Cliff Varnell

Good liars know how to tell the truth. Kellerman knew that this information would come out anyway, with Sibert & O'Neill taking notes. But the information didn't come out through Sibert & O'Neill. The information came out through Kellerman. Explained away? It wasn't "explained away" it was totally ignored in favor the the SBT. So? What advantage did it allow him or the cover-up conspiracy to volunteer the information that the back wound had no exit, and that more than three shots were fired? What obfuscation? Kellermen twice in his testimony blew major holes in the three shot scenario -- and that is evidence of his complicity? In regards to the back wound it was non-existent. Lifton said the back wound was supposed to account for CE 399 -- but FMJ rounds are known for penetration, and yet the wound was shallow. Lifton questions whether or not they knew about the throat wound, and yet they enlarged the throat wound to make it appear as an exit. And the question that David Lifton will not address is why did they choose a patsy with such heavy political connections to play a "lone wacko." This is Rube Goldberg type theorizing, frankly.

It is late, and you are right that Bennett (contemporaneously) and Bowron (belatedly) testify to the wound in the back. I would feel better about it if Henchcliffe corroborated them, and if Carrico had felt the defect when he did a manual examination of the back in the manner Lifton describes(BE 192), and if Hill didn't call it the night of 11/22 as an "opening in the back." And if Bowron, when asked if she had anything to add (to the WC), had mentioned the back wound. For despite your comment that "everone knew about the back wound," the Dallas doctors didn't know about it until notified of it later. One might wonder why Bowron didn't inform the doctors about it immediately. I would feel better about it if Humes hadn't called Perry and asked him if he made any wounds in the back.(can't find the reference in BE). Obviously Humes was ambivalent about its nature, as was Hill in describing it. In the end, you may be right, but IMO none of these questions is trivial and deserve serious consideration. Best, Daniel Daniel, does it not give you pause that neither the back wound nor the throat wound are consistent with the damage one would expect from a "kill shot"? Why fake a wound that is shallow when you're trying to connect it to a throat exit that has also been faked? Why fake a wound that is several inches too low to have been connected to the (fake) throat exit wound? Why fake a wound in the back at all if you can force the autopsists to conclude that the throat wound resulted from a fragment from the head wound, which would be consistent with a back-to-front trajectory? Hasn't the location of the back wound created nothing but problems for defenders of the official story? The claim that this was all carefully planned out in advance runs counter to the fact that there have been 4 "official" locations for the back wound, only one of them accurate. Since Bennett wrote about the back wound on 11/22/63 and put it exactly where the holes in the clothing are, he had to have been "in" on it, along with other members of the Secret Service. Kellerman is often fingered as a perp, and yet in his WC testimony Kellerman described the back wound being probed and no exit found, which completely demolishes the Single Bullet Theory. I can't imagine a more conflicted, harebrained cover-up operation!

No. Actually I meant to write EARL ROSE, with whom the conflict began. By the time Ward arrived on the scene an arrest was public knowledge, though I am not sure that the suspect's identity was known. Would you believe that, by the time of the press conference the alterationists had already left with the body? If this had been a perfect crime, and /or a perfect cover-up, I don't think you and I would be here discussing it. If the crime and cover-up had been perfect, I imagine you might be planning your next trip to the Havana Disneyland with your grand kids. And no, it makes not one bit of sense that the alterationists would alter the body without knowing how make it look as if only one shooter fired.

Jim, that is all well and good. But the key word in the above is "relying." I don't feel that I'm "relying" on the FBI report to do anything more than raise the serious possibility that pre-autopsy surgery occurred. Of course something may have been misunderstood, Humes may have been mistaken, etc etc. But, given the conflicts in the evidence regarding the head wounds, it seems reasonable to "rely" on the FBI report to provide a plausible explanation for said conflicts. Because it isn't dispositive doesn't mean it should be dismissed.

