David Lifton

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned) cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy. (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up). As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up." An even better way to describe it is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception." That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas. (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned) cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy. (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up). As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up." An even better way to describe it is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception." That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas. (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned) cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy. (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up). As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up." An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception." That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas. (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned) cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy. (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up). As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up." An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception." That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas. (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned) cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy. (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up). As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up." An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception." That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas. (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned) cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy. (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up). As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up." An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception." That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas. (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned) cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy. (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up). As I used to describe the situation when giving lectures: "This was a plot, with a 'built in' cover-up." An even better way to describe the situation is to view the combined murder of Kennedy (and the associated cover-up) as a "strategic deception." That's the language I've used for years, and it best describes what happened in Dallas. (DSL, 4/25/22, 6:45 AM PDT)

DSL Comment. . . Re: I forget which witness with a good close view when told of the shots coming from behind said words to the effect of "of all the deer I've shot I never had one fall Towards me". That's a great line. Direct and to the point. And unintentionally comedic.

(Edited and revised from original post; 5/16/22, 10:30 PM). Some points. I was there (in 1978), in the broadcast booth of WETA, the PBS station in Washington, D.C., when Humes testified. Please keep in mind: The Ida Dox drawings were prepared by Ida Dox, working under Humes' verbal direction (my point being: Why wouldn't he agree with a drawing prepared under his direction?) As to the "start time" of the autopsy: According to Specter's Preliminary Report (dated Feb. 1964, available in the Warren Commission "Office Files"): that time was 8 PM. OTOH: Keep in mind that FBI Agent Sibert, based on his notes, wrote in his report (the S & O report, which is CD 7)), that the "first incision" was made at 8:15 PM. How much blame can be ascribed to Commanders Humes (and Boswell)? He was in an impossible situation. I would be careful about being angry with Humes. Humes was not the problem: The problem was "the body." Do keep this in mind: without Humes' highly descriptive and detailed autopsy report (and testimony)-- there would have been no Liebeler Memorandum; and (for example) I could never have written Best Evidence. Humes did not "rubber stamp" a medical forgery. The autopsy report he wrote (along with his testimony) is suffused with broad hints as to what was going on. (And I did my best to spell this out in Best Evidence.) But the phrase "medical forgery" does not appear in the autopsy report he wrote, or in his WC testimony. Consider Humes's position on November 22, 1963. The President of the United States was murdered in Dallas. Humes was told that he had been selected to do the autopsy. The body arrived at Bethesda and was brought into the Bethesda morgue. It was placed on the autopsy table; and it was immediately obvious that there had been -- as in "already had been" -- "medical alteration" of the body: "surgery of the head area, namely.in the top of the skull," according to the report of the two FBI Agents present. Humes points all this out, and the agents made notes, including that exact statement (about pre-autopsy) in their report. But Humes never took the next step: he never said: "Do you people understand what I'm saying? Do I have to spell it out for you?" Humes' partner and co-autopsy surgeon (Boswell, Chief of Pathology) turned over the piece of paper used to note the wounds; and, -- on the opposite side-- sketched a diagram describing the huge size of the hole in JFK's head. He wrote "10x 17" [cm] and added the word "missing".(See WCE 397, of the WC's 26 volumes). Here's the question: What was Humes supposed to do (as I used to say): "Call the Maryland State Police?" To repeat: He was in an impossible situation. IThe rest is history: Humes wrote an autopsy report practically spelling out the fact that the President's body had been altered. [See B.E., Ch 7 - 9]; and then testified to that, to the Warren Commission, as well. Nov. 1966 -- when I called Humes (twice) Now "flash forward" to November 1966: its me, a UCLA graduate student, calling Humes. I got him on the phone (all this was recorded) and I confronted him with the blunt and explicit statement in the FBI report stating that (by the time the body was received at Bethesda), there had been -- as in "already had been" -- "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." I cross-examined him sharply about this statement, talked about UCLA Law Prof. Liebeler (who had been on the Warren Commission, which was then very much in the news); and then--apparently realizing that I knew the record fairly well -- he responded. His voice sharply raised, he said, "I'd like to know by whom it was done! (voice raised), and when ! . . and where!" (See Best Evidence for a detailed discussion of my conversations with Humes). Bottom line (IMHO): Humes knew that the (President's) body (i.e., the wounds) had been altered. There's no other reasonable way to interpret what he said to me. Until that moment, I was dealing with a hypothesis. But once Humes had that exasperated outburst, and blurted out what he did, there was not the slightest doubt in my mind; and I thought: "OMG. . .Humes knows!" No longer was it a hypothesis -- I had just received what amounted to verbal confirmation from the naval officer who performed the Bethesda autopsy -- the autopsy which was the legal foundation for the major conclusions of the Warren Commission-- was a fraud. A medico-legal fraud. That realization was a moment I will never forget. (See Chs. 7 -9, Best Evidence, for details). Now let's turn to March 1964, when Commander Humes testified before the Warren Commission. March 1964 If WC Atty. Arlen Specter had done his job, then --instead of constructing his "single bullet theory" --he would have conducted a proper investigation aimed at exploring the integrity of the President's body. He would have asked: how was it that JFK's body had arrived at Bethesda "already altered." I'll always remember Specter's initial reaction to my discovery (as relayed to me by Prof. Liebeler [on Oct. 24, 1966] immediately after speaking with him): "Specter hopes he gets through this with his balls intact." Another point: Addressing the question of trajectory, Humes (under oath, before the Warren Commission) made the bizarre statement: that it was impossible for the bullet to have done anything other but "entered from behind"; and to have "exited" from behind(!) As I wrote in Best Evidence, Humes was able to disguise the truth, by using technical language to talk in riddles, and disguise the truth about President Kennedy's body. (Again, see B.E. for my discussion of Humes' ability to talk in riddles.) (DSL, 4/8/22, 4 AM PST; 5/16/22, 10:30 PM, PDT)

