Thomas Kroger

My hat is off to most of those who’ve posted here – certainly those who realize, along with Vincent Salandria, that there was a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. For my part, I’m amazed that given the comments of men such as Sam Giancona, Jimmy Hoffa, and the Florida right-wing millionaire James Milteer, that “they’re really gonna kill him,” that this point is even being debated, here or anywhere else. Conspiracy theory? Horse pucky. It is conspiracy FACT. But even the testimony of fourteen eyewitnesses won’t dissuade certain Warren Commission apologists. These eyewitnesses all saw a massive exit wound in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, which falsifies the WCR, and discredits the subsequent, Johnny-come-lately, revisionist “forensic evidence” that purports to vindicate it. The reason is obvious. What part of coup d’état don’t (or won't) the WCR apologists understand? When you control the evidence, and access to it, you can “prove” anything even the absurd SBT. Manufacturing such “evidence” is easy, given modern technology. Almost as easy as producing a faked birth certificate. I’ve already listed the fourteen eyewitness’s names, for the benefit of such hapless retards as S V Anderson. He denies that I ever produced any such list. It is here, in my earlier postings. I repeat it here, as I have earlier, for his edification. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. But he won’t address this, owing to his pervasive intellectual dishonesty. Oh, and that's just because they "made a mistake," by the way. You are free to calculate the odds against fourteen independent parties each making the same "mistake," but I'll leave the number crunching to the professional deniers, who'll deny it regardless. And they come here, and elsewhere, and have the chutzpah to speak of "evidence." What balls. Par for the course, I say.

Now that's a pretty impressive list of people who DIDN'T buy into the SBT - Hoover, Johnson, Russell, Cooper, the Connallys, David Ferrie, Richard Nixon, Hale Boggs. They were close enough to the events to have a privileged view. And even Richard Nixon remarked "You don't want to know" what he knew about the assassination. And after the WC releases its work, Earl Warren tells us that we wouldn't know the truth about the assassination in our lifetimes? Wasn't "the truth" supposed to be within those 26 volumes? Taking that, along with the continued secrecy, I find it astonishing that anyone now living would accept the SBT. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but the distinct impression I have of SBT is that it is insubstantial, and Gerald Posner relies on some phony computer models that he didn't pay for. Garbage In, Garbage Out. And the SBT scenario as it is presented - a shot from the rear - flies in the face of what the Parkland doctors had to say - Dr. McClelland, Dr. Crenshaw, and RN Audrey Bell, among eleven others. These other parties include two orderlies at Bethesda. IMHO, there is every reason to doubt the SBT as a sanitized, ad-hoc theory. To accept it, you have to ignore the earliest medical observations, and I just don't think that's intellectually honest.

There is a problem with the autopsy photographs of President Kennedy at Bethesda, and the depictions of the wound, notably in the back of the skull. They’re inconsistent. None of this is rocket science, or esoteric. The inconsistency is evident, to anyone who looks at the images with a clear and unbiased eye. The HCSA Artist’s Copy of Autopsy Photo No. 42/43 (Ida Dox) shows a small entry wound in the rear of the skull, along with the “flap” of tissue on the right top of the skull. That would vindicate the “lone-nut” camp – a fatal shot from the rear, exiting from the top-right of the President’s skull. The wound in the back of the head is small, and the only severe visible damage is situated at the right top of the President’s head. End of story. Autopsy Photos 5,6 (B & W) are very different. A brace appears below the skull cavity, which ought NOT to be visible from the angle at which the photograph was taken, assuming that Photo 42/43 was genuine. It was clearly placed beneath the late President’s head to stabilize it as he lay on the slab. It is OBVIOUS that the rear of the President’s skull is missing; otherwise this metallic object – the brace - would be blocked from view. As it is, the right-rear portion of the skull is missing, and one can clearly see a jagged piece of bone tissue – at about a 10 o’clock position from the ear, perhaps 1-2 inches away. Nothing else is present – ALL the rest of the underlying skull, bone, and brain tissue is gone - certainly from the right-rear portion of the skull. Only the most dogmatic and/or mendacious lone-nut quack could, or would, pretend that these facts don’t exist, or attempt to explain them away. Understandably, they won’t address them. If they did so, the lone-nut camp would need to acknowledge the embarrassing fact that Photos 5 and 6 flatly contradict the artist's depictions (42/43) showing the rear of Kennedy’s skull to be present and largely intact. Now, to my way of thinking, all of this represents a problem. An insuperable problem, in fact. One that continues to be ignored, and swept under the rug by the so-called “lone-nut” theorists. Continued official silence regarding it doesn’t come as a surprise. The photographs referenced herein are all available for viewing in Douglas Horne's work.

