The Man in the Doorway

The controversy has raged for some time about the famous James Altgens photo showing a man resembling Oswald standing in the doorway of the School Book Depository Building watching the motorcade go by. The timing is just after the first bullet strike on John Kennedy. After doing my own comparison I have concluded that it is not Oswald but another employee, Billy Lovelady. They do resemble each other from a distance and certainly from a fuzzy image. The general consensus is that Lovelady is standing in the doorway though many in the conspiracy crowd refuse to believe it. The shape of the hairline, facial features, and the pattern on the shirt all point to Lovelady.

But like all things in the Kennedy assassination investigation there is always a twist. When Billy Lovelady was asked under oath for the Warren Commission who was with him he mentioned two people, Bill Shelley and Sarah Stanton. The twist comes when the Dallas police are interrogating Oswald and he states that did not shoot the president because he was on the first floor viewing the motorcade at the time the shots rang out. As proof he gives Bill Shelley’s name as one of the persons there. This fact is borne out by witness testimony of Lovelady and Shelley himself. Obviously Oswald can’t be seen in the photograph above. However, the view is blocked by two secret Service agents and a tree. Could Oswald have been standing to Lovelady’s left?

So here is the rub—only by Oswald being on the first floor could he have known of Bill Shelley in the doorway. He could not have seen him from the sixth floor even if he had hung himself out the window. Other evidence questions Oswald being the sniper. There is his gun in the sniper’s nest with his palm print on it, though one can hardly shoot a rifle one handed. Conversely, the paraffin test for nitrites on his cheek is negative. The landing on each floor is 20 feet. So coming down the stairs he has to cross that distance. Nobody on those floors after the assassination saw Oswald walking by. As usual with the Kennedy assassination, the story weaves an odd tapestry of conflicting data and events.

However, none of the witnesses recalled Oswald being there with them. But how else could he have known of Shelley’s presence? It is not known if these men were friendly or spoke to each other that day. Maybe Oswald was too far in the back to be observed so no one made note of it. In this type of inquest you do not blurt out what you know—you only tell what you are asked. The questioner only has the basic facts of which assumptions are formed to what happened in a given event. The system of questioning witnesses is flawed because not all questions are asked. None of these witnesses were queried if Oswald had joined them on the first floor because it was assumed he was on the sixth floor shooting at that time. It has already been decided at this juncture. By this method, questions that may reveal valuable information fall through the cra

But the story doesn’t get less muddled from here. As I reported in my piece, The Investigation That Never Was, two more witnesses most likely encountered Oswald on the first floor moments after the slaying of Kennedy. Pierce Allman and Terrance Ford were both program directors for the local TV station, WFAA. They were witnesses to the assassination on Elm and immediately rushed through the door of Texas School Book Depository Building to find a phone. They found a man there that directed them to where it was. Later, they could not identify Oswald from photographs as the man they had spoken to. However, Oswald told the Dallas police, the Secret Service, and the FBI that he was on the first floor at the time of the shooting when shortly thereafter two men entered, claiming to be SS agents and asked to use the phone. Allman and Ford later deny saying they were agents of any kind. Of final note, Oswald identified one of the men as having a crew cut and carrying a briefcase.  One of the men did indeed fit this description including the briefcase.

Pierce Allman and Terrance Ford independently substantiate Oswald’s account of where he was shortly after the shots were fired. Both men were never called to give their testimony to the Warren Commission, nor any of the subsequent investigations. If Oswald was not on the sixth floor then who was? An accomplice? And this assassin would want to use Oswald’s junky rifle with a scope that is not properly sighted? There are never any real solutions here or else we wouldn’t be asking questions over forty years later. This is what keeps me interested in the Kennedy assassination. It’s all one big looping mystery.

So where was Lee Oswald at the time of the shooting of the President? First floor or sixth? Flip a coin.


Sources
McKnight, Gerald, Breach of Trust; jfk-assassination.de; Buglosi, Vincent, Reclaiming History; Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK; maryferrell.org

assassination

The Long Barrels

Photo courtesy of crytome.org.

