Jump to content
The Education Forum

THE KENNEDY CASKET CONSPIRACY


Recommended Posts

Fair enough, Duke. I'll admit that my research techniques may not be the norm, but while I use reports and articles from other researchers as a starting point, I try to use them to find actual materials such as photos and documents to form my own conclusions. I also, rightly or wrongly, try to put myself "into the heads" of those present and use some good old fashion horse sense to try and determine why things were done the way they were done.

I try to recognize that everyone involved were very emotional and confused with the situation. A President had just been killed. They were involved personally, and communications back in 1963 were archaic at best. Rumors and misinformation were the norm in this situation. Times may not be accurate. Statements may omit important (to us now) information or simple human error and good old "CYA" thinking have contributed to the confusion to what we have now.

I've always been given to understand that the idea behind Occam's Razor is not, as some people tend to characterize it, that "the simplest explanation is usually the best" as in "it must be the way it happened," but rather "don't complicate things unnecessarily," as in "don't confuse people with every detail when a synopsis will do."

I tend to think of Occam's Razor as the former. The simplest explanation is usually the best. Right or wrong, that is the way it was intended.

Why (if I remember its contents correctly) would USSS agents go out to "escort" an obviously empty casket into the morgue before the Boss's body was even brought in, and then, if they had and recognized the error (or knew what they were doing at the onset: carrying in for the undertakers), carry on as if that empty casket was the Dallas casket?

I'm going to assume that when a funeral home goes out on a first call, they take a hearse and a temporary casket to transport the remains back to the funeral home. So whatever the case, the Gawler people arrived at Bethesda in a hearse which probably had a casket in the back, along with four undertakers, probably wearing black suits as undertakers are likely to do.

Again, I'm trying to put myself into the heads of those involved. If I were a SS agent at Bethesda, and I knew "The Boss" was coming, and saw a hearse pull into the loading dock, I would assume it was him and order the sailors to bring the casket inside along with escorting it. If they went out there, and found that it was the funeral home bringing an empty casket, I would probably go back inside with it. I guess you could call that escorting.

Then there is the question of why, if the body was removed from a metal shipping casket (by others unseen by the mortician) prior to the body's funeral prep, was an "interim" casket used if the final one was already on-site? Why put it in anything ... in a morgue?

From Gawler's first call document, I was under the assumption that the undertakers were the ones who removed it from the shipping casket (or it was done in their presence). Are there any statements or documents that detail opening a shipping casket and removing the President's body upon arrival? Prior to the autopsy? Most of the documents I've seen simply say that they removed the President's body from "the casket", and don't specify what kind of casket it was. I'm not saying there are no such documents. I'm just saying that I haven't run across any so far in my limited searching.

Also, the final casket, according to the first call sheet, arrived at 2am. Again, I'm guessing that after the autopsy, the President was placed in the shipping casket thinking he was going to be transported back to the funeral home. At some point, the decision was made to do the preparations at Bethesda (which probably had the needed materials), and he was then removed from the temporary casket, prepared, and then placed into the final casket which had arrived by that time.

I don't have any concrete evidence to back any of this up. I'm just trying to come up with a plausible scenario using what's available, and filling in the rest using horse sense. And it does explain the two hearses and two caskets arriving 30 minutes apart and the statements by Gawler. Don't consider it serious research, however.

JWK

Edited by J. William King
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Fair enough, Duke. I'll admit that my research techniques may not be the norm, but while I use reports and articles from other researchers as a starting point, I try to use them to find actual materials such as photos and documents to form my own conclusions. I also, rightly or wrongly, try to put myself "into the heads" of those present and use some good old fashion horse sense to try and determine why things were done the way they were done.

Bill (you go by Bill?),

Sorry if I came across as being critical; that wasn't my intention.

I try to recognize that everyone involved were very emotional and confused with the situation. A President had just been killed. They were involved personally, and communications back in 1963 were archaic at best. Rumors and misinformation were the norm in this situation. Times may not be accurate. Statements may omit important (to us now) information or simple human error and good old "CYA" thinking have contributed to the confusion to what we have now.

