Ex-Archives Official Admits Selling Our History on eBay

IT FIGURES THAT THIS THIEF'S DEFENSE LAWYERS ARGUE OVER THE MONETARY $ VALUE OF PRECIOUS,IRREPLACEABLE PIECES OF HISTORY, INCLUDING UNKNOWN EVIDENCE ABOUT THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION, AS A BASIS FOR ASSESSING THE SEVERITY OF THE MATTER.

(This man does not deserve a photo)

A PREVIOUS ARTICLE,RELEASED NATIONWIDE OCT. 5TH, SAID:

"Waffen had worked at the Archives for more than 40 years, most recently as the head of the Motion Picture, Sound, and Video unit, before retiring in June, according to Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper. A 2004 New York Times article quoted Waffen in reference to the preservation work his unit was doing on the only known audio recording of the John F. Kennedy assassination. His department also had custody of the Zapruder film, the famous 8mm color home video of the assassination..." (Ref: tbd.com)

WASHINGTON POST, Oct. 4, 2011

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/crime-scene/post/ex-archives-official-admits-theft/2011/10/04/gIQA7dh4KL_blog.html

Ex-Archives official admits theft

By Ruben Castaneda

A former National Archives employee on Tuesday admitted in federal court that he stole nearly 1,000 audio recordings and sold some on eBay.

Leslie C. Waffen, 66, who was chief of the Archives’ audiovisual holdings, pleaded guilty to embezzlement of government property. He is scheduled to be sentenced March 5 in federal court in Greenbelt.

Federal officials said Waffen sold items belonging to the Archives on eBay in September and October of last year. They said they found “documentary evidence” in Waffen’s home he had been selling items belonging to the Archives since at least August 2001.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Arun G. Rao said in court that one item sold by Waffen was an original master copy of a voice recording of Babe Ruth on a December 1937 hunting trip. The recording sold for $34.74, Rao said.

“This case is especially egregious because the defendant was a high-ranking government employee who violated his obligation to protect historical records that belong to the National Archives and Records Administration,” U.S. Attorney Rod J. Rosenstein said in a statement. “These items were entrusted to the National Archives to be used by all citizens, not to be auctioned for personal profit to the highest bidder.”

Authorities said a tipster led them to Waffen, who worked for the Archives for 37 years. Last October, weeks after Waffen retired from the agency,federal agents raided his Rockville home.

Rao said in court that agents seized 6,153 sound recordings from Waffen’s home, and that officials confirmed that 955 of them belonged to the National Archives.

Archivist of the United States David S. Ferriero said the agency has bolstered security in its facilities. For instance, guards now check the bags of everyone — including employees — leaving the D.C. and College Park facilities, a practice that will be expanded to all Archives’ facilities nationwide, authorities said.

“I am disappointed and angered by Mr. Waffen’s violation of the trust placed in him by colleagues and the American people to safeguard our nation’s history,” Ferriero said. “It is an outrage that an employee entrusted with protecting our heritage became a threat to those holdings.”

Rao said that during sentencing, the government will argue that the recordings Waffen took are valued at at least $70,000. Waffen’s defense attorney will ague the stolen recordings are worth between $30,000 and $70,000.

The audiovisual holdings contain more than 90,000 film, sound and video recordings made by the government and private sources. many are presidential recordings, kept at presidential libraries and museums. Others are held at the Archives’ facility in College Park.

A 2004 New York Times article described Waffen’s efforts to preserve the only known audio recording of John F. Kennedy’s Assassination.

MICHAEL MOORE AND OTHERS HELP POST BAIL FOR JULIAN ASSANGE

NOBODY GIVES VOLTAIRE THE CREDIT FOR SAYING,"I DISAPPROVE OF WHAT YOU SAY, BUT I WILL DEFEND TO THE DEATH YOUR RIGHT TO SAY IT."

I DON'T CARE WHO SAID IT --I AGREE COMPLETELY. AND THUS I STAND BEHIND MICHAEL MOORE'S DECISION TO HELP RELEASE JULIAN ASSANGE FROM SOLITARY CONFINEMENT 'FOR HIS PROTECTION' WHILE AWAITING SPURIOUS 'RAPE' CHARGES IN SWEDEN DESIGNED TO EXTRADITE HIM INTO U.S. HANDS.