>>>I asked whether it was “more probable” that fourteen eyewitness were “mistaken” (as S V Anderson put it) in their location of Kennedy’s fatal head wound, OR that there has been, and continues to be, an ongoing and concerted effort, to discredit these witnesses. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. TGK <<< Over on the Amazon boards, both little Stevie Anderson and his toady Shaboo2 denied that there was a list of such witnesses. Well, I produced it here, just as I had once done there, and I feel convinced that it will receive little notice or acknowledgement there. Moreover, the two Bethesda orderlies denied that the official photographs bore any resemblance to what they'd seen, and David Lifton documents their statements to that effect. What does all that suggest? To me, it is fully consistent with the meaning and definition of a coup d'etat. In such an event, the usurping party is in control of the physical evidence. That being the case, it can restrict access to only friendly, or sympathetic parties, or factions, while denying access to critical, hostile, or independent individuals, groups, or factions. The uniform, untainted nature of the earlier, damning testimony suggests to me, and to any thinking person, I believe, that later testimony was revisionist, and hostile to the notion of a conspiracy. To refuse to entertain these possibilities indicates that one doesn't comprehend what the term coup d'etat means. There is ample historic precedent for this sort of thing: for decades, we were lied to about the nature of the Lusitania incident. We went to war in Europe, not to make the world "safe for democracy," but to protect J P Morgan's investments in Britain, which was losing the Great War at the time. Legitimacy is the fundamental concern of an existing government. Without it, or its trappings, revolutionary sentiment can spread like wildfire, even if it has enjoyed the perks and prerogatives of office for decades. That is the case here. In fact, no other explanation makes any sense to me. If this revisionist testimony that little Stevie Anderson loves to cite were not bogus, then why the continued secrecy? Why have not ALL the records, photographs, and documents, been released? When young Stevie can answer that question to my satisfaction, he will convince me. But not until then. As a final reflection, I'd invite any reader to contemplate the nature and character of "our" government since the events in Dallas. Has it grown more representative, honest, or dedicated to preserving the Bill of Rights? Or less? What about our fraudulent money system, our fiat currency, and current economic woes? How about proposals for a North American Union, with its "Amero" currency? What about the abominable and propagandistically-named "Patriot Act," for that matter? Do you feel sovereign when TSA goons feel you up, or more like a chunk of meat? Do these ideas, or schemes sound like representative government to you? Or do they strike you as the schemes of megalomanic Oligarchs, Hell-bent on changing our system and way of life beyond recognition? Why is our history not being taught in our public schools? Are all those parents who home-school their children deluded? I don't think so.

