David Lifton

I investigated this very carefully back in the period 1967 - 1972 (years before the advent of the Internet); analyzing all relevant documents and telephoning all the relevant witnesses. This is only an issue for someone who started so late in the game that their information comes from a YouTube video (and so their reaction is "Gee, how interesting! I never head of this before!") Bottom line: when the Dallas coffin left Parkland Hospital (about 1:55 PM, approx), it contained JFKs body. When AF-1 took off from Love Field, the coffin was empty. See Best Evidence for the many details.

A couple of points: (1) The correct spelling of JWS's last name: "S i b e r t." (2) Sibert and O'Neill's FBI Report (dated 11/26/63) was based on "oral statements" made to the two FBI agents, by the chief autopsy surgeon 'at the time of autopsy" --THIS, according to the official FBI statement issued in the aftermath of the publication of Epstein's book, "INQUEST", published in July 1966, as well as letters written to the FBI by Sylvia Meagher, and myself. (3) The S & O report states that the bullet exited through the hole at the "top" of the head. He may have said something different at a later date, but that's what was stated in the report dated 11/26/63 (and which is Commission Document 7 ["CD 7', to use FBI lingo]; (4) Its standard practice --or was, anyway, in 1963--for FBI agents to make notes, then write their FBI ("302") report and then destroy the notes. Nothing sinister about that. That was "SOP". DSL

The FBI agents went to the trouble of stating the the body was "removed from the casket in which it had been transported'. Based on simple rules of English usage, it seems to me that the descriptive phrase --that the coffin been specified was "the casket in which it (i.e., the President's body --DSL) had been transported," would suggests that there was another (i.e., some "other") casket. If not, why specify that the casket as "the casket in which it had been transported." Think of it this way; Suppose the FBI agent had made a telephone report to a supervisor at FBI Headquarters. I can easily imagine that a transcript of such conversation might read: FBI AGENT ("Joe"): We witnessed the body as it was taken from from the casket in which it had been transported. SUPERVISOR: What are you saying, Joe? Was there some other casket? FBI AGENT (Joe): Yes, there was. SUPERVISOR: Which one was that? FBI AGENT: That expensive ceremonial casket which the Kennedy family purchased in Dallas. SUPERVISOR: You mean the body was not in that? FBI AGENT: No, it was not. That's why I reported that the body was removed "from the casket in which it had been transported". SUPERVISOR: You mean that there were two caskets, and both arrived on Air Force One? FBI Agent: yes. SUPERVISOR: Then I think you should say exactly that, in plain English. ** ** ** You get the idea. Unfortunately, the FBI report does not state 'the facts' in plain English. DSL

no text. Sorry.

I suppose "hi tech rounds the wouldn't leave a trace" is a possibility. But I prefer the more probable explanation: that they were puzzled because they could find no bullets; and expected to find (one or more) bullets (or substantial size fragments) because of the wound geometry. For example (and I'm writing this from recollection). . . Humes found a bruise atop the right lung, and testified to that, in detail. So I believe that based on the wound geometry (entry in the neck, based on news reports, for example), Humes' expectation --most likely (if he was relying on "Dallas information"--was that he expected there to be a retrievable missile in the body, in the upper right thorax area. As for Sibert's call to the FBI Laboratory the more plausible explanation (IMHO) is that he had been informed by SS Agent Kellerman that a bullet had been found on a Dallas stretcher, and had been told that that missile had been brought to the FBI Lab. In your hypothesized scenario, you believe the phone call was made to inquire about some sort of exotic ammunition. Yes, that is a possibility, but I think the the more plausible explanation is what I have hypothesized above. Which brings me to the next point. NEXT POINT: There another point I'd like to raise. In the 55 plus years since Dallas, has anyone ever filed an FOIA request for any FBI Lab record re incoming phone cals that night; and, specifically, memorandum or notes about that specific telephone call? The FBI is famous for saving various notes and documents, and I would think its never too late to file a request for any such record. Has such an FOIA request been made? (DSL 2/4/2021; 7:10 PM PST)