Communications available to the general populace in 1963 were indeed "archaic at best" by today's standards, and surely even government communications were not up to today's par, but "archaic" seems a bit of a stretch when you consider, for example, that Greer had a telephone in the limousine! Radio communications were about as fast as they are today (radio signals travelled just as fast), and they were good enough to communicate with a sub-orbital aircraft half-way around the world. Quartz watches hadn't been invented, but people who were concerned with time were in the habit - especially in the military, and presumably in military support capacities - of checking their watches and setting "official" timepieces with a standardized meter.

I think you've also got to consider that not "everyone involved" was "very emotional and confused with the situation," but rather in many cases dealt with it as trained professionals. Generals were not expected to "lose it" when they saw missile launches, or to let personal considerations affect their actions (e.g., Seven Days in May, in the extreme). The same is likely the case with medical doctors and technicians and, one presumes, senior government officials. Despite any emotional attachments to a President, it's not like they don't consider contingencies like this every day, or at least regularly.

I've always been given to understand that the idea behind Occam's Razor is not, as some people tend to characterize it, that "the simplest explanation is usually the best" as in "it must be the way it happened," but rather "don't complicate things unnecessarily," as in "don't confuse people with every detail when a synopsis will do."
I tend to think of Occam's Razor as the former. The simplest explanation is usually the best. Right or wrong, that is the way it was intended.

The actual principle is that "entities should not be multipled unnecessarily," or as Isaac Newton phrased it, "we are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." It is also stated "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better." It is not intended to address the human condition, but to explain scientific phenomena; its application to logic and argument is largely only to remind one to limit their proposition to only as much as is necessary to convey the premise.

FWIW.

Why (if I remember its contents correctly) would USSS agents go out to "escort" an obviously empty casket into the morgue before the Boss's body was even brought in, and then, if they had and recognized the error (or knew what they were doing at the onset: carrying in for the undertakers), carry on as if that empty casket was the Dallas casket?

I'm going to assume that when a funeral home goes out on a first call, they take a hearse and a temporary casket to transport the remains back to the funeral home. So whatever the case, the Gawler people arrived at Bethesda in a hearse which probably had a casket in the back, along with four undertakers, probably wearing black suits as undertakers are likely to do.

Again, I'm trying to put myself into the heads of those involved. If I were a SS agent at Bethesda, and I knew "The Boss" was coming, and saw a hearse pull into the loading dock, I would assume it was him and order the sailors to bring the casket inside along with escorting it. If they went out there, and found that it was the funeral home bringing an empty casket, I would probably go back inside with it. I guess you could call that escorting.

Then there is the question of why, if the body was removed from a metal shipping casket (by others unseen by the mortician) prior to the body's funeral prep, was an "interim" casket used if the final one was already on-site? Why put it in anything ... in a morgue?

From Gawler's first call document, I was under the assumption that the undertakers were the ones who removed it from the shipping casket (or it was done in their presence). Are there any statements or documents that detail opening a shipping casket and removing the President's body upon arrival? Prior to the autopsy? Most of the documents I've seen simply say that they removed the President's body from "the casket", and don't specify what kind of casket it was. I'm not saying there are no such documents. I'm just saying that I haven't run across any so far in my limited searching.

Also, the final casket, according to the first call sheet, arrived at 2am. Again, I'm guessing that after the autopsy, the President was placed in the shipping casket thinking he was going to be transported back to the funeral home. At some point, the decision was made to do the preparations at Bethesda (which probably had the needed materials), and he was then removed from the temporary casket, prepared, and then placed into the final casket which had arrived by that time.

I don't have any concrete evidence to back any of this up. I'm just trying to come up with a plausible scenario using what's available, and filling in the rest using horse sense. And it does explain the two hearses and two caskets arriving 30 minutes apart and the statements by Gawler. Don't consider it serious research, however.