I find it rather amusing that on the Amazon discussion board, I created such a stir by asking whether it was “more probable” that fourteen eyewitness were “mistaken” (as S V Anderson put it) in their location of Kennedy’s fatal head wound, OR that there has been, and continues to be, an ongoing and concerted effort, to discredit these witnesses. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. I’m sure everyone present here will recall that it was Dr. McClelland who drew the medical sketch 264, that clearly identifies a massive exit wound in the rear of JFK’s skull, with no ambiguity. S V Anderson had no convincing reply to make, at least to me, other than to say that these witnesses were “mistaken,” and he hadn’t a clue as to how or why this happened. I found his response to be unsatisfactory, and said so, recalling that the statistical odds against independent parties randomly making such an error had to be considerable. S V Anderson then went on to say that “forensic evidence trumps” such oral testimony, and my rebuttal was that inadvertently, he had raised the key point: namely, that in a case of this sort, involving the assassination of a head of state, the chain of possession of the evidence – in this case the slain President’s body – was crucial. And the “Feds” had possession from start to finish. David Lifton wrote an entire book devoted to the chain of possession, and notes that even Dr. Humes remarked that there appeared to be “surgery of the head area” upon viewing the remains. And this was before the “autopsy,” such as it was, commenced. I find such a remark to be disturbing. No “surgery of the head” was performed in Dallas. What the hell happened? And the two orderlies present at Bethesda noticed that almost ¾ of the underlying brain tissue was absent. Was Humes delusional? I doubt it. He was, however, inexperienced in performing an autopsy involving gunshot wounds. The selective nature of the procedures employed, the presence of massive authority during the proceedings, and carte-blanche assurances that everything was in order some forty years after the fact, leaves me suspicious. I don’t accept these assurances, and I don’t think anyone else should. Least of all, at a time during which official secrecy continues. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, as to the mind-set of a significant number of people, that they could accept such assurances, under these circumstances, which by themselves constitute abundant ground for believing, that a coup d’état occurred. It worries me even more that the media has abandoned its “watchdog” role, by accepting these claims and assurances, in effect telling us to trust and not question “our” government. Increasingly, I am of the belief that is really is all over. There should be outrage, and protest. Instead, we see complacency, and what Professor Ralston calls the hegemonic pattern in connection with the media. Our society has become a plantation, in which dissent is routinely marginalized, and in which our public schools no longer convey any semblance of critical thinking. No, after my experiences of late, I am not comforted at all. As a country, we are headed toward the cliff, and at this point, I’m not convinced that even a Ron Paul Presidency could turn it around. They’d just “JFK” the guy if he got into the White House, probably within six months if it even took even that long.

I find it rather amusing that on the Amazon discussion board, I created such a stir by asking whether it was “more probable” that fourteen eyewitness were “mistaken” (as S V Anderson put it) in their location of Kennedy’s fatal head wound, OR that there has been, and continues to be, an ongoing and concerted effort, to discredit these witnesses. They are: McClelland, Crenshaw, Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, Bell, Ward, Rike, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. I’m sure everyone present here will recall that it was Dr. McClelland who drew the medical sketch 264, that clearly identifies a massive exit wound in the rear of JFK’s skull, with no ambiguity. S V Anderson had no convincing reply to make, at least to me, other than to say that these witnesses were “mistaken,” and he hadn’t a clue as to how or why this happened. I found his response to be unsatisfactory, and said so, recalling that the statistical odds against independent parties randomly making such an error had to be considerable. S V Anderson then went on to say that “forensic evidence trumps” such oral testimony, and my rebuttal was that inadvertently, he had raised the key point: namely, that in a case of this sort, involving the assassination of a head of state, the chain of possession of the evidence – in this case the slain President’s body – was crucial. And the “Feds” had possession from start to finish. David Lifton wrote an entire book devoted to the chain of possession, and notes that even Dr. Humes remarked that there appeared to be “surgery of the head area” upon viewing the remains. And this was before the “autopsy,” such as it was, commenced. I find such a remark to be disturbing. No “surgery of the head” was performed in Dallas. What the hell happened? And the two orderlies present at Bethesda noticed that almost ¾ of the underlying brain tissue was absent. Was Humes delusional? I doubt it. He was, however, inexperienced in performing an autopsy involving gunshot wounds. The selective nature of the procedures employed, the presence of massive authority during the proceedings, and carte-blanche assurances that everything was in order some forty years after the fact, leaves me suspicious. I don’t accept these assurance, and I don’t think anyone else should. Least of all, at a time during which official secrecy continues. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me, as to the mind-set of a significant number of people, that they could accept such assurances, under these circumstances, which by themselves constitute abundant ground for believing, that a coup d’état occurred. It worries me even more that the media has abandoned its “watchdog” role, by accepting these claims and assurances, in effect telling us to trust and not question “our” government. Increasingly, I am of the belief that is really is all over. There should be outrage, and protest. Instead, we see complacency, and what Professor Ralston calls the hegemonic pattern in connection with the media. Our society has become a plantation, in which dissent is routinely marginalized, and in which our public schools no longer convey any semblance of critical thinking. No, after my experiences of late, I am not comforted at all. As a country, we are headed toward the cliff, and at this point, I’m not convinced that even a Ron Paul Presidency could turn it around. They’d just “JFK” the guy if he got into the White House, probably within six months if it even took even that long. Who was it - T. S. Elliot - that said "This is how it all ends/this is how it all ends/not with a bang, but with a whimper"?