Just to clarify: as I recall, it was not the entire newspaper that was changed, but rather just the front page, plus those “back pages” that contained the continuation of any stories that appeared on the front page. FWIW: I learned about the multiple editions from my careful perusal of numerous reels of 35 mm microfilm from the many newspapers that I ordered at UCLA—back around 1968 - 1970 —via “Interlibrary Loan.” These microfilms were created by an outfit in the midwest (“University Microfilms,” as I recall) that sold the films to libraries throughout the country and (I suppose) the world. I started my search with microfilm reels that happened to be available at the UCLA Research Library (the “URL”, in UCLA lingo); but then my search expanded, when I learned about the magic of “Interlibrary Loan.” So then, at the UCLA Library, I began ordering microfilms from all around the country. Specifically, I viewed every reporter on the Dallas press bus as a potentially important eyewitness, and wanted to examine each of their individually bylined stories; so I ordered as many of these microfilm reels as I could, and I carried on this research for many months. For example, I’d get a phone call from the librarian: “Mr. Lifton, two reels of microfilm have arrived from the Austin newspapers; please come in soon, because the loan period is just two weeks.” etc. This research turned up a number of facts I would never have otherwise known. Perhaps the best example is my discovery of the identity of the driver of the U.S. Navy ambulance (at Bethesda) after Jackie and RFK exited the ambulance that brought them from Andrews AFB to Bethesda, where they arrived at 6:58 PM (per SS reports): The Washington Star reported that the naval ambulance simple stood there, essentially unattended. Then, some high level naval officers stood near the front door of the ambulance, apparently conversing. After about 12 minutes, the ambulance was driven off. The tri-service casket team, parked in a nearby vehicle, tried to follow, but the ambulance engaged in evasive maneuvers. The casket team tried to follow, but "lost" the ambulance. For about an hour, the casket team could not locate the ambulance. From the Washington Post, I learned the identity of the driver: Admiral Calvin Galloway (who I interviewed by phone, circa 1967). When I showed this specific evidence to UCLA Professor Liebeler, and challenged him with the question, “Can you tell me why an Admiral was driving an ambulance?", Liebeler, exhibiting his black sense of humor, responded, “Maybe the Navy was having a union problem!” See Chapter 16 of Best Evidence. (3/13/22- 7 AM PST; 3/16/22, 6 PM)

