David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

[Pat Speer]

6 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Sandy. to my recollection, everyone present at the autopsy agreed that the skull was fractured beneath the scalp, and fell apart when the scalp was peeled back. You seem to think Finck slipped up when he said "a portion" of the hole rather than the hole, as his words suggest the hole was not a complete hole.

 

But what evidence do you have that the presumably "missing" part of the hole was present on a portion of the skull missing at the beginning of the autopsy, as opposed to a portion removed when the scalp was peeled back and the brain was removed?

 

Neither Humes, Finck or Boswell EVER described a large blow-out on the far back of the head in the occipital area. They all denied the existence of such a hole. The Moorman photo, the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and x-rays also fail to depict this hole. Many of the 20 or 50 or 80  or so Parkland witnesses supposedly claiming to see this hole offered contradictory statements, and refused to dispute the authenticity of the photos and x-rays.

There's just no there there.

 

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

One last question to DSL if he ever gets the chance:

Couldn't Dr. Humes and/or the autopsy witnesses have just mistakingly thought the large head wound was a craniotomy at first? The bone flap does look a lot like something from a craniotomy.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Pat,

Sandy. to my recollection, everyone present at the autopsy agreed that the skull was fractured beneath the scalp, and fell apart when the scalp was peeled back. You seem to think Finck slipped up when he said "a portion" of the hole rather than the hole, as his words suggest the hole was not a complete hole.

Pat, the reason I believe Finck slipped up is because it appears to me that there was an effort not to make note of the fragment in the occipital area. For example, I've never heard Humes mention it.

But what evidence do you have that the presumably "missing" part of the hole was present on a portion of the skull missing at the beginning of the autopsy, as opposed to a portion removed when the scalp was peeled back and the brain was removed?

1. Twenty medical professionals (mostly doctors) at Parkland testifying to that fact.
2. The Harper Fragment.

Neither Humes, Finck or Boswell EVER described a large blow-out on the far back of the head in the occipital area. They all denied the existence of such a hole.

The back-of-head blowout was covered up, Pat. Because a blowout wound in the back of the head is strong evidence of a shot from the front.

Note that there WERE witnesses at the autopsy who DID see the blowout at the back of the head. They were apparently not instructed to cover it up.

But by the time of the official autopsy, the large hole at the top of the head had already been created by the cover-up artists. So most witnesses there saw that too.

The Moorman photo, the Zapruder film, the autopsy photos and x-rays also fail to depict this hole.

Covered up!

Many of the 20 or 50 or 80  or so Parkland witnesses supposedly claiming to see this hole offered contradictory statements, and refused to dispute the authenticity of the photos and x-rays.

There were about 20 medical professionals at Parkland, all but one who saw the hole on the right-rear part of the head. And ALL the ones who saw the area up close said they saw the BOH hole. None of these have changed their testimonies.

Of the twenty who said they saw the hole, five of them did change their minds when confronted with the autopsy photo showing an intact back-of-head. (The autopsy photo that is obviously a forgery.) What would you expect them to do? But there remained strong-willed ones who wouldn't succumb to peer pressure.

There's just no there there.

Don't you believe in cover-ups, Pat? Evidence is covered up in cover-ups. And that is precisely what happened with the physical evidence in the JFK assassination.

 

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

One last question to DSL if he ever gets the chance:

Couldn't Dr. Humes and/or the autopsy witnesses have just mistakingly thought the large head wound was a craniotomy at first? The bone flap does look a lot like something from a craniotomy.

Michael,

My belief (which is based on DSL's belief, but might not fit precisely with his) is that a craniotomy HOLE is precisely what those at the autopsy witnessed. The craniotomy was performed before the autopsy by cover-up artists to make it appear that it (the craniotomy hole) was the blow-out exit wound.

The first thing (or one of the first things) Humes noted at the autopsy is that there had been surgery performed at the top of the head. (This according to the FBI's Sibert and  O'Neill Report.) Of course there had been no surgery at Parkland or ever since, given that JFK's body was supposedly in a coffin the whole time. Unless it was done surreptitiously. Which it apparently was.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

My belief (which is based on DSL's belief, but might not fit precisely with his) is that a craniotomy is precisely what those at the autopsy witnessed. The craniotomy was performed by cover-up artists to make it appear that it (the craniotomy hole) was the blow-out exit wound.

The first thing (or one of the first things) Humes noted at the autopsy is that there had been surgery performed at the top of the head. (This according to the FBI's Sibert and  O'Neill Report.) Of course there had been no surgery at Parkland or ever since, given that JFK's body was supposedly in a coffin the whole time. Unless it was done surreptitiously. Which it apparently was.