Steve: What I find surprising is how otherwise intelligent people could overlook the suspicious circumstances surrounding the case, along with the demonstrated presence of conspiracies to kill JFK – e.g. witness Carlos Marcello, and David Milteer. These are only two examples, but I am certain that there are others. Then there are the powerful, PERSONAL motives, notably in men like Sam Giancana, Jimmy Hoffa, Tony Accardo, Santos Trafficante, and others. Any reasonable person, I think, would look for links to the purported shooter, and these groups, then examine whatever opportunities presented themselves, if the evidence implicating Oswald was weak. I find it amazing that people can convict Oswald, at least in their minds, while he was observed in the 2nd floor lunchroom 90 seconds after the shooting, calmly sipping a Coke. I don’t doubt that shots were fired from the TSBD, but I do doubt that Oswald fired them. A fingerprint expert has discerned Malcom Wallace’s fingerprints as being present near the Sniper’s Nest, which implicates LBJ if true. While I have yet to read Judith Vary Baker’s book, I am certainly open to the possibility that Oswald was given a lot of bad press, to say the least. I’ve never been convinced of his guilt, because his demeanor in the DPD was not that of a guilty man.

IN A RECENT POST, Shaboo2 raises the objection that a frontal shooter would have been obstructed by Conally. That simply isn’t true. I have a high-resolution copy of the Z Film, and Conally is clearly not sitting upright at the time of the fatal headshot. He was not in an upright position for multiple frames prior to the fatal headshot occurring as well. At that point, he has instead collapsed toward his left, onto his wife Nellie. What does this tell us? It suggests the tactic of obscurantism. On a previous occasion, S V Anderson baldly lied, by denying that any of the Parkland physicians saw a rear exit wound in Kennedy’s skull. When I pointed out Dr. McClelland’s medical sketch, which depicts such a wound, along with its caption, that states that such wound was observed by the Parkland doctors, he backpedaled, claiming that he never made any such denial. I’m sure that by now, he’s gone back in amongst his prior postings, and deleted or modified his denial, but I saw it. It gets worse. In Grodin’s pamphlet JFK The Case for Conspiracy, he points out no less than fourteen witnesses who saw such a wound. These witnesses are: Jones, Carrico, Dulany, Peters, Salyer, McClelland, Crenshaw, Bell, Ward, Riebe, O’Connor, Riebe, Custer, and O’Neill. This is on page 29 of Grodin’s booklet. In each case, the witness is shown with his hand displaying the area of the wound on his or her own head. I’ve seen these pictures of the witnesses involved, and can find no legitimate reason to doubt them. On the contrary, in the case of the Parkland physicians who are represented therein, their testimony is early, untainted evidence of the nature of the wound, of the sort that should be given maximum weight by any historian. It is pure hypocrisy on the part of S V Anderson, a purported historian, to disregard their depictions for just that reason. I’ve read by now most of Posner’s defense of Magic Bullet, and am singularly unimpressed. Even if he is correct in assuming that one bullet could account for all seven of the wounds in Kennedy and Conally, there is the fact that Oswald is seen merely ninety seconds later in the lunchroom on the second floor, calmly drinking a Coca-Cola, as the building manager and a police officer burst in. Shots may indeed have been fired from the window on the sixth floor, but that doesn’t prove that it was Oswald that fired them. Further, it doesn’t rule out the presence of other shooters in Dealey Plaza that day, with weapons equipped with silencers. These frequently make a muffled sound, like a car backfiring, which is how some witnesses described what they heard. The acoustics of Dealey Plaza could easily have obscured the direction from which the fatal headshot came, for some of these witnesses. If this is any indication of the power of Posner’s book, I am amazed that it has received so much critical “acclaim.”