To Gil Jesus: This is a wonderful film. I first saw it-- with JFK researcher Tyler Newcomb (son of Fred Newcomb) --when it was in the theater in Westwood Village, Los Angeles, the "college town" of UCLA. I'm glad to see it now available on the Internet, and I highly recommend it. Everyone has their own path of discovery about the truth about Vietnam, and what that was all about. I remember my own path, and it began around December 1963, with several hours with Raymond J. Marcus, and his introduction (to me) of a (relatively) obscure magazine -- published monthly --called The Minority of One, edited by M. S. Arnoni. As a 1962 graduate of the School of Engineering Physics at Cornell, my first job was connected with Project Apollo at the Space and Information Systems Division ("S & I D") of North American Aviation in Downey, California. Ray was one of the earliest critics of the Warren Report; politically, he was "left of center," and his political interests went back to three political cases: the Alger Hiss case, the Rosenberg Case and then the JFK case. I knew nothing about either the Hiss Case or the Rosenberg case; and I spent many hours at the UCLA Library educating myself. On the subject of Vietnam, I discovered --at the UCLA Library --what (to this day) I consider the equivalent of the "seventh wonder of the world": the New York Times Index. About the size of the Manhattan telephone directory (and set in very small font type), everything the Times had published that year was listed by subject, and --under any subject --was arranged chronologically. Under "Vietnam," the entries were arranged chronologically. Immediately, it was obvious that while the entries under "Vietnam" --in 1960 to 1963 --occupied about one or two column inches. The entries, starting in 1965 grew dramatically in size, and literally exploded in 1966, and beyond. It was a compressed version of the NY Times, for an entire year. That was how -- originally -- I "experienced" the escalation of the Vietnam War. I had another experience about that time. As an employee on Project Apollo, I had to sign up for the draft, but was provided an exception related to Project Apollo. After I was registered as a UCLA graduate student, my status changed. No longer did I have a DOD exemption. When I was standing in line, some military officer viewed me contemptuously and, as if this were some kind of joke, said, "Yep, we're going to send you to Vietnam, and you're going to come back in a body bag!" This was around the time that many became conscientious objectors, or simply went to Canada. I may have more to say. . . another time, DSL

Correct. No escalation if JFK had not been assassinated. Changing the subject: James Webb telescope just launched. DSL

Don't remember the details. His main point: the cranium was empty. I included that in the video(See Best Evidence: The Research Video). DSL

The answer, of course, is that they could not have "failed to see" such damage. They did not report it (in Dallas) because it was not there. (David Lifton, 12/24/21) PS: What prevents some people from "seeing" the true situation is not a failure of vision; i.e., (i.e., an optical failure). Its the inability to accept the political implications. Some years ago, I was on a radio talk show and referred to the situation as "Shakespeare on steroids." This is what happens, when you have a bloody coup. People's observations are affected by an "expectation of normalcy," not the actuality. Remember what Commander Humes told me (see B.E.) when I got him on the telephone in November 1966: He responded: "I'd like to know bt whom it was done, and when, and where?!" And if you thought such a thing had been done, I asked, you would have testified to it? (approx). His reply: "I would certainly hope I would!. . . its fantastic. . .lets put it that way." So yes, the Dallas doctors didn't see that, nor did the Bethesda doctors. (See Chaptrt 18 of B.E., for my analysis for what they saw). Happy holidays. DSL (12/24/21 - 1:45 PM PST)