Rather an ominous picture, isn’t it? Rest assured these men are not carrying guitars to a gig. And they will not be toting Mannlicher Carcanos either. These are Secret Service (presumably) snipers in New York City providing security for President Obama’s visit. Of course they could be anybody’s boys. They have a discernible military bearing; short-cropped hair; no beards or mustaches; lean; all dressed in black. It would be nice to have these guys protecting you. But what if one of them goes bad? There would be nothing to stop them from picking off the head of state. I can see this as a nerve wracking situation for any president. Surely visions of Dealey Plaza must race through the mind. If there are powerful fiefdoms in our government, having those men with gun bags about you is a subtle reminder not to get too far off the reservation.

Vince Buglosi, in his mammoth defense of the Warren Commission, Reclaiming History, makes the point that if there was a conspiracy, why is Oswald not doing anything that would be associated with a plot? Such as, attending meetings with co-conspirators and so on as Booth did before the Lincoln assassination. Buglosi, the relentless cherry picker, ignores the other side of the argument--what did Oswald do to be an assassin other than buying two cheap firearms?

Apparently, not much. He is known to have visited a firing range one time. He did no research we know of in regards to range, bullet drop, wind, and other factors. As a friend who is a hunter told me, the hardest thing to do is accurately aim and fire at a moving subject. Oswald did no ballistic tests of moving targets. And evidently did no shooting experiments to properly sight the scope, which army marksmen had to use metal shims to properly align. Oswald’s notoriety for being bad marksmen-—qualifying the first time, doing not as well the second time, and barely passing the final time—is clearly documented. Even when hunting in Russia with friends he was assigned a shotgun—in the hopes he would at least be able to hit something with it.

So is there evidence or even a qualifier for Oswald being a patsy? Could he have been one considering the situation he found himself in? I think the evidence bears this out though his actions after the assassination invoke suspicion. For example, upon his arrest he denied to Dallas police ownership of the rifle yet his palm print was on it. As the police officer asks him to stand up in the movie theater he tries to strike the policeman and the tries to shoot him to boot. In his personal possessions later will be found the receipt for the money order he used to order the weapons. In another twist, the rifle requires two hands for operation and assembly since he snuck it in the building that morning disassembled. It should have been covered with his fingerprints but it was not. He must have wiped the rifle down before hiding it but that wastes valuable time in getting to the second floor lunchroom a few moments later. Or else the Dallas police did in their possession.

As you see, one can get a brain freeze in trying to come to terms with all of this.

Oswald can only be a patsy if there are other shooters. That is the Achilles heel of the whole conspiracy view of the Kennedy assassination. Any and all conspiracies in the case can only be based on circumstantial evidence. Other shooters can never be named, witnesses are often confused over what they saw and heard, and clear photographic evidence is lacking. It’s only through our peripheral vision that we see a hint of something going on that is not right. And even that is a vague look.

As usual, the rabbit trail winds its way back to the mysterious former marine and his peculiar life and final acts. Lee Oswald is not the innocent patsy as he ensnares himself in numerous lies to the Dallas police, Secret Service, and the FBI. Probably to provide cover even though this would all come out later in a trial. In the end he never admitted to any crime either against officer Tippet or the murder of the President of the United States. He even denied being on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting, stating that he was on the first floor at that time the shots rang out. Perhaps that explains his coolness and lack of nerves by those who witnessed him. Could he have had an accomplice? If so, the other shooter would be forced to use Oswald’s junk, something distasteful to a professional who would most likely bring his own gear. And maybe that is what happened. After all, Mac Wallace, a bagman for LBJ had a match on one his finger prints on a box on the sixth floor of the School Book Depository Building. The FBI would later toss the data, much to the chagrin of the veteran expert that analyzed the prints.

Ultimately, Lee H. Oswald could be the patsy; he could not be the patsy. Such a chameleon could be anything you wanted him to be. As the former CIA director Richard Helms said cryptically, “No one will ever know who or what Lee Harvey Oswald represented.”

Indeed.

Sources
Buglosi, Vincent, Reclaiming History; Crytome.org; McClellan, Barr, Blood, Money & Power; maryferrell.org

assassination

Conspiracy Believers Attacked Again

Once again, conspiracy believers are the target of inquest while the reality of conspiracy is ignored. And this time it comes from the Science News web site (sciencenews.org). Too bad it is the same old tired arguments and issues being passed around again.