The Voice of Reason in a Sea of Insanity? so this is S.V. Anderson, eh?

>>>True, LBJ and the FBI tried to dupe and manipulate Earl Warren. But It must also be remembered that Warren witnessed enough witness testimony during the hearings that serious questions should have formed in his mind regarding the foregone Conclusion that Lone Nut Oswald did it all by himself, or alternately that Cuba/Castro was involved in the assassination. Richard Hocking<<< I believe you are dead-on. All of Warren's behavior convinces me that he suspected MUCH more than he ever admitted in public - e.g. witness his statement to the effect "We will not know the truth about the assassination in our lifetimes." This is an admission that he knew - or suspected - something he wasn't telling the American people. Then he refuses to give Ruby "space" in which to testify. His reason for doing so, I believe, couldn't be more obvious: if Ruby had related what he knew, the "lone-nut" theory of the crime would have been discredited immediately, along with the Commission Report that bore his name. But in Warren's mind, that was the least of the bad outcomes. The worst, and most likely, he was convinced, was a thermonuclear holocaust. As a jurist, Warren was removed from the intel "community," unlike LBJ, who was an executive (unfortunately, in my view.) So it would have been easy for LBJ to persuade Warren that he (LBJ) was privy to information that Warren wasn't. Hence, the con job. So, I sort of empathize with Warren: I think he was placed in an impossible position by LBJ, who simply used him in much the same way he had so many other people. AS A PERSON, I believe Warren was by all accounts scrupulously honest, although he had deficiencies in common sense. But I don't think he was fooled entirely by Johnson, either. As head of the Warren Commission, he presided as a figurehead, and had very little involvement in the day-to-day work of the body. The same is true of the other senior staffers. The junior staff performed the real work of the Commission. The impression I get upon reading these accounts is that at the senior level, at least, there was a sense that some vital facts were being withheld, but we need to recall that this is before the Zapruder film came out, and from what I understand, the Commission members were spoon-fed misleading depictions of JFK’s head wound. All this persuades me that the Commission was characterized by “groupthink” from its inception, and the individual staffers probably had to deal with a considerable amount of “cognitive dissonance.” In the end, I think, they rationalized their “findings” as necessary “for the good of the country,” or perhaps for survival, depending on how much Warren disclosed to them behind closed doors. These considerations also persuade me to think that the manuscript I am preparing will take this as its point of departure. If my beliefs about Warren and the position he was in are correct, that explains virtually EVERYTHING: why an improbable, single-bullet explanation was entertained, the ubiquitous pattern of selectivity in terms of evidence used, and the rush to convict Oswald for the crime, if only posthumously. 5/3/2011 Robert tells me that WC staff did in fact view the Zapruder film, which I hadn't known previously. I understand that the critical frames showing the back-and-toward-the-left movement were altered, so I'm not clear on which "version" they saw. But does it even matter? The "lone gunman" had been pre-ordained, and nothing was going to change that. "National security" was deemed to be at stake. TGK