Don't get me wrong: I think your solution is elegant; I'm only not sure that it's complete. This is by no means my "area of expertise," but it is fairly well documented with both actual documentation as well as with repeated interviews, some under oath.

There are reports and limited documentation of a "shipping" casket's arrival at 18:35 via Navy ambulance. There are reports of a "ceremonial" casket arriving at the rear entrance in a hearse accompanied by men in OR smocks and black suits, brought inside by USSS and others on the scene; I'm not certain what, if any, documentation exists for that. Then there is the "Dallas" casket arriving in a Navy ambulance, off-loaded by the interservice "casket team," very clearly documented by several sources.

So if we presume that all three of these incidents occurred when and as described - which we must unless we can somehow determine that someone was lying about any of them - and we add in the presumption that it was the funeral home that brought, early, a "temporary casket" with which to transport the remains back to the mortuary to embalm and prepare the body for viewing and burial, then at least one of these incidents is explained. I have no difficulty with the idea that agents might have thought that "the Boss" was being brought in and, realizing the error beforehand, went ahead and helped the morticians carry the temporary casket inside.

It begs the question, though, why someone seeing a temporary casket brought inside would describe it as a "ceremonial" casket, which I would think would be more ornate than one designed simply to carry the remains to the mortuary, especially if the murdered President of the United States was to be laid to rest in it. One possible explanation is that military personnel may have been inured to the sight of shipping caskets - that is, plain metal boxes designed to be carried, possibly among many others (a la Vietnam later), aboard a cargo plane, possibly re-used for the another casualty once it could be cycled back - and that even a "pine box" civilian casket would seem to be "ornate" by comparison.

But we don't know that, and I don't know if there is further documentation (or what or where it is) that documents when Grawler's was first contacted, what they were contacted to do, what they actually did, or when they did it. Is there anything that tells us, for example, that they were contacted while AF1 was en route to DC and once Bethesda had been decided upon for autopsy? What time was that? What did they do then? Did they presume as you suggest, and bring a temporary casket immediately to the morgue in anticipation of transporting the body back to the mortuary? When did they arrive? Who went with it? They fairly well documented the later "final" casket arrival and activities, and who participated in them; did they not do the same for the earlier temporary casket? If not, why not?

Those three things - an early contact to the funeral home to arrange for body prep, their transporting a "pine box" casket early to the morgue, and military or other personnel mistaking a simple wooden casket for a "ceremonial" one (apropos for a President?) - must all be true for us to conclude that that must be the case: just because the presumption is simple and elegant doesn't make it right.

Then, too, there's the question of why, in a morgue where it had apparently been decided that all of the preparatory work would be done there, anyone would bother to put a dessicated and dissected body, even of the POTUS, into a temporary casket when the permanent casket was already presumably on its way and there was still work to be done on the body itself in any case. It seems an unnecessary redundancy.

The body's removal from a "shipping" casket - the word used by Grawler's man - was not a personal observation, but one that he either heard or deduced. If it was the temporary casket provided by the mortuary, would a hypersensitive mortician really refer to his own "dignified" temporary casket as a shipping casket (or that "transporting the body" to the mortuary was in any way as base as mere "shipping")? Maybe in the vernacular, but I can't imagine its use on a written form, especially given the importance of the deceased.

From Gawler's first call document, I was under the assumption that the undertakers were the ones who removed it from the shipping casket (or it was done in their presence).

Understood. I think it's written as if that's the case, but it strikes me that the clarification came about through ARRB queries. I don't remember if that was in any of the actual medical testimony I've read recently, or if it was in the linked article about the "Casket Conspiracy."

Are there any statements or documents that detail opening a shipping casket and removing the President's body upon arrival? Prior to the autopsy? Most of the documents I've seen simply say that they removed the President's body from "the casket", and don't specify what kind of casket it was. I'm not saying there are no such documents. I'm just saying that I haven't run across any so far in my limited searching.

Statements, yes; documents, no. Or rather, "less-yes." See Lifton and ARRB medical interviews for statements, and the linked article for documents incompletely reporting same.

