<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful, balanced account.
Review: Excellent account of issues related to the contents and implications of the Zapruder film to the assassination investigation. Dr. Wrone does an admirable job of building on existing research without being derivative or cumulative. Researchers must take the findings of the book seriously. Agree or disagree, the evidence must be considered by future researchers and historians.
Rating: 
Summary: Then Who Did It?
Review: I don't believe the Zapruder film, even as Wrone shows us where it was from the moment it was created, was edited by other hands, however, there is a possibility that the people at TIME LIFE did so. Certainly the frames damaged during processing have made a lot of people suspicious over the years.
Wrong writes carefully and skillfully, but he seems to go slightly ballistic when one or another of his King Charles' Heads are mentioned. Jim Garrison for example--or the film Oliver Stone made of Garrison's book. You can feel the steam heat arising off the pages of THE ZAPRUDER FILM when either of these subjects is mentioned. It's a little comical.
I also question why, if he's so convinced that Oswald is completely innocent, then why oh why doesn't he tell us who he thinks is guilty? Maybe he doesn't want to offend either the left or right wing of this country? Or maybe the killer is still a powerful force in our nation today (or his children are) and he, Wrone, is afraid of him? Many skeptics and believers have used the disparaging nickname, "Wrong," instead of "Wrone," to sum up what they feel about his thinking and his conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: good, not-so-good points made
Review: I've followed the assassination from day 1, have read countless books on it---including the Warren commission and Posner---and so, if I come away from a 'new' book feeling I've indeed learned something new, then that book is good-to-excellent. Wrone's book *did* provide new insights that I thought were excellent; for example, a careful reconstruction of Oswald's movements before and during the crime taking into account the so called 'new' evidence which argues he could very well have done all that was alleged in the time frame originally posited by the Warren commission; the deposition of multiple lead fragments not consistent with the several grains of weight lost from the so-called "magic bullet" which was predominantly copper jacketed; the really ambiguous circumstances of how the bullet was found and the chain of custody with which it was passed on through and many other interesting points. However, there were very critical issues ignored and key eyewitness accounts not quoted which suggest the authors' lack of thoroughness and the same old pro-conspiracy conjecture which has marred serious debate of this subject in recent years.
For example, Wrone makes the old argument that a bullet which entered Kennedy's back could not possibly have exited his throat. Unfortunately, a careful review of Kennedy's actual back wound suggests a bullet could very well have lined up perfectly with the proposed wound of exit in Kennedy's throat---in an area which is in the lower third of his neck. One need only visit the JFK Assassination Homepage and examine the left profile of Kennedy lying in death to see how such a trajectory could very well line up. In fact, using Kennedy's ear as a point of reference, a diagram (same homepage) pinpoints the alleged back entry wound and its subsequent exit---again using the post mortem left profile view. One can clearly see that a bullet could have traversed both men as the Warren Commission indeed postulated.
Other speculations loom. For example, Wrone cites the alignment of both victims in the motorcade to refute new assertions that photographic evidence shows Connally to be seated far more to the left of Kennedy (thus accomodating a single bullet path). Wrone stipulates that the photos only show an *earlier* seating alignment of the men and this is supposed to solidly refute the actual seating during the shooting. However, Wrone is trying to prove a negative with another negative; it simply doesn't offer hard proof positive that Connally wasn't still sitting to the left during the shooting sequence.
A more problematic example is Wrone's assertion that for the single bullet to have left "lead" fragments, it *must have* entered Connally in such a way that the bullet turned and the butt end went through part of the torso (since the sides and nose of the bullet were primarily copper and undamaged). However, this 'must have' allusion shows either real or feigned ignorance by the author. The fact is, Connally's back wound was completely consistent with a tumbling bullet---the wound measuring 3cm vertically or the exact length of the bullet itself---a point that Wrone doesn't even address; that this fact could also have explained some of the deposition of lead framgents should have been clearly examined by Wrone. More significant, that a bullet doesn't tumble unless it strikes something first raises serious questions about what, in fact, the single bullet did strike before entering Connally's back; the only object in its path was Kennedy and this presents a serious challenge to the single bullet critics. Incidentally, new tests do show that a bullet fired through bone and other dense objects can emerge in "pristeen" condition when the muzzle velocity is reduced---an assertion that modern critics are now making.