I believe that the exact quote was that "the body was removed from the casket in which it had been transported" (per Pete Mellor, above). The point is: that the coffin [in which the body arrived at the Bethesda morgue, a shipping casket] was distinctly different from the four-hundred pound ceremonial casket which was in the Navy ambulance (and in which Jackie and RFK arrived at Bethesda). From the language in their FBI report, it seems clear that the two FBI agents were making an explicit distinction between two separate coffins: the one that was in the naval ambulance (in which Jacqueline and Bobby had been riding from Andrews Air Force Base) and the one in which JFK's body was delivered to the morgue. So exactly what did the FBI agents know, and when did they know it? (To use Sen. Howard Baker's question, from Watergate). The more I studied this (years ago), the more it seemed evident to me that the two FBI agents must have been aware that two coffins were used, and that the one in the Navy ambulance (arriving from Andrews AFB) was empty. However: this does not mean that they knew (or truly understood) the full ramifications of what they were witnessing--i.e., how this deception worked; just that something strange or peculiar was going on. Bottom line: they may not have understood the details, or grasped all the implications, but its hard to believe that they were completely duped (or unaware). So they (or one of them) made notes, and then dictated an important, and detailed report-- which, please note, was not typed up until November 26th, 1963.* (Which raises another question: why four days later?) *ASIDE: Note the three (3) separate dates on each FBI "302" report: lower left, lower right. upper right. The first, when the notes were made; the second, when they were transcribed; the third, when the actual FBI "302" was written (i.e., typed). END ASIDE But no one (as far as I know) ever "blew the whistle" or spelled out the details of the deception that they witnessed (or even wrote anything down which suggested that they understood what I would call "the wider implications.") Another point (and an important one): "What did RFK know, and when did he know it?" One final point: remember the sentence in the S & O report where they wrote (i.e., where their report states) that the Navy autopsy doctors were "at a loss explain" why they could find no bullets? IMHO: you don't write a sentence like that unless you have a specific awareness that something peculiar is going on -- even if you cannot figure it out. DSL (2/03/21; 3:30 PST); 10/7/21, 12:05 AM PDT

Pat: For someone not "up-to-date" with the "photographic evidence debunking the dictabelt evidence," it would help if you would provide a few sentences briefly listing the major points --i.e., the points that you believe "debunk" the dictabelt evidence. Otherwise, this discussion will only be clear to those who have been following the details of this particular aspect of the debate. I'm not requesting that you write a detailed treatise--just a few sentences listing your objections Thanks. DSL (2/02/21; 7:10 PM PST)

Hi Greg: Your personal recollections are most interesting. Definitely credible. What a nasty person Ray Bliss was. DSL

If an agent found a bullet, then he should have immediately turned it over to an FBI agent, or even a Dallas Police Official (assuming one was present, who was not part of any criminal conspiracy. And I have interviewed a number of them and believe there were definitely honest Dallas Police officers). But getting back to SS Agent Kinney: It was not his job --or responsibility--to theorize about the shooting -the murder of President Kennedy -- and to put the bullet (obviously, an important item of evidence, whether it was actually "fired in anger" during the assassination, or planted on a stretcher") on the "proper" stretcher; i.e., to engage in personal hypothesizing as to where the bullet "belonged." If a person is playing cards in a Las Vegas casino, and --having been dealt his cards (one of which is an Ace of Spades) -- he notes that a second "Ace of Spades" has now being dealt during the games. At the point, what is his proper course of action? At that point, he realizes the card deck is corrupted. (And perhaps the dealer is complicit). Now back to Agent Kinney, and your explanation for his (supposed) behavior, if we are to believe his story. "Kinney's behavior was not part of a plot," you reassuringly intone. And you profess to know that? How, may I ask? But then you play psychologist, and go further, providing an excuse for his behavior. The action Agent Kinney then took (according to this account he has provided) was legitimate because, you say, "he sought to avoid this (any controversy) by planting the bullet on what he assumed was Kennedy's stretcher." If he was a cop investigating a burglary, do you think it would be legitimate for him to re-arrange the crime scene so that the burglary --after re-arrangement -- "would make more sense"? Is that proper? This reminds me of the bad (and very dark) joke of the "innocent explanation" for the grassy knoll shooter. After his arrest, the accused claims he was just deer hunting, and had heard that a bunch of deer would be passing by, going "east to west" on Elm Street. So that explained his presence on the knoll, with his gun. But then, to his complete surprise, the Presidential motorcade passed, and --because of all this mental confusion --he fired a shot, thinking he was shooting at a deer. Wow. . if any of the assassins had gone on trial, I'll bet their attorney would love to have had you as a consultant; or, better yet, present on the jury. DSL (1/24/2021; 5:40 PM PST)