I'm guessing that after the autopsy, the President was placed in the shipping casket thinking he was going to be transported back to the funeral home. At some point, the decision was made to do the preparations at Bethesda (which probably had the needed materials), and he was then removed from the temporary casket, prepared, and then placed into the final casket which had arrived by that time.

I don't have any concrete evidence to back any of this up. I'm just trying to come up with a plausible scenario using what's available, and filling in the rest using horse sense.

All possible. The only trouble is in determining when things actually occured, and if they actually occurred in this way. A simple and plausible scenario can "make sense" and still be 180 degrees off-base.

(If this is all rather verbose, consider two things: that's my nature, and I'm trying to both educate and convince myself as well!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Tom Scully

Less than ten years after the JFK assassination, I lived in an apartment across a driveway from the rear entrance of a major area funeral home. A hearse would regularly unload bodies within view of our kitchen table. My roommate was a newly hired mortician at that same business, and two friends lived in a room in the funeral home, rent free in exchange for answering telephone calls overnight, and assisting with pickups infrequently. One of those two friends carried out an assignment to travel by air in a small, chartered airplane to bring back

a body from a city several hundred miles away. The body was consigned to my friend in a transport body bag and was loaded onto the small plane in that same bag.

The dead were brought in on a gurney, never in a temporary casket. The type of gurney ambulance and EMS personnel use is height and pitch adjustable and can be handled and moved easily with no more than two attendants, and possibly with only one. A body is dead weight and can be rolled or dragged from or to a gurney adjusted to the height of a table or a bed. How many more attendants would it take to pick up and place bodies in temporary caskets and unload them back at the mortuary from the caskets, than it does to simply roll a corpse onto a gurney and roll it off again at the mortuary?

I am not speculating how the transport of JFK's body from AF-1 to the autopsy location was handled, I am saying that it would be impractical and out of the ordinary for a funeral home to pick up bodies and transport them in temporary caskets the funeral home carried around in a hearse for that purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a nutshell, Occam's Razor states:

"The simple explanation is preferable to the complex explanation so long as the simple explanation is adequate to the evidence."

It is a valid parameter within which to make critical judgments. However, in the JFK case, Occam's Razor has been misused probably more often than it has been used properly. Caution in its application is advised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair enough, Duke. I'll admit that my research techniques may not be the norm, but while I use reports and articles from other researchers as a starting point, I try to use them to find actual materials such as photos and documents to form my own conclusions. I also, rightly or wrongly, try to put myself "into the heads" of those present and use some good old fashion horse sense to try and determine why things were done the way they were done.

I try to recognize that everyone involved were very emotional and confused with the situation. A President had just been killed. They were involved personally, and communications back in 1963 were archaic at best. Rumors and misinformation were the norm in this situation. Times may not be accurate. Statements may omit important (to us now) information or simple human error and good old "CYA" thinking have contributed to the confusion to what we have now.

I've always been given to understand that the idea behind Occam's Razor is not, as some people tend to characterize it, that "the simplest explanation is usually the best" as in "it must be the way it happened," but rather "don't complicate things unnecessarily," as in "don't confuse people with every detail when a synopsis will do."

I tend to think of Occam's Razor as the former. The simplest explanation is usually the best. Right or wrong, that is the way it was intended.

Why (if I remember its contents correctly) would USSS agents go out to "escort" an obviously empty casket into the morgue before the Boss's body was even brought in, and then, if they had and recognized the error (or knew what they were doing at the onset: carrying in for the undertakers), carry on as if that empty casket was the Dallas casket?

I'm going to assume that when a funeral home goes out on a first call, they take a hearse and a temporary casket to transport the remains back to the funeral home. So whatever the case, the Gawler people arrived at Bethesda in a hearse which probably had a casket in the back, along with four undertakers, probably wearing black suits as undertakers are likely to do.