If you're going to write a pro-conspiracy book, you'd better include ALL the evidence both pro and con; Wrone does a fairly good job of presenting detailed evidence of the pros even though here, there are still lapses such as the failure to mention Roger Craig's testimony of having found a German Mauzer in the book depository, or Audrey Bell's eyewitness description of 4 or 5 bullet fragments taken from Connally. But the biggest problem is that Wrone clings to the same old, and in some cases outdated, assertions to dispel the newest computerized and digitalized bullet trajectory assessments, and this suggests either sloppy research, or a bias---neither of which will ever contribute to a better understanding of the JFK puzzle, one way or another.
Rating:
Summary: Good Acount of events
Review: It's hard to imagine this book having been written by a professional historian. If this author is going to write about other issues concerning the JFK assassination other than the Zapruder film, I think it would have been appropriate to include the historical background.
Most people interested in the assassination are usually aware of the critical importance of the historical situation surrounding JFK's death. I'm referring specifically to the Cold War, the formation and rise to power of the CIA, the Cuban problem, etc.
This author, for example, does not bother to inform his readership what it already knows, that is, that C. D. Jackson of Time/Life, apparently so "powerful" a man that the Warren Commission was not able to use its subpoena capabilities to retrieve the Zapruder film he so carefully pulled from public viewing, was a CIA asset. Any reader of the literature knows this, and knows exactly what this means. So what's wrong with Wrone? Is he one, too?
Rating:
Summary: Evidence for Conspiracy
Review: The author is a professor of history who taught courses on the JFK assassination for over 20 years. His close examination of the Zapruder film refutes the "lone gunman" and "single bullet" theories. The film provides a precise timeline of events and clues for the timing, number, origins, and impact of the shots. Using other key photos, the author builds a case to refute the Warren Report. More than three shots were fired from more than one location. Lee Harvey Oswald was not guilty as an assassin. The author was assisted by the voluminous archives of Harold Weisberg. David R. Wrone concludes JFK was killed by a conspiracy, but cannot identify the conspirators (p.1). But this is too little and too late, since others have written books much earlier. If their conclusions differ, that reflects their points of view, and the lack of incontrovertible proof. This cover-up implies high-level conspirators in Government and the Establishment. Wrone hopes that scholars who defend the Warren Report would reconsider; this naively assumes they are free to think for themselves. The existence of conspiracies is well known in just American history (p.2).
The Zapruder film disproves the official story of the assassination, and establishes that multiple riflemen killed JFK (pp.47-48). The explosion of JFK's head is incompatible with hardened military ammunition. One of the foremost ballistic experts disagreed with the "single bullet" theory (p.87). A powerful corporation bought this film and controlled its release to the public. Wrone tells what was wrong with a "Scientific test" that was government funded (p.103). Was there another rifleman (p.105)? Wrone criticizes David Lifton's "Best Evidence" and its altered body (pp.136-137). Since the wounds seen at Parkland hospital differed from the wounds seen at Bethesda, alteration was a likely assumption. But switching to a body double was a more practical solution. J. Edgar Hoover immediately claimed a lone assassin (p.143). Mark North's "Act of Treason" can explain why.
The Warren Commission manipulated the evidence to arrive at a predetermined solution (p.149). The murder of Oswald closed the case and kept the secrets. The corporate media bore a large responsibility for the acceptance of the Warren Report (p.150). The Bronson film does not show Oswald in the assassin's window, or anybody else (p.153). So too does the Hughes film (p.155). Chapter 11 is the most important, as it proves Oswald was innocent. The AEC confirmed Oswald did not fire a rifle or a pistol (p.172). Jim Garrison's "On the Trail of the Assassins" was the basis for Oliver Stone's dramatic film "JFK". It seems more credible than the "single bullet" theory (pp.205-210). Chapter 15 discusses the problems with CE399 (p.211). The origin of CE399 is a mystery (pp.224-227). Chapter 16 reveals the dissent over the "single bullet" theory (p.259=8), and against the propaganda campaign in the media (p.257).