Thank you!

1. I was taught, back in high school, that "words are the tools of thought." (Sorry if that offends). 2. I was also the managing editor of my high school newspaper, and often had the responsibility of reviewing copy, and --where necessary --improving it. 3. I don't remember the word we were taught to use to describe someone who mocks another's use of proper vocabulary. 4. In the interest of not appearing "overly educated," do you also omit ZIP codes when mailing letters? How about when you go camping? Do you avoid bringing a map, or a compass? I'm glad you're not an astronaut. . . or even a librarian. DSL

Could you please send me your email? I have a question. Best, DSL (dlifton@earthlink.net)

1. Yes, Jim D., it was in fact "really a different book". FWIW: I never heard of someone writing "a different book" (your own description) and then trying to pass it off as a "revision" of the original book that he wrote. If one wants to write "another" book (i.e., a separate book), one publishes it as a separate title, or, alternatively, if one retains the original title, then calls it "Volume II." 2. Regarding your second paragraph, QUOTE ON: "If it was me I probably would have named it "Though the Heave's Fall"..(sic) .etc. DSL Response: Frankly, I wasn't sure what you were referring to, so I looked up "heave" (which I thought might be related to what happens when someone has had too much to drink). FYI: Here's what I found: QUOTE: • 1. lift or haul (a heavy thing) with great effort: "she heaved the sofa back into place". . .pull, lug, manhandle, drag, ... . . • 2.produce (a sigh):"he heaved a euphoric sigh of relief" noun 1. an act of heaving, especially a strong pull: "With that last heave, Maurice's anchor wrenched clear of the mud" MY Final commentary: All of this is irrelevant. Apparently, you were referring to Garrison's making an astronomical reference to the "heavens"; i.e., "though the heaven's fall" justice will be done, etc.. DSL

To Jim D.: Your last sentence could use some improvement: As written, it states: "I have to answer the guy who thinks I do not think I write my own articles." (italics added). This is poorly stated. What the heck are you saying: "Who thinks I do not think"...?? Is that a Freudian slip? Or simply the result of syntactical confusion. Suggested improvement: You wrote: "I have to answer the guy (apparently me, DSL) who thinks I do not write my own articles." My Response: That's correct. It was well known (years ago) that submissions would be made to your newsletter, and that they would then be published and signed by you. Maybe you're not doing that anymore, but do you deny that that's the way you (once) functioned? Further, you would then refer to yourself as "Chairman of the Board." I don't know if you're still doing that, and frankly don't care. But that's the origin of the problem (and hopefully its no longer the case). But if there's any confusion about the authorship of material published in your newsletter (and under your aegis) you have only yourself to blame. (DSL, 1/19/21, 4:30 AM PST; 1/20/21 3 PM PST)