Again, I'm trying to put myself into the heads of those involved. If I were a SS agent at Bethesda, and I knew "The Boss" was coming, and saw a hearse pull into the loading dock, I would assume it was him and order the sailors to bring the casket inside along with escorting it. If they went out there, and found that it was the funeral home bringing an empty casket, I would probably go back inside with it. I guess you could call that escorting.

Then there is the question of why, if the body was removed from a metal shipping casket (by others unseen by the mortician) prior to the body's funeral prep, was an "interim" casket used if the final one was already on-site? Why put it in anything ... in a morgue?

From Gawler's first call document, I was under the assumption that the undertakers were the ones who removed it from the shipping casket (or it was done in their presence). Are there any statements or documents that detail opening a shipping casket and removing the President's body upon arrival? Prior to the autopsy? Most of the documents I've seen simply say that they removed the President's body from "the casket", and don't specify what kind of casket it was. I'm not saying there are no such documents. I'm just saying that I haven't run across any so far in my limited searching.

Also, the final casket, according to the first call sheet, arrived at 2am. Again, I'm guessing that after the autopsy, the President was placed in the shipping casket thinking he was going to be transported back to the funeral home. At some point, the decision was made to do the preparations at Bethesda (which probably had the needed materials), and he was then removed from the temporary casket, prepared, and then placed into the final casket which had arrived by that time.

I don't have any concrete evidence to back any of this up. I'm just trying to come up with a plausible scenario using what's available, and filling in the rest using horse sense. And it does explain the two hearses and two caskets arriving 30 minutes apart and the statements by Gawler. Don't consider it serious research, however.

JWK

Hi William i have the reply from David Lifton, with many thanks, he also has sent two documents along for all's information, heads up Bill Kelly, you may want copies, and thanks fellas for your replys to this thread, appreciate your information, always and insight....take care all...b

Bernice,

The shipping casket arrived at 6:35 PM, as established by the Boyajian Report.

That report—unearthed by the ARRB around 1997—is dated 11/22/63, and corrobrates the account of Dennis David, who saw witnessed 2 events:
  1. The delivery of the body in a shipping casket at the back of Bethesda Naval hospital, in a black hearse, approximately “20 minutes” before the arrival of the Navy ambulance at the front, (which we know from news accounts arrived at 6:55 PM. The source of this is Dennis David, who I located and interviewed at length in July, 1979. This is described in detail in Chapter 25 of Best Evidence. It is all laid out, with a nicely drawn time line, etc.

2. The Boyajian report, which was unearthed by the ARRB, in 1997, and is dated (as I recall) 11/22/63, states that that same casket arrived at 6:35 PM

In other words, Dennis David’s account, provided in July 1979, was corroborated by the Boyajian Report, which was located by the ARRB around 1997 (at the Ford Library, as I recall).

As to the document referring to the metal shipping casket: the source of that is the Gawler Funeral home, and I located that document, circa, 1993, and provided it to Doug Horne, when the ARRB began its work. He then questioned Gawlers, who tried, initially, to pretend it did not exist.

The bottom line: the source of the black hearse witnessed by Dennis David is almost certainly the Gawler funeral home; and their document—what is referred to as a “call sheet”--provides documentary evidence that their hearse was indeed used to pick up the body (somewhere, we don’t know exactly where) and that it was in a metal shipping casket.

The notion that the “metal shipping casket” refers to an event AFTER the autopsy is completely incorrect—and I have no idea who originated that idea. Its just wrong. The phrase “metal shipping casket” is on the Gawler documents because THEIR HEARSE PICKED UP THE BODY IN THAT CASKET. In other words, there is only ONE black hearse in this sequence of events, and—almost certainly—it belonged to Gawlers.

Please note: The body was never “put back into” a metal shipping casket; rather, it arrived at Bethesda (at 6:35 PM EST) in one.

The mahogany casket was ordered by the Kennedy family, after midnight, and arrived at Bethesda sometime in the AM. You can read all about that in Manchester. The body then goes FROM the morgue table TO the mahogay casket.