Chapter 17 is a long argument to confiscate private property without payment. Wrone claims this would reinforce the "principles of a truly democratic society"! This perverted reasoning would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment. Another big mistake is the failure to list George O'Toole's "The Assassination Tapes". This 1975 book presented objective physical evidence that questioned Oswald's guilt, and may have led to the Congressional investigation that reopened the case. I dislike his haughtiness towards earlier writers who had less experience.
Rating: 
Summary: Hope this book isn't a joke
Review: The author of this book appears to have the same godawful approach to his prospective reader as the immortal Gerald Posner himself, a truly amazing and condescending approach that seems to suggest that you don't know nuttin' unless you get it from me, that crazy Orwellian approach that makes you think you are some sort of empty vessel that anybody can pour their nonsense into, because you somehow are expected to believe that because it's in print, it must be true.
It's part of the madness of those who killed Kennedy to allow an official autopsy photograph to be finally released which shows the back of the president's head to be intact, when a secret service agent named Clint Hill, for example, claimed he thought that the back of the president's head was blown away. Actually, more than forty people, at last count, described what they thought was a large hole in the back of the president's head. Yet the author claims there was no such hole. I guess when you get to be a history professor, you get to become a little god, and you can get away with your madness (nutty perfesser syndrome) in the classroom. Were they laughing behind his back at his assassination lectures? They should have been.
Also finally released was a fake x-ray which shows that the right front of the president's head was blown away. The doctors who treated Kennedy at Parkland Memorial agreed to a person that the face was intact. So what is this author trying to do? Is he as crazy as the jokers who would try to fob off their silly hoaxes on to a gullible public. Apparently so.
I just wonder what foundation or other is supplying him with their monthly checks. Or does he have direct deposit at some off-shore account somewhere?
Rating:
Summary: Part of the cover up?
Review: The noted assassination researcher Harrison Livingstone has suggested in one of his later books that he thought the government of this country has co-opted the Kennedy assassination research community. In flipping through this total nonsense book, one can readily understand what he was referring to.
Anyone who has any grasp of the essential facts in this case understands what Wrone has done using his slippery command of the language.
I would suggest to the professor that he take his "evidential base" and publish a second book, even if it wouldn't fit on one whole sheet of toilet paper.
What has happened to this country, when people like this have grown up in it?
Rating:
Summary: Good book but lacking in areas
Review: This book is a very good addition to the library of JFK Assassination literature. For the first time that I know of, the custody of the Zapruder film has been carefully documented and researched as well as other topics like CE-399 (The Magic Bullet.) David Wrone uses the Zapruder film and good old common sense to quickly dismiss of Gerald Posner and the Single Bullet Theory. He also satisfactorially addresses the two topics keeping conspiracy believers from progressing with the case. One being the Zapruder alteration Fetzer people and the other being the Greer-did-it scenario. Both of which are pretty rediculous when viewing good quality copies of the film. Also, I'm glad somebody finally put the Umbrella-was-a-dart-gun theory into the trash bin where it belongs.But this isn't to say the book is perfect. The author picks on many authors from Jim Marrs, Jim Garrison, David Lifton, and Mark Lane. He calls pretty much every book on the assassination as being sloppy and not honestly researched. He mentions how authors would make accusations without going into further detail but he himself does this on several occasions. On page 119, he writes: "Many historians, myself among them, were especially disturbed by (Oliver) Stone's reliance on such error-ridden sources as Jim Marr's 'Crossfire' and Jim Garrison's 'On The Trail of the Assassins.'" It ends there, with no examples of the errors. I'm sure no book is perfect, but one example would help. On pages 130-131: "(Oswald's) New Orleans Fair Play for Castro chapter did not exist, although he pretended it did; it was simply Oswald's invention." ... "He was never, in any meaning of the word or even in the faintest degree, a traitor. ... If Oswald had been a traitor, upon his return to America he would have been arrested and charged with that offense." He never goes into all the evidence that actually points to Oswalds FBI and CIA connections. We don't know exactly what he did in Russia and if it was top secret Soviet or US stuff, I doubt the truth ever will come out. We shouldn't