Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sandy Larsen

Dr. Humes knew about the throat wound the day of the autopsy.

Recommended Posts

According to Dr. Humes and the WCR, Humes did not know about the throat wound till the morning after the autopsy. This is not true.

The truth is that he learned of it the day of the autopsy, apparently long before Kennedy's body had even arrived in Maryland.

How do we know that?

  • We have the testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston, who at the time was Science Director of the National Institutes of Health. He had heard news reports regarding the throat wound and felt it necessary to pass this information on to whomever would be performing the autopsy. He called Bethesda Naval Hospital and spoke with Dr. Humes about the throat wound at around 3:30 or 4:00 PM eastern time. (Kennedy's body didn't arrive at the hospital till 6:35 PM ET.)

    Dr. Livingston has related this story a number of times. One time was when he testified in Dr. Crenshaw's defamation lawsuit against the American Medical Association. (Dr. Livingston's testimony here.)
     
  • Testimony given by Lt. Richard Lipsey indicates that Humes knew about the throat wound on the day of the autopsy. He testified that the autopsy doctors were convinced that the throat wound was the exit for the entrance wound located near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is near the hairline on the back of the head. Of course, for them to form that conclusion, they had to have known about the throat wound. [Need to find source.]
     
  • In his HSCA testimony, Dr. Ebersole indicated that information regarding the throat wound and tracheotomy was received from Parkland Hospital during the autopsy. Though he couldn't recall how the information was conveyed. (Source) He referred to the throat wound as one of exit, which contradicts what was believed at Parkland. I believe he did that because (according to Lt. Lipsey) the doctors were convinced at the time that the throat wound was one of exit for the EOP entrance wound.
  • Dr. Perry testified to the WC that he received two calls from Dr. Humes the day of the autopsy, during which they spoke about the throat wound. Arlen Specter then interjected and successfully changed Perry's mind on the timing of the calls, saying they were made the following day. Here is the testimony. (I don't know if Perry ever changed his mind back.)

  • In his HSCA testimony, photographer Robert Knudsen recalled seeing a B&W negative of Kennedy in profile, right side, in an erect posture. He recalled there being two metal probes, one extending out the back wound and the other in a track from the back of the neck to the throat wound. (Source)

  • In his ARRB testimony, John Stringer said that a metal probe was inserted into the throat wound. [Find source.]

  • [Check out the Audrey Bell story.]

  • [Check out this list and this list by Micah Mileto.]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

EDITS:

  • Added Ebersole's HSCA testimony.
  • Added Perry's WC testimony.
  • Added Knudsen's HSCA  testimony.
  • Added Stringer's ARRB testimony.
  • Added links to Micah Mileto's lists.
Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

I recall reading that Humes called Dr. Perry after the autopsy to ask him if he had done his tracheotomy over a wound, the idea being that Humes had thought the wound was just Perry's incision. Is that part of the L.I.E. you refer to? Was such a call made?

Edited by Ron Ecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, although I agree with the overall thesis, I better warn you before David LIfton or Pat Speer jump on and ream you.

Livingstone's testimony is debateable.

There is no corroboration for the phone call in the record.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Dr. Humes and the WCR, Humes did not know about the throat wound till the morning after the autopsy. This is not true.

The truth is that he learned of it long before Kennedy's body had even arrived in Maryland.

How do we know that?

First we have the testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston, who at the time was Science Director of the National Institutes of Health. He had heard news reports regarding the throat wound and felt it necessary to pass this information on to whomever would be performing the autopsy. He called Bethesda Naval Hospital and spoke with Dr. Humes about the throat wound at around 3:30 or 4:00 PM eastern time. (Kennedy's body didn't arrive at the hospital till 6:35 PM ET.)

Dr. Livingston has related this story a number of times. One time was when he testified in Dr. Crenshaw's defamation lawsuit against the American Medical Association. (Dr. Livingston's testimony here.)