I was referring to the timing of Theron Ward's struggle with the Secret Service. Are you sure Theron Ward confronted the Secret Service before Oswald's arrest was announced? yes TO THE EXCLUSION OF THOSE WHO HAD LAWFUL JURISDICTION. No doubt. What I'm driving at here is that the Secret Service was answering to LBJ at that point. We know as of 1:15 LBJ said he was waiting to see if the killing was the result of a Communist conspiracy. It may be that when LBJ hadn't received an answer to that question by 1:30, contingency plans were set in motion. No doubt. Funny that the mavens at TIME MAGAZINE took BEST EVIDENCE very seriously, and acknowledged that Lifton's theory is supported by evidence. You surely do not believe this was the result of a pre-existing media bias. Lifton's theory of a fabricated back wound is the weak part of BEST EVIDENCE. Are we to believe that the body alterationists didn't know about the throat wound when it was clearly announced at Parkland at 2:16? Lifton's theory of a complex seamless plot-to-kill-and-cover-up left 4 back wound locations, only one of which was accurate, to mention one of many loose ends. This was the Gang That Couldn't Cover-Up Straight!

THe answer would be Yes, in the case of death by natural causes. In the case of a violent homicide, most DECIDEDLY NOT, unless someone had something to hide! THe timeline strongly suggests that the decision to remove the body was already being implemented --in the form of the struggle with Theron Ward & Doyle Williams -- even before the arrest was announced. Are you sure in the case of Theron Ward? The clash between Williams and the Secret Service certainly indicates that the SS was claiming jurisdiction, but to conclude that they intended to take the body to fabricate a back wound is a bit of a stretch. Prior to the 1:30 incident Johnson may have signaled his desire to wait until he was notified of possible Communist conspiracy, and so the Secret Service was exerting control of the body until their marching orders were received. Why would it? The only person who might have understood the significance of the arrest was LBJ. There are any number of ways he could have broadcast his desire to depart Dallas ASAP. They might have done that to make Jackie feel better. I find that more likely than the plotters attempting to frame Oswald as a lone assassin by fabricating a back wound that proves at least two shooters.

Lifton considered this possibility at page 673 of BEST EVIDENCE, as I am sure you are aware. It seems that either Jackie or Aubrey Rike & Peanuts Maguire (or all three) remained in trauma room one with the coffin containing the body until it was wheeled out to the ambulance. Was the decision to prevent a local autopsy and remove the body only made AFTER the arrest of Lee Oswald, as Cliff suggests? According to Clint Hill, that decision was made shortly after 1.30, when the Secret Service confirmed that JFK was dead. Hill attributes the order for a casket to Ken O'Donnell, though this is more likely to be at the urging of Secret Service than the urging of Jackie, or even O'Donnell's own initiative, since both he and Jackie must have been in a state of complete shock. http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1135&relPageId=757 BEST EVIDENCE continues, (pp673-4): During that 18 minute period the argument erupted with the Dallas coroner, and FBI agent Doyle Williams was ejected by Kellerman & Co. I cannot find the time of the arrest of lee Oswald, but the first TV mention of an arrest was at 1.49 CST. 1:49 "A Dallas policeman has been shot to death two miles from the scene of the assassination. A suspect is now in custody" http://www.jfk-online.com/dbmedcovlho.html If the request for a casket was the first move in a plan to prevent a local autopsy, then it appears that plan was already in motion before Lee Oswald was arrested. Well done, Raymond. The casket was ordered at 1:30 and arrived at 1:40. News of Oswald's arrest was out by 1:49. But wouldn't a casket be arranged as a matter of course once the man was dead? And ordering a casket isn't the same thing as ordering departure. When was the decision to leave made? Recall that at 1:15 Johnson told Kilduff that he waiting to see if it was a Communist conspiracy. Maybe Oswald's arrest answered that question for him?

Jim, As long as Sibert and O'Neill followed the proper FBI protocols in their reporting there is no reason to summarily dismiss their report on the JFK autopsy. Unless you want to argue that FBI reports are 100% wrong every time, the fact that pre-autopsy surgery to the head appeared in the FBI report raises the serious possibility that such surgery occurred. This element of doubt is sufficient to impeach the rest of the head wound(s) evidence, especially in light of how contradictory the photos, x-rays and witness statements are. Discussion of JFK's head wounds doesn't deserve 1/10th of the timber and bandwidth devoted to it.

