge of the death of JFK. Since 1992, a research group I organized has discovered that the autopsy X-rays have been altered, that someone else's brain has been substituted, that a home movie of the assassination has been recreated, and that the alleged assassin, Lee Oswald, was framed using manufactured evidence. This approach, which may be called "assassination science", benefits from applying the pattern of reasoning known as "inference to the best explanation" to important and controversial deaths, where political motivation may have contributing to bringing them about. By focusing on the "best evidence" — the autopsy X-rays, the autopsy report and photographs, the physical evidence (including the alleged assassination weapon), and other crucial evidence — we have undertaken a reconstruction of the case from the most basic evidence up, with special consideration for separating the authentic from the inauthentic evidence. When that has been accomplished, it becomes relatively straightforward to draw appropriate inferences, since the Mafia, for example, would not have been able to extend its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under control of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, or the President's personal physician; neither pro- nor anti-Castro Cubans could have substituted someone else's brain for that of JFK; even though the KGB might have had the same ability to recreate a film as the CIA, it could not have gained its possession; nor could any of these things have been done by Lee Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. As a novel area of application that might be viewed as "applied philosophical research", assassination science is establishing that the humanities in this new guise can make more than an incidental contribution to the solution of important mysteries in history.
Keywords: logic, critical thinking, scientific reasoning, philosophy of science, applied philosophical research, the death of JFK, resolving mysteries in history, historical research, "assassination science"
Madison, WI (OpEdNews) February 5, 2008 — The editor of Assassination Research, James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., has announced the discovery of new proof that the home movies of the assassination of JFK known as the Zapruder film and a second known as the Nix film are fakes. (The Nix film was taken from the opposite side looking toward “the grassy knoll.”) Both were subject to extensive alteration to fabricate evidence of the crime and keep the truth about the sequence of events in Dealey Plaza from the American people. Fetzer, McKnight Professor Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, observed that the films are authentic only if the visible events they record correspond to the actual sequence of events at the time. “This proof is based upon the convergent testimony of motorcycle patrolmen, members of the Secret Service, and the Dallas Chief of Police. That it contradicts the official account of the assassination recorded in the films qualifies as a major breakthrough.”
The evidence emerged as an unexpected outcome of the collation of eyewitness reports in Dealey Plaza conducted by John P. Costella, Ph.D., who co-edits assassinationresearch.com with Fetzer. Costella earned his Ph.D. in physics with a specialty in electromagnetism, including the physics of light and of moving objects. What he discovered were multiple, consistent and reinforcing reports that James Chaney, a motorcycle patrolman who was to the right rear of the presidential limousine, rode forward to tell Jesse Curry, Dallas Chief of Police—who was in the lead car with the head of the Secret Service in Dallas, Agent Forrest Sorrels, and a second Secret Service Agent, Winston Lawson—that the President had been shot. This led Chief Curry to issue instructions for the limousine to be escorted to Parkland Hospital, where the President would be pronounced dead 30 minutes later. Bobby Hargis, a motorcycle patrolman riding on the left rear, confirmed Chaney’s report. But this sequence is in neither the Zapruder film nor the Nix film.
During the past dozen years, substantial evidence of the Zapruder film’s alteration has accumulated in a research effort that became serious in 1996 during a symposium at the JFK Lancer Conference in November. Fetzer brought together numerous experts on the film, including Jack White, David W. Mantik, and Noel Twyman, the author of Bloody Treason (1997), which includes scientific studies of the film’s authenticity. Twyman, a retired engineer, had noticed that the driver of the President’s limousine, SSA William Greer, had turned to look at JFK and then turned back with preternatural speed. He hired a professional tennis player to study how fast human head turns could be made and determined that Greer’s head turns were approximately twice as fast as humanly possible. That might not sound like much initially, but it would be like converting a 4 minute mile into a 2 minute mile. Based upon this research, Twyman had discovered objective evidence of the removal of frames from the film.
Studies published in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), provide overwhelming additional proof of alteration, including technical studies by Costella. For example, Frame 232, which had previously been published in LIFE magazine, turned out to have optically impossible features. He also discovered that, in recreating the film, which had to have its frames re-shot using sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects—in order to avoid disclosing the deception via “ghost images” in the sprocket area, which cannot be reproduced—the conspirators had made mistakes during their reinsertion of images of the Stemmons Freeway sign and of a lamppost. Moreover, Erwin Schwartz, an associate of Abraham Zapruder, reported seeing JFK’s brains blown outward to the left and to the rear, while several agents of the Secret Service had reported being nauseated by the blood and the brains splattered across the trunk of the car. Neither is visible today in “the Zapruder film”. A visual seminar of Costella’s research is archived at assasssinationscience.com.