Testimony given by Lt. Richard Lipsey also indicates that Humes knew about the throat wound on the day of the autopsy. He testified that the autopsy doctors were convinced that the throat wound was the exit for the entrance wound located near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is near the hairline on the back of the head. Of course, for them to form that conclusion, they had to have known about the throat wound. [Need to find Lipsey's testimony.]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

James is right. Regardless of whether or not Humes knew about the throat wound, Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's, when he contacted Lifton. Lifton failed to buy into it, so Livingston then contacted Livingstone. The bottom line is that Livingston claimed the small size of the throat wound was discussed by a nurse on the radio, and that this led him to call Humes. The problem is that those studying the news footage and broadcasts have found no record of such an interview. There's also this. Livingston claimed he was friends with the journalist Richard Dudman, and that Dudman could vouch for him. Well, I contacted Dudman and he verified that he'd known Livingston for decades, and that Livingston had talked to him more than once about the Kennedy assassination. But, get this, he had no recollection of Livingston ever claiming he'd talked to Humes, or some such thing. Now, Dudman was quite an old man at this time, so I chose to not come forward with this for fear Fetzer and others would proceed to attack him. (Fetzer is the main proponent of Livingston's credibility on this issue.) In any event, I never felt the need for confronting Fetzer on this seeing as Fetzer discredited Livingston all by himself when he disavowed the transcript of Livingston's testimony in the Crenshaw case (testimony arranged by Fetzer and put into the record by Doug Horne). You see, I actually read the transcript and spotted some clear problems with it. The one thing that comes to mind is that Livingston said he'd decided to come forward in order to 'save the world". Yikes! A retired man in his seventies who comes forward with a bizarre story without any back-up in order to save the world, and is driven to his court testimony by Dr. James Fetzer, the very same Fetzer who believes the airplanes filmed crashing into the twin towers were holograms, and that Paul McCartney is an imposter impersonating the original Paul McCartney.

Now, that's what I call evidence! Uh, no, I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Dr. Humes and the WCR, Humes did not know about the throat wound till the morning after the autopsy. This is not true.

The truth is that he learned of it long before Kennedy's body had even arrived in Maryland.

How do we know that?

First we have the testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston, who at the time was Science Director of the National Institutes of Health. He had heard news reports regarding the throat wound and felt it necessary to pass this information on to whomever would be performing the autopsy. He called Bethesda Naval Hospital and spoke with Dr. Humes about the throat wound at around 3:30 or 4:00 PM eastern time. (Kennedy's body didn't arrive at the hospital till 6:35 PM ET.)

Dr. Livingston has related this story a number of times. One time was when he testified in Dr. Crenshaw's defamation lawsuit against the American Medical Association. (Dr. Livingston's testimony here.)

Testimony given by Lt. Richard Lipsey also indicates that Humes knew about the throat wound on the day of the autopsy. He testified that the autopsy doctors were convinced that the throat wound was the exit for the entrance wound located near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is near the hairline on the back of the head. Of course, for them to form that conclusion, they had to have known about the throat wound. [Need to find Lipsey's testimony.]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

James is right. Regardless of whether or not Humes knew about the throat wound, Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's, when he contacted Lifton. Lifton failed to buy into it, so Livingston then contacted Livingstone. The bottom line is that Livingston claimed the small size of the throat wound was discussed by a nurse on the radio, and that this led him to call Humes. The problem is that those studying the news footage and broadcasts have found no record of such an interview. There's also this. Livingston claimed he was friends with the journalist Richard Dudman, and that Dudman could vouch for him. Well, I contacted Dudman and he verified that he'd known Livingston for decades, and that Livingston had talked to him more than once about the Kennedy assassination. But, get this, he had no recollection of Livingston ever claiming he'd talked to Humes, or some such thing. Now, Dudman was quite an old man at this time, so I chose to not come forward with this for fear Fetzer and others would proceed to attack him. (Fetzer is the main proponent of Livingston's credibility on this issue.) In any event, I never felt the need for confronting Fetzer on this seeing as Fetzer discredited Livingston all by himself when he disavowed the transcript of Livingston's testimony in the Crenshaw case (testimony arranged by Fetzer and put into the record by Doug Horne). You see, I actually read the transcript and spotted some clear problems with it. The one thing that comes to mind is that Livingston said he'd decided to come forward in order to 'save the world". Yikes! A retired man in his seventies who comes forward with a bizarre story without any back-up in order to save the world, and is driven to his court testimony by Dr. James Fetzer, the very same Fetzer who believes the airplanes filmed crashing into the twin towers were holograms, and that Paul McCartney is an imposter impersonating the original Paul McCartney.