Anyone studying this really must read Chapter 25 and Chapter 28 of Best Evidence, where all this is laid out—but remember, when I wrote B.E. (which was published in Jan 1981), I did not have the Boyajian Report. I had to rely on (and did rely on) the account of Dennis David (See Chapter 25).

I also did not have the Gawler’s document, which didn’t surface until 1993 (as I recall) when a young collector (who had visited with Gawlers) was given a copy of it, and he brought it to the ASK conference, and showed it to me and to Mary Ferrell.

In short, the surfacing of both the Gawler document (around 1993) and the Boyajian Report (around 1997) corrobroated, and proved the essential validity of the “two casket” argument that I set forth in BEST EVIDENCE (and attracted so much attention when it was published).

IMPLICATIONS

The implications of the 2-casket argument is that the body must have been removed from the Dallas casket during the brief period AFTER the onload to Air Force One (at Love Field, at 2:18 CST) and the time of the takeoff of AF-1 (at 2:48PM). In other words, the body was removed the Dallas casket prior to AF-1 taking off from Love Field.

I now have considerably more evidence that that was in fact the case—in short, I have more evidence concerning the removal of the body during that period, and I know who did that, and how the body got to Washington. All that will be in FINAL CHARADE. (And, of course, this did not happen by magic, and so certain Secret Service agents are lying about this matter).

I am attaching two documents which you might wish to study, and will help clarify this matter.

(1) A time line I created in June, 1998, which lays it out in succinct form.

(2) A memo titles “3 entries of 2 Caskets”, dated 2/6/99, and which discusses the whole matter in detail. This memo was written after both the Gawler’s document, and the Boyajian Report surfaced.

What he wrote, in that email you sent me, is seriously incorrect. Perhaps this memo and the timeline, will help clarify his understanding.

DSL

DSL

Help;;;Antti, someone......Sorry i tried to upload the two files, but the system tells me it cannot upload these types of files, i will try to find out more info, any help would be appreciated...thanks...b

From what I gather from the document, the funeral home did the preparations at Bethesda, starting around 11pm. They removed the body from a metal shipping casket, but this was
after
the autopsy, which is why I'm figuring that it was a temporary container. It doesn't imply that he
arrived
at Bethesda in the shipping casket. The mahogany casket arrived at 2am and I'm assuming that he was placed into it at that time.

JWK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted at the request of Bernice...from David Lifton:

Thank you Greg, very appreciated, i have a further reply from David, he has sent more information including 3 more documents, hopefully they will take for me, if not, i shall be bugging you again..he only asks, and as he mentions , that what he sends be correctly used and copied out on the web, by others, again many thanks to David Lifton for sharing his knowledge with us....

Hello Bernice,

By way of follow-up to my previous email, which was very hurriedly written) and the documents I sent by way of explanation. . . :

Here are three items which I reviewed earlier today, and which provide a complete discussion of the whole business of "3 entries of 2 caskets."

With regard to the multiple casket entries at Bethesda, the main thing that changed between the time BEST EVIDENCE was published in January, 1981 and the present occurred during the life of the ARRB (1995 - 9/30/98). One new witness was discoveredwho actually wrote a report in November 1963and another, who was known to exist, was interviewed for the first time. These two accounts corroborated what was already published in BEST EVIDENCE, as laid out in Chapters 25 28. Those two witnesses are:

A) Roger Boyajian, the Marine Sergeant who was Chief of Security at the Morgue (and who wrote a detailed report on 11/26/63).

B) Gawler's employee Von Hoesen, who is mentioned in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report of the autopsy (but was never interviewed).

Boyajian's report, dated 11/26/63 (not 11/22/63, as I may have indicated--that was an error. Sorry.) states that the coffin containing the body arrived at 6:35 P.M.

Von Hoesen was quite explicit that the body arrived (inside the coffin) in a body bag.

