16 Questions On The Assassination
ABC's Simulation: Spectacular Disinformation
Inaugural Address President John F. Kennedy
JFK, The Tramps And 9/11
John F. Kennedy vs The Federal Reserve
John Fitzgerald Kennedy Biography
Luis Posada Carriles' U.S. Asylum Application Re-Opens JFK Unsolved Assassination Case
Marie Muchmore Film Restored
Mossad And The JFK Assassination
National Security Action Memorandum No. 263
Nightmare On Elm Street
November 22, 1963
The Federal Reserve And Executive Order 11110
The Guns Of Dallas
The Long-Withheld Orville Nix Film
Vietnam, the CIA's Illegal Drug Trafficking, and JFK's Assassination
View The Abraham Zapruder Film
Why Nixon Resigned Instead Of Facing Impeachment
has announced a simulation of the death of President John F.
Kennedy will be broadcast as part of a two-hour special on Thursday,
20 November 2003. The study supports the official Warren Commission
conclusion that Lee Oswald acted alone. According to one release,
Dale Myers, an award-winning animator, has spent the past decade
creating a computer-generated reconstruction of the assassination
based upon maps, blueprints, physical measurements, more than
500 photographs, the Zapruder film, and the official autopsy
The program will be narrated by Peter Jennings. "There
has been so much innuendo and presumption in the conspiracy
theories that, on this 40th anniversary of the President's murder,
the subject cries out for review", said Jennings. According
to the program's executive producer, Tom Yellin, "It leaves
no room for doubt!" He calls the results of ABC's study
"enormously powerful. It's irrefutable." Yellin's
declarations, however, leave some room for doubt and raise the
suspicion that this broadcast may actually be an exercise in
disinformation on a spectacular scale.
Even in pure mathematics, proofs are only irrefutable relative
to an assumed set of assumptions. That the interior angles of
a triangle equal 180 degrees, for example, is true in plane
geometry but not in spherical or in hyperbolic. That this program,
which vindicates The Warren Report (1964), is not "irrefutable"
is easy to demonstrate. There were at least two shots from the
front-one of which hit Jack's neck, the other his right temple-and
a shot from behind hit his back about 5 1/2 inches below the
If there were shooters in front and the "magic bullet"
theory--which assumes that the shot to the back hit at the base
of the back of his neck--is false, The Warren Report is not
only "refutable" but has actually been "refuted"!
Even Gerald Ford admitted that he had had the description of
the wound to the back changed to "the base of the back
of the neck", which otherwise destroyed the "magic
bullet" theory before it was launched.
And David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., has taken a CAT scan of a
patient with neck and chest dimensions similar to those of President
Kennedy and has demonstrated that no bullet could have passed
through the neck without hitting any bony structures, as the
"magic bullet" theory requires. So the "magic
bullet" theory is not only false but provably false and
not even anatomically possible--which not only refutes The Warren
Report (1964) but also The House Select Committee on Assassinations
Report (1979) and Gerald Posner's Case Closed (1993), all of
which take the "magic bullet" for granted.
So what's going on here? GI/GO, "garbage in/garbage out",
is an axiom of computer science. A phony "computer reconstruction"
appears as a diagram in Case Closed, but data about the President's
position, the location of the limousine and his wounds' exact
properties are not provided. Indeed, that kind of information
even in grossly inaccurate forms is not to be found in the pages
of this book. Shots to the throat and to the right temple from
in front were widely reported on radio and television that day.
Studies now published in Assassination Science and in Murder
in Dealey Plaza have shown that those reports were correct.
Posner, like the HSCA before him, represents trajectories by
using "cones". So where are the computer reconstruction
"cones" for these shots? If this is indeed a Posnerite
reconstruction, then where is the data on which the reconstruction
is allegedly based? Such a reconstruction has to assume that
the Zapruder film is authentic, that the autopsy report is correct,
and all the rest--hook, line, and sinker.
