"James Fetzer...wrote me on January 23, 2001:...[Quoting
Fetzer:] "What would it take to convince you of the existence of a
conspiracy and cover-up in the death of JFK? .... Are none of our
[Fetzer's and Dr. David Mantik's] major discoveries--our '16 smoking
guns,' for example--convincing? And, if not, why? And, if not, then
WHAT WOULD IT TAKE?" [End Fetzer quote.]

"Only evidence, Drs. Fetzer and Mantik. Only evidence." --



>>> "DVP will continue to run from posting any citations whatsoever. He can't. Bugliosi did *NOT* address the 16 smoking guns, so there's no page number *to* cite." <<<


>>> "Sadly, even though Bugliosi clearly recognized the "16 Smoking Guns", and surely knew that they had to be dealt with - ran in the opposite direction. DVP, Bugliosi's mouthpiece, has lied and stated that Bugliosi *DID* answer the 16 smoking guns, but can't cite it." <<<


>>> "Upon looking over that silly James Fetzer-created list of conjecture and outright lies, it's obvious to anyone who has read "Reclaiming History" that Vincent Bugliosi HAS, indeed, responded to and refuted every single one of those so-called "16 Smoking Guns". .... Why on Earth Ben Holmes thinks Bugliosi hasn't responded to the items on Fetzer's list is anyone's guess. But, then too, it's hard to figure out a CT-Kook from one day to the next. I guess since Vince didn't have a chapter labelled "I'M RESPONDING TO FETZER'S 16 SMOKING GUNS", that must mean to Ben-Kook that VB has IGNORED all of Fetzer's silliness. But VB hasn't ignored those items. They
are all answered very well in various places throughout "Reclaiming History"." <<<


The so-called "16 SMOKING GUNS" (by James H. Fetzer):



Each of Fetzer's supposedly-conspiracy-proving "Smoking Guns" is
discussed and thoroughly dealt with and refuted/debunked within
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 masterwork "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE
this post shortened to "RH".)

Here now are some citations and excerpts from Mr. Bugliosi's book
which directly deal with the above-linked "Smoking Guns"....which are
"Guns" that a Super-Kook named Holmes insists that "Bugliosi did NOT
address" anywhere in "RH":



"[Per the WC and the HSCA] JFK was hit at the base of the back
of his neck by a bullet that traversed his neck without hitting any
bony structures and exited his throat at the level of his tie. [This]
is an anatomical impossibility, because the bullet would have had to
impact bony structures."


"The bruises in the neck region [of JFK]...COULDN'T have been
caused by the tracheotomy because the circulation of blood in the body
was nearly nonexistent at that point. Without blood, there could be no
bruise--that is, there could only be damage to tissue, not
discoloration of the tissue.

"The bruising of the neck muscles and right lung HAD to have
been caused while the president's heart and lungs were still operating
sufficiently to permit a bruise to occur. [Source Note #132 = Dr.
Humes' WC testimony @ 2 H 368.]

"In short, these bruises, which lay along a path between the
president's back and his throat wound, COULD ONLY HAVE OCCURRED PRIOR
to have been made at the time of the shooting), and hence, the damage
found there had to have been the result of a bullet ENTERING THE

"Based on the testimony of Dr. Humes, which was agreed upon by
fellow pathologists Boswell and Finck in the autopsy report, the
Warren Commission concluded that the bullet that entered the
president's back "proceeded in a straight line" on a "downward angle"
through the "soft tissue of the neck," moving in a "slight right to
left lateral direction," hitting "no bony structure" before emerging
in the front of the president's neck. ....

"This conclusion of the Warren Commission on the track of the
bullet was "unanimously" confirmed by all nine of the HSCA's panel of
forensic pathologists, who noted that the straight path of the bullet
was "adjacent to the spine," though not touching it." [Source Note
#134 = 1 HSCA 230-231.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 402


"The autopsy finding as to the track of the bullet that entered
the president's back was buttressed by the HSCA forensic pathology
panel's 1978 examination of the X-rays taken during the autopsy.