No, my original source for that conclusion was the publication of James Bamford's Body of Secrets, which contained information about Operation Northwoods originally uncovered by the ARRB. I've quoted this on another post but it bears repeating. James Bamford's Body of Secrets pg 87: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, April 10, 1962: (quote on, emphasis added) The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action. (quote off) ibid, pg 84 (quote on) On February 20, 1962, [John] Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But [Chairman of the JCS] Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to [Operation Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pre-text to launch a war. (quote off) When I read this I immediately recognized the JFK assassination as an Operation Northwoods-type false flag attack that would have required the death of the patsy. Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked confirmed my conclusions, which is why I quote so much from it. This is my understanding as well. I contend that Oswald's capture inspired the body snatching. Are you sure? It is my understanding that the squabble occurred immediately after Oswald's capture, but I'll stand corrected if I have this wrong. It is a crucial point. That's a big question. Why not? The "other" shooters could turn up dead at any time. I have no idea why you and David Lifton think setting up other patsies was impossible. The people who killed Kennedy wanted to make it a Castro conspiracy -- but the people who covered up the crime didn't want to do that, they wanted to paint Oswald as a lone nut. In fact, Dallas Assistant DA William Alexander actually charged Oswald with being part of an international Communist conspiracy -- until pressure from Washington forced him to retract the charge. Immediately after the killing people connected to the CIA, FBI and military intelligence started pushing the Castro-did-it line. It is among that group of people we find the perps, imo.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying (in agreement with Lifton) that pictures show him looking away from the president during the seconds that the back wound was supposedly inflicted. I have no idea when Bennett knew about the back wound. It would appear that Rowley had Bennett provide support for the autopsy results. No "alteration plot" had to be mentioned to Bennett. There is no doubt in mind, however, that there was Secret Service complicity in the murder and cover-up, so anything regarding individual agents is possible. I don't know what that means. I would like to comment on Lifton's postings as I understand them. David rejects the idea that the conspirators planned a "Castro did it" scenario that would include several shooters with Oswald being fingered. He says that all the shooters except Oswald "getting away" would have been a public relations disaster and thus would not have been planned. But this assumes that all the other shooters were supposed to get away. For all we know, plans were in place to shoot some or all of the shooters down (including Oswald) in the course of that afternoon, making the Dallas PD look like supercops. Whatever the conspirators planned after the shooting got screwed up by Oswald getting arrested. Which leads us to David's other objection. He believes that plans to steal and alter the body would have been unnecessary if several shooters were supposed to be involved, yet the body was promptly stolen at Parkland or soon after on the plane for alteration. This ignores the likelihood that there was a Plan B in place (and a Plan C, D, or E) at the time of the shooting. The conspirators had to consider that something could go wrong just as it in fact did. Things going wrong could include Oswald (or another "shooter" destined for elimination) getting taken alive by the police. If a lone nut had to be fingered under Plan B, then they had better have the body to alter wounds accordingly. So they had the body, as planned for contingency purposes. And they didn't take the body until after Oswald was arrested at the theater, isn't that correct? I'll stand corrected if it's not. If Oswald had been gunned down instead of captured they might not have taken the body at all, or so I'd speculate.

But that's NOT the scenario I'm discussing. I don't buy your A or B dichotomy. I'm simply pointing out the historical record in regards to top level military planning of false flag attacks, which I believe the Kennedy assassination was. Providing back-up patsies would not have been a problem. Given the elite control of the major news media, whipping up anti-Castro sentiment would not have been a problem And there would have been no need to alter the wounds of the body. You keep repeating that as if it were some fatal flaw. Finding Oswald's confederates would not have been any kind of problem. I don't subscribe to your arbitrary characterization of 'A design' or 'B design'. Your speculations regarding a "public relations disaster for the new President" are moot since no one is postulating the scenario as you've outlined it. The Joint Chiefs of Staff thought otherwise in 1962. I regard the crime as less complex. It's the researchers who have made the case appear so complex. I find that body alteration is at the center of the cover-up of the killing, not central to understanding the killing itself.