Now, that's what I call evidence! Uh, no, I don't.

According to Dr. Humes and the WCR, Humes did not know about the throat wound till the morning after the autopsy. This is not true.

The truth is that he learned of it long before Kennedy's body had even arrived in Maryland.

How do we know that?

First we have the testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston, who at the time was Science Director of the National Institutes of Health. He had heard news reports regarding the throat wound and felt it necessary to pass this information on to whomever would be performing the autopsy. He called Bethesda Naval Hospital and spoke with Dr. Humes about the throat wound at around 3:30 or 4:00 PM eastern time. (Kennedy's body didn't arrive at the hospital till 6:35 PM ET.)

Dr. Livingston has related this story a number of times. One time was when he testified in Dr. Crenshaw's defamation lawsuit against the American Medical Association. (Dr. Livingston's testimony here.)

Testimony given by Lt. Richard Lipsey also indicates that Humes knew about the throat wound on the day of the autopsy. He testified that the autopsy doctors were convinced that the throat wound was the exit for the entrance wound located near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is near the hairline on the back of the head. Of course, for them to form that conclusion, they had to have known about the throat wound. [Need to find Lipsey's testimony.]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

Dumb question but, doesn't anyone think with Humes being a doctor and all he might have been just a little bit curious to know why Perry had elected to, in the absence of any damage to JFK's airway, perform a complicated and time consuming tracheotomy when a simple intubation with an endotracheal tube would have been much quicker and achieved the same objective?

As is obvious from the testimonies of Perry and Carrico, the endotracheal tube would have worked just fine if only the inflatable cuff had been lower than the tracheal wound.

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his HSCA testimony, Dr. Ebersole indicated that information regarding the throat wound and tracheotomy was received from Parkland Hospital during the autopsy. Though he couldn't recall how the information was conveyed. (Source) He referred to the throat wound as one of exit, which contradicts what was believed at Parkland. I believe he did that because (according to Lt. Lipsey) the doctors were convinced at the time that the throat wound was one of exit for the EOP entrance wound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In his HSCA testimony, Dr. Ebersole indicated that information regarding the throat wound and tracheotomy was received from Parkland Hospital during the autopsy. Though he couldn't recall how the information was conveyed. (Source) He referred to the throat wound as one of exit, which contradicts what was believed at Parkland. I believe he did that because (according to Lt. Lipsey) the doctors were convinced at the time that the throat wound was one of exit for the EOP entrance wound.

As I said, Humes had to be aware of the throat and trachea wounds at some point during the autopsy. I would wager he had spotted the wounding of the throat and trachea long before receiving a call from Dallas, otherwise he would have questioned why Perry performed a tracheotomy on a pristine neck, when a simple intubation with an endotracheal tube would have achieved the same objective in a fraction of the time. When dealing with a pulseless non-breathing patient, time is not something to waste.

I'm always amused by researchers who believe that Perry was able to completely obliterate the throat and tracheal wounds with a couple of scalpel strokes. That's almost as funny as Superman disguising himself as Clark Kent by donning a pair of glasses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

I recall reading that Humes called Dr. Perry after the autopsy to ask him if he had done his tracheotomy over a wound, the idea being that Humes had thought the wound was just Perry's incision. Is that part of the L.I.E. you refer to? Was such a call made?

Dr. Perry actually testified to the WC that he received two calls from Dr. Humes the day of the autopsy, during which they spoke about both the throat and back wounds. Arlen Specter then interjected and successfully changed Perry's mind on the timing of the calls, saying they were made the following day.

Here is the testimony.

I don't know if Perry ever changed his mind back after that.