"The panel agreed, based largely on consultation with four
radiologists, that X-rays of the president's neck and chest showed
evidence of air and gas shadows in the right side of the neck (likely
a result of air seeping into the bullet track after the tracheotomy
incision was made), as well as a fracture of the right transverse
process (a bony knob protrusion) of the first thoracic vertebra,
located at the base of the neck (1 HSCA 199; JFK Exhibit F-32, 1 HSCA
202-203; JFK Exhibit F-33, 1 HSCA 206; JFK Exhibit F-34, 1 HSCA 211).

"The panel concluded that the fracture of the first thoracic
vertebra could have been caused by the bullet striking it directly or
by the force of the bullet passing very near to it, and the majority
of the panel concluded that the bullet did not strike the vertebral
bone (1 HSCA 305, 317).

"Dr. Baden testified that the X-rays showed "no evidence of any
metal or bone...fragments in the neck area" (1 HSCA 305). Although the
1968 Clark Panel and one member of the 1975 Rockefeller Commission
stated that X-rays showed radiopaque particles (believed to be metal
fragments) left behind by the bullet that passed through the
president's neck, the HSCA forensic pathology panel concluded that
these white particles were, in fact, artifacts caused by dirt getting
into the X-ray cassette or produced during the developing process--a
rather common occurrence (1 HSCA 304-305; ARRB MD 59, Clark Panel
Report, pp.13, 15)." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 244-245 of Endnotes (on CD-



"The head shot trajectory is inconsistent with the position of
[President Kennedy's] head at the time of the shot."


"A straight line was...drawn between the entrance and exit
wounds [on JFK's head] and extended rearward from Kennedy's position
in the limousine at Z312. [Thomas] Canning found that line tracked
back to a point approximately eleven feet west of the southeast corner
of the Texas School Book Depository Building and fifteen feet above
the sixth-floor windowsill. [Source Note #224 = 6 HSCA 41.] -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 500


"Rydberg's drawing of Kennedy's head tilted sharply downward (CE
388, 16 H 984) is not compatible with the orientation of Kennedy's
head at Zapruder frames 312 and 313 (the moment of the shot to the
head). .... The HSCA's drawing of the president's head orientation at
frames 312 and 313 (7 HSCA 126) is closer to the actual orientation."
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 257 of Endnotes



"The weapon, which was not even a rifle [??? LOL], could not
have fired the bullets that killed the president."

[DVP Interjection --- This "Smoking Gun" is so incredibly stupid and
ridiculous it doesn't even amount to a wet sparkler. But, I'll deal
with it anyway. Bugliosi, in various places throughout his book,
easily refutes this third of Fetzer's silly "Guns", particularly
within Chapters 6 and 7, entitled "Oswald's Ownership And Possession
Of The Rifle Found On The Sixth Floor" and "Identification Of The
Murder Weapon".]


"I hate to reduce myself to talking about such silliness, but if
Oswald wasn't the one who fired his Carcano that day...wouldn't the
automatic and natural thing for him to say be, "Yes, that's of course
my rifle, but some SOB stole it from me about a week or so ago. You
find the person who stole it from me and you'll find the person who
killed the president." Instead, Oswald told one lie after another
about his own rifle because he knew, of course, that it was the murder
weapon." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 815



"The [Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets, which were standard copper-
jacketed World War II-vintage military ammunition, could not have
caused the explosive damage. .... This kind of ammunition...does not
explode. .... [An] X-ray of the President's head (the image of his
head taken from the side), however, displays a pattern of metallic
debris as effects of the impact of an exploding bullet, which could
not have been caused by ammunition of the kind Oswald was alleged to
have used, thereby exonerating him."


"Dr. Charles Petty of the HSCA forensic pathology panel
responded to Dr. Wecht's frangible-bullet theory in his testimony
before the committee. [Quoting Petty:] "I happen to be the coauthor of
the only paper that has ever been written about the wounding
capabilities of frangible bullets. .... Such bullets and the breakup
products of [these] bullets are easy to detect in X-rays. There are no
such fragments in the X-ray of the late president's head. There was no
frangible bullet fired. I might also add that frangible bullets are
produced in .22 caliber loads and they are not produced [for] larger
weapons." [End Petty quote.]