The attached 3 items should be useful, if you wish to read further about this whole matter of multiple casket entries at Bethedsa. Again, please remember: it is all laid out, at great length, in BEST EVIDENCE, but perhaps these documents will make it even clearer:

(1) A Bethesda Time Line (graphic) --spelling out these 3 arrivals, and demonstrating how each is based on solid documentation (coming from these different, and very official, USG reports the USMC (Boyajian, and 6:35 PM), the FBI (for 7:17 PM) and the Army (for 8PM, and the MDW casket team).

(2) A Bethesda time Line (verbal)--discussing each of thee 3 arrivals

(3) An email that Doug Horne sent a TV producer, who was contemplating doing a show on this matter. The email spells out succinctly and clearly the importance of the two witnesses mentioned above: Gawler's employee Von Hoesen, and USMC Sergeant Boyajian.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.

Please make sure that Bill Kelly reads this stuff, so that write Internet posts about this somewhat complex situation on the Internet, the posts accurately reflect the record. (I realize the record can be confusing. These "study aides" should be helpful).

If you have any further questions re these materials, please do communicate with me.

Many thanks.

DSL

ps. Greg they are not uploading for me, i shall be sending them to you, if you would be so kind as to post when you can, thankyou...i think it may be moi, and my good for nothing lap, and or the Gremlin,together again...he loves pulling this crap...

thank you peoples for your time...best b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted at the request of Bernice...from David Lifton:

Thank you Greg, very appreciated, i have a further reply from David, he has sent more information including 3 more documents, hopefully they will take for me, if not, i shall be bugging you again..he only asks, and as he mentions , that what he sends be correctly used and copied out on the web, by others, again many thanks to David Lifton for sharing his knowledge with us....

Hello Bernice,

By way of follow-up to my previous email, which was very hurriedly written) and the documents I sent by way of explanation. . . :

Here are three items which I reviewed earlier today, and which provide a complete discussion of the whole business of "3 entries of 2 caskets."

With regard to the multiple casket entries at Bethesda, the main thing that changed between the time BEST EVIDENCE was published in January, 1981 and the present occurred during the life of the ARRB (1995 - 9/30/98). One new witness was discovered—who actually wrote a report in November 1963—and another, who was known to exist, was interviewed for the first time. These two accounts corroborated what was already published in BEST EVIDENCE, as laid out in Chapters 25 – 28. Those two witnesses are:

A) Roger Boyajian, the Marine Sergeant who was Chief of Security at the Morgue (and who wrote a detailed report on 11/26/63).

B) Gawler's employee Von Hoesen, who is mentioned in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report of the autopsy (but was never interviewed).

Boyajian's report, dated 11/26/63 (not 11/22/63, as I may have indicated--that was an error. Sorry.) states that the coffin containing the body arrived at 6:35 P.M.

Von Hoesen was quite explicit that the body arrived (inside the coffin) in a body bag.

The attached 3 items should be useful, if you wish to read further about this whole matter of multiple casket entries at Bethedsa. Again, please remember: it is all laid out, at great length, in BEST EVIDENCE, but perhaps these documents will make it even clearer:

(1) A Bethesda Time Line (graphic) --spelling out these 3 arrivals, and demonstrating how each is based on solid documentation (coming from these different, and very official, USG reports —the USMC (Boyajian, and 6:35 PM), the FBI (for 7:17 PM) and the Army (for 8PM, and the MDW casket team).

(2) A Bethesda time Line (verbal)--discussing each of thee 3 arrivals

(3) An email that Doug Horne sent a TV producer, who was contemplating doing a show on this matter. The email spells out succinctly and clearly the importance of the two witnesses mentioned above: Gawler's employee Von Hoesen, and USMC Sergeant Boyajian.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.

Please make sure that Bill Kelly reads this stuff, so that write Internet posts about this somewhat complex situation on the Internet, the posts accurately reflect the record. (I realize the record can be confusing. These "study aides" should be helpful).

If you have any further questions re these materials, please do communicate with me.

Many thanks.