Continued from previous post. Johnson was waiting for his marching orders. If he got word of Oswald's death, the Castro-did-it Communist conspiracy scenario was a go. When they heard that Oswald was captured alive instead, they snatched the body and split. There are other very significant matters that can be added to this list, and you will be reading about them in the future. Again, I come back to my initial point: I believe your basic model to be incorrect. It simply doesn’t have enough categories for the various facts at hand. I believe that a more elaborate ‘sorting scheme’ is necessary to be able to properly categorize, and analyze, the various issues at hand. Now back to your hypothesis. Here’s the way matters stack up, IMHO: Your hypothesis states that Oswald was a pre-selected patsy (Agreed). Your hypothesis states that Oswald was manipulated, in advance, so as to appear to be affiliated with a foreign power. (Agreed). Your hypothesis states that it was planned, in advance, to eliminate the patsy, and to do so promptly. (Agreed). But where you and I disagree—and it is profound disagreement—is that, when it comes to “the details,” you have postulated a scenario that does NOT require a medical and ballistic cover-up, whereas I believe such an objective (and some detailed planning) was at the very heart of the Kennedy assassination. That’s why I wrote Chapter 14—“Trajectory Reversal: Blueprint for Deception”—which lays out the case (such as I understood it at the time) for a “designer shooting.” By contrast, you have essentially taken the position: “No designer shooting was necessary; for the design, itself, was to create the appearance of conspiracy, a Castro conspiracy, which would then be the official solution to the crime.” I thoroughly disagree with that position. First of all, I think it would have been politically unstable (i.e., for LBJ et al). If events unfolded along the lines of your scenario, the nation would have been in an uproar. People would have been outraged, and demanded justice, and “justice” –in that case—would have meant cries for an invasion of Cuba. But none of that happened. Correct. The patsy was captured alive, which foreclosed on making a strong case that he was an agent of Fidel, since Oswald wasn't about to announce himself as such. The biggest flaw in your reasoning is that you fail to see that Oswald did not fit a lone nut profile, and yet you have him getting set up as a lone nut as the central part of the conspiracy. The historical record does not support your conclusions. In fact (and to the contrary) Johnson basically tamped down the entire situation. Further, he disavowed any plan to remove Castro, but then secretly switched the policy on Vietnam—from de-escalation and withdrawal to an Americanization of the war. Furthermore, in the midst of such an uproar and publicly relations disaster (which, I believe, would have followed if events had unfolded along the lines you speculate were planned), I do not believe LBJ could possibly have been nominated in August, 1964, at the Atlantic City convention. The Northwoods documents clearly show that the military was capable of mounting a false flag attack in order to establish a rationale for the invasion of Cuba. You can say it doesn't make sense, and yet there it is. But, most important, I don’t think what you’re suggesting is supported by the evidence in this case. As noted: I have stressed the “early planting” of bullet 399 (which I discuss, in detail, in Best Evidence). Again, this does not indicate an intention to set up Oswald as a lone nut. But you might wish to chew on the matter of the empty coffin when you have some spare time. Remember: AF-1 took off at 2:47 PM, CST. The body was not in the coffin. And that’s got to be a central fact pertaining to any strategic deception. And so what we’re dealing with here must have commenced well before the “several hours after” that you apparently envision as the start of your “after-the-fact” scenario. Stay tuned. DSL 1/22/11; 8:30 PM PST Los Angeles, CA You might want to chew on the fact that Johnson didn't move until after Oswald was captured. I'll stand corrected if I have this wrong, but wasn't the body snatched after Oswald was captured? It was then that Johnson found out that the Fidel-did-it scenario was not likely to hold, and other contingencies needed to be considered. The call from McGeorge Bundy from the White House Situation Room made the lone nut did it scenario official, and I don't see any alteration of the body before that.