THE INNER WORLDS OF CONSPIRACY BELIEVERS by Bruce Bower deals with the thoughts and attitudes of people that believe in conspiracy theories. The piece begins psychologist Viren Swami of the University of Westminster in London analyzing the need of people to believe in conspiracy. As Swami states, “Often, the proof offered as evidence for a conspiracy is not specific to one incident or issue, but is used to justify a general pattern of conspiracy ideas.”

Nothing but psycho-babble. Swami shows himself to be ignorant of the basics of how people in the real world view life. Of course people are suspicious of their government. They have been lied to hundreds of times. Why believe anything they say at this point? The very Founders of our government told us to be vigilant because the natural inclination is towards tyranny. With the misnamed Patriot Act and the later, Military Commissions Act, we see this dark cloud looming closer.

Bower makes the observation that the mindset of a conspiratorialist is, “A belief that the government is covering up its involvement in the 9/11 attacks thus feeds the idea that the government is also hiding evidence of extraterrestrial contacts or that John F. Kennedy was not killed by a lone gunman.”

Here Bower uses two issues central to American’s distrust of government—the Kennedy assassination and the attacks of 9-11. Take this point made by John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission:

"At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened."

And also:

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described...The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years...This is not spin. This is not true."

Thus, we have the Senior Counsel to a government investigation alluding to a conspiracy.

Bower, in mentioning delving into the Kennedy assassin, has waded into foreign waters. Because the last official government investigation, The House Select Committee on Assassins concluded in their final report: "The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee is unable to identify the other gunman or the extent of the conspiracy." For some reason this little fact is ignored. (Please review my article, The Little Girl and the Missing Train to see how conspiracy is not such a kooky idea after all.)

How about the idea that people believe in conspiracies because they actually happen? Was not Abraham Lincoln killed as a direct result of a conspiracy? Did not John D. Rockefeller conspire to control all oil production in America? Did not Andrew Carnegie scheme to control all steel production in this country? Was not Watergate a conspiracy that forced the first and only presidential resignation? Even the 9-11 attacks were based on a conspiracy created by an evil genius Saudi millionaire brooding in his mountain lair in Afghanistan. (Interestingly enough, rarely defined as a conspiracy by the coincidence-is-all crowd.) But it’s the “official” story as told to us by our alleged “betters.”

Quoted in the article is sociologist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers–Camden of New Jersey. “Arguments advanced by conspiracy theorists tell you more about the believer than about the event,” Goertzel said.

Which of course is hogwash. Tell that to the lead Watergate investigators or the lead investigators for the HSCA. These people deal in evidence to determine the truth. Goertzel then goes on to lamely accuse conspiratorialists of not needing much in the way of facts to support their suspicions. Seems a lot of what Goertzel is inclined to do in his reasoning.

People like this cannot admit that belief in conspiracy is good thing. What does he do when real intrigue comes along?

As usual this group of wise men never look into the needs and minds of people like themselves who deny conspiracies exist at all. Why not look into the psychological traits of people that want to believe a government that lies to them constantly? Or, that most events in life and history are merely coincidence?

Once again, we are being told that conspiracy is the domain of kooks. I would attest that anti-conspiracy is the domain of those that cannot handle the truth.

Sources
Sciencenews.org; Fonzi, Geaton, The Last Investigation; Gaffeny, Mark H., The 9/11 Mystery Plane; history-matters.com

John Farmer's book, The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11, will be published in 1/10.

assassination

The Little Girl And The Missing Train

I got this interesting story from Len Hart, journalist of the award winning Existentialist Cowboy blog. He related to me an interview he had with Rosemary Willis. She is the little girl in the red dress seen skipping along Elm Street at the beginning of the Zapruder Film. Her parents and sister were all in Dealey Plaza that day. They were witnesses to that historical day in Dallas (who all claim they heard a shot fired from the grassy knoll). Her father Philip was there with his 35mm camera shooting slides (transparencies) of the plaza area, including the limousine as it turned on to Elm Street. Some of these images were published in Look magazine. Shortly thereafter, they were contacted by the FBI who wished to examine the slides. Some years passed before they got them back.

At first glance they noticed something wasn’t right with the returned photos. After careful examination of one slide in particular, the one that was published in the Look article, they found what was different. A train, visible in the Look photo behind the pergola was missing from the slide. Len Hart was shown both slide and the Look magazine photo when he was visiting with Rosemary Willis and verified the discrepancy to me. He estimates the photograph in question was taken around frame 190 of the Zapruder film.