Okay, well Dr. Humes never denied that some sawing of the skull was done. From Martin Hay's review of A Coup In Camelot:

 

Quote

 

At the very heart of Horne's hypothesis is a comment made by Tom Robinson―an embalmer who was present for most of the autopsy―during a 1996 interview for the Assassination Records Review Board. When shown a photo displaying a large defect in the top of Kennedy's head Robinson recalled that this was “what the doctors did”. He then explained that the autopsy surgeons had cut the scalp open and “reflected it back in order to remove bullet fragments.” (ARRB MD180) He also recalled seeing that “some sawing was done to remove some bone before the brain could be removed.” (ibid) What Robinson described is, of course, a perfectly normal part of an autopsy and he himself called what he saw a “normal craniotomy procedure.” (ibid) Yet somehow Horne construes Robinson's remarks as evidence of some clandestine pre-autopsy activity. Why?

The reason, according to Horne, is that “Dr. Humes always denied having to saw the skull open, he always maintained that the wound was so big that he just removed the brain with a minimum of cutting of the scalp; he never had to cut any bone.” However, as this passage from Hume's sworn deposition for the ARRB demonstrates, Horne is entirely mistaken :

GUNN: But just let me start out first: Where was the first incision made?

HUMES: I believe, of course, the top of the skull to remove the skull plate of the brain. To remove what remained of the calvarium and to approach the removal of the brain.

GUNN: And was that incision simply of the scalp, or did you need to cut –

HUMES: No, we had to cut some bone as well. [my emphasis]

* * *

GUNN: Where did you cut the bone?

HUMES: I find that--it's hard to recall. Once we got the scalp laid back, some of those pieces could just be removed, you know, by picking them up, picking them up because they were just not held together very well, other than by the dura, I suppose. So other than that, we probably made it like we normally do, in a circumferential fashion from books, like right above the ear around. But it was a real problem because it was all falling apart, the skull. And I can't recall the details of exactly how we managed to maneuver that, because it was a problem. (ARRB Deposition of James J. Humes, pgs. 101-102)

As the reader can see, not only did Humes not deny having to saw the skull, he specifically testified to doing so. But Horne does not quote Humes himself and instead refers to a report written in 1965 by autopsy surgeon Dr. Pierre Finck―who did not arrive at Bethesda until after the brain had already been removed―in which Finck recalled being told that “no sawing of the skull was necessary”. What this means, therefore, is that the basis of Horne's claim that “Humes always denied having to saw the skull open” is not any direct quotation from Humes himself, but the hearsay claim of a man who wasn't even present when the brain was removed. This type of methodology is extremely difficult to defend. And what makes it all the more confounding is that Horne himself was actually present for the deposition during which Humes specifically swore to cutting the skull bone.

 

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/a-coup-in-camelot

[Sandy Larsen]

39 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Michael,

My belief (which is based on DSL's belief, but might not fit precisely with his) is that a craniotomy HOLE is precisely what those at the autopsy witnessed. The craniotomy was performed BEFORE THE AUTOPSY by cover-up artists to make it appear that it (the craniotomy hole) was the blow-out exit wound.

The first thing (or one of the first things) Humes noted at the autopsy is that there had been surgery performed at the top of the head. (This according to the FBI's Sibert and  O'Neill Report.) Of course there had been no surgery at Parkland or ever since, given that JFK's body was supposedly in a coffin the whole time. Unless it was done surreptitiously. Which it apparently was.

Okay, well Dr. Humes never denied that some sawing of the skull was done. From Martin Hay's review of A Coup In Camelot:

(Michael, I clarified what I said earlier, which you quoted and then I quoted, and it is at the top of this post. Will you read that again?)

Yeah, I know that Humes reported sawing some of the cranium. If that relates to what I said earlier, I don't know how.

BTW, there were autopsy witnesses who said that there was no sawing, and that the brain just fell out on its own. Which is impossible because, at the very least, the brain stem needs to be cut. (The brain is also somewhat stuck to the inside of the skull, as I understand it.) I wonder if Horne was confused by that.

 

[Micah Mileto]

1 minute ago, Sandy Larsen said:

(Michael, I clarified what I said earlier, which you quoted and then I quoted, and it is at the top of this post. Will you read that again?)

Yeah, I know that Humes reported sawing some of the cranium. If that relates to what I said earlier, I don't know how.