Two comments: "cant" is not the word you seek; correct spelling: "can't"; or, better yet: "can not". As to "verisimilitude, here's the definition, from the Internet: What does verisimilitude mean? From its roots, verisimilitude means basically "similarity to the truth". Most fiction writers and filmmakers aim at some kind of verisimilitude to give their stories an air of reality. END OF DICTIONARY DEFINITION. Here's my attempt to use the word in a sentence: "By placing three shells near the sixth floor window, stashing a rifle mail-ordered to Oswald's post office box elsewhere on the sixth floor, and then removing bullets and altering wounds on the body of the assassinated president, the false appearance was created that Oswald was the assassin. By which I mean: the foundation was laid for a false version of the shooting, based on false autopsy conclusions (about the gunshot trajectories, based on a body from which the original bullets had been removed, and with altered wounds). But it was all a deception. However, because of the falsification of the "best evidence," this false appearance --this crude frame-up, this false "solution" to the JFK assassination-- seemed genuine and credible and projected an underserved appearance of verisimilitude." FWIW: I could probably improve on this, but my New York Times was just thrown up against my door, and at 5 A.M. that takes precedence over all else. (Perhaps I can improve on this later. Others may wish to chime in. DSL) P.S. Changing the subject (completely): I can hardly believe that POTUS is consulting with the "My Pillow" guy (Michael Lindell) on the subject of whether martial law should be invoked here in the U.S. Really?! The "My Pillow" guy now conferring with POTUS about invoking martial law? Is this what has become of our politics? Gary Trudeau please note! Has our politics been reduced to something out of Doonesbury? Will the My Pillow guy be weighing in on whether Iran should be permitted to have nuclear weapons? Woody Allen: please include this in your next movie! Yee Gads! I was thinking of ordering two of his pillows, but now I think I may go to the nearest Target, instead.

Please send me your email address. Put "JFK" in the subject line. DSL (dlifton@gmail.com)