This is an amazing find and one not widely reported in the annuals of JFK assassination research. Somebody apparently altered the original photograph, using the imaging technology of the day and removed the train from the background. They were a bit late as the original was by then published. If so, we have the government itself (in this case the FBI) performing the destruction of evidence in a murder investigation. A high crime and an act of treason.

What then, is the purpose of this? Was the train utilized in a conspiracy to assassinate the President? Could the train boxcar be used as a shooter’s platform? Perhaps a way of offering transportation, concealment, or escape for possible shooters?

A more careful examination is required on what was going on in the train yard at Dealey Plaza, what boxcars were positioned where, and what line-of-sight is available to the presidential limousine. Importantly, somebody somewhere, doesn’t want us to know what is going on here. But why?

The main component of this story is that it offers us something real. This is not triangulating shots in Dealey Plaza from hypothetical shooters who can never be named. This is something tangible you can hold in your hands and examine. You know something is not right here and the proof is right before your eyes. No sir, your jokes about me putting on my tin foil hat don’t make me feel small this time and only illustrates how you cannot handle the truth.

The truth is, evidence was destroyed while in government control. And that is a conspiracy.

Once again we can see that something is not quite right here with the official story. No wonder Richard Nixon said, when questioned about what he knew about the assassination by Senator Howard Baker, he replied, “You don’t want to know.”

assassination

They Got Their Wish

The essential myth of the Kennedy assassination is that it is a random event—a random killing. But this myth denies an important factor and that is, as Peter Dale Scott asserts, the “deep politics” behind the assassination. A careful examination of John F. Kennedy’s policies shows that he defied the various fiefdoms that most people are unaware of in their daily lives. These fiefdoms are an odd combination of corporate businesses, organized crime lords, government agencies, and intelligence organizations. You can throw in a general group of overseas nation state enemies as well. The main nexus seems to be a cabal of corporate and intelligence entities. That’s why it’s hard to figure it out a conspiracy—there are so many suspects here it is difficult, if not impossible, to pin the crime on any one party.

It is undeniable fact that the death of John Kennedy resulted in numerous policies changes in our government. His death would benefit many and his death did benefit them all in the end. Within days of his death Lyndon B. Johnson was firing off one executive order after the other making numerous reversals of Kennedy administration policy.

So, a lone nut gunman shows up and kills a man with a legion of enemies. What do these men do now, sit back, smoke their cigars, drink their brandy and celebrate their good luck? I think not.

At the death of the King the other Kings had their wishes come true. And here are just a few:

The Texas Oilmen. JFK was in the process of getting rid of the Oil Depletion Allowance. His death put that off for years till it was finally ended in the early 1970’s.

The Mob. The death of JFK ended brother Bobby’s rein of terror on them. It was business as usual. Not even Hoover would return Bobby’s calls after that.

The Federal Reserve. Shortly after the assassination, LBJ signed the executive order taking all of the Treasury notes Kennedy issued, backed by silver and not credit (as under the Federal Reserve banking system) out of circulation. JFK remains the last President to issue currency through the Treasury (i.e., Constitutional money) backed by hard assets.

The Pentagon/National Security State. LBJ reverses Kennedy’s National Security Action Memorandum 263, which keeps troops in Vietnam indefinitely and ultimately escalating the war.

Brown and Root (Halliburton). Got the war they wanted to profit from.

The CIA. Didn’t have to ever have to worry again about Kennedy dismantling them.

Israel. Got the green light from LBJ to build nuclear weapons. JFK opposed this idea thinking it might lead to a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race.

Anti Castro Cubans. They get their revenge for the Bay of Pig fiasco and an end to behind the scenes secret talks with Castro.

Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover. Both men hated JFK and his brother deeply. Johnson got his dream job he had long lusted for in the Oval Office and Hoover got from Johnson an Executive Order that exempted him from Federal retirement regulations and made him basically FBI Director for life.

Sources
Scott, Peter Dale, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK; Newman, John, Oswald and the CIA; Mars, Jim, Crossfire

assassination

Poppy’s Alibi

“If the American people knew what we have done, they would string us up from the lamp posts.” George H. W. Bush

Poppy, the family nickname for our 41st president, has lived quite a full life. From naval aviator in WWII to Texas oil baron, CIA operative, Congressman, Ambassador to the UN, CIA Director, Vice President and finally, President of the United States. He was also the only person living in America at the time of the Kennedy assassination that claims not to know where he was on that day. But even if he does not recall where he was he certainly worked hard enough to leave a paper trail for himself on November 22, 1963.