SECRECY IS THE STUFF OF WAR! ABRIDGMENT OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS ALL TOO COMMON. I APPLAUD MOORE'S STANCE.

>HERE'S WHAT MICHAEL MOORE HAS TO SAY ABOUT HIS DECISION: I HAVE PLACED IN BOLD FACE HIS MOST IMPORTANT STATEMENTS.

Why I'm Posting Bail Money for Julian Assange

By Michael Moore

December 14, 2010 "Information Clearing House" -- Yesterday, in the Westminster Magistrates Court in London, the lawyers for WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange presented to the judge a document from me stating that I have put up $20,000 of my own money to help bail Mr. Assange out of jail.

Furthermore, I am publicly offering the assistance of my website, my servers, my domain names and anything else I can do to keep WikiLeaks alive and thriving as it continues its work to expose the crimes that were concocted in secret and carried out in our name and with our tax dollars.

We were taken to war in Iraq on a lie. Hundreds of thousands are now dead. Just imagine if the men who planned this war crime back in 2002 had had a WikiLeaks to deal with. They might not have been able to pull it off. The only reason they thought they could get away with it was because they had a guaranteed cloak of secrecy. That guarantee has now been ripped from them, and I hope they are never able to operate in secret again.

So why is WikiLeaks, after performing such an important public service, under such vicious attack? Because they have outed and embarrassed those who have covered up the truth. The assault on them has been over the top:

**Sen. Joe Lieberman says WikiLeaks "has violated the Espionage Act."

**The New Yorker's George Packer calls Assange "super-secretive, thin-skinned, [and] megalomaniacal."

**Sarah Palin claims he's "an anti-American operative with blood on his hands" whom we should pursue "with the same urgency we pursue al Qaeda and Taliban leaders."

**Democrat Bob Beckel (Walter Mondale's 1984 campaign manager) said about Assange on Fox: "A dead man can't leak stuff ... there's only one way to do it: illegally shoot the son of a bitch."

**Republican Mary Matalin says "he's a psychopath, a sociopath ... He's a terrorist."

**Rep. Peter A. King calls WikiLeaks a "terrorist organization."

And indeed they are! They exist to terrorize the liars and warmongers who have brought ruin to our nation and to others. Perhaps the next war won't be so easy because the tables have been turned -- and now it's Big Brother who's being watched ... by us!

WikiLeaks deserves our thanks for shining a huge spotlight on all this.

But some in the corporate-owned press have dismissed the importance of WikiLeaks ("they've released little that's new!") or have painted them as simple anarchists ("WikiLeaks just releases everything without any editorial control!").

WikiLeaks exists, in part, because the mainstream media has failed to live up to its responsibility. The corporate owners have decimated newsrooms, making it impossible for good journalists to do their job. There's no time or money anymore for investigative journalism. Simply put, investors don't want those stories exposed. They like their secrets kept ... as secrets.

I ask you to imagine how much different our world would be if WikiLeaks had existed 10 years ago. Take a look at this photo.



That's Mr. Bush about to be handed a "secret" document on August 6th, 2001. Its heading read: "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US."
And on those pages it said the FBI had discovered "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."
Mr. Bush decided to ignore it and went fishing for the next four weeks.

But if that document had been leaked, how would you or I have reacted? What would Congress or the FAA have done? Was there not a greater chance that someone, somewhere would have done something if all of us knew about bin Laden's impending attack using hijacked planes?

But back then only a few people had access to that document. Because the secret was kept, a flight school instructor in San Diego who noticed that two Saudi students took no interest in takeoffs or landings, did nothing. Had he read about the bin Laden threat in the paper, might he have called the FBI? (Please read this essay by former FBI Agent Coleen Rowley, Time's 2002 co-Person of the Year, about her belief that had WikiLeaks been around in 2001, 9/11 might have been prevented. SEE BELOW: JVB)

Or what if the public in 2003 had been able to read "secret" memos from Dick Cheney as he pressured the CIA to give him the "facts" he wanted in order to build his false case for war? If a WikiLeaks had revealed at that time that there were, in fact, no weapons of mass destruction, do you think that the war would have been launched -- or rather, wouldn't there have been calls for Cheney's arrest?

