A question to David Lifton

[Ray Mitcham]

How do Francois  and DVP explain the butchery of the President's trachetomy?

[François Carlier]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Hi Francois,

While I don't think the scenario you laid out above actually happened on 11/22/63, I will say that your scenario is definitely more believable (and doable) than the outlandish "pre-autopsy autopsy" conspiracy theory put forth by David Lifton.

For the sake of argument, however, I'm wondering something....

If your "The Secret Service Took JFK's Body Out Of The Casket" scenario were true, then why did every single person who would have witnessed such an event decide to lie about it and say that the President's body was never removed from the casket at all? (That would include all of the Secret Service agents who would have been involved in such an action, plus many Kennedy aides, such as Ken O'Donnell and David Powers, plus Mrs. Jacqueline Kennedy (who never said anything about such an extremely odd---albeit non-conspiratorial---event occurring aboard Air Force One on November 22nd.)

I would think if the situation were the benign and innocent event that you propose, then the truth of that event would likely have surfaced (at least many years later, if not sooner) via at least one or two of the people aboard the plane that day.

But I like the general idea that Francois has brought forth here --- that is, the idea that even some of the wildest and outrageous conspiracy theories could conceivably have a non-sinister and non-conspiratorial explanation after all.

Thank you very much for your answer, David.
I enjoy that type of discussion.
I have to say that what you write makes sense. Indeed, if "my scenario" had happened, it is hard to conceive how it is that not even one witness ever said anything about it in fifty-five years ! You are right. I don't have an answer for that.

[Ray Mitcham]

But do you have an answer to my question, Francois?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

32 minutes ago, François Carlier said:

Thank you very much for your answer, David.
I enjoy that type of discussion.
I have to say that what you write makes sense. Indeed, if "my scenario" had happened, it is hard to conceive how it is that not even one witness ever said anything about it in fifty-five years ! You are right. I don't have an answer for that.

Sine you mentioned me in your post Francois, I'll just say that for the record I agree with David VP. You simply can't reconcile each and every eyewitness statement and it is best to accept that some "outliers" will exist. Interesting idea though.

[Ray Mitcham]

35 minutes ago, Ray Mitcham said:

But do you have an answer to my question, Francois?

Seems he doesn't.

[François Carlier]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Sine you mentioned me in your post Francois, I'll just say that for the record I agree with David VP. You simply can't reconcile each and every eyewitness statement and it is best to accept that some "outliers" will exist. Interesting idea though.

Thank you very much for your answer.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Still I would love to have some feedback / opinion / comment from people whom I consider both knowledgeable and reasonable, namely David Von Pein, Fred Litwin, W. Tracy Parnell, Paul Baker and Lance Payette.

Hi, Francois, I just noticed that you mentioned me.  I'm flattered.  I think I've mentioned previously that Lifton's original book was one that fired me up when I was a newbie gee-whiz conspiracy theorist many years ago.  I now look at the entire body of his work as a species of insanity, to such a degree that I'm disappointed in myself for ever having bought into it.  Of course, that was so long ago that I was still a writer of advertising copy and humor and had none of the critical-thinking skills that come with three years of law school and 35 years of being a lawyer.

As DVP said, I too have come to appreciate that many seeming indicia of conspiracy could indeed have non-conspiratorial explanations.  I'm thinking in particular of the chaotic scrambling after the assassination to hide any association with LHO and any failure to monitor him, which could give the appearance of a cover-up conspiracy but could also simply be predictable cover-our-butts scrambling by multiple agencies in the wake of a tragedy as monumental as the JFK assassination.

Thinking way (WAY) outside the box, I wonder if this could be a wrinkle on your theory:  Since it theoretically was a violation of Texas law not to have an autopsy in Texas, there had been the unpleasant confrontation at Parkland, and Admiral Burkley was right there, I wonder if someone with legal training might have suggested "Look, let's at least create a plausible defense by opening the casket and having Burkley do a cursory inspection before the plane takes off.  It obviously won't be a real autopsy, but it will show good faith and probably be enough to defeat any charges under Texas law if the redneck Texas officials decide to push this silly issue.  If they don't push the issue, it never needs to be mentioned."

This is indeed a far-fetched scenario - but as a retired lawyer I can tell you it isn't far-fetched in terms of the way lawyers think.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

How do Francois  and DVP explain the butchery of the President's trachetomy?

I don't claim to have any surgical expertise, although I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express in El Paso last month, but do you find it unthinkable that in the utter chaos at Parkland, with an apparent bullet hole in the precise location where the incision would typically be made, the net result when all was said and done might have been somewhat more ghastly than a neat little hole?  Are you suggesting that the surgeons should have thought "Wait, wait, we need to preserve this little bullet hole intact because whether it's an entrance wound or exit wound could be critical evidence?"  FWIW, this is a photo of "tracheal access" from what seems to be a reputable medical site:  https://www.webop.com/general-and-visceral-surgery/implantations/Open-tracheostomy

There's even a video that you'll want to be sure to watch immediately before breakfast.

 

[Paz Marverde]

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

the butchery of the President's trachetomy

Surprise coming about that, probably 

[Cory Santos]

3 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Seems he doesn't.