BTW, there were autopsy witnesses who said that there was no sawing, and that the brain just fell out on its own. Which is impossible because, at the very least, the brain stem needs to be cut. (The brain is also somewhat stuck to the inside of the skull, as I understand it.) I wonder if Horne was confused by that.

 

Ah ok, sorry

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Ah ok, sorry

No problem. I was confused myself when I re-read what I'd written! 

In fact I'm glad you responded so's I could fix it.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

On 2/5/2017 at 1:32 AM, Micah Mileto said:

If a bullet entered the original EOP location and bounced up to exit the top-right side of the head, the cerebellum would be more damaged. You yourself acknowledged this in another thread I remember. The damage according to the official records is consistent with two bullets entering the skull, one only barely damaging the cerebellum & brainstem and hitting the base of the skull. Is my understanding of this not correct? If a bullet enters the brain, does it not damage it?

Right. I think the bullet entered the cowlick area because the photos clearly indicate that the cowlick location is the area where there's a bullet hole. My earlier comment was merely in order to emphasize the fact that the autopsy report and the three autopsy doctors verified that just one bullet struck JFK's head---and that one bullet entered from behind. And that is a conclusive fact, as Dr. Humes said in his 1967 CBS interview, due to the inward bevelling/coning present on the skull.

Humes also said....

"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash. There was no interference with our autopsy, and there was no conspiracy to suppress the findings." -- Dr. James J. Humes; October 1991

As for the alleged EOP entry location (@ 12:30)....

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I think the bullet entered the cowlick area because the photos clearly indicate that the cowlick location is the area where there's a bullet hole. My earlier question was merely in order to emphasize the fact that the autopsy report and the three autopsy doctors verified that just one bullet struck JFK's head---and that one bullet entered from behind. And that is conclusive fact, as Dr. Humes said in his 1967 CBS interview, due to the inward bevelling/coning present on the skull.

As for the alleged EOP entry location....

 

 

So do you acknowledge that having the entry wound in the original EOP location is tantamount to saying Kennedy was shot in the head twice? And that the official autopsy report basically says that Oswald could not have possibly done all of the physical damage to Kennedy? And that the Warren Commission report, with it's endorsement of the EOP location, also inadvertently supports at least two head shots (because apparently nobody working there realized the discrepancy between the skull damage and the brain damage)?

Most who were there say that red spot say it could just be a bit of blood, but Boswell indicated in his HSCA interview with Humes that the red spot was a tear in the scalp related to the large head wound. So the red spot could be something. Dr. Humes was coerced into testifying (as in, he could be prosecuted if he was found to be lying) that the red spot was the entry wound, only to quickly revert back to the original EOP location in his interviews with Livingstone, JAMA, and the ARRB. I've seen you take that information and make it seem like Dr. Humes was just being a confused old man, but surely by now you've seen the interview where HSCA staffer Andy Purdy tells the ARRB about Dr. Humes being berated for saying the entry wound was low in the head, and the corroboration of that story from Dr. Michael Baden as quoted in Pat Speers book.

Again, the red spot and the cowlick fracture could indeed be defects related to the large head wound. It is just so unreasonable it is to say the entry wound was way up there. I'm no expert on X-rays, but I know how to read, and reading every autopsy professional and autopsy witness say the real hole was down there is enough for me. The large head wound could be tangential.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[David Von Pein]

Well, Micah, I think it's quite clear from ALL the evidence in the case (including the Z-Film) that JFK was struck in the head by just one bullet. And this issue was investigated in great depth by the HSCA. So, should we now dismiss all 9 members of the Forensic Pathology Panel? ....

"We, as the [forensic pathology] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0092b.htm

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well, Micah, I think it's quite clear from ALL the evidence in the case (including the Z-Film) that JFK was struck in the head by just one bullet.

Safe answer to that: He could've been hit there after frame 313.

Fun answer to that: He could've been hit there at frame 190-224. His disoriented behavior after he emerges behind the sign is consistent with damage to the cerebellum.

Quote

 

And this issue was investigated in great depth by the HSCA. So, should we now dismiss all 9 members of the Forensic Pathology Panel? ....