A debate was begun some years ago over whether Mary Moorman was standing in Elm Street on November 22, 1963 as JFK's presidential limo passed by. Ms Moorman snapped a picture with her Polaroid camera at about the exact moment the fatal headshot was fired killing the 35th President of the United States. Although Ms Moorman and her companion, Jean Hill, stated numerous times that Mary was standing in the street, the extant Zapruder film shows both women standing on the infield grass. The alignment of physical objects depicted in the photograph can only be duplicated by standing in the street. Rather than the Zapruder film proving Ms Moorman's recollection incorrect, the physical evidence further proves that the extant Zapruder film has been intricately altered. Heading a team supporting Ms Moorman is Dr. James H. Fetzer and heading the team supporting the Zapruder film as unaltered is Dr. Josiah (Tink) Thompson.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
During the last two months of 2008, Josiah Thompson, Ph.D., and I engaged in an extended debate over the hypothesis—originally advanced by Jack White—that features internal to the famous Moorman Polaroid offers the basis for a proof that the Zapruder film has been altered. This exchange was ignited after I had posted a piece I co-authored with David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., “Another Attempted Reenactment of the Death of JFK” (OpEdNews, 21 November 2008), in response to what I took to be fawning comments from Tink and from Barb Junkkarinen about the recent Discovery Channel’s “JFK: Inside the Target Car”, in which Gary Mack, Curator of The Sixth Floor Museum, played the central role. Initially, the principal participants were Tink and Barb (with a few appearances by their allies), on one side, and me and Jack White, on the other, but John P. Costella, Ph.D., and David S. Lifton would also make significant contributions.
What I will present falls into seven sections, to wit: Part I, The Argument; Part II, Tink’s Objection; Part III, Which Moorman?; Part IV, Zapruder Alteration; Part V, McCormick on Evidence; Part VI, More from Mary; Part VII, Mack’s Verification and John’s Reply; Part VIII, Points of Agreement; Part IX, Tink’s Alternatives and My Reply; Part X, General Overview, and Appendix, From Lifton’s “Pig on a Leash”. My argument is that, taken in its totality, the weight of the evidence—especially Mary and Jean Hill’s eyewitness testimony—provides strong support for the conclusion that the images of Mary and Jean were incorporated into the Zapruder film more or less as frozen figures, which not only impeaches the Zapruder but the Nix and the Muchmore films as well, where, were a genuine film available, it would provide a very different account of their activities that afternoon. Because no alternative explanation is reasonable, this conclusion lies beyond reasonable doubt.
For more; www.opednews.com...
"If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about answers". -- Thomas Pynchon, GRAVITY'S RAINBOW (1973).
Madison, WI (OpEdNews) March 27, 2009 -- A debate has been raging just off the radar of the main stream media over the significance of a Polaroid photograph by Mary Moorman, which appears to impeach the famous Zapruder film of the assassination. Although most attention has focused on an argument initiated by legendary photo-analyst Jack White--that the photo reflects a line-of-sight that places Mary in the street, while the film shows her on the grass--a more serious threat emerges from its photographic content, which shows JFK's head tilted downward and slightly to the left. Surprisingly, this removes the final resistance to impeaching the film based upon the medical evidence.
The features of the film that are the center of this latest controversy have been explored by an Australian physicist, John P. Costella, Ph.D., who has a specialty in electromagnetism, including the properties of light and the physics of moving bodies, who is the leading expert on the Zapruder film in the world today. Some of his studies may be found on my public issue web site at assassinationscience.com... and are archived there as "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction". Indeed, Roderick Ryan, an expert on cinematic special effects, told Noel Twyman, BLOODY TREASON (1997), p. 160, that the bulging brains (sometimes called "the blob") had been painted in. Ryan would receive a 2000 Academy Award for lifetime achievement. But Costella's studies and Ryan's observations have not brought an end to the controversy for those dedicated to Zapruder authenticity.
The principal protagonists in the debate occurring on several of the leading JFK research forums has pitted Josiah Thompson, author of SIX SECONDS IN DALLAS (1967), an early study largely based upon the Zapruder film, against me, editor of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998), of MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA (2000), and of THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). Most of our arguments in the past have been directed to the line of sight argument advanced by Jack White and to the validity of an experiment conducted by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., the leading expert on the medical evidence in the world today, and me, using a transit in Dealey Plaza, which I summarized in an recent article, "Moorman/Zapruder Revisited", at JFKresearch.com... which has as now appeared in a British journal, THE DEALEY PLAZA ECHO 13/1 (March 2009), pp. 6-33.
MADISON, Wisconsin -- Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), has now published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK.
As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is known about the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new article, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”, Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:
I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995-1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain -- they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else’s brain.
As a philosopher of science with a keen interest in the nature of scientific knowledge, I have been fascinated by the recent book by G. Paul Chambers, Head Shot: The Science Behind the JFK Assassination (2010). I have found several aspects of his discussion of interest, including his conclusion – that the fatal shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruder film was caused by a shot from the right-front ("the grassy knoll") – which he affirms on the basis of his competence as a physicist. He does not seem to notice that JFK’s brains and blood are blown out to the right-front in the Zapruder film, which he takes to be authentic and unaltered. But that means there is a paradox in his analysis, since, if the film is authentic, the blow-out to the right-front contradicts his conclusion that the shot that caused this effect was fired from the right-front, which is founded on elementary laws of physics. This, in turn, implies that he has not taken into account all the relevant evidence and thereby violated a basic principle of scientific reasoning, which may be appropriate for politicians, editorial writers, and used-car salesmen, but not for him.