It is interesting to note that Humes asked Perry if the Parkland docs had made the wound in Kennedy's back. In my mind, I think it is much more likely that Humes would ask that question during the autopsy when they were baffled by the absence of a bullet, not the following day.

(Note to Bob Prudhomme: It is in this testimony that Perry talks about the chest tubes, and how Humes asked Perry about them.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're over-simplifying the case, Robert. A tracheotomy is "an incision in the windpipe made to relieve an obstruction to breathing." That's it. A lot of things can obstruct breathing. For all the autopsy doctors knew Kennedy was choking on his own brain matter or some such thing. You are correct, however, in stating that at some point they should have wondered about the incision. Humes said he did just that, and that he'd called Perry the next morning not just as a courtesy, but to help him piece together what happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat



Did any of the doctors at Parkland report an obstructed airway? Outside of the tracheal wound, what was there to justify a tracheotomy? You do realize how much more complicated and time consuming a tracheotomy is compared to intubation by endotracheal tube, don't you? You're also forgetting Carrico had a laryngoscope at his disposal and would have been able to quickly determine if JFK's airway was obstructed from "his own brain matter or some such thing". The mere fact he had already inserted and inflated the endotracheal tube demonstrated there was an unobstructed airway.



Here is something else to think about. After assisted ventilation was begun and Carrico determined there was leakage of air from the chest through the tracheal wound, after intubating JFK with an endotracheal tube, why did he simply not deflate the cuff of the e. tube, re-insert the e.tube lower to get the cuff below the tracheal wound, and re-inflate the cuff?


Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

deleted

Edited by Robert Prudhomme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, although I agree with the overall thesis, I better warn you before David LIfton or Pat Speer jump on and ream you.

Livingstone's testimony is debateable.

There is no corroboration for the phone call in the record.

Thanks Jim.

I always welcome criticism, as long as it is substantiated. After all, I don't want to believe something that isn't true.

However, had I known that my claim is controversial, I would have given the thread a less definite title.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Dr. Humes and the WCR, Humes did not know about the throat wound till the morning after the autopsy. This is not true.

The truth is that he learned of it long before Kennedy's body had even arrived in Maryland.

How do we know that?

First we have the testimony of Dr. Robert Livingston, who at the time was Science Director of the National Institutes of Health. He had heard news reports regarding the throat wound and felt it necessary to pass this information on to whomever would be performing the autopsy. He called Bethesda Naval Hospital and spoke with Dr. Humes about the throat wound at around 3:30 or 4:00 PM eastern time. (Kennedy's body didn't arrive at the hospital till 6:35 PM ET.)

Dr. Livingston has related this story a number of times. One time was when he testified in Dr. Crenshaw's defamation lawsuit against the American Medical Association. (Dr. Livingston's testimony here.)

Testimony given by Lt. Richard Lipsey also indicates that Humes knew about the throat wound on the day of the autopsy. He testified that the autopsy doctors were convinced that the throat wound was the exit for the entrance wound located near the external occipital protuberance (EOP), which is near the hairline on the back of the head. Of course, for them to form that conclusion, they had to have known about the throat wound. [Need to find Lipsey's testimony.]

I'm posting this for the benefit of anybody who is unaware of this particular WCR L.I.E.