"In fact, all eight of Dr. Wecht's colleagues on the HSCA
forensic pathology panel rejected his frangible-bullet hypothesis as
well as any hypothesis concerning a bullet striking the president's
head in the area of the exit wound [i.e., in the right-front portion
of JFK's head]. ....

"Additionally, the HSCA's wound ballistics expert, Larry
Sturdivan, concluded that the bullet was not a frangible one. [Source
Note #14 = 1 HSCA 401.]

"Dr. James Humes also dismissed the frangible-bullet theory for
the head wound. [Quoting Humes:] "Had this wound...been inflicted by a
dumdum [frangible] bullet, I would anticipate that the [wound] would
not have anything near the regular contour and outline which it
had" [End Baden quote]." [Source Note #15 = Dr. Humes' WC testimony @
2 H 356.] -- V. Bugliosi; Page 863



"The axis of metallic debris [in JFK's head] is inconsistent
with a shot from behind, but consistent with a shot that entered the
area of the right temple."


"When I also reminded Dr. Wecht that the autopsy X-rays of the
president's head did not show any metallic fragments from a bullet
proceeding from the right side of Kennedy's head to the left, only
from the back to the front, he conceded this was another problem with
the theory postulating a shot from the president's right side." -- V.
Bugliosi; Page 863



"The official autopsy report was contradicted by more than 40
eyewitness reports and was inconsistent with HSCA diagrams and


"Dr. Michael Baden has what I believe to be the answer, one
whose logic is solid. [Quoting Baden:] "The head exit wound was not in
the parietal-occipital area, as the Parkland doctors said. They were
wrong," [Baden] told me. "Since the thick growth of hair on Kennedy's
head hadn't been shaved at Parkland, there's no way for the doctors to
have seen the margins of the wound in the skin of the scalp. All they
saw was blood and brain tissue adhering to the hair. And that may have
been mostly in the occipital area because he was lying on his back and
gravity would push his hair, blood, and brain tissue backward, so many
of them probably assumed the exit wound was in the back of the
head" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 407-408


"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the

"It also destroys another prime conspiracy belief--that the
eyewitness descriptions of the president's wounds that were offered by
the Parkland Hospital doctors (and later by some eyewitnesses to the
autopsy) are proof that the autopsy photographs had been altered.

"Obviously, if the autopsy photographs are genuine and unaltered
(which all the experts agree), then eyewitness descriptions of the
president's wounds that contradict those photographs are not proof of
alteration, as some critics claim, but nothing more than examples of
understandable, mistaken recollections, or if not that, then
deliberate and outright falsehoods." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of


"On the Ida Dox drawing of the autopsy photograph of the back of
the president's head showing the entrance wound (see 7 HSCA 104), the
numbers on the ruler are not visible, even with a magnifying glass,
but the entrance wound does not seem to be four inches above where I
would imagine the external occipital protuberance was on the
president's head, and does not appear as high up as the round black
circle signifying the entrance wound on the HSCA sketch (see 1 HSCA 406).

"It may be that the location of the entrance wound was somewhere
between where the autopsy surgeons and the later pathologists said it
was. But if, indeed, the autopsy surgeons were correct on the lower
location of the head entrance wound, how this would affect the
trajectory analyses, and be compatible with the minute missile
fragments traversing on a line from back to front higher up on the
head, is beyond my knowledge and expertise.

"However, we mustn't forget that since the president's head was
inclined slightly forward at the time of the head shot, a bullet
traveling on a downward trajectory would be proceeding on a higher
path, anatomically, through the president's head. (See discussion on
this issue in main text with respect to the president's back wound.)"
-- V. Bugliosi; Page 231 of Endnotes



"These eyewitness reports were rejected on the basis of the X-
rays, which have been fabricated in at least two different ways."

"RH" BOOK CITATION (Replay from above):

"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any
manner" (7 HSCA 41)." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 224 of Endnotes



"Diagrams and photos of a brain in the National Archives are of
the brain of someone other than JFK."

[DVP Interjection --- This "Gun" is yet another incredibly-stupid one,
with absolutely zero granules of truth in it whatsoever, and is a
theory that should make anyone purporting it turn various shades of
crimson due to the embarrassment at having even written it down.