Revised and updated, 1/16/21, 4:15 AM PST "After the fact, there is no truth. There is only what the jury decides." Yes, that is exactly what Garrison said to me --in the late 1960s --when I was meeting with him (and debating with him), and when the subject was Kerry Thornley, a Marine who knew Oswald and who was a subject of interest (to Garrison). Why was Garrison interested in Thornley? Because, in the year before the assassination (around late 1962), Thornley had completed the manuscript for a novel called The Idle Warriors -- inspired by his service in the Marines-- and one of the characters in his book (a Marine named Johnny Shellburne) was based on Oswald. Thornley knew Oswald in the Spring of 1959, about 5 months prior to his defection, when both were serving at a USMC radar station in Southern California (specifically, at El Toro Marine Base); and one can read all about this by reading Thornley's testimony, which can be found in Volume 8 of the Warren Commission. Now let's turn to Oswald. Oswald was a pretend Marxist. His fake defection to the USSR would occur the following September (1959). The previous Spring (of 1959), when both were stationed at El Toro, Oswald would argue with Thornley about the superiority of Marxism as an ideology; and the Soviet Union, as a country. Thornley thought Oswald was "all talk" (my quotes); a "parlor" Communist (Thornley's quote). Consequently, when Oswald defected (9/11/1959) Thornley was astounded. "OMG," he thought, "He [Oswald] really meant it! And now he's done it! He's acted on these beliefs." Anyway, Thornley finished his novel, with its character (Johnny Shellburne) who defected. It was in the fall of 1959 that Thornley read about Oswald's defection (in the military newspaper, Stars and Stripes, and after that, Thornley lost track of Oswald. . . for several years. Now move forward to November 1963. Thornley, then living in New Orleans, was astounded when --now at least a year after his manuscript was completed-- he learned from the major media that Oswald (his acquaintance from the Marines, four years earlier) was arrested as the accused assassin of JFK! It was as if someone who was on the pages of his manuscript (i.e., Johnny Shellburne, the Oswald character) had walked off those pages, and gone off and murdered the President Kennedy! ** ** ** ** I met Thornley in 1965, in Los Angeles. I looked him up after reading something he had written about Oswald, which portrayed him as an irrational psychopath. Over the course of several months -- and during this period, my 30,000 word essay on the medical evidence, "The Case for Three Assassins", was published in Ramparts (magazine) -- I pretty much changed his views about Oswald being JFK's assassin. Now move forward several years. Around March 1967, along came Garrison, and his announcement that he had "solved" the JFK assassination. This was about five (5) months after I made my basic discoveries (Nov 1966) that JFK's body was altered (bullets removed, wounds altered); and that was the basic method by which the Bethesda autopsy had been falsified). At this time, as I understand it, DiEugenio was either an undergraduate student or already teaching sixth grade somewhere in Los Angeles. Because of my Dec 1966 Ramparts article ("The Case for 3 Assassins") I arranged for a private meeting with Garrison, and my purpose was to speak with him about Thornley. By that time, I had heard that Garrison was viewing Thornley with suspicion. I knew Thornley to be, politically, a libertarian --an admirer of laissez faire economics. He viewed JFK as anti-business (which I believe to have been quite incorrect). But so what? He certainly had nothing to do with JFK's murder. But then along came a number of JFK researchers, who had Garrison's ear (e.g., the late Vincent Salandria, am ACLU lawyer from Philadelphia) and then -- years later -- came Jim DiEugenio, with his more simple-minded view of reality and, concomitantly, the assassination. I have always believed that one way to judge the ability of those who set to to investigate the JFK assassination is to accurately judge whether they have the ability to distinguish between what is the result of coincidence, and what is the consequence of design. The situation of Thornley and Oswald provides a good example. From my standpoint, Oswald's mission --to go to Russia and fake a defection --had its roots going back to 1958, when LHO was in Japan, and stationed at Atsugi Naval Air Station. By the Spring of 1959, Oswald --now stationed at El Toro Marine Base, in Southern California --was involved in learning how to read and write Russian (another subject). The point is: Oswald was already "role-playing" (and spouting Marxism)--and in front of other Marines --by the time he was stationed at El Toro, and came to know Thornley. Thornley found him so interesting as to cause him to include a character ("Johnny Shellburne") based on the real Lee Harvey Oswald, in the novel that he was writing ("The Idle Warriors"). What I have just written requires a certain amount of sophistication to comprehend; and if everything is taken at face value, the true significance can be lost. So now, with these preliminary remarks, the reader of this post can perhaps better understand what follows. ** ** **. DiEugenio's view of the situation: "Thornley was writing about Oswald? Before Dallas?! Impossible! This could not be innocent! This had to be part of a set-up! (i.e., of Oswald)." This simple minded imbecilic view laid the foundation for what happened next: Garrison calling Thornley before a Grand Jury (Feb. 1968), charging him with perjury, issuing a libelous accusatory press release about him, the implication being that Thornley was somehow connected with the (or "a") JFK plot. Certain other JFK researchers believed this. DiEugenio-- not exactly blessed with an overabundance of skills when it came to critical thinking -- bought into much of this nonsense years later. Thornley passed away years ago, so the way is now clear for DiEugenio to say whatever he wishes. I don't know all the details of what he's currently writing, but its my understanding he's working on a film project, that Oliver Stone is involved, and that the Thornley situation is (also) involved. Again: I knew Thornley quite well, and this goes back to 1965, two years before Garrison launched his investigation. Once or twice, I had dinner at his home, and met his wife and child. I have little doubt that Kerry Thornley had anything -- anything whatsoever -- to do with JFK's death. Further: I have little doubt that whatever it is that DiEugenio is writing will be the equivalent, historically, of a Nothing Burger. But that doesn't mean that there won't be "film rights" to such a Nothing Burger. 0r that it might not be sold to some producer in Hollywood. Especially if it is brought to the Big Screen by a prominent film maker who has a serious interest in the JFK assassination. Of course, such a film project would not be advertised by saying: "Now, the full truth about the JFK case! The Nothing Burger -- soon coming to a theater near you!" No, not at all. That may be the truth, the reality, but that's not how it will be packaged. It will be packaged in ways that will afford this falsity some level of verisimilitude. The whole situation is unjust and exasperating. Go away Jim DiEugenio. If you behaved this way towards someone who was still alive, and had assets, you -- along with any financial backer with whom you are affiliated -- would have serious legal exposure. In plain English, you'd risk being sued. But Thornley is dead, and so it is now possible to ride this false hobby horse -- this Nothing Burger-- and perhaps even create a screenplay falsely implicating Kerry Thornley in President Kennedy's murder. It may be nonsense, but that doesn't mean it might not be saleable. And, of course, the usual precautions will be take to avoid lawsuits. Will there be a name change, if this travesty is filmed? Perhaps a box at the beginning, with text that states: "This film is based on a true story, (or, more conservatively stated, "inspired by" true events)?" Whatever the details, the reality is this: with the passage of enough time, Kerry Thornley's character can now be safely "assassinated from a distance," and by the anonymity afforded by the passage of time. But, Jim D., I must ask: is this your idea of "the facts", and history? Is this the proper way for a school teacher to behave? Is this your idea of "destiny betrayed" (whatever that means)? As I understand it, the current state of our currency is: $1, $2, $5, $20, $50, and $100. The thesis you re propounding is as phony as a $3 bill. You're a real profile in courage, Jim DiEugenio. The bottom line: it doesn't take much courage to defame the dead. DSL (1/11/21; Revised, 1/16/21, 4:15 AM PST)