James is right. Regardless of whether or not Humes knew about the throat wound, Livingston's claim he called Humes is clearly bogus. He never came forward until the 90's, when he contacted Lifton. Lifton failed to buy into it, so Livingston then contacted Livingstone. The bottom line is that Livingston claimed the small size of the throat wound was discussed by a nurse on the radio, and that this led him to call Humes. The problem is that those studying the news footage and broadcasts have found no record of such an interview. There's also this. Livingston claimed he was friends with the journalist Richard Dudman, and that Dudman could vouch for him. Well, I contacted Dudman and he verified that he'd known Livingston for decades, and that Livingston had talked to him more than once about the Kennedy assassination. But, get this, he had no recollection of Livingston ever claiming he'd talked to Humes, or some such thing. Now, Dudman was quite an old man at this time, so I chose to not come forward with this for fear Fetzer and others would proceed to attack him. (Fetzer is the main proponent of Livingston's credibility on this issue.) In any event, I never felt the need for confronting Fetzer on this seeing as Fetzer discredited Livingston all by himself when he disavowed the transcript of Livingston's testimony in the Crenshaw case (testimony arranged by Fetzer and put into the record by Doug Horne). You see, I actually read the transcript and spotted some clear problems with it. The one thing that comes to mind is that Livingston said he'd decided to come forward in order to 'save the world". Yikes! A retired man in his seventies who comes forward with a bizarre story without any back-up in order to save the world, and is driven to his court testimony by Dr. James Fetzer, the very same Fetzer who believes the airplanes filmed crashing into the twin towers were holograms, and that Paul McCartney is an imposter impersonating the original Paul McCartney.

Now, that's what I call evidence! Uh, no, I don't.

Pat,

First I want to say that your mention of Fetzer has no bearing on whether Dr. Livingston was likely being truthful or not. That would be a "guilt by association" logical fallacy.

I read several pages of Livingston's testimony and saw nothing indicating to me that he was being anything but honest. I wanted to read the full transcript but it is 44 pages long. If you could provide page numbers where he gives the "save the world" comment and other troubling testimony, I'd be happy to take a look.

As for Livingston's friend, Dudman, not recalling a particular statement he's made, I don't find that to be very convincing. I've said plenty to my friends, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they didn't remember something I'd said that I thought they would.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

First I want to say that your mention of Fetzer has no bearing on whether Dr. Livingston was likely being truthful or not. That would be a "guilt by association" logical fallacy.

I read several pages of Livingston's testimony and saw nothing indicating to me that he was being anything but honest. I wanted to read the full transcript but it is 44 pages long. If you could provide page numbers where he gives the "save the world" comment and other troubling testimony, I'd be happy to take a look.

As for Livingston's friend, Dudman, not recalling a particular statement he's made, I don't find that to be very convincing. I've said plenty to my friends, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they didn't remember something I'd said that I thought they would.

Context is everything, Sandy. Of course, Livingston's relationship to Fetzer is relevant. Fetzer has revealed himself to be a pusher of the zaniest of the zany. He does not vet his "experts" and goes to great lengths to conceal their true colors. According to his statements and testimony Livingston performed at least two video-taped interviews, in which he told his whole story. Fetzer had these, and yet they never saw the light of day. it's pretty clear why.

Fetzer's pushing a witness into the limelight is about the same as the National Enquirer's putting a story about aliens on its cover. You can't say for certain it's nonsense, but you can sure as heck bet on it.

P.S. If you're gonna continue to repeat Livingston's nonsense, you should at least ask yourself why everyone to look into his statements has come up believing they were nonsense. There's no evidence the radio interview existed. There's no evidence Livingston made the phone call to Humes. And there's an incredibly strong odor surrounding the whole story. Livingston made out that as an employee at the National Institute of Health, he was in a position to call Humes--a military doctor performing an autopsy on his commander in chief--and offer him advice. This is utter BS. No civilian would call up a military hospital to speak with a pathologist and expect them to take his call, let alone act like this was in the usual order of business. Livingston was quite clearly a fantasist, IMO.

P.P.S. Dudman was, of course, an extremely old man when I contacted him. But he was still working as a journalist, and had a clear recollection of Livingston as someone he'd known in college and had spoken to at reunions. He said Livingston had an interest in the Kennedy assassination (a story on which Dudman had written numerous articles, many with a pro-conspiracy slant). But he had no recollection of Livingston ever telling him about the phone call to Humes--which would only have been one of the biggest stories of Dudman's career, assuming it was true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pat,

First I want to say that your mention of Fetzer has no bearing on whether Dr. Livingston was likely being truthful or not. That would be a "guilt by association" logical fallacy.

I read several pages of Livingston's testimony and saw nothing indicating to me that he was being anything but honest. I wanted to read the full transcript but it is 44 pages long. If you could provide page numbers where he gives the "save the world" comment and other troubling testimony, I'd be happy to take a look.