Openness, transparency -- these are among the few weapons the citizenry has to protect itself from the powerful and the corrupt. What if within days of August 4th, 1964 -- after the Pentagon had made up the lie that our ship was attacked by the North Vietnamese in the Gulf of Tonkin -- there had been a WikiLeaks to tell the American people that the whole thing was made up? I guess 58,000 of our soldiers (and 2 million Vietnamese) might be alive today.

Instead, secrets killed them.

For those of you who think it's wrong to support Julian Assange because of the sexual assault allegations he's being held for, all I ask is that you not be naive about how the government works when it decides to go after its prey.

Please -- never, ever believe the "official story."

And regardless of Assange's guilt or innocence (see the strange nature of the allegations here), this man has the right to have bail posted and to defend himself. I have joined with filmmakers Ken Loach and John Pilger and writer Jemima Khan in putting up the bail money -- and we hope the judge will accept this and grant his release today.

Might WikiLeaks cause some unintended harm to diplomatic negotiations and U.S. interests around the world? Perhaps. But that's the price you pay when you and your government take us into a war based on a lie. Your punishment for misbehaving is that someone has to turn on all the lights in the room so that we can see what you're up to. You simply can't be trusted. So every cable, every email you write is now fair game. Sorry, but you brought this upon yourself. No one can hide from the truth now. No one can plot the next Big Lie if they know that they might be exposed.

And that is the best thing that WikiLeaks has done. WikiLeaks, God bless them, will save lives as a result of their actions. And any of you who join me in supporting them are committing a true act of patriotism. Period.

I stand today in absentia with Julian Assange in London and I ask the judge to grant him his release. I am willing to guarantee his return to court with the bail money I have wired to said court. I will not allow this injustice to continue unchallenged.

P.S. You can read the statement I filed today in the London court here.

http://www.michaelmoore.com

===========

THE ESSAY ABOUT 9/11, WIKILEAKS, AND FBI AGENT ROWLEY:

WikiLeaks and 9/11: What if?
Frustrated investigators might have chosen to leak information that their superiors bottled up, perhaps averting the terrorism attacks.
October 15, 2010|By Coleen Rowley and Bogdan Dzakovic
If WikiLeaks had been around in 2001, could the events of 9/11 have been prevented? The idea is worth considering.

The organization has drawn both high praise and searing criticism for its mission of publishing leaked documents without revealing their source, but we suspect the world hasn't yet fully seen its potential. Let us explain.

There were a lot of us in the run-up to Sept. 11 who had seen warning signs that something devastating might be in the planning stages. But we worked for ossified bureaucracies incapable of acting quickly and decisively. Lately, the two of us have been wondering how things might have been different if there had been a quick, confidential way to get information out.

One of us, Coleen Rowley, was a special agent/legal counsel at the FBI's Minneapolis division and worked closely with those who arrested would-be terrorist Zacarias Moussaoui on an immigration violation less than a month before the World Trade Center was destroyed.

Following up on a tip from flight school instructors who had become suspicious of the French Moroccan who claimed to want to fly a jet as an "ego boost," Special Agent Harry Samit and an INS colleague had detained Moussaoui. A foreign intelligence service promptly reported that he had connections with a foreign terrorist group, but FBI officials in Washington inexplicably turned down Samit's request for authority to search Moussaoui's laptop computer and personal effects.

Those same officials stonewalled Samit's supervisor, who pleaded with them in late August 2001 that he was "trying to keep someone from taking a plane and crashing into the World Trade Center." (Yes, he was that explicit.) Later, testifying at Moussaoui's trial, Samit testified that he believed the behavior of his FBI superiors in Washington constituted "criminal negligence."

The 9/11 Commission ultimately concluded that Moussaoui was most likely being primed as a Sept. 11 replacement pilot and that the hijackers probably would have postponed their strike if information about his arrest had been announced.

WikiLeaks might have provided a pressure valve for those agents who were terribly worried about what might happen and frustrated by their superiors' seeming indifference. They were indeed stuck in a perplexing, no-win ethical dilemma as time ticked away. Their bosses issued continual warnings against "talking to the media" and frowned on whistle-blowing, yet the agents felt a strong need to protect the public.