Mr. Bugliosi handily and humorously (and with ample citations to
testimony from Humes, Boswell, Finck, and other sources), deals with
the "Two Brains" idiocy on pages 434 to 447 of the main text in "RH";
and pages 282 to 287 of the CD's endnotes. A few excerpts follow.....]


"Easily one of the most obscenely irresponsible documents ever
promulgated in the assassination debate, and yet one whose contention
is being hailed and widely accepted today in the conspiracy community,
is the one written by Douglas P. Horne, the ARRB's chief analyst for
military records. ....

"Unbelievably, Horne said that the depositions taken by the ARRB
caused him to conclude that there were two (not one) supplemental
brain examinations following the autopsy, and the second one--are you
ready?--wasn't on the president's brain, but on another brain from
some anonymous third party. ....

"Now why would Humes and Boswell, who testified that there was
only one supplementary brain exam, have conducted a second one of a
different brain?

"Of course, Horne has an answer, in effect accusing Humes and
Boswell of being a part of a vast conspiracy to cover up the true
facts of the assassination. ....

"Horne does his best to protect his credibility on his
memorandum by burying in a footnote near the very end of it some
information that severely damages the credibility of his star witness,
autopsy photographer John Stringer. (But it's too late. There is
nothing that can possibly restore the credibility of Doug Horne for
the main conclusions he sets forth in the body of his memorandum.)" --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 434-435, 439, and 441



"Those who took and processed the autopsy photographs claim that
parts of the photographic record have been altered, created, or

"RH" BOOK CITATIONS (with many more conspiracy-smashing cites
concerning this sub-topic to be found on pages 260-280 of the CD's

"What does Doug Horne conclude from all of this? For Horne, the
implications are staggering. If the navy was correct in saying that
the camera it provided "was indeed the camera used at the
autopsy" (the navy only said the camera was "believed to be" the
autopsy camera), then either, he says, (1) all the autopsy photographs
are authentic and were indeed taken by John Stringer, and a benign but
unknown explanation exists for why the HSCA photographic experts
believed the autopsy photographs could not have been taken by the navy
camera they examined (e.g., the lens of the camera used to take the
photographs was different from the 135-millimeter Zeiss Jena Tessar
lens supplied by the navy)...

"...or (2) many or all of the autopsy photographs were taken by
a photographer other than John Stringer, and the photographs Stringer
said he took were removed from the official autopsy photographic
collection (Doug Horne's memorandum for file, pp.5-6).

"This second possibility is apparently meant to conjure up
images of a mysterious, unknown photographer shooting a second set of
autopsy photographs after the autopsy was completed (a set of images
that presumably concealed the true nature of the president's wounds),
which were then substituted for the official set of photographs taken
by Stringer.

"Horne's memo suggests that the latter is true (i.e., the
autopsy photographs are substitutes, taken by someone other than
Stringer). But this suggestion makes absolutely no sense at all.

"We know through stereoscopic analysis that the photographs in
evidence (even if they are substitute photographs of the autopsy taken
by someone other than Stringer) are authentic and unaltered. We also
know from the HSCA anthropologists and the odontologist that the skull
is that of John F. Kennedy.

"What this all means is that irrespective of the camera and
lens, whatever the photographs show must be the true condition of the
president's body at the time of the autopsy. Since the photographs
clearly show that the president was struck from behind by two bullets,
what possible purpose could be served by substituting or removing
photographs? Neither Horne nor [Gary] Aguilar say.

"The authentication of the existing photographic collection
eliminates the possibility that any photographs that might have
disappeared from the collection, either by removal or by substitution,
could show anything other than what we now see.

"After all, there was only one body and the wounds in that body
either show that shots were fired from the front or they don't, no
matter how many photographs are substituted or removed. Surprisingly,
this obvious fact seems to have escaped the conspiracy theorists." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 226-227 of Endnotes


"There are several other tales of photographs allegedly taken
during the autopsy that critics claim have since vanished, but I
should emphasize that even if these alleged missing photographs exist
somewhere (or did exist at one time), they can't possibly show
something that contradicts what we already know to be true about the
president's wounds.