"We, as the [forensic pathology] panel members, do feel after close examination of the negatives and photographs under magnification of that higher perforation, that it is unquestionably a perforation of entrance; and we feel very strongly, and this is unanimous, all nine members, that X-rays clearly show the entrance perforation in the skull to be immediately beneath this perforation in the upper scalp skin. And further, although the original examination of the brain was not complete, photographs of the brain were examined by the panel members, and do show the injury to the brain itself is on the top portion of the brain. The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. So that is the basis for what remains a disagreement between our panel and the original autopsy doctors. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel members...that beyond all reasonable medical certainty, there is no bullet perforation of entrance any place on the skull other than the single one in the cowlick. .... It is the firm conclusion of the panel that there is no bullet perforation of entrance beneath that brain tissue [near JFK's hairline]...and we find no evidence to support anything but a single gunshot wound of entrance in the back of the President's head." -- Dr. Michael Baden; 1978

 

 

The autopsy report has the entry wound in the scalp as an elliptical 15x6 mm, the red spot is circular and 20mm. I've heard Andy Purdy say something about there being glistening light off of the red spot indicating that it's wet, however when one views the brighter versions you can see that "glisten" could just be a bit fleshtone scalp over the non-hole. The autopsy surgeons and witnesses (including the person who took those photographs, John Stringer) like to just say the emperor is wearing no clothes and the red spot doesn't look like a hole at all. One cannot get over the problem that the red spot looks two-dimensional. Some even say you can see a hair or two growing out of it. But, again, like Dr. Boswell said, the red spot could totally be a tear in the scalp related to the large head wound.

Also, since the scalp is being pulled back in the BOH photographs, I can not see how anybody can prove the red spot correlates to the X-ray mark. I know there have been plenty of experts who've looked at the X-rays and found no obvious entry wound like the Clark Panel and HSCA claim. I know there's Dr. Peter Cummings, who once believed in the cowlick wound but later changed his mind and said the X-rays could be consistent with a low entry wound (by default making the cowlick mark just a fracture).

Edited February 6, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[Micah Mileto]

Quote

"...The bottom portion or undersurface of the brain, which would have had to have been injured if the bullet perforated in the lower area as indicated in the autopsy report, was intact. If a bullet entered in this lower area, the cerebellum portion of the brain would have had to be injured and it was not injured. "

Clearly Dr. Michael Baden never heard the quote by Arthur Conan Doyle speaking as Sherlock Holmes, “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

If there's an entry wound in the skull, but no entry wound in the cerebellum behind it, then the most logical explanation is that a bullet entered the skull and only grazed the cerebellum, which makes the large head wound something different entirely. The most logical explanation is not that all of the proofs for the EOP wound are incorrect.

Edited February 6, 2017 by Micah Mileto

[David Lifton]

On 2/4/2017 at 6:42 PM, Michael Walton said:

Oh boy, some more of Lifton's crazy theories to keep things in the limelight and to hope to sell some more books.

How in the world could any of the so-called bad guys even know what the results were going to be that early in the game when the plane arrived from Dallas?

Even as late as early 1964 when Life magazine was going to run that article that Kennedy turned completely around, thus taking the throat shot, how could they have known what to cut up or out or into with the body the night of the autopsy three months earlier?

You can see the whole thing unfold on live TV when the plane arrives, it opens, the truck comes up and gets the coffin and the family, and then on to Bethesda. Jackie Kennedy never left the casket the entire time it was on the plane.

I remember reading his book back when I was a dumb 16-year-old and thinking, "Wow."  But now, thirty years later and seeing this case veer off into a cottage industry of ridiculous and weird theories, sanity and plausibility have convinced me that all of the craziness of squirreling away the body and removing 67% of the frames in the Z film and painted in blobs on other films and Jimmy Files being an assassin and Howard Hunt being either a tramp or a radioman or Greer shooting the president is right up there with the little green men on the moon that was never walked on by Neil Armstrong.

I have heard this argument from others--its what I call the "1967 argument' because it goes back to the time when the be-all and end-all of JFK assassination research was to prove that there was a cover-up; i.e., an "after-the-fact" coverup.

But, as I explained in my November 2013 Bismarck lecture (just Google, David Lifton Bismarck), this was a body-centric plot.  The plan, from the outset, was to murder the president, and then alter his body to change the story of how he died.  If one has control of the body (immediately) after the shooting, one then is in a position to change the story of how he died, i.e., to fabricate a false "solution" to the crime.

Those who persist of thinking of this in the old (1967) paradigm --i.e., that of an "after-the-fact coverup--are attempting to put a square peg in a round hole. They completely miss the significance of a modus operandi in which it was planned--as an integral part of the crime--to shoot the President and then alter the body soon afterwards (so as to implicate Oswald as "the assassin")/

The shooting--followed by the alteration--were two facets of the same integrated covert operation.