Moore's statement to the court:

December 14th, 2010 2:58 AM
WITNESS STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MOORE
WITNESS STATEMENT

(CJ Act 1967, s.9 MC Act 1980, ss.5A(3)(a) and 5B;

Criminal Procedure Rules 2010, Rule 27)

____________________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MOORE

Aged: Over 18

Occupation: FILM MAKER AND AUTHOR

____________________________________________________________________________

This statement (consisting of 2 pages each signed by me) is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

I, MICHAEL MOORE, care of Finers Stephens Innocent, 179 Great Portland Street, London, W1W 5LS make this statement and say as follows:

1. I am a filmmaker, author and political commentator and I produce as my exhibit [MM/1] evidence of my identity in the form of a photocopy of my passport/driving licence. I am an American citizen.

2. I am aware of the various allegations Julian Assange faces in Sweden. I am willing to act as security for Julian in the sum of twenty thousand dollars USD$20,000.

3. I am the director and producer of Bowling for Columbine, Fahrenheit 9/11, Sicko, and Capitalism: A Love Story, four of the top nine highest-grossing documentaries of all time. In September 2008, I released my first free movie on the Internet, Slacker Uprising, documenting my personal crusade to encourage more Americans to vote in presidential elections. These experiences underpinned my conviction that it is the duty of a free press to probe, and hold government and the powerful to account – and that citizens must be properly informed and have access to information in order to exercise their democratic rights.

4. Governments have always been discomfited by a probing press. With the hollowing out of newsrooms, in large part as a consequence of the new digital world, old media have largely abandoned the territory of investigative journalism.

5. I support Julian, whom I see as a pioneer of free speech, transparent government and the digital revolution in journalism. His commitment to exposing the follies of government and business offers the greater society a chance to protect itself from these follies. Some aren't just follies. Some are crimes. What do we do with someone who informs the authorities -- and in this case it is the free people in a democracy who are the "authorities" -- that a crime has been committed? Do we arrest HIM? Do we try to shut his mouth? Do we hound him, threaten him, track him down and hunt him as if HE is the criminal? He bravely informed the citizenry of what was being done in their name and with their tax monies. That is no crime. That is an act of patriotism. He should be thanked and honored, not abused and jailed. It dishonours this court to be used in this way, holding this man without bail. Julian has made the world, and my country in particular, a safer place. His actions with WikiLeaks have put on notice those who would take us to war based on lies that any future attempts to do so will be met by the fierce bright light provided by WikiLeaks and intended to expose those who commit their war crimes. His actions will make them think twice next time -- and for that we all owe him a debt of gratitude.

6. I believe that Julian takes pride in his reputation and as any journalist would understands that if he were to abscond he would ruin his reputation in the media and journalism industries.

7. I regret that I am out of the country and therefore I am unable to attend court and explain in person that I expect Julian to observe his bail conditions. I am offering to stand and provide security for him abiding by his bail conditions to the value of USD$20,000.

8. I understand that by acting as security for Julian I risk forfeiture of the aforementioned sum to the crown if he breaches his bail conditions by absconding or by not attending Court as and when required.

9. The money which I will pay to the Court, to be held as security, is my own. As I am abroad I am unable to produce any statement as evidence of these funds. However I have already transferred the sum of USD$20,000 into the client account of FSI.

10. I have not been indemnified against the loss of this money in the event of Julian breaching his bail conditions, and understand that if I were to be so indemnified it would amount to a separate criminal offence for which I could be imprisoned.

11. I have been advised by Julian’s solicitors that it would be prudent to obtain independent legal advice in relation to my liabilities as security.

12. I have no previous convictions.

===

IMPRESSED BY THE KENNEDY DETAIL ON THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL?

JFK PROTECTED





JFK'S NON-EXISTENT PROTECTION NOV. 22,1963: HILL JUMPS ON CAR AFTER THREE SHOTS RING OUT--NOBODY ELSE MOVES.



IMPRESSED by The Kennedy Detail on the Discovery Channel?