Micah: The "chest tube" was not fully inserted, and you are correct--absolutely correct-- in pointing out (and focusing upon) this anomaly. So. . .: What is going on here, and what is the point of (or implication of) this anomaly, you might ask? IMHO, the answer is this: the creation of the illusion (I stress. the illusion) in the Parkland ER that JFK was "still alive": when -- in fact -- he was "already dead." Why is that important? Because if he (JFK) was "still alive," he would (or "could") then be brought "upstairs" to an OR (Operating Room) where the next step would be (i.e., would have been) the removal of bullets and the alteration of wounds under the guise of "life saving surgery." IMHO: That's what the "chest tube insertion" was all about. I put the three words "life saving surgery" in quotes, because JFK (quite obviously) was "already dead" (i.e., he was, in fact, DOA upon his arrival at Parkland Hospital.) So any attempt to create the "appearance of life" -- i.e., the illusion of life--despite the large golf ball sized wound at the lower "right back" of his head (in the occipital area) is circumstantial evidence of deliberate fakery (i.e., medico legal fakery). Let me put it this way: any Dallas doctor who was involved in deliberate fakery to create the false appearance that JFK was "still alive" when in fact he was "already dead" (thus laying the groundwork for getting him (JFK) up to a surgery suite ) was part of a plot (i.e., the plot) to falsify the circumstances of JFK's death. In other words, the "fake chest tube" situation -- when properly analyzed -- is part of a pattern of evidence (or, "the pattern of evidence") that implicates one or more of the Dallas doctors in a plan to falsify the circumstances of JFK's death, so he could be brought "upstairs" to a Dallas ER. In plain English: There was a "Dallas set-up" to falsify the circumstances of JFK's death that was an integral part of the Dallas plot to take his life. Some folks who have been studying the "Dallas [medico legal] situation" for many years persist in thinking of -- and presenting their shallow view of --conspiracy as "evidence of a second shooter." Second shooter? Really? Politically, that is like turning the JFK's murder into a game of trivial pursuit. The issue of "conspiracy" does not revolve around whether there was a "second assassin." The truly important political conspiracy --or plan (in Dallas) --was to falsify the circumstances of JFK's death so the crime could be plausibly blamed on Lee Oswald; and so that JFK's death would appear to have been a quirk of fate, i.e., an accident of history. That's how Lyndon Johnson was elevated to the presidency, and the Vietnam war escalated (after his Jan. 1965 inauguration) from a counter-insurgency op, to sending in the American army, with the subsequent death of 58,000 Americans, plus hundreds of thousands of additional wounded as the escalation -- as described in the Pentagon Papers-- ran its course. Let me be clear: I don't think that the very small clique of Dallas doctors involved in this affair knew anything -- or very much -- about foreign policy. (Very likely, they didn't even know where Vietnam was.) They were probably presented with some hokum that President Kennedy "had to go," because he was "selling out" to the Russians, or some comparable bunk. But that's another story. Now back to the chest tubes: the fake "insertion" of a chest tube is important circumstantial evidence of medico-legal fakery in connection with JFK's Dallas murder on November 22, 1963. The purpose (again){ to create the false appearance that he was "still alive" so he could br brought "upstairs" to an OR. Happy holidays to all. . and best wishes for the new year. DSL (12/24/21 -12:50 PM PST)

DSL NOTE: Re "There is not a single witness that actually supports a conclusion that Oswald literally "could not drive": Agreed. And keep in mind the incident where Oswald showed up at Lincoln Mercury, and test drove a car --at "freeway speed." (Clearly indicating he was in the market to buy a car.) Then, there is the visit to the furniture store. (Sylvia Meagher has a good writeup on this in her book Accessories After The Fact). IMHO: the issue goes significantly beyond the question of whether "Oswald could drive." Between seeking to purchase furniture, and intending to buy a car-- these two incidents speak to Oswald's "state of mind." IMHO: they reveal that Oswald believed he would soon be "coming into money."