Trust me, I realized it was a stretch to give Earl Warren credit for acting in "good faith," even as I wrote those words. My current opinion, for what it is worth, is that Warren really believed LBJ when he told him, that it was either a "lone-nut" theory of the assassination, or WWIII, with nothing in between. Warren, always a bedwetting Liberal, apparently cried, because he understood that he was legitimizing a lie. So that's what the Warren Report is - a lie, presided over by a man who was out of his depth, certainly in the political realm. That's how I read it. I never much cared for Earl Warren, so I can't claim to be impartial. But I think he really believed Johnson, and from what I've read, there was a organized effort to "taint" Oswald as a Soviet operative during his trip to Mexico City. If so, it appears to me that this evidences longer-range planning, presumably by James Angleton, or others close to him. It would enable a containment of any investigation on "national security" grounds. Very clever, I think. At least, that's my theory based on what I know right now, always subject to modification, of course.

True, LBJ and the FBI tried to dupe and manipulate Earl Warren. But It must also be remembered that Warren witnessed enough witness testimony during the hearings that serious questions should have formed in his mind regarding the foregone Conclusion that Lone Nut Oswald did it all by himself, or alternately that Cuba/Castro was involved in the assassination. In addition to the information furnished by Tom Scully (posted above this post), I would include a couple other incidents that are very revealing concering Warren's performance on the commission: 1. While interviewing Jack Ruby, Ruby says he cannot talk in Dallas and offers to tell Warren the whole story if Warren will extradite him and take him to Washington. The last known primary player, still alive, offers to spill his guts and tell the whole story if Warren will move him to a safe location. Amazingly, Warren turns down the request. 2. HSCA Special Investigator Gaeton Fonzi offers another revealing incident: "... There is a brief glimpse, an illustration of the level at which that deceit was carried out, in an incident that occurred during the Warren Commission's investigation. Commission chairman Earl Warren himself, with then Representative Gerald Ford at his side, was interviewing a barman, Curtis LaVerne Crafard. Crafard had worked at Jack Ruby's Carousel Club before he was seized by FBI men as he was hightailing it out of town the day after the assassination, having told someone, "They are not going to pin this on me!"In the interview, Warren asks Craford what he did before he was a bartender. "I was a Master sniper in the Marine Corps," Craford answered.* The next question that Warren immediately asked was: "What kind of entertainment did they have at the club?" Fonzi Quote at jfklancer

>>>Thank you for giving McGeorge Bundy the recognition he so deserves. Myra Bronstein<<< You're quite welcome. I think particular thanks should be extended to LBJ, for hoodwinking Warren to lend his name and prestige to the coverup phase of the operation - e.g. by convincing him of the geopolitical necessity of a "lone-nut" theory of the assassination. Without such a conclusion, Earl Warren was convinced that a nuclear holocaust was inevitable. So he acted in "good faith," but the Hoover-directed FBI did the "investigation," which presumed Oswald's guilt from the outset. I've never heard of ANY criminal investigation proceeding in such a manner. In a word, its chief defect was its lack of radicalism. It naively assumed that things were only as they appeared, and looked no further. I am unconvinced that Lee Harvey Oswald fired any shots, because only 90 seconds later, he was observed in the lunch room on the second floor, calmly sipping a Coke. No signs of stress. None of his behavior at the DPD strikes me as that of a guilty man. He is calm, collected, and factual, as he asks for legal representation to come forward. It is revealing that in the post from Shaboo2 which I examined above, she makes a sleight-of-hand from "possible to probable, then undeniable." These are her exact words, to describe Magic Bullet, an ad hoc "theory," composed not to explain, but to exclude the possibility of other shooters. This is disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, and reprehensible. It is infuriating to read such words, and then be subjected to her ridicule and phoney righteousness. It has so disgusted me, that I am done with Amazon, so far as posting is concerned. I have accomplished far more research in the last week, than was ever possible, while I was busy locking horns with her and/or S V Anderson. Seldom has any case appeared with more suspicious surrounding circumstances than the JFK assassination. If the perpetrators were disenchanted "Cold Warriors," they undoubtedly believed in the rectitude of their cause, and feared that disclosure of the truth would entail a Constitutional crisis and cataclysmic breakdown at the worst possible time - at the height of the Cold War. That couldn't be permitted, and I believe it was their original motivation. But their successors became accomplices after the fact, and the chain of guilt is ongoing. That is why the coverup is ongoing.