Chambers’ discussions of the Zapruder film, whose authenticity he endorses, and of the medical evidence, which he disregards as corrupt, are especially interesting. Perhaps if he had read Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003), which are devoted to taking rumor and speculation out of the case and placing its study on an objective and scientific foundation, he might have a different outlook on both. Not the least puzzling aspect of this book is that, while his credentials as a physicist are advanced as the reason we should believe him (based upon his analysis of the motion of JFK’s head under the impact of the bullet), no one who has ever observed the film could have any serious doubt that it was fired from the right-front. The back-and-to-the-left motion of his body, which was accentuated in Oliver Stone’s JFK, makes that much obvious. You don’t have to be a Ph.D. in physics to notice.
Indeed, it is precisely because the back-and-to-the-left motion of his body provides such a simple proof of a shot fired from the right-front that those who have written extensively about it, such as Robert Groden and Josiah Thompson, have been adamantly opposed to acknowledging that the film is a fabrication, which was recreated using original footage which was subjected to sophisticated techniques of optical printing and special effects. A brilliant tutorial concerning how we know this was done has been presented by John P. Costella, another Ph.D. in physics with electromagnetism, the physics of moving objects and properties of light, among his areas of specialization. Previous arguments of David Wrone and Rollie Zavada, which Chambers presents, have been refuted by the publication of Inside the ARRB (2009) by Douglas Horne, whose key arguments about the film are summarized in an article of mine for those who may not have time for all five volumes!
As Horne has explained, there are five physical features that distinguish the original film, which was developed in Dallas, from the film that is available to us today. As he also remarks, the original was brought to the National Photographic Interpretation Center on Saturday, 23 November 1963, and processed by one team of experts, while a second film was brought to the NPIC the following day, Sunday, 24 November 1963, and processed by a different team of experts. We not only know that the films are different based upon their physical properties but from the occurrence of content anomalies found in the extant film. Some the most revealing content features that indicate it is a fabrication include the driver’s head turns (looking back toward JFK and then forward after he has been killed), which, as Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), has reported, occur twice as fast as humanly possible; that no witnesses reported the back-and-to-the-left motion seen in the extant film; and that Secret Service agents were nauseated to see JFK’s brains and blood across the trunk of the limousine in Washington, which has been "tidied" up in the film.
As a huge fan of actor Tom Hanks, I have admired him in many roles, including Charlie Wilson’s War and Saving Private Ryan. I am also a fan of Leonardo DiCaprio, who became a worldwide phenomenon in Titanic. But I was distressed and dismayed to learn that they had committed to films about the death of JFK – in Tom’s case, one based on Vincent Bugliosi’s Reclaiming History (2008), and in Leonardo’s, based on Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann’s Legacy of Secrecy (2008) – which are indefensible books. According to Bugliosi, the Warren commission got it right: Lee Harvey Oswald was indeed "the lone assassin," where he claims to have refuted alternative "conspiracy theories." According to Waldron and Hartmann, JFK was planning to assassinate Fidel, when the mob learned of the plan and took JFK out first, using its insider’s knowledge of the plot against Fidel to silence Bobby and preclude his pursuit of the guilty. The problem is that both theories are false.
Not only am I a fan of these actors but I have met Vincent Bugliosi. In my library downstairs, for example, I have a framed photo of Jesse Ventura, Vince and me at dinner in a restaurant in Minneapolis, when he came to present a lecture at the Hamlin University School of Law on 7 April 2003. We had a great time, and I admire many of his books, from Helter Skelter (about the Charles Manson case) and Outrage (why O.J. Simpson was guilty of killing both Ron and Nicole) to The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (for war crimes and other atrocities). I like most of his books and have greatly admired him in the past. Similarly, I enjoy listening to Thom Hartmann over our local progressive radio station, "The Mic" at 92.1 FM in Madison, including his "Brunch with Bernie" Friday segments. I share many beliefs and values with Vince and with Thom about truth, justice and the American way. But on JFK, they are trading in fiction, not fact.
I know because I organized a research group consisting of the best-qualified students to ever study the case, including Robert B. Livingston, M.D., a world-authority on the human brain and an expert on wound ballistics; David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., who is board certified in radiation oncology and an expert on the interpretation of X-rays; a physician, Charles Crenshaw, M.D., who had attended the moribund president when he was brought to Parkland Hospital after the shooting and then, two days later, his alleged assassin after he, too, had been shot; a legendary photo-analyst, Jack White, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) when it reinvestigated the case in 1977–78, explaining a dozen or more indications that the infamous "backyard photographs" were fake; and another Ph.D. in physics, John P. Costella, whose specialization in electromagnetism, the properties of light, and the physics of moving objects enabled him to help prove the Zapruder film is a fraud.