I do. Without question. Remember how LHO's closest friend (George DeM) described LHO: that Oswald was "an actor in real life." I agree with that description, which (IMHO) was rather astute. I have no problem with Oswald fooling around with the rifle, or practicing. None of this is inconsistent with his not --I repeat not --being JFKs assassin. This area cannot be divorced from another: LHO being an undercover agent who's assignment was to be a "pretend assassin"; i.e., appear to be a possible assassin. (DSL 12/21/21 5 PM PST; 6 PM)

DSL Comment: Jonathan, permit me to make a modest observation. The reason that some of the hypotheses proposed here lead to consequences that are “laughably complex” — an apt description, IMHO—is because the “model of conspiracy” being proposed "starts too late"; i.e., in the Spring of 1963. By “starting too late” (conceptually), there is —in effect—one mess after another requiring “clean-up”; for example, the money order anomalies being discussed on this thread. But let’s take a closer look: If the reader will “push back” on the time-line of events move back in time to an earlier date, and “start” with Oswald’s mid-June 1962 return to the U.S. from the USSR (where he had been living for about 37 months, from Oct. 1959, when he had exited the Marines and defected), these problems disappear. In that model, which requires the adoption of a “longer view” as to when all of this entire affair began (or at least was “already underway), Oswald —the preselected patsy —returns to the U.S. in mid-June 1962; at a point in time when the "political plot" is already underway. Then he lives with his brother in Ft. Worth for a while (summer of ’62); then moves from Ft. Worth to Dallas (Oct 1962); then shifts his location to New Orleans (late April 1963, and on into the summer); then comes the Mexico Ciy episode, and then a return to Dallas in mid-Oct. 1963; and then the rest, as they say, is “history.” Without getting into further detail, my basic point is this: if one posits a conspiracy that “starts too late,” then yes, the result will be a number of these anomalies which don’t make sense. But if one pushes back the “start date” to an earlier time (and I'm choosing June 1962, for the sake of this discussion), then these problems basically disappear. I’ll have more to say about this in Final Charade. DSL (12/20/21; 4 AM PST; 4:;30 AM PST)

DSL Comment: No, Jim DiEugenio," Milicent Cranor is certainly not "the best we have on the medical evidence." (And who is "we", anyway? Are you now the self-appointed head of some faculty? Is she (Milicent) the "mother hen" of some kind of medico-legal fraternity?) If Milicent Cranor was rational and sober (and if she could free herself from the adulation she has had, for years, for Gary Aguilar), she would face the basic fact that JFK's wounds were altered prior to autopsy. (Which is why the two FBI agents present at the autopsy, Sibert and, O'Neill, reported hat it was "apparent" that JFK's body had, as in ("already had") "surgery of the head area, namely, in the top of the skull." An which is why the Bethesda head wound is 400% larger than the Dallas head wound). Instead, Milicent spends her time attempting to construct a case that President Kennedy had an unusually "wide" tracheotomy. (Yeah, sure!). Is that why Dr. Perry told me, on 10/27/66, that his trach incision was "2 - 3 cm." in width, confirmed by Dr. Carrico? (Who added that it had "smooth" edges? Whereas the Bethesda autopsy reported it was "6.5" cm in width, and had had "widely gaping irregular edges"? See Ch 11 of B.E. where all this data is spelled out). And is that why, when Commander Humes, the Bethesda autopsy physician, was under oath, in March 1966, he testified that it was "7 - 8 cm" in width? What kind of "research" is that? Let me flash back some decades ago, when I first met Cranor, spending hours alone with her, in her apartment. Its obvious from the books on her shelves, that she was (and probably still is) a wanna-be physicist. I'm glad she's not working as a "detective advisor" to a deputy chief of the New York City police department. Her views ought to be based on the evidence, and not designed to be affected by -- or congruent with -- those of some opthamologist that she has a crush on. (DSL, 12/10/2021)