The late Sylvia Meagher--who thought of everything (after the shooting) was part of an ad hoc after-the -fact cover-up--fell victim to this kind of mistaken thinking. 

Another researcher expressed it this way, back in 1993:

QUOTE:  The real problem with, I think, with David [Lifton's] thesis is that altering evidence is [that it is]  an enormously dangerous thing to get into.  It is especially dangerous to get into before you know (now laughs) exactly what you have to have.   . .. At this point in time ([and] the point in time we’re talking about are the hours say, between 4 P.M. on that Friday, the 22nd, and midnight of the 22nd. At that time, you simply do not know enough as to what your altered evidence is supposed to show." UNQUOTE

This is completely incorrect reasoning, because the evidence is clear--whether one looks at the DPD radio transmissions or what happened with the body (and how fast it happened)--that the plan, from the outset, was to shoot the president, and then create the false appearance as to how he died; i.e., that  "a man in the building shot a man in the car." The "man in the building," of course, was Oswald, the pre-selected patsy; and yes, he had to be pre-positioned in the building for any of this to work.

But stepping back and taking a "longer" view: To argue that there was no "pre-11/22 design" of this crime, and that the false result (the consequence f a far-reaching cover-up) was all assembled "on the fly," after the shots were fired" is to seriously misunderstand what happened in Dallas, and to seriously misinterpret the chronology of events.  Why?  Because, by positing that approach, one is tied to a completely incorrect model of conspiracy.

Is there any serious student of this case (i.e., of this crime)  who really believes that the planning of this murder began (and ended) with the shooting?  That after the last shot was fired, the "CEO" of this operation, in effect said, "Well done, boys, we succeeded. We can all go home now!"

That is not just inadequate, it is ridiculous--a sophomoric way of looking at this crime (i.e., everything  is part of "the cover-up" from J. Edgar Hoover to Gerald Posner!).

As I said in my book, Best Evidence (1981), and in numerous lectures in the years following, "my book (or "my work") is not about who put the bullets into the president's body, but who took them out."  Those who have studied some modicum of math should have no problem "inverting" the traditional statement of the crime, and viewing it in that fashion.

Those who persist in viewing bullet removal and wound alteration--i.e., deliberate autopsy falsification--as   something that was dreamed up "afterwards" --perhaps by the hypothetical CEO I mentioned above,  who then said, after he told his associates to disband and "go home", "Ooops!  I forgot!  There are bullets in the body!  And those bullet wounds. . OMG. . what am I gonna do about that?  I forgot all about that when I/we planned this shooting!  But those wounds. . . they may not jibe with that sniper's nest we put at the Sixth Floor window. . OMG!  What am I gonna do now?!"

Etc.

Anyone who persists in viewing the JFK murder  in that fashion is destined to waste their time attempting to meaningfully interpret the evidence, because they have a completely incorrect model of the conspiracy that took President Kennedy's life.

First of all, they have a substantially incorrect time-line and consequently fail to properly distinguish what was "before the fact" from that which was "after the fact." Second: those who persist with this incorrect model of conspiracy lose the ability to recognize when unexpected events occurred, resulting in genuine ad hoc improvisation (but that is another story, and one which is dealt with quite comprehensively in Final Charade).

DSL

2/5/17 - 12:02 a.m. PST

Los Angeles, California

 

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

On 2/4/2017 at 7:22 PM, David Von Pein said:

You got it. The conspiracy crap never ends, and it never will. Craziness sells. And David Lifton knows that better than anybody. After all....

"One theory that perhaps "takes the cake" is set forth by conspiracy author David Lifton. .... One could safely say that Lifton took folly to an unprecedented level. And considering the monumental foolishness of his colleagues in the conspiracy community, that's saying something." -- Vincent Bugliosi

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

David: 

You are one of those who has a completely incorrect model of conspiracy, and is destined to end up in the dustbin of history.

Thanks for archiving all the material you have collected, but your analysis leaves much to be desired.

If there was an Internet back in 1859, when Origin of the Species was published, you would have been one of those with a massive website arguing against evolution, and saying. . "Just look at all these dogs and cats that I have collected. . . and what about the apes and all the other animals in the zoo! You mean to tell me that all of this is somehow connected!  That all these different species came about naturally!  That's ridiculous!  Darwin is nothing but a kook!  All of this was created in about 7 days, and if you don't believe me, go to my Website, "Darwin Sucks.com"

DSL

 

Edited February 6, 2017 by David Lifton