By the fall of 1963 Poppy was running for Senate. The evening of November 21, Bush was speaking at the AAODC convention at the Sheraton hotel in Dallas. On the morning of 22nd Poppy and wife Barbara flew out on a private plane. Coincidentally, Richard Nixon was in the town the day before speaking at a bottler’s convention and also flew out the same morning.

At 12:30 the assassination took place. In the memo written by SA Graham Kitchel, at 1:45 PM the FBI received a call from George Bush in Tyler, reporting a rumor he had heard about a GOP campaign volunteer possibly making threats against President Kennedy’s life. The suspect in question was James Parrot who lived in Houston. Bush also listed two other campaign staffers, Mrs. Fawley and Arline Smith as possibly knowing more about the threats. (They did not.) However, Poppy never stated he had been in Dallas the night before and morning of the assassination. He also said he would be in Dallas and staying at the Sheraton if they needed any more information. Bush did fly to Dallas on the 22nd but did not stay at the hotel and in fact, took a commercial flight back to Houston.

Here, George Bush establishes a paper trail for himself of being in Tyler, Texas just moments after the shooting of the President. But interesting enough, he also gives the suspect an alibi as well.

The FBI investigated James Parrot and found him to be innocent and completely harmless. He had apparently made no such threats against the President or anyone else. Parrot lived at home with his mother. He had been discharged from the air force on psychological grounds and had a seventh grade education. He was self-employed as a sign painter. And importantly, he had two alibis—one was from his mother. She said he was home at the time of the shooting.

But here is the kicker—Parrot’s second alibi comes from Bush campaign member Kearney Reynolds. It seems at the time Poppy was making his call to the FBI to report Parrot, Reynolds was sent to Parrot’s house to tell him of the assassination and request a sign to be made for the campaign. So not only does George Bush create an alibi for himself but gives one to the man he is fingering as a suspect by using it with one of his own associates!

James Parrot was given a soft landing. He never knew who accused him till years later. He even worked as a volunteer on Bush’s 1992 presidential campaign not knowing the full extent of what happened. Bush claims to have never known Parrot but he would have to know more than he let on to send Reynolds to the guy’s house to ask for campaign signage. After all, this was Poppy’s suggestion.

Barbara Bush gets into this too in her memoirs. She includes a letter she claims to have written to her children in a Tyler beauty parlor the day of the assassination. It starts out “Dearest Family” but all of her children are under 10 years of age and the eldest, George W., is away in prep school. Also, she’ll be home in a few days so by the time she would have mailed the letter they would have been home before the letter arrived. She makes no mention of Poppy’s call to the FBI. In fact, the letter is rather bland but not without hopeful thoughts that a communist did it. She signs it “Bar” and not as “mother” or any maternal identifier as one would for small children. Nobody ever knows of this letter till it is published in her memoirs. It is unspecified if the letter was even mailed. So, if Poppy can’t remember, Bar can.

Here we have George Bush providing cover for himself on this fateful day. But it raises the question; if he was not involved in the crime, then why go to such effort to create an alibi? He was running for Senator at the time, an unsuccessful bid that would have him losing to Democrat Lloyd Benson. Poppy was deeply embedded with the Texas oil oligarchy. They were very antagonistic to Kennedy, even running hostile ads in the local Dallas paper the day of the assassination. (D. H. Byrd, a Texas oil businessman, and virulent Kennedy hater, owned the School Book Depository building.) Perhaps Poppy didn’t want any blow-back from that if they came under tighter scrutiny?

Of course, the only other explanation was that George Bush was involved in a conspiracy.