FWIW: Pat Lambert and I had a multi-hour in-person interview with (retired) Richard Rogge, taped with permission, at his home in Southern California (which I now refer to as "SoCal"). Rogge was a firm believer in the LHO-did-it alone school of thought. In other words, he completely bought --as valid--the Dallas Police Department view of the case. The one particular that I recall: that in the hours following the assassination, Rogge was personally flown to Washington (as I recall) on LBJ's jet. (DSL, 12/28/20 -1:45 AM PST)

Quoting from your writing: QUOTE ON: So, to sum up, there was no need to alter the body if the original plan called for framing multiple shooters from multiple directions. This would have accorded nicely with the real eye and earwitnesses who did indeed see and hear multiple shooters! UNQUOTE DSL RESPONSE: Of couse, you are free to postulate anything you wish; but the problem is that your hypothesis does not comport with the existing record. From the opening minutes on the Dallas police radio, through the initial wire service reports, the emerging story was that JFK was shot by a single shooter, firing from the SE corner of the sixth floor of the TSBD. This comported very nicely with the notion that the assassination was a quirk of fate, an accident of history. Furthermore, the falsification of the autopsy (via post-mortem wound alteration) reveals the true "blueprint" of the crime: the attempt to operate the constitutionally mandated line-of-succession. What you're proposing -- some kind of wild-west "shoot 'em up," with no attempt tp conceal the multiple shooters who, to the contrary, simply "run away" afterwards-- would not have led to the stable succession, politically. As LBJ might have said, "That dog won't hunt."

Yes, I meant "speculations." Thanks. DSL

What I wrote -- i.e., my answers --were precise and accurate. Its your inferences and peculations that don't follow (or are unwarranted). But I cannot fully address your (additional) questions at this juncture, or comment further on your speculations about my beliefs and conclusions. For that, you'll have to read the book. FWIW: I never agreed with Doug Horne's thesis that Humes altered the body, and told him so at the time. In writing. Not only did I disagree with him on this point -- I thought that conclusion was seriously incorrect, and did a major injustice to Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon. IMHO: blaming Humes was akin to blaming a bank teller for cashing a forged check, when the teller did so only reluctantly, and left a clear trail of evidence that the item was illegitimate. (DSL, 12/14/20 - 2:20 AM PST)