VINCE PALAMARA ON "THE KENNEDY DETAIL" has written on his YouTube presentations:

"JFK was a very nice man (as Blaine & many of his colleagues told me), never interfered with the actions of the Secret Service (as Blaine & many of his colleagues told me), and did not order the agents off his car (as Blaine & many of his colleagues told me)---DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES FOR BLOOD MONEY!"

HERE IS WHAT A FORMER SS AGENT POSTED ABOUT THE TV SPECIAL BASED ON THE BOOK:
(REF: http://www.jfklancerforum.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=3&topic_id=90433&mesg_id=90433&page)

Sat Dec-04-10 12:57 AM
by Randy Gunter


I think it is very easy to see this presentation from the “Warren Omission Channel” aka Discovery Channel, for what it is; An attempt by these remaining USSS agents to do a self-cleansing of their souls before they check out to meet their maker. These agents have waited 47 years to return to Dallas and basically address or disclose nothing? Why? Because they are still tormented by the Dealey Plaza Demons and Ghosts of November 22, 1963. Did you notice Win Lawson in his hospital room or convalescent home? He's on his deathbed and trying to exorcise the demons.

Like many others have said, they addressed none of the plethora of USSS issues that occurred during the Dallas Debacle but yet had the nerve to complain about “their workload”, “their long hours” and “their low pay” of 1963. Jerry Blaine made the comment “I was on poverty level, had I lived in Chicago.” I think this is a gross lie, his current day annual salary comes in around $65K.

Sorry fellows, if you’re looking for sympathy from me, it isn’t happening. You chose your job, and you failed miserably at it. If you didn’t like it, quit and move on to something else (Like Jerry “Complain” Blaine did after JFK was killed). He said he "walked out and later had regrets".

As a veteran of numerous USSS missions, I can speak personally to the life of a USSS agent. You have the prestige of protecting the most important person in the world and his family, and other heads of state. You travel to some of the most exotic and exciting places in the world. You stay in some of the best hotels, resorts, and eat some of the finest cuisine known to mankind. You have the US Government provide you with PERDIEM for travel and a clothing allowance to purchase business suits and wardrobe on top of your regular pay. You meet famous persons from all types of venues. You draw a federal retirement when you're eligible. How is this so bad again?

The USSS detail had a full day on November 21, 1963; Houston, San Antonio, and a return to Fort Worth at Midnight. So, what did they do? Go to sleep? No. They decided to make a long day the longest day by going out and staying out drinking and carousing until 5 or 6 in the a.m. on November 22nd. Then report for duty within 1-2 hours to protect the President. This ladies and gentlemen was “Dereliction of Duty” in it’s highest regard.

They were sworn to protect the President and his family, and prohibited from drinking alcohol while serving in this capacity. Whenever, I was performing a USSS mission, I was cautioned, counseled, whatever you wish to call it, that I if I was found to be drinking alcohol or drunk during a USSS mission (either by being caught in the act or the smell of alcohol on my breath), I would be court-martialed by the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Total Dereliction of Duty by these agents, but yet was anyone ever punished or reprimanded for their actions? No. They are viewed by some as “Heros”. Since when are the actions I have described, one of a “Hero”?

Clint Hill said the only way he came to understand and accept what happened in DP that fateful day was by admitting “That the shooter had the advantage that day.”

Oh really, Mr. Hill? If that isn’t the biggest copout I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is. So you and your fellow USSS agents were doing all you could by staying out all night drinking, and by compromising the security and integrity of the parade route (i.e. By not posting agents or security in high threat and vulnerable areas such as the slow turns where open windows were prevalent and where cover and concealment were obvious threats (i.e. Grassy Knoll, Storm Drains, Open Building Windows), and by ordering agents not to react even when JFK was under attack?

Wow, I guess when you give all of those advantages away without a fight and saying that “The shooter had all the advantage that day”, you are correct Mr. Hill.

Randy


"A young man who does not have what it takes to perform military service is not likely to have what it takes to make a living." - John F. Kennedy

========

IT'S SO EASY TO BE IMPRESSED BY THESE TV SPECIALS.
YOU WON'T SEE A TV SPECIAL WHERE SECRET SERVICE SPECIALIST VINCENT PALAMARA STATES: "THERE WAS A CONSPIRACY...TRUTH IS, THE SECRET SERVICE...COULD HAVE PREVENTED THE ASSASSINATION..."