"How do we know this? Again, simply by virtue of the fact that
the autopsy photographs and X-rays that are available are authentic
and unaltered and depict the condition of President Kennedy's body on
the night of the autopsy. So, any additional photographs or X-rays
that might exist (or might have existed) can't depict something else.

"Therefore, when someone comes forward with a story about
photographs that supposedly showed something other than what we know
to be true (i.e., the president was struck from behind by two shots),
we know, of necessity, that the person telling the story is either
honestly mistaken or deliberately lying. One hundred or one thousand
sworn testimonies about missing photographs would not change this
unshakable truth.

"One of these other tales that critics are convinced is evidence
of a completely different (and unusual) set of autopsy photographs was
told by Saundra Spencer, an E-6 photographer's mate first class who
was in charge of the White House photo lab, a small room located
inside the three-story facilities of the Naval Photographic Center
(NPC) at Anacostia, Maryland, across the river from Washington,
D.C. ....

"Spencer said that none of the photos showed the scalp peeled
back on the skull. Also, unlike the photographs in the National
Archives inventory today, Spencer said that the president's eyes and
mouth were closed and that he appeared to be in "a rest position."
Spencer said that other than the wound to the back of the president's
head, she saw no other wound to the head. "The prints that we printed
did not have the massive head damages" shown in the official autopsy
photos. ....

"Spencer's testimony, of course, has raised the question in the
conspiracy community of whether there was a second set of photographs
taken of Kennedy's body at the time of the autopsy (a set conspiracy
theorists presume showed the "true" nature of the president's wounds)
and that this second set was squirreled away as part of the cover-
up. ....

"But was Spencer's testimony accurate? For starters, keep in
mind that Spencer's recollection of events was thirty-four years after
the fact. But more importantly, her recollection is at odds with
almost the entire official record. While the official autopsy
photographs were processed, as Spencer remembered, at the NPC, the
rest of the documentary record details a completely different and
rather divergent series of events which, I think you'll agree, is
quite unlike Spencer's account. ....

"In this case, like many others where eyewitnesses are
confronted with hard documentary or physical evidence, Saundra
Spencer's memory is no match for the facts. We know she's wrong when
she says the photographs she saw show a "blownout chunk" in the center
of the back of the president's head.

"Why? Because apart from the observations of all three autopsy
surgeons, the official autopsy photographs and X-rays conclusively,
and without question, depict the body of President Kennedy at the time
of the autopsy and show none of what Spencer described. ....

"[Robert L.] Knudsen's version of events has been tarnished as
well. .... In May 1996, Gloria Knudsen, widow of Knudsen, and two of
his four surviving children were interviewed by the ARRB. .... They
said that Robert Knudsen told them sometime after the assassination
that he alone had photographed the autopsy.

"Knudsen also told them that he witnessed and photographed
probes inserted in the president's body, and that the Secret Service
took his film as soon as he had exposed it. (ARRB MD 230, Meeting
Report, Interview of Gloria Knudsen and children Terri and Bob, May
13, 1996, p.1)" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 263-266, 268, and 272 of



"The Zapruder film, among others, has been extensively edited
using highly sophisticated techniques."

[DVP Interjection --- Bugliosi spends a good deal of time and devotes
quite a few pages to the "Z-Film Alteration" nonsense. Here are the
"RH" page numbers associated with the "Zapruder Film Fakery" topic:
Pages 452 and 504 through 512 of the main text in the hardcover book;
plus Pages 347 and 348 through 359 of the CD's endnotes. Excerpts


"The conspiracy alterationists are so incredibly zany that they
have now gone beyond their allegation that key frames of the Zapruder
film were altered by the conspirators to support their false story of
what took place, to claiming that the conspirators altered all manner
of people and objects in Dealey Plaza that couldn't possibly have any
bearing on the president's murder. ....

"The alterationists have even claimed that at some point after
the assassination, all the curbside lampposts in Dealey Plaza were
moved to different locations and/or replaced with poles of different
height. .... I know that conspiracy theorists have a sweet tooth for
silliness, but is there absolutely nothing that is too silly for their
palate?" -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 506-507


"Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that some supersecret
technology did exist in 1963, when would the conspirators have
accomplished all these tasks? Not even the conspiracy theorists who
hold to the alteration theory agree on a time frame. ....