My comments in burgundy. While the war drums ramped up calling for revenge against Castro, some of Oswald's confederates would be identified, probably gunned down. Setting up patsies was a fairly routine task for JFK's killers, I imagine. I cannot imagine a situation like that: a Marxist in Dallas, and “the others” just “got away”? But this would be the U.S. Government’s position, both to its own people, and to the world at large—correct? Incorrect. They'd manufacture any evidence they needed to support the accusation that Fidel was behind JFK's killing. Didn't that turn out to be the "private" cover story, anyway? If one believes the Warren Report was a “hard sell,” let me just say: that would be nothing, as compared with what would be required for the American public (much less the world) to believe (much less accept). Are you familiar with Operation Northwoods, David? The Pentagon actively plotted to kill Americans on American soil if they could manufacture "irrevocable proof" of a Castro conspiracy. From James Bamford's Body of Secrets (pg 84) (quote on) On February 20, 1962, [John] Glenn was to lift off from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on his historic journey. The flight was to carry the banner of America's virtues of truth, freedom, and democracy into orbit high over the planet. But [Chairman of the JCS] Lemnitzer and his Chiefs had a different idea. They proposed to [Operation Mongoose chief] Lansdale that, should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof that...the fault lies with the Communists et al Cuba [sic]." This would be accomplished, Lemnitzer continued, "by manufacturing various pieces of evidence which would prove electronic interference on the part of the Cubans." Thus, as NASA prepared to send the first American into space, the Joint Chiefs of Staff were preparing to use John Glenn's possible death as a pre-text to launch a war. (quote off) ibid, pg 87: Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, April 10, 1962: (quote on, emphasis added) The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the Cuban problem must be solved in the near future...Further, they see no prospect of early success in overthrowing the present communist regime either as a result of internal uprising or external political, economic or psychological pressures. Accordingly they believe that military intervention by the United States will be required to overthrow the present communist regime...The Joint Chiefs of Staff believe that the United States can undertake military intervention in Cuba without risk of general war. They also believe that the intervention can be accomplished rapidly enough to minimize communist opportunities for solicitation of U.N. action. (quote off) The JFK assassination has all the makings of an Operation Northwoods-type false flag attack designed to appear as a Communist conspiracy, not a lone nut action. Specifically: that President Kennedy came to Dallas to settle a “political problem” (or so said Johnson, who pushed hard for him to make the trip); then he rode in an open motorcade; then he was assassinated by a pro-Castro Marxist, in Dallas, who had recently visited the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy, AND—in addition—it was front page news in the nation’s media that, based on the examination of the body, there were unknown accomplices. Again, this bit about "unknown accomplices" ignores the manufacturing of evidence central to a successful false flag attack. What you’re postulating would be a public relations disaster, and, for all practical purposes, a political disaster (for Johnson). I'm not postulating anything of the sort. This is your interpretation. I'm citing the historical record that shows that the upper levels of the US military establishment considered manufacturing evidence against Castro. Oswald did not fit the profile of a "lone nut" -- he fit the profile of Commie agent. The stench of illegitimacy would be all over the place. So that is my first initial reaction. I don't find your reaction informed with any arguable historical context, frankly. If J. Edgar Hoover, LBJ and top people in the CIA said that Castro did it, there would have been a public outcry calling for an invasion of Cuba.

Before I get into the really good stuff in David Lifton's recent posts, a bit of catch-up from an earlier post... But they weren't talking about bullet fragments, David. They were talking about a round that "dissolves after contact," with "disintegration of the bullet" that "fragments completely" or "almost fragmentize completely." They were using this as a scenario to explain the absence of bullets -- "disappearance," if you will. Exactly, so there was a strong feeling among the prosectors that JFK may have been hit with rounds that "dissolve after contact." Sibert called the FBI Lab to investigate the existence of such weaponry, and was informed of the Magic Bullet. End of investigation. But such weaponry did exist -- blood soluble paralytics and toxins had been developed for the CIA and the U.S. Army Special Forces. Tells me that Humes was at a loss to explain how he had two entrance wounds, no exits and no bullets. And because the wound was shallow -- wholly inconsistent with a wound created by even a medium powered rifle -- he asked if the wound occurred at Parkland. Reasonable question. It is very interesting, indeed. Especially since blood soluble paralytics took two seconds to take effect and between the crucial Z-frames Z186 thru Z255 JFK was struck and seized up paralyzed in about two seconds. It is very interesting because the neck x-ray shows minor damage -- a bruised lung tip, a hairline fracture of the right T1 transverse process, an air pocket at the right transverse processes of C7 and T1 -- which are also inconsistent with a strike by any adequately powered rifle. The shallow back wound is wholly inconsistent with a strike by a bullet such as CE-399. I find the argument that the throat wound wasn't known to be less than compelling, especially in light of the fact it was announced to the press around 2:16pm. Was JFK's corpse dressed in his shirt and jacket and a shallow wound created in the back before Perry referred to the throat wound three times? You seriously don't think JFK's body was hustled onto the plane, immediately removed from the casket, dressed, and a wound was created to (mis-)match the bullet planted at Parkland -- all before 2:16pm? They put three different back wound locations in the "official record," they were winging it, throwing crap on the wall knowing that with the major media in their pocket they could get away with such a bald-faced con job.