assume we know. He merely dismisses them and goes onto another topic. My only problem with his attacks on Zapruder film alteration is that he states Fetzer and Co. didn't get the best witnesses or most qualified people to contribute. Yet in regards to how the Zapruder film doesn't clearly show a blow out in the back of JFK's head like all the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses said existed, he merely says all the doctors were wrong. This is a very Posner thing to do. Page 129: "In fact, there was no rear-side blowout... Medical authorities mistook for a gunshot hole a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attached that was thrown back over the head on a hinge of skin." Where did any doctors say this? The new Robert Groden DVD "Case for Conspiracy" has interviews with Parkland and Bethesa doctors. They see the "official" autopsy photos and all discuss what they had seen. They all mention the hole in the back of the head being about the size of a baseball. They say there is no way the back of the head was intact. Now the doctors are all mistaken? I'm sure the doctors would know a blow out in the back of the head from "a flap of skin with bone and bloody matter attached that was thrown back over the head on a hinge of skin." Page 182: "There is no blowout in the back of the head. No hair is out of place on the back of his head; there is no blood on the back of the head, nor on his collar, neck, or jacket." [What about the pictures of JFK's bloody shirt?] Page 187: "Over the last decades a large number of theorists have claimed the photographs of the assassination and the autopsy materials were faked by federal authorities to hide the patent, clear, and solid evidence that contain of a conspiracy. ... These charges, however, are without logical or factual foundation." Yet on page 3 of the insert in "High Treason" after page 306 is a picture that is sure to be in other books. It is clearly a fake picture of the back of the head because the top of his hair is much darker and it is 2-dimensional and the rest of the photo is 3-dimensional. It is the most obviously faked picture in this case. This is very confusing. He pretty much has the opinion that if people forged photos, they shouldn't have left in evidence of a conspiracy like which clearly exists in the autopsy photos and Zapruder film. And since evidence of a conspiracy is obvious, they couldn't possibly have been messed with. But the picture I just talked about does both. It hides the hole in the back of the head and adds a little hole in the back of JFK's head to show an entrance wound. Wrone says there was a conspiracy, but he takes the governments word on a lot of stuff. So for these reasons, I have to give the book three stars instead of five. I could be wrong, but some of this seems sloppy to me. On page 199 he calls Jim Garrison "brilliant" and then on page 203 (4 pages later) he agrees with another author who called him "incompetent."
Rating:
Summary: He has abandoned his role
Review: When you think about it, the professional historian has the edge of those who are trying to make sense of the Kennedy assassination. Presumably they should have a good grasp of the historical forces, i.e., political, economic, social, and personal forces that combined to bring about this murder. At a mimimum the student of American history should have an excellent grasp of the history of his country at least since the time of the second world war, meaning an understanding of the historical forces during his own lifetime.
With this in mind, it becomes clear that this man has abandoned his role. In fact, this book has trivialized the Kennedy assassination, a very sad thing indeed.
As an example of the many things wrong with this book, here is one. Both Abraham Zapruder and his assistant Marilyn Sitzman claim they saw the president lurch forward upon being struck by a bullet. In fact, in his television interview shortly afterward, Zapruder demonstrates for his interviewer, Jay Watson, the lurch that he claims he saw. For those who have never seen this film clip, you may want to check it out. Zapruder makes a very pronounced lurch. What Wrone fails to point out to the reader is that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LIKE THIS LURCH TO BE FOUND ANYWHERE IN THE WHOLE LENGTH OF THE ZAPRUDER FILM! So the obvious question must be asked, how is it possible for both Sitzman and Zapruder (and also Charles Brehm, another Dealey Plaza eyewitness) to see something which is not contained on the film? And why doesn't Wrone bring up the obvious question? Does he believe his readers to be as asleep as he appears to be?
Fortunately, other people have taken up the slack left by the silence of the historians. The sociologist Donald Gibson has written two excellent books of great importance concerning the Kennedy assassination, "Battling Wall Street", and "The Kennedy Assassination Cover-Up".The Zapruder filn authenticity debate is just another red herring in this case. For those who are really looking for the historical processes behind this murder, I would suggest that readers obtain the Gibson books.
<< 1 >>
|