Thank you for giving McGeorge Bundy the recognition he so deserves. On edit: I think he also played a major role during the Bay of Pigs set up, insuring miscommunication.

Nicely put. Like you, I never gave it much credence to begin with, and the more I learned about how improbable the trajectory really was – e.g. a bullet making a 90% turn in mid-air - the thought occurred to me "Do they really think we're that stupid?" I have Gerald Posner's book, and it is possibly the NEXT book I will read. If anyone here knows of an especially good review or criticism of the work, please advise. There is no point in re-inventing the wheel. I plan to devote particular attention to this work, because I understand that it is the bible of conspiracy debunkers. This MUST be so, because if Magic Bullet fails, so does their entire theory of the assassination. That is NOT to say that their theory can’t be attacked on other grounds, however. Robert Groden assembled some very formidable testimonials in his film JFK The Case for Conspiracy. In it, six of the Parkland doctors testify that there was an exit wound in the rear of Kennedy’s skull, just as Dr. McClelland depicted in his sketch. What makes this especially bad from the viewpoint of conspiracy deniers is that it represents untainted, early evidence from expert witnesses, including RN Audrey Bell, who concurred with these doctors. Moreover, she specifically states that Kennedy’s head was moved slightly for her to view the wound, so S V Anderson’s claim that nobody in Parkland observed the wound because JFK was positioned face-up the entire time, is vacuous. I produced Dr. McClelland’s medical sketch showing the rear exit wound after he claimed that nobody in Dallas observed a wound to the rear of Kennedy’s head, and he was caught like a deer in the headlights. In response, he claimed he’d never denied this, and I had a good laugh. This incident tells me that the “Lone Nut” camp is actively trying to re-write history, by de-legitimizing anything – any fact or witness – that contradicts their “theory” of the crime, such as it is. It is noteworthy that few of the conspiracy deniers have anything convincing to say about the throat wound, and the immediate impression of the Parkland doctors, that is was an ENTRY wound. That fact alone blows their entire theory, if it is true, because it proves at least one frontal shot, hence more than one shooter, hence conspiracy. Another area where conspiracy deniers are especially weak, and prone to vituperation, is the murky area of inconsistencies between the Parkland doctor’s depictions of the wound(s), and those of the Bethesda “doctors.” If Lifton is correct, and I believe he is, we have Kennedy arriving in a different casket, and in a body bag, whereas at Parkland, he was wrapped in sheets, and placed in a bronze coffin. Two of the orderlies at Bethesda noticed that there was almost no brain tissue remaining, and also stated that the photographs and X-Rays from Bethesda didn’t match what they observed. IN ANY OTHER CASE, discrepancies of this magnitude would occasion a reopened investigation. Why isn’t that happening here? The only answer that makes any sense to me is that full disclosure of the truth isn’t in the interests of certain powerful interests and individuals. I believe it is more than likely that Jack Ruby knew of some of these, but was prevented from telling us what he knew. Conspiracy debunkers also discredit Ruby, claiming that he was severely incapacitated before his death, and suffered from senility, or some other form of dementia. That’s very convenient – almost as convenient as George DeMohrenschildt’s “suicide,” just before he was scheduled to testify. The same could be said of Sam Giancona, or Johnny Roselli. But why exclude Roger Craig from this list? There are probably a dozen other witnesses, who had “inconvenient” things to say that disappeared, suffered untimely deaths, or were subjected to smear attacks. I believe that these attacks originate from a “damage control” operation, but I can’t prove it. But the consistency of these attacks, as well as the level of vitriol and character-assassination involved, leaves no doubt in my mind that something of the sort is true.