Thank you for your kind words, Jim. I'm not sure at this point, however, if you've read all my posts on this thread. Where did you get that idea, Jim? Surgery to the head is mentioned in the FBI report on the autopsy. Anyone who dismisses the possibility (I'd call it a high probability) that pre-autopsy surgery was performed on JFK's skull doesn't have a leg to stand on. Where I disagree with you and practically everyone else is that I view that fact -- the likelihood of pre-autopsy surgery to the head -- as impeachment of all the head wound evidence. None of it is reliable because for all we know JFK was hit three times in the head. I regard discussions of the head wounds as a trip down the biggest rabbit hole in the case. Me too. The only mystery here is why you think I think otherwise. Jim, you need to read my posts before you critique them. I've been arguing strenuously against the autopsy photos. What is Mantik's beef with the neck x-ray? Jim, you are mucking around in the cover-up of the murder of JFK. For the sake of argument I'll buy your inventory of falsifications but I find nothing in them that suggests pre-planning. The people who murdered JFK wanted to set up Fidel Castro. You, Lifton and Horne seem to think that setting up a lone nut was the goal of the perps, but they designed the crime to look like a conspiracy. [Cue Joe Pesci} Don't you get it? You can't put your scenario in a coherent historical context, Jim. (snip a bunch of stuff that has nothing to do with me) If it was all planned in advance they did a terrible job of it! They left so any loose ends the case has become a global joke. No Jim, the falsifications are clumsy and obvious and betrays haste. It was, as Larry Hancock put it, ad hoc and reactionary and wasn't put together until the word came from the Skull and Bones boys that Oswald was the lone nut assassin. This occurred a few hours after the killing, and all the falsification occurred by the seat of their pants thereafter. The notion that the perps foremost goal was "to insure no one would ever be held liable" cannot be supported, as it should be fairly obvious by now that the perps wanted to hold Fidel liable, and that was their prime motivation.

Apples and oranges. Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK. The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK. The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy. But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged. The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue. CLIFF, IMHO: You have erected an entirely artificial distinction between what's after-the-fact and what's "before the fact". I understand the necessity to categorize when analyzing a complex factual situation, but I respectfully submit that your categories are not just wrong, but thoroughly incorrect. Because of that, your analysis fails to perceive patterns, and detect data, that is "before the fact". That's fair. I have the same critique of your assertions, that you fail to perceive the pattern of setting Oswald up as a Communist agent. If they wanted to set up a lone nut why didn't they go out and find one, instead of a political guy? The genuine medical and ballistic evidence pointed to multiple shooters, which does support the thesis that JFK was murdered by a Communist conspiracy. It wasn't until the decision came down to frame Oswald as a lone nut that the medical evidence needed falsification. See my previous post. The CIA had Oswald tied to Kostikov. He wasn't set up to be the lone nut agent of Fidel, after all.

Some of those guys stated/testified to facts that contradicted the official version. If there was a seamless conspiracy to employ these guys and help set-up a lone nut patsy, why do the statements/testimonies of Kellerman, Bennet and Clint Hill directly contradict the three-shot scenario? Assertions are easy to make; actual arguments are another matter. Framing Oswald as a shooter isn't the same thing as framing Oswald as a lone shooter. The part that was "make-it-up-as-we-go-along" was the framing of Oswald as a lone shooter, not Oswald as one of several Castro agents. How does that set up Oswald, or anyone, as a lone shooter? Of course not. He was sheep-dipped as a Communist agent, and if he hadn't been captured alive they might have made it stick-- in which case JFK's body would not need to be altered. Implicated as a Castro agent. Implicated as one shooter in a conspiracy of Commies. The wounds didn't need to be altered until the word came from the White House Situation Room a few hours after the killing that Oswald was the lone assassin. No, Oswald needed to be killed soon after Kennedy for the plotters to start yelling, "Hey, Castro did it!" Then Hoover could have brought out his phony Oswald file as suggested in the following: Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 288: Yeah, if Oswald had been hit on 11/22/63 Hoover would have been yelling -- "Hey, Castro!" But Oswald was captured alive, which queered the play. That was improvised, just like the rest of the cover-up. Doesn't make sense to me to plan on falsifying wounds when the whole plot was designed to look like a conspiracy.

Apples and oranges. Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK. The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK. The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy. But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged. The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue. The more elaborate theories of which you speak, argue that it's not "apples and oranges," but instead the plotters plan to murder the president included their intention of hiding their involvment and framing a patsy. They were framing a patsy...as what? An operative in a Communist conspiracy commissioned by Castro, or as a wacko lone nut? Lifton argues that it was the intention of the killers to frame Oswald as a lone nut, but I'd argue that there is much more significant evidence that the killers intended to frame Oswald as an agent of a Communist conspiracy. NOT if Oswald was part of a Communist conspiracy. If the killers could have made that scenario the "official" version then there would have been no need for "obliteration/alteration/fabrication," would there? They could have explained the evidence of multiple shooters by claiming that Oswald had Commie confederates still at large. Three-card monte with the caskets, quick pre-autopsy surgery to the head and throat. You're assuming that the plotters ordered the wounds falsified. I contend that the plotters wanted to prove conspiracy-- as long it involved Fidel. When Oswald was captured alive, the plotters lost control of the cover-up. Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, ppg 311-2, emphasis added: Of course there were "larger machinations" involved -- it took a lot of effort to put Oswald into a position to be framed as a Communist agent. He didn't co-operate sufficiently, and his capture thwarted the larger plot.