"As set forth in the main text, the master or original Zapruder
film never left the physical possession of [Abraham] Zapruder until
some time after 9:00 a.m. in his office, on Saturday, November 23,
1963, the day after the assassination. .... So we see that the
original Zapruder film, which the forgers would have had to have as a
sine qua non to their alteration plans, was never out of the physical
possession of Abraham Zapruder and Life magazine during the period
when the alteration supposedly took place. ....

"One exception among the steadily increasing number of
alterationists is David Lifton, who acknowledges that "it is
implausible, if not impossible, to believe that, if the Zapruder film
was altered, that other films were not also altered...the complete
photo record had to be altered, not just one record [the Zapruder
film]" (David W. Lifton, "Pig on a Leash, a Question of Authenticity,"
in Fetzer, Great Zapruder Film Hoax, p.416).

"But then Lifton, who had written in numbing detail about the
complexities of altering the Zapruder film and where it was altered,
doesn't go on to write one paragraph, one sentence, or even one word
about the forgers actually coming into possession of all or any one of
these other films, and where and when they altered them. I can't
imagine why he didn't." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 352, 356-357, and 359 of



"The official conclusion contradicts widely-broadcasted reports
on radio and television about two shots fired from the front."

[DVP Interjection --- Here are the "RH" page numbers that focus
attention on the allegation of "SHOTS FIRED FROM GRASSY KNOLL":

Main Text: Pages xxii, xxxv, 377, 380, 390, 394, 398, 406, 412,
439-440, 445, 483, 506, 1003, 1004, 1005, and 1057-1058.

Endnotes: Pages 18, 153, 236, 250, 313-314, 331, and 345.

Many additional pages, mainly between pages 847 and 887 of the main
text, cover the sub-topic of "WITNESSES AND THE GRASSY KNOLL".]


"If, indeed, a fourth shot was fired that day, why did only 6
witnesses hear four shots according to two studies and only 8
witnesses according to another, whereas the vast majority of witnesses
heard only three shots? .... If you had to wager your home on who is
right, whose opinion would you endorse? Can there really be any
question? ....

"[And] if a second gunman was firing at the presidential
limousine that day from the grassy knoll, why is it that only 4 of
[Josiah] Thompson's 172 witnesses, 4 of the HSCA's 178, and 5 of
London Weekend Television's 189 thought they heard bullets being fired
from two directions?" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 849



"The (fabricated) X-rays, (altered) autopsy photographs, and
even the (edited) Zapruder film were improperly used to discredit
eyewitness reports."

[DVP Interjection --- This twelfth idiotic "Gun" has already been
covered thoroughly via the cites for "Guns" numbered 7, 9, and 10.

Since it's been proven beyond all possible doubt that NONE of the
things Kook Fetzer claims have been "fabricated", "altered", and/or
"edited" have actually been fabricated, altered, or edited, this 12th
"Gun" is a moot (and worthless) item....just like all 15 of the others
too, for that matter.]


"The reality is that even today, it is highly doubtful that any
of the most modern technological advances available in film and
photography could do what the buffs said was done [to the Zapruder
Film] over four decades ago. It unquestionably could not have been
done back then. ....

"But all of this is irrelevant, since the NPIC [National
Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, D.C.] was not
equipped...to duplicate any kind of color motion picture film, which
the Zapruder 8-millimeter home movie was. Over the course of well over
40 years, no evidence has ever emerged to dispute this fact." -- V.
Bugliosi; Pages 352 and 355 of Endnotes



"The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and yet the
assassination occurred on the part that had been changed."