HOW TRUE!



YOUTUBE DIRECT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO6I9pA-UjI


JFK was a very nice man (as Blaine & many of his colleagues told me), never interfered with the actions of the Secret Service (as Blaine & many of his colleagues told me), and did not order the agents off his car (as Blaine & many of his colleagues told me)---DON'T BELIEVE THE LIES FOR BLOOD MONEY!



PALAMARA SAYS HE'S RECEIVED THREATS (I SURE UNDERSTAND HOW HE FEELS!)BUT HE HAS COME OUT WITH HIS LATEST YOUTUBE VIDEO ABOUT THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SECRET SERVICE'S VERSION OF WHY KENNEDY DIED THAT DAY

KENNEDY BASICALLY TOOK ORDERS FROM THE SECRET SERVICE AS TO SECURITY MEASURES!



ABOUT JACKIE KENNEDY, CLINT HILL SAID SHE WAS TRYING TO RETRIEVE A PIECE OF JFK'S HEAD. "IF WE HAD REACTED...FASTER..." HILL WOULD HAVE TAKEN KENNEDY'S SHOT...BUT HE WAS NOT STANDING ON THE BACK OF THE CAR.

"IF I HAD REACTED..."

VINCE PALAMARA INTERVIEWED CLINT HILL AND OTHER SECRET SERVICE AGENTS PERSONALLY.
I CONGRATULATE HIM ON HIS RESEARCH AND HIS WORK ON THESE YOUTUBE VIDEOS PRESENTING THE TRUTH. HE MAKES THE IMPORTANT COMMENT THAT THE USUAL PRESS CORPS VEHICLE THAT USUALLY TOOK PHOTOS OF THE PRESIDENT --BEING IN A CAR IN FRONT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL LIMO, HAD BEEN MOVED TO THE BACK OF THE PARADE. PALAMARA NOTES THAT THEREFORE ALL WE GOT WAS ZAPRUDER'S "RICKETY FILM." J

THE GOVERNMENT VERSION OF KENNEDY'S ASSASSINATION HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY CONTAMINATED, DISTORTED, AND FULL OF LIES. WE WHO ARE WITNESSES, AND WE WHO ARE HONEST RESEARCHERS WITH ACCESS TO THE TRUTH, INSIST THAT YOU LEARN THE UNVARNISHED, REAL FACTS. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT YOU DO, SO THAT YOU WILL BE WILLING TO TRACE THE ROOTS OF EVIL FROM THOSE WHO TOOK OVER OUR COUNTRY AND TO WHOM THEY HANDED OUR COUNTRY OVER, WITH THE PRESENT SAD RESULT: OUR COUNTRY WILL DIE WITHOUT THE TRUTH.

Honesty in Government: the Kennedy Assassination

Whether it's about 9-11, or the roots of deception used to hide the truth from us then, that began with the government's success in creating utter confusion over the Kennedy assassination, allowing the Coup to go unnoticed and Lee Harvey Oswald to take the blame,Dr.Jim Fetzer has met these challenges head-on. He is unraveling the confusion and setting forth precisely what lies have been told to us.

Wikileaks reveal secrets the government doesn't want us to know, citing 'national security"--even though secrecy is the very foundation of economic crisis and war.
Therefore, it's good news when intelligent people break through the cloaks of secrecy and reveal the truth.

This former Marine and highly regarded intellectual academician has done just that. He's the kind of man that We the People have needed for a long time. Relying not only on his own superior intellect and keen ability to discern truth from falsehood as a professor of logic, he had brought together a host of qualified professionals to examine in a professional and responsible manner the purported facts from 9-11 all the way back to the Kennedy assassination --where this pattern of deception first raised its ugly head without any remaining restraints --that led America into costly and painful wars, the destruction of the American Dream and our freedoms, and the crushing weight of economic slavery for us and our children.

The article below was published Nov. 26 in OpEd News:
It's good news for anyone who wants a succinct summary of the dishonesty involved in the "government findings' involving the assassination of John F.Kennedy. We have Oliver Stone's movie,JFK, to thank for the formation of the ARRB and the release of documents originally supposed to be kept from view for 75 years. Many more need to be released as well. We cannot trust what the government will choose to release to us after we, who are witnesses, are all dead.