What I wrote -- i.e., my answers --were precise and accurate. Its your inferences and speculations that don't follow (or are unwarranted). But I cannot fully address your (additional) questions at this juncture, or comment further on your speculations about my beliefs and conclusions. For that, you'll have to read the book. FWIW: I never agreed with Doug Horne's thesis that Humes altered the body, and told him so at the time. In writing. Not only did I disagree with him on this point -- I thought that conclusion was seriously incorrect, and did a major injustice to Commander Humes, the autopsy surgeon. IMHO: blaming Humes was akin to blaming a bank teller for cashing a forged check, when the teller did so only reluctantly, and left a clear trail of evidence that the item was illegitimate. (DSL, 12/14/20 - 2:20 AM PST)

Joe, you write, regarding the exit of the Dallas coffin from Parkland: "I suspect the coffin was empty, the reason for the nearly violent confrontation in the [hospital] hallway. . " and your commentary shows that your reconstruction of events is decidedly different from mine. 1. The coffin was not "empty" when it left Parkland. There was no opportunity --at Parkland--to covertly remove the body from the Dallas coffin, after the nurses washed the body, and placed it in the coffin, after which Aubrey Rike --as he told me in a very emotional filmed interview -- "closed the lid." I fail to understand why you would assert that the coffin "was empty" at that point in time, when there is no evidence to indicate that is so; whereas, contrarily, there is much evidence to indicate that the body was removed from the coffin after the coffin was placed aboard Air Force One (and before Jackie et all entered the aircraft). 2. Re the "violent confrontation in the hallway": the reason LBJ et al, and SS Agent Kellerman (who was carrying out his instructions) did not want the coffin opened, is not that the coffin was empty, but because it contained the body of JFK --the unaltered body of JFK--which plainly indicated he was shot from the front. Specifically, JFK's body (as it existed in that coffin) contained the same wounds observed by Dr. Perry, and the other Dallas doctors. The two key observations made at Parkland were: (a) an entry at the front of the throat; and (b) an exit at the right rear of the head. In other words, the Secret service agents forced their way out of Parkland Hospital with the Dallas coffin, not because the coffin was empty; but because it contained the unaltered body -- I repeat, the Unaltered body -- of JFK, with the same wounds observed by the Dalls doctors when they first saw the body, after its arrival at Prlnd Hospital at about 12:35 - 12:38 pm. 3. Why complicate matters by positing a sequence that clearly is not supported by any evidence in the record? (Also: If, as you apparently postulate, the Dallas coffin was empty at the time the coffin left Parkland, then that requires an explanation for how JFK's body got to Air Force One. Have you got any explanation for how the body of JFK got to Air Force One? The record --as we know it--indictes that the body was inside the coffin; and that, once there (i.e.,, once aboard AF-1) it was then removed from the coffin and that it left via the rear starboard (half) door, and was then placed in the forward luggage area). See final two chapters of Best Evidence, plus postings I have made on the London Forum. (DSL, 12/13/20)

Joe, You spell out your objections (and in doing so) reveal the way you perceive the problem: Repeating your objections: Why would the plotters have wanted a Dallas autopsy, since it would have been performed by Dr. Earl Rose [?] who did the exemplary autopsies on Tippit and Oswald? Dr. Rose could not be controlled. He would have recorded evidence of wounds caused by shots from different directions. My response to your assertions: “Why would the plotters have wanted a Dallas autopsy?” RESPONSE: Plotters would want a Dallas autopsy —and especially one performed by Dr. Rose, the Dallas Medical Examiner —because anything else would smack of something “unusual” —and perhaps, even, a coverup. “Dr. Rose could not be controlled.” DSL comment: Agreed. And Dr. Rose was not in fact “controlled.” “He (Dr. Rose) would have recorded evidence of wounds caused by shots from different directions.” DSL Comment: Not necessarily. Only if the body was not medically altered prior to any such Dallas autopsy. (I hope you do realize that a Dallas autopsy would not necessarily have valid conclusions simply because it was performed in the right ZIP code.) FINAL COMMENT: Your problem. Joe (and IMHO): You have not conceived of a situation in which Rose examined an altered body. But that is your problem — a failure to understand the design of the original Dallas plan. Full details to be spelled out in Final Charade. (12/11/20; 1:20 PM PST)