[DVP Interjection --- Why Mr. Fetzer still believes in this ridiculous
conspiracy myth is anyone's guess. But, it is indeed difficult at
times to figure out the mindset of an "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy


"On Tuesday, November 19, 1963, three days before the shooting,
the Dallas Morning News described the route as passing through
downtown Dallas on "Harwood to Main, Main to Houston, Houston to Elm,
Elm under the Triple Underpass to Stemmons Expressway and on to the
Trade Mart" (CE 1363, 22 H 615). The afternoon Dallas Times Herald
provided a nearly identical description the same day (CE 1362, 22 H

"However, on the morning of the assassination, the Dallas
Morning News published a map of the route which seemed to show the
motorcade entering the freeway from Main Street, without making the
jog north on Houston to Elm, then west on Elm, past the Depository, to
Stemmons Freeway (Dallas Morning News, November 22, 1963, p.1A). (It
was this map that led some to believe that the motorcade route had
been changed when, in fact, the map was simply inaccurate in its
detail.)" -- V. Bugliosi; Page 460 of Endnotes



"Secret Service policies for the protection of the President
were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas."


"The Fromme, Moore, and Hinkley [sic] cases [referring to the
two 1975 assassination attempts against Gerald Ford and John
Hinckley's 1981 attempt against Ronald Reagan] are far more egregious
examples of a lack of adequate Secret Service protection than the
Kennedy assassination, yet the conspiracy theorists remain silent
about them.

"Although there is absolutely no evidence that the Secret
Service was involved in the assassination, its performance left
something to be desired, the HSCA concluding that "the Secret Service
was deficient in the performance of its duties."

"Warren Commission assistant counsel Arlen Specter put it
better: "The Secret Service had the responsibility to protect the
president and they did not protect the president." -- V. Bugliosi;
Page 1245



"Neither the Mafia, pro- or anti-Castro Cubans, or the KGB could
have fabricated autopsy X-rays; substituted the brain of someone else
for the brain of JFK; created, altered, or destroyed autopsy
photographs; or subjected motion pictures, such as the Zapruder film,
to extensive editing using highly sophisticated techniques. Nor could
any of these things have been done by the alleged assassin, Lee
Oswald, who was either incarcerated or already dead. The only theories
that are remotely plausible, given these evidentiary findings, are
those that implicate various elements of the government. It was a
crime of such monstrous proportions and immense consequences that the
clearly most reasonable explanation is that elements of the government
covered up the crime because those same elements of the government
committed the crime."

[DVP Interjection --- Once again, Fetzer's redundancy factor rears its
ugly (and unsupportable) head. These "fabricated", "substituted", and
"altered" issues have already been tackled earlier on Fetzer's
"Smokers" list.

But I guess if the CTer repeats the same unprovable allegation two or
three different times, it's supposed to acquire additional validity.
But these things, of course, are all still "misfires" from Mr.
Fetzer's supposedly-smoldering conspiracy gun. A few bonus conspiracy-
debunking VB quotes follow.....]


"The single most important discovery, and one that establishes
with absolute and irrefutable certainty that the autopsy photographs
have not been altered, is the fact that many of the photographs, when
combined in pairs, produce stereoscopic images. ....

"The only way a forger can successfully alter a detailed
stereoscopic image...without detection is to alter both images
identically, which is, [photographic expert and HSCA panel member
Frank] Scott said, "essentially impossible." ....

"The entire photographic panel of the HSCA concluded that "the
autopsy photographs and X-rays were taken of President Kennedy at the
time of his autopsy and that they had not been altered in any manner."
This fact alone demolishes the conspiracy theorists' allegations that
photographic fakery was used to conceal the plot to kill the
president." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 223-224 of Endnotes


"For years conspiracy theorists have charged that the "missing"
autopsy photographs are, in their minds, one more indication of a
conspiracy in the assassination. .... But...with literally hundreds of
people from various official investigative agencies...examining and
working with the photos throughout the years, I not only don't find it
suspicious, I find it completely predictable that one or more
photographs ended up missing, misplaced, or expropriated by people
through whose hands they passed." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 275 of Endnotes


"The president's brain did not lose much brain matter. .... As
[Dr. Michael] Baden said in his [HSCA] testimony, the [Ida Dox]
diagram "represents extensive damage and injury to the right top of
the brain." Note the words "damage and injury" as opposed to saying a
large part of the brain was "missing." And, indeed, the autopsy report
says nothing about any significant part of the brain being
missing. ....