JFK: WHAT WE KNOW NOW

by Jim Fetzer

With the advent of the 47th observance of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, it may be appropriate to share important findings regarding what we know now about his death that we have not known in the past. Most Americans are not in the position to take on the task that serious research requires. As a former Marine Corps officer and professor of philosophy who taught logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning for 35 years, it was my privilege to organize a research group consisting of the best qualified individuals to ever study the case in 1992. Since then, we have published three books reporting what we have discovered-
Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003)--I have chaired or co-chaired four national meetings on this subject and produced a documentary about it. From these books and other sources I will cite, many available on the net, you can verify what I am saying about our findings.

This research group--whose efforts continue to this day--has included three M.D.s, including one who attended the mortally wounded president and then, two days later, his alleged assassin, a world authority on the human brain who was also an expert on wound ballistics, and another who is an expert on radiation oncology and has studied the autopsy X-rays in the National Archives; three Ph.D.s, including one with a specialization in the physics of light and is the leading expert on the Zapruder film, another who is also the M.D. who is an expert on the X-rays and is the leading expert on the medical evidence, and the third a philosopher of science who has published 29 books. Others include an expert on the JFK photos and films, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations when it reinvestigated the case in 1977-78, and another expert on the production/post-production of films and the technology available to alter them in November 1963.

If we use the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" to characterize arguments based upon logic and evidence for which there is no reasonable alternative explanation, then what we have published in these books and recent articles demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt:

* that JFK was hit at least four times (once in the back from behind; once in the throat from in front; and twice in the head, once from behind and once from in front);

* that the wound to his throat was caused by a shot that penetrated the limousine windshield, which was subsequently destroyed and replaced by a substitute windshield;

* that the shot to the back was well below the collar, entered only about as far as the second knuckle on your little finger, and evinced no point of exit from the body;

* that at least 59 witnesses reported that the limousine slowed dramatically or came to a complete halt after bullets began to be fired, which supports the conclusion that it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete halt;

* that the first shot to the head was fired from behind and entered in the vicinity of the external occipital protuberance at the back of the head;

* that the second shot to the head was fired from in front and entered in the vicinity of the right temple;

* that this second shot was fired with a frangible or "exploding" bullet that transmitted shockwaves through the brain;

* that the impact of this bullet combined with the weakening of the skull by the first shot to the head caused 1/3 to 1/2 of his brains to be blown out in Dealey Plaza at the time;

* that the massive blow-out to the back of the head was concealed by imposing a "patch" to the right lateral cranial X-ray (of the skull taken from the right side);

* that the brain had to be reconstituted since, once the defect to the skull had been "patched", there was no place for that brain matter to have gone;
* that at least 59 witnesses reported that the limousine slowed dramatically or came to a complete halt after bullets began to be fired, which supports the conclusion that it slowed dramatically as it came to a complete halt;

* that the first shot to the head was fired from behind and entered in the vicinity of the external occipital protuberance at the back of the head;

* that the second shot to the head was fired from in front and entered in the vicinity of the right temple;

* that this second shot was fired with a frangible or "exploding" bullet that transmitted shockwaves through the brain;

* that the impact of this bullet combined with the weakening of the skull by the first shot to the head caused 1/3 to 1/2 of his brains to be blown out in Dealey Plaza at the time;

* that the massive blow-out to the back of the head was concealed by imposing a "patch" to the right lateral cranial X-ray (of the skull taken from the right side);

* that the brain had to be reconstituted since, once the defect to the skull had been "patched", there was no place for that brain matter to have gone;

* that the brain shown in diagrams and photographs in the National Archives cannot be the brain of John Fitzgerald Kennedy;

* that two brain examinations were conducted, the first of which was with the President's brain, the second with a substitute;

* that the autopsy report was prepared without the benefit of the autopsy photographs, which were removed by the Secret Service;

* that the photographs were subsequently altered and altered in various ways to conceal evidence of the cause of death;

* that the Zapruder film of the assassination was in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) run by the CIA already the weekend of the assassination;

* that the extant "Zapruder film" has been massively edited to remove evidence of the actual cause of death, including the limousine having been brought to a halt in order to insure that the target would be killed.