It makes it even more interesting to consider that George Bush Sr. was, at least circumstantially, a CIA operative during this time. His business partner in Zapata Oil, Thomas Devine, was a CIA staff employee. This relationship dates as far back as 1953. We know this from a CIA memo. In 1985 Journalist Joseph McBride, while researching a piece for Daily Variety stumbled upon a document that would provide more fuel for the Kennedy assassination researchers. It was a memo written by FBI Director Hoover mentioning a briefing given to two individuals on November 29, 1963. One man was Capt William Edwards of the DIA and the other was George Bush of the CIA. Bush was CIA Director for one year, 1976-77 and denied ever being connected with the Agency prior to that. When questioned, the CIA said it was a different man, George William Bush. McBride found the man in question who denied that he ever received such a briefing, as he was a GS-5 probationary civil servant—a night clerk. Poppy will answer no questions regarding this issue. (Vince Buglosi in his Reclaiming History Endnotes says that the ARRB found no connection to Bush Sr. and that former CIA Director Allen Dulles had a Major General George Bush in his appointment calendar. Buglosi makes no determination on any of this. The ARRB simply didn’t look into it deeply enough or else wanted to avoid a conflict.)

So there you have it—one more unsolved mystery in the Kennedy assassination. George H. W. Bush is an enigmatic figure in American history. His life is one association after the other with other mysterious people and situations. He’s at the cusp of historical events from the Bay of Pigs, to Dallas, to Watergate. On November 22, 1963 he claims he doesn’t know where he was at though he apparently went through a lot of trouble for a self-serving “CYA” exercise that resulted in a huge waste of the FBI’s time and resources on one of the most important days in American history. A strange one, this man.

Only time will tell what else will be revealed.


Sources: Baker, Russ, Family of Secrets; Bush, Barbara, A Memoir; Bugliosi, Vince, End Notes 695-1126; CIA and FBI memos, maryferrell.org

assassination

The Insiders Always Know

Richard Nixon, March 1973, Charles Tasnadi, AP

Howard Baker: What do you know about the Kennedy assassination?

Richard Nixon: You don’t want to know.

Senator Baker related this conversation with Richard Nixon to renowned CBS news producer Don Hewitt. As Hewitt said after learning Nixon’s response, “That frosted me.” In an interview he gave to Vicki Daitch for the Kennedy Library, Hewitt went on to make the following statement:

“For reasons I never understood, none of those guys, Salinger, Bobby (Kennedy), Kenney O' Donnell, Dave Powers, Steve Smith would never, ever talk about the assassination. Did they know something?”

And this is typical of the people close to the heart of the tragedy. They either do not talk or else make vague or cryptic statements. Nixon easily went along with the Warren Commission’s end game as he did with Larry King in 2001, but with Senator Baker he goes enigmatic. The insiders keep the good stuff to themselves. When Hewitt asked Robert Kennedy about the assassination his only reply was, “What difference does it make? It won’t bring him back.” However, behind the scenes, Bobby was very interested in finding out the truth. He should be since he knew Oswald’s name years before the assassination. To his closest associates he was a believer in conspiracy regarding the death of his brother.

The closest that Don Hewitt came was in a conversation with Kennedy speechwriter Ted Sorensen. Sorensen admitted to Hewitt that he would not be surprised that if in the future, it became known that Oswald had accomplices which, in his words, “…would lend some badly needed rhyme and reason to an act of insanity that up to now has had neither.” Apparently, even the President's speechwriter was conflicted.

The failure of the Fourth Estate to investigate the death of John F. Kennedy is a vast study in itself. It’s one of the great mysteries of the case. The media then, as now, is largely owned by corporations and the corporations are so integrated with the government that it is hard to tell where one begins and the other ends. Secondly, and no less is important, is the CIA’s controlling media influence via Operation Mockingbird. Former CIA Director William Colby stated in front of Congress that, "The CIA owns anyone of significance at all major media outlets." Who in the press talks of this today or even denies it? And so they will never give us the truth.

Notice the talk lately of possibly bailing out the major media? Might as well, as they own it and have for years.

No wonder they hate us independent bloggers. We investigate areas where they cannot and I’m sure a large number of us are not owned by any three-letter agencies. I’m not. We are not going to be like Dan Rather and see the Zapruder film and report back that Kennedy’s head snaps forwards after a shot from the rear. When the film is finally shown to the public in 1975, just the opposite is seen.

Sources: Oral History Interview with DON HEWITT, October 8, 2002, New York, NY. By Vicki Daitch for the John F. Kennedy Library; Larry King Live Weekend: A Look Back at President Richard Nixon Aired February 5, 2001 - 9:00 p.m. ET; Talbot, Brothers

assassination