Any computer reconstruction must be based upon assumptions and
data. What data did Dale Myers assume about the location of
the limousine, the position of the President's body, and the
trajectories based upon the wounds? The limo's location is clearly
up for grabs, especially because of uncertainty about when shots
were even fired. So when were the shots fired, according to
Myers? This is even separate from the possibility that the limo
was some 30-40 feet further down Elm Street, which is discussed
in The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003).
Moreover, Stewart Galanor, Cover-Up (1998), has juxtaposed Warren
Commission drawings of the trajectory with the position of the
President's head in frame 312 of the film, which the government
contends was the last frame before the fatal head shot. When
it is properly oriented, however, the trajectory has a slightly
upward direction, which, given the slop of Elm Street, appears
to be consistent with a shot from the Dal-Tex Building but not
from the Book Depository.
And does anyone think the massive, messy, wound to the head
allowed any precise measurements about the trajectory? Without
them, there can be no calculation of any trajectory and no foundation
for simulation. So the government's own evidence contradicts
the government's own official findings--and provides no foundation
for a "computer reconstruction" of the assassination.
Study the autopsy report, which may be found in Assassination
Science, Appendix F, and tell me where you find the kind of
data that would be required for an "irrefutable computer
reconstruction"? It is not there. And if it is not there,
it does not exist. The fellow who drew the diagrams--H. Rydberg--was
not even allowed to view the body. So his drawings showed whatever
he was instructed to draw. There is no basis here for the kind
of data an accurate computerized reconstruction would require.
What we know now disproves the "magic bullet" theory
on many different grounds. Consider: JFK's jacket shows a bullet
hole about 5 1/2 inches below the collar. His shirt also shows
a bullet hole about 5 1/2 inches below the collar. Autopsy pathologist
J. Thornton Boswell diagrammed a wound about 5 1/2 inches below
the collar-a diagram verified by the President's personal physician.
And FBI Agent James Sibert, who observed the autopsy on behalf
of J. Edgar Hoover, its Director, shows the wound to the back
well below the wound to the throat.
The President's personal physician, moreover, identified a wound
at the same location in his death certificate. The mortician
who prepared the body for burial also describes it. And reenactment
photographs show the President's stand-in with a large, circular
patch about 5 1/2 inches below his collar. And The New York
Times (3 July 1997) reported that Gerald Ford had acknowledged
having the description of the wound moved upward from "the
uppermost back" (which is already an exaggeration) to "the
base of the back of the neck".
If the shot to the back hit about 5 1/2 inches below the collar,
as all of this evidence implies, then it did not hit at the
base of the back of the neck. If it did not hit at the base
of the back of the neck, then the "magic bullet" theory
is false. If the "magic bullet" theory is false, then
the wound to the throat and wounds to Texas Governor John Connally
have to be explained on the basis of other shots and other shooters.
Other shots and other shooters, in turn, imply a conspiracy
to kill the President. That means every study based upon it--including
The Warren Report, The HSCA Report, Case Closed, and ABC's simulations--are
inconsistent with the evidence and cannot be sustained. There
was no magic bullet. Which means there is no foundation for
ABC's computer simulation.
These points reflect the obvious. Any computerized reconstruction
must be based upon a reconstruction. The foundation for this
fantasy is taking The Warren Report itself as the basis for
this simulation. It then becomes painfully apparent why this
computerized simulation matches The Warren Report: it takes
The Warren Report for granted!
Yet The Warren Report suffers from the problems identified above,
which introduce outright falsehoods and uncertainties that are
not even measurable in their magnitude. GI/GO is the right attitude
to adopt about this simulation. ABC has begged the question
by taking for granted the conclusion to its own study. Coming
soon on network TV.
Jim Fetzer, a professor of philosophy, is the editor of Assassination Science (1998), Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), and The Great Zapruder Film Hoax (2003). He has made more than 250 radio talk shows appearances discussing the death of JFK.