A very accessible overview of these findings was presented at a national conference held at the University of North Dakota and published as Chapter 30, "Dealey Plaza Revisited: What Happened to JFK?" The studies by David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., on the autopsy X-rays have been supplemented by his presentation, "The JFK Skull X-rays: Evidence for Forgery" at a national conference in Dallas in 2009. A visual tutorial introduction to the evidence that the Zapruder film has been recreated by John P. Costella, Ph.D., "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax" , explains how we know that the film is a fabrication, a finding that has been reinforced by the publication by Douglas Horne, senior analyst for military affairs for the Assassination Records Review Board, of Inside the ARRB (2009), whose key arguments about the film are summarized in an article for those who may not have time for all five volumes! Many related articles are also archived at http://assassinationscience.com and http://assassinationresearch.com .

Most of these findings were published in Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), which benefited from the release of the first of some 60,000 documents and records that were meant to be withheld from the public by the Warren Commission for 75 years. Those whose work is brought together in this volume include the leading authority on the Secret Service (Vincent Palamara); the most knowledgeable student of the Presidential limousine (Douglas Weldon, J.D.); a leading expert on the medical evidence at Parkland and at Bethesda (Gary Aguilar, M.D.); the single most highly qualified person to ever study this case (David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D.); the Senior Analyst for Military Records for the ARRB (Douglas Horne); a legendary photo-analyst who advised the HSCA during its reinvestigation (Jack White); a world-famous philosopher who received the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1950 (Bertrand Russell); a prize-winning director and playwright, who has produced a brilliant chronology (Ira David Wood III); and a philosopher of science who had then published more than 20 books and 100 articles (James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.).

Given the extraordinary character of these findings, it would be appropriate to provide reasons beyond the research itself that was published there to reassure the public that it should be taken seriously. Fortunately, this book was reviewed by George Costello for The Federal Lawyer (May 2001), pp. 52-56. This journal (formerly: The Federal Bar News and Journal) is a publication for attorneys who work for the federal government, who practice before federal agencies, or who appear before federal courts. The reviewer was honored with an award of recognition for this review of Murder in Dealey Plaza , which suggests his professional colleagues appreciated the contribution he made, which, in part, he summarized as follows: What does all of this mean? Any one of the findings summarized above would be troubling by itself. Together, these findings form a critical mass of evidence indicating that President Kennedy's autopsy was falsified, and help establish a compelling case that people within the federal government covered up evidence of frontal shots -- and hence of multiple gunmen and conspiracy in the assassination of President Kennedy. Because it pulls this evidence together in one place, Murder in Dealey Plaza is one of the most important books to date on the Kennedy assassination.

The new evidence turns the tables. No longer can defenders of the lone assassin theory hide behind the autopsy evidence and claim that it trumps all the other evidence. The weight of this other evidence now trumps the autopsy report. Lone assassin theorists must address and explain the new evidence if they wish to regain credibility. It is time for people of integrity who were involved in the official investigations -- especially the professionals -- to take a good-faith look at the new evidence and confront the likelihood that their conclusions were based on falsified data . Murder in Dealey Plaza may not be the last word on the medical evidence, but it should be the starting point for a fresh look -- not only at the medical evidence, but also at the assassination and its implications.

Those implications, I might add, are substantial in their impact upon alternative theories of the assassination. The mafia, for example, would not have been able to extend its reach into Bethesda Naval Hospital to alter X-rays under the control of medical officers of the US Navy, agents of the Secret Service, and the president's personal physician. Neither pro nor anti-Castro Cuban could have substituted another brain for that of JFK. Even if the KGB had an ability to alter films comparable to that of the CIA and Hollywood, it could not have obtained the original of the Zapruder. These findings thus indicate that at least some of those involved had to have been among the nation's highest officials, a result that receives further support from James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008) and Phillip Nelson, LBJ: Mastermind of JFK's Assassination (2010). It is long past time that the American people are entitled to know the truth about the death of our 35th president.



Jim Fetzer, a former Marine Corps officer who earned his Ph.D. in the history and the philosophy of science, is McKnight Professor Emeritus at the Duluth campus of the University of Minnesota. He co-edits assassinationresearch.com with John Costella.