As for Livingston's friend, Dudman, not recalling a particular statement he's made, I don't find that to be very convincing. I've said plenty to my friends, and I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out they didn't remember something I'd said that I thought they would.

Context is everything, Sandy. Of course, Livingston's relationship to Fetzer is relevant. Fetzer has revealed himself to be a pusher of the zaniest of the zany. He does not vet his "experts" and goes to great lengths to conceal their true colors. According to his statements and testimony Livingston performed at least two video-taped interviews, in which he told his whole story. Fetzer had these, and yet they never saw the light of day. it's pretty clear why.

Fetzer kept the tapes, therefore Dr. Livingston is a l.i.a.r. ? LOL, sorry Pat, that doesn't follow. Who knows why Fetzer kept the tapes.

Anyway, using your logic, anybody Fetzer has supported among JFK assassination researchers is also not to be trusted. People like David Mantik, Charles Crenshaw, and Doug Horne. (Oh wait... maybe you don't believe these guys either.)

Look, I don't know if Livingston is telling the truth or not. But he was freakin' Science Director of two of the National Institutes of Health, quite prestigious positions. Earlier he had taught at Yale, UCLA, and Stanford. After NIH he was professor of neurosciences at UC San Diego, where he founded and was chairman of the first-ever Department of Neurosciences.

None of this proves that Livingston told the truth. But it tells me he deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Fetzer's pushing a witness into the limelight is about the same as the National Enquirer's putting a story about aliens on its cover. You can't say for certain it's nonsense, but you can sure as heck bet on it.

No, you've got it all wrong. That is, I think I disagree. (Remember that Beatles song? :) ) Just because Fetzer likes a person's story doesn't mean the person is a l.i.a.r.

P.S. If you're gonna continue to repeat Livingston's nonsense, you should at least ask yourself why everyone to look into his statements has come up believing they were nonsense.

Dr. Gary L. Aguilar doesn't consider what Dr. Livingston said to be nonsense. (Unless he's changed his mind since Fetzer went nuts.) I trust his assessment over most researchers'. (Source)

There's no evidence the radio interview existed. There's no evidence Livingston made the phone call to Humes. And there's an incredibly strong odor surrounding the whole story.

Livingston made out that as an employee at the National Institute of Health, he was in a position to call Humes--a military doctor performing an autopsy on his commander in chief--and offer him advice. This is utter BS. No civilian would call up a military hospital to speak with a pathologist and expect them to take his call, let alone act like this was in the usual order of business. Livingston was quite clearly a fantasist, IMO.

Pat, Dr. Livingston wasn't just any employee of the NIH. He was Scientific Director of two of the Institutes! One of them being the Institute of Neurological Diseases and Blindness. And so, yes, I believe Livingston would call Humes, and that as a Director at NIH he would be passed through to him. That doesn't strike me as odd at all. Especially considering the fact that Livingston had been a Naval Reserve officer and had served as a physician at a Naval hospital during the War. I suspect that he, as a neuroscientist, wanted to be of service if he could. And that he may have used the throat wound as an ice breaker.

P.P.S. Dudman was, of course, an extremely old man when I contacted him. But he was still working as a journalist, and had a clear recollection of Livingston as someone he'd known in college and had spoken to at reunions. He said Livingston had an interest in the Kennedy assassination (a story on which Dudman had written numerous articles, many with a pro-conspiracy slant). But he had no recollection of Livingston ever telling him about the phone call to Humes--which would only have been one of the biggest stories of Dudman's career, assuming it was true.

I don't know why you think that Livingston calling Humes would have been such a big scoop. So what if a doctor called Humes to give him some advice. Livingston was no national figure, wasn't part of the event, and wasn't even a witness. I don't see it as newsworthy at all.

And I don't see why such a phone call would impress Dudman. A director of one institution calls a director of another. Big deal.

BTW, I read Dr. Livingston's 1992 letter to David Lifton, here. I found nothing suspicious.

Source: Wikipedia Article

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×