The "dot" on the autopsy face sheet was placed "low." But the handwriting in the left margin of the autopsy report face sheet, provided a written measurement that placed it at a (slightly) higher location. Going back to 1966/67 and what I witnessed in UCLA professor Liebeler's class: this marginal notation always seemed odd, if not downright peculiar (because that particular notation was written in a darker pencil). The general suspicion was that the (left) marginal handwritten notation was probably added, at some point. See Chapter 4, of B.E., ("The Zapruder Film and the Timing Problem"), and the ongoing argument I had with Prof. Liebeler, and --in particular-- Liebeler's outburst, "Humes can measure? Can't he? He can use a ruler?!" The autopsy pathologist (Humes) and the ruler As explained in B.E., it was that exchange --conjuring up the image of Humes "measuring" the location of a wound, with a ruler, on President Kennedy's body-- that caused me to realize that it was not the "autopsy report" (i.e., the written document) that was the "best evidence," but (rather) JFK's body, itself. Again: the President's body was evidence. Decades later, this may seem obvious, but it was not "obvious" at that time. Because (back then) the "debate" was always phrased as if the key issue was the truthfulness of a document, i.e., the U.S. Naval autopsy report. But that was not so. The issue was not the location of a wound, as described in the (written) autopsy report; rather, the issue was the location of the wound, as it actually existed on the body --I repeat, "on the body" --of JFK. That (conceptually) was "the key," and it was not obvious, at least not initially. But that realization was when I had my own "eureka" moment --the realization that the "best evidence" (which was always a matter being debated in UCLA Law Prof. Liebeler's law seminar) was not --I repeat, was not --the written U. S. Naval autopsy report, but rather the president's body itself. Put bluntly, the "best evidence" was President Kennedy's cadaver. The notion that JFK's body was evidence (i.e., evidence which could be altered) was (initially) rather shocking; but it was in fact the truth. And grasping that basic concept led to many other basic truths that were in fact fundamental to getting to the truth about JFK's murder. Bottom line: the plotters who took JFK's life understood --all to well --that President Kennedy's body was akin to a "diagram of the shooting." It was the Rosetta Stone of Dealey Plaza. But, to carry this metaphor further, it (the body) was a "Rosetta Stone" on which they could write. And so, by messing with JFK's body, by adding their own "writing" to that "Rosetta Stone," they (the plotters) could alter wounds, remove bullets, and turn JFK's body into a medical forgery, thus altering the "diagram of the shooting," and thus changing the story of how JFK died. To those familiar with Best Evidence, this will all be quite familiar. (DSL, 11/29/21 - 12:20 AM PST)

11/25/21 - 4:45 PST Hi Andrej: If you would, please send me your email address, so that I may communicate with you privately (should I wish to do that). Please send your email address to me at: dlifton@earthlink.net. (Take care with the spelling: Again: dlifton@earthlink.net). FYI: There's considerably more information that I have, but I don't wish to publish it on the London Education Forum. Thanks. DSL P.S. Quoting from your post: QUOTE: Miss Cranor's misinterpretation of the final appearance of the neck wound as being the result of a wide collar incision was outrageous and prompted me to respond. At some point, I realized that she and James DiEugenio, for some incomprehensible to me reason, disliked your work and were willing to invent (the) most outrageous ideas to refute it. UNQUOTE. Yes, Andrej, I agree, and this is one (of several) areas which I would like to expand upon, but in private. Thanks. DSL

DSL: Remember how Dr. Humes -- the autopsy doctor -- responded when I confronted him with the key evidence of pre-autopsy surgery: "I'd Iike to know by whom it was done, and when, and where!"

Hi Micah: Tell this fellow (Bainbridge) to read --and understand -- Ch 18 of B.E. First of all, the scalp was "already flapped;" Second, if Paul O'Connor is correct, the cranium was"empty." As Custer told me, "I could stick both (my) hands inside the cranium." (See the B.E. Video.) Please note: The bullet -- or bullet(s) -- did not go to medical school. Why is this stuff so hard to comprehend? Sure, its outrageous, and disgusting; but that's what the evidence indicates happened. Dealey Plaza was not teenagers playing with cap guns. This was how the Vice President became President and it was made to appear that Oswald was the "lone assassin." DSL P.S.: E.B. writes: " I want to know if Hulmes altering the body In Plain Site is plausible as a theory." (Will add as time permits.) 1. He ought to correct mis-use of language: Its "plain sight," not "plain site."

Perhaps you can provide a link, or a recap, or a few quotes All it takes is one (or two) moves to lose track. DSL