Bennet was turned to the right-front in both those photos. I think Lifton severely underestimates Bennet's field of vision. Besides, we don't know when JFK was struck in the back. Bennet put it between the first shot and the head shot. As I say, great conspiracy witness.

Emphasis added: Apples and oranges. Weaponry and sniper positions are exclusive to a study of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Body alteration is exclusive to a study of the cover-up of the murder of John F. Kennedy. Z-film alteration is exclusive to the study of the cover-up of the murder of JFK. The events captured between frames Z186 and Z255 are exclusive to a study of the murder of JFK. The perps designed the killing to look like a conspiracy -- a Castro conspiracy. But the patsy was captured alive, at which time cooler heads prevailed and Oswald was framed as a lone nut, requiring very rapid alterations of the skull wounds (as per the FBI report on the autopsy), and one can reasonably speculate the throat wound may have been enlarged. The more elaborate body alteration theories of Lifton and Horne don't hold water, or so I'm prepared to argue.

Bowron came from Derbyshire in the UK, the same county as Maurice Oldfield, the MI6 station-chief in Washington, 1960-63. I've long wondered if there was a family - or professional - connection. Bowron's WC testimony left me scratching my head the first time I read it: Was Texas/the US really so short of nurses, even specialists in the emergency room, that it needed to hire in the UK? Curious. Bennett's testimony is about as trustworthy as Kellerman's (or Greer's). It wasn't Bennet's testimony that matters, it was his contemporaneous notes. He wrote up seeing the back wound independently of the actions of those who were controlling the body and the cover-up. Kellerman described the probing of the back wound with no exit, and said that the three-shot scenario didn't happen, too many shots. Why didn't these guys go with the "official version"?

There's a blood lust in many quarters of the JFK Assassination Critical Research Community to turn witnesses into perps. In the case of the back-wound-fabrication theory Bennet had to have been in on both the planning of the killing and the execution of the cover-up, since his contemporaneous notes were taken independent of the "control of the body." The notion that the people who planned JFK's murder also controlled the cover-up is factually unsupportable. There were two cover-ups afoot in the hours after the assassination -- Fidel was behind it, or Oswald acted alone. The latter quickly prevailed at the highest levels of the US government. It would not surprise if the people pushing the Fidel-did-it line were JFK's killers as well. But David Lifton seems to argue that body alteration was the plan all along, rather than a rushed, make-it-up-as-we-go-along contingency. In which case a lot of valuable witnesses are cast as perps, which is a real shame, in my book.

The third shot? Triangulation of fire, three shots, three hits. We'll never know for sure how many times JFK was shot in the head. It's all speculation and parlor game.

Let's take a look at that neck x-ray. From the HSCA analysis: So, whatever disrupted the area around T1 left an air pocket right under the skin at the back of the neck. Did the body alterationists have time to x-ray the neck in order to locate this round, since it obviously didn't exit and the disruption was at the back of the neck? Or did they have time to do exploratory surgery, as well as dressing the corpse in shirt and jacket in order to fake a wound in the wrong location in the back? And if the throat strike was a missed kill shot, why did it leave such minor damage? You've done great work, David, but I'm afraid it's like they say in Hollywood, you really jumped the shark with this other stuff.

For those of your scoring at home, I present my take on the major assertions of David Lifton: 1) Pre-autopsy surgery to the head. Check. 2) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to enlarge wound and give it the appearance of an exit. Check. 3) Pre-autopsy surgery to the throat to remove a round. Don't buy it. JFK's reaction in the limo and the minor damage on the neck x-ray is inconsistent with a strike by a conventional round. 4) Fabrication of the back wound. Gimme a break. If they were going to make a wound in the back to match the throat wound why did they put it where it obviously couldn't match the throat wound?