"[Baden said:] "Basically, the president's whole brain was still
there. The right hemisphere was severely damaged and torn, but less
than an ounce or two of his brain was actually missing from the
cranial cavity" [End Baden quote]." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 283-284 of


"The notion that LBJ would actually decide to have Kennedy
murdered (or be a party to such a plot by others) is not one that, to
my knowledge, any rational and sensible student of the assassination
has ever entertained for a moment. But conspiracy theorists are not
rational and sensible when it comes to the Kennedy assassination." --
V. Bugliosi; Pages 1274-1275


"No one, ever, has produced one piece of evidence connecting
[FBI Director] J. Edgar Hoover with Kennedy's death, and your more
responsible conspiracy theorists don't devote any space to the charge.
Indeed, the very thought that J. Edgar Hoover decided to murder
President John F. Kennedy is too far-fetched for any but the most
suspicious and irrational minds." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1238


"Since it has been established beyond all doubt that Oswald
killed Kennedy, the conspiracy theorists who propound the idea of the
CIA being behind Oswald's act are necessarily starting out in a very
deep hole before they even take their first breath of air. This is so
because Oswald was a Marxist, and a Marxist being in league with U.S.
intelligence just doesn't ring true." -- V. Bugliosi; Page 1195


"Even if it could be shown that the Secret Service was
responsible for the selection of the luncheon site and the motorcade
route [which was not the case for JFK's trip to Dallas in 1963], the
notion that the Secret Service was behind the assassination is, like
virtually all the conspiracy theories, ridiculous on its face.

"What conceivable motive would the Secret Service have had? In
fact, even if Secret Service agents got away with it, it would only
hurt their individual careers in the Secret Service that the president
had been killed on their watch." -- V. Bugliosi; Pages 1241-1242



"Many individuals knew details about the assassination before
and after the fact, all of whom viewed Lee Oswald as no more [than] a


"The more Joseph Milteer talked, the more it became obvious that
before the assassination, he knew as much about what was going to
happen as you or I (though William Somersett tended to believe that
Milteer had foreknowledge, not believing Milteer would be able to
guess that Kennedy would be shot with a rifle from a window).

"Milteer now, after the assassination, wanted to lead Somersett
to believe that he was part of the group that was behind it. He said
he was connected to a group Somersett had never heard of, the
International Underground, an organization, he said, of American
patriots, and this group had infiltrated Oswald's pro-Castro group in
New Orleans. (By now Milteer had undoubtedly already heard over the
news that Oswald was a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in
New Orleans. What no one knew at this point, including Milteer, was
that that committee, or group, only had one member, Oswald, so
Milteer's organization could not have infiltrated a group that did not
exist.) ....

"When Milteer and Somersett met the following day, Sunday, with
the four members of the Ku Klux Klan...he also told them about his
group being behind the assassination. ....

"Somersett was of the opinion that the four Klansmen had never
met Milteer before and met with him because he had asked for the
meeting. So here we have Milteer confessing to being part of the
conspiracy to murder Kennedy not only to his friend Somersett, but
also to four virtual strangers.

"Somersett didn't say whether or not he heard Milteer confess to
the waiter at the restaurant." [~LOL Break~] -- V. Bugliosi; 724-725
of Endnotes

[DVP Interjection --- Also see "RH" Pages 1265-1272 for lots more
debunking of the "Joseph Milteer Knew About The Assassination In
Advance" theory.

Bugliosi's book also contains ample cites regarding Santo Trafficante,
Carlos Marcello, Johnny Roselli, and Sam Giancana (among others of
this "Gangster/Mob" ilk) and the various conspiracy theories that
those individuals have been implicated in.



When all is said and done (and evaluated), James H. Fetzer's sixteen
"Smoking Guns" have very little (if any) firepower behind them at all
when compared with the hard evidence that is presented in massive
doses in "RECLAIMING HISTORY" by author and former Los Angeles
prosecutor Vincent T. Bugliosi.

In fact, "substance"-wise, I don't think it's unreasonable to say that
Mr. Fetzer's 16 "Smoking Guns" have gone....up in smoke.

David Von Pein
April 2008