Lol he has to check Posners book first before a response.  Wait for “Oswald certainly did it the evidence is clear“ along w a condescending comment that you are somehow foolish.  Lol. 

[Micah Mileto]

4 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

How do Francois  and DVP explain the butchery of the President's trachetomy?

Ooh I got a book-length post about that out soon

[Guest]

Perhaps those who insist there was "butchery" can explain themselves.  Was it a big ugly gash by the time the death stare photo was taken (and probably before the body left Parkland)?  Sure.  Is the explanation inevitably sinister when one considers (1) the type of incision associated with any tracheotomy, which is scarcely a neat and tidy hole; (2) the preexistence of what the Parkland doctors thought was a bullet entry wound and that may have caused them not to proceed as though this were a garden-variety tracheotomy; (3) the utterly chaotic ER circumstances of trying to somehow keep alive a President who was missing a substantial portion of his head; (4) the necessary handling of the body that occurred after the death at Parkland and upon the arrival at Bethesda, which may not have been as reverential as we might imagine; (5) an autopsy that began (apparently) without knowledge that a tracheotomy had been performed at Parkland; and (6) whatever additional probing there may have been at the autopsy, especially since the exit for the back wound was in doubt.  One can certainly hypothesize something sinister, but I see no reason that a sinister explanation is mandated or more plausible than a mundane one.  Under the circumstances, I'd hardly expect an incision as clean as might occur in a routine tracheotomy.  I don't see that Francois or DVP or Little Old Me needs to "explain" anything in this regard.  If we do, I have now explained why I decline to engage in conspiracy-oriented hypothesizing about the tracheotomy incision.

There has been extensive discussion of this topic on past threads.  You'd have to have something pretty startling and new not to be beating a dead horse.

[Michael Cross]

14 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Perhaps those who insist there was "butchery" can explain themselves.  Was it a big ugly gash by the time the death stare photo was taken (and probably before the body left Parkland)? 

Nice assumption about Parkland, completely not based in fact.  Any argument based on that assumption is groundless.  

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Nice assumption about Parkland, completely not based in fact.  Any argument based on that assumption is groundless.  

Hello?  That's why I said "probably," because it isn't my assumption that the death stare photo represents the condition of the incision when the body left Parkland.  At least some of those at Parkland indeed said that the condition of the incision in the death stare photo was consistent with what they had observed at Parkland, which is why I said "probably."  Perhaps "possibly" would have made you happier.  I would indeed assume, under the circumstances as I have described them, that the incision at Parkland would have differed, possibly quite substantially, from a garden-variety tracheotomy incision in which there was no preexisting bullet hole and the ER physicians weren't frantically trying to save a President with a large portion of his head missing.  This seems to me an entirely reasonable assumption.  My other assumption, however, which I believe squares with common sense and logic, is that the incision would not have been precisely the same following the autopsy as when the body left Parkland.  How great the difference may have been, I have no idea and neither do you.  Possibly there was a very substantial difference, which would not inevitably suggest anything sinister to me because I am not in the grip of Conspiracy Logic. 

[François Carlier]

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Perhaps those who insist there was "butchery" can explain themselves.  Was it a big ugly gash by the time the death stare photo was taken (and probably before the body left Parkland)?  Sure.  Is the explanation inevitably sinister when one considers (1) the type of incision associated with any tracheotomy, which is scarcely a neat and tidy hole; (2) the preexistence of what the Parkland doctors thought was a bullet entry wound and that may have caused them not to proceed as though this were a garden-variety tracheotomy; (3) the utterly chaotic ER circumstances of trying to somehow keep alive a President who was missing a substantial portion of his head; (4) the necessary handling of the body that occurred after the death at Parkland and upon the arrival at Bethesda, which may not have been as reverential as we might imagine; (5) an autopsy that began (apparently) without knowledge that a tracheotomy had been performed at Parkland; and (6) whatever additional probing there may have been at the autopsy, especially since the exit for the back wound was in doubt.  One can certainly hypothesize something sinister, but I see no reason that a sinister explanation is mandated or more plausible than a mundane one.  Under the circumstances, I'd hardly expect an incision as clean as might occur in a routine tracheotomy.  I don't see that Francois or DVP or Little Old Me needs to "explain" anything in this regard.  If we do, I have now explained why I decline to engage in conspiracy-oriented hypothesizing about the tracheotomy incision.

There has been extensive discussion of this topic on past threads.  You'd have to have something pretty startling and new not to be beating a dead horse.

I'm François and I approve this message ! 😁
Seriously speaking, what Lance Payette has written is exactly what I think.
I would have been unable to write such a clear message, since I'm not half as articulate as Lance, but in essence, his post is what I would have answered.
To be sure, I do not subscribe to David Lifton's theory that someone purposely enlarged the tracheotomy wound with the aim of making it appear to be an exit wound instead of an entry wound (I believe that it was an exit wound).
Besides, I exchanged letters with Doctor Perry some twenty years ago and I seem to remember him saying that he found nothing wrong with the president's wounds as described in the official version. I'm not at home tonight but I'll check Perry's letter on Friday and tell you exactly what he wrote to me about that.