DSL

ps. Greg they are not uploading for me, i shall be sending them to you, if you would be so kind as to post when you can, thankyou...i think it may be moi, and my good for nothing lap, and or the Gremlin,together again...he loves pulling this crap...

thank you peoples for your time...best b

Hi Bernice,

I'm paying attention but I don't know what I can add to the proceedings.

Certainly the black hearse was from Gawlers, and whoever was in that hearse (Robinson?) should know where the metal shipping casket came from and how the body got into it.

If they released the body to the SS in Dallas under the condition that Gen. McHugh stay with the body, then McHugh should certainly know too.

Is he in any of the photos of the swearing in? Or did he stay with the body?

And if the body was offloaded the front door right side in the metal shipping casket while the 400 pound bronze casket was removed by the fork lift truck into the white ambulance, then the metal shipping casket with the body had to be helicoptered to Bethesda, and the casket moved from the helicopeter pad to the building via the black hearse. Is that right?

Then the guys in the black hearse must know where they got the casket.

That's where my thinking leads me.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps. Greg they are not uploading for me, i shall be sending them to you, if you would be so kind as to post when you can, thankyou...i think it may be moi, and my good for nothing lap, and or the Gremlin,together again...he loves pulling this crap...

[/font]thank you peoples for your time...best b

Bernice,

I tried, but the files are too large to upload. I may be able to break them up to make them smaller. I have to eat dinner first, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ps. Greg they are not uploading for me, i shall be sending them to you, if you would be so kind as to post when you can, thankyou...i think it may be moi, and my good for nothing lap, and or the Gremlin,together again...he loves pulling this crap...

[/font]thank you peoples for your time...best b

Bernice,

I tried, but the files are too large to upload. I may be able to break them up to make them smaller. I have to eat dinner first, though.

thank you Greg for your time and effort....b

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted at the request of Bernice...from David Lifton:

Thank you Greg, very appreciated, i have a further reply from David, he has sent more information including 3 more documents, hopefully they will take for me, if not, i shall be bugging you again..he only asks, and as he mentions , that what he sends be correctly used and copied out on the web, by others, again many thanks to David Lifton for sharing his knowledge with us....

Hello Bernice,

By way of follow-up to my previous email, which was very hurriedly written) and the documents I sent by way of explanation. . . :

Here are three items which I reviewed earlier today, and which provide a complete discussion of the whole business of "3 entries of 2 caskets."

With regard to the multiple casket entries at Bethesda, the main thing that changed between the time BEST EVIDENCE was published in January, 1981 and the present occurred during the life of the ARRB (1995 - 9/30/98). One new witness was discovered—who actually wrote a report in November 1963—and another, who was known to exist, was interviewed for the first time. These two accounts corroborated what was already published in BEST EVIDENCE, as laid out in Chapters 25 – 28. Those two witnesses are:

A) Roger Boyajian, the Marine Sergeant who was Chief of Security at the Morgue (and who wrote a detailed report on 11/26/63).

B) Gawler's employee Von Hoesen, who is mentioned in the Sibert and O'Neill FBI report of the autopsy (but was never interviewed).

Boyajian's report, dated 11/26/63 (not 11/22/63, as I may have indicated--that was an error. Sorry.) states that the coffin containing the body arrived at 6:35 P.M.

Von Hoesen was quite explicit that the body arrived (inside the coffin) in a body bag.

The attached 3 items should be useful, if you wish to read further about this whole matter of multiple casket entries at Bethedsa. Again, please remember: it is all laid out, at great length, in BEST EVIDENCE, but perhaps these documents will make it even clearer:

(1) A Bethesda Time Line (graphic) --spelling out these 3 arrivals, and demonstrating how each is based on solid documentation (coming from these different, and very official, USG reports —the USMC (Boyajian, and 6:35 PM), the FBI (for 7:17 PM) and the Army (for 8PM, and the MDW casket team).

(2) A Bethesda time Line (verbal)--discussing each of thee 3 arrivals

(3) An email that Doug Horne sent a TV producer, who was contemplating doing a show on this matter. The email spells out succinctly and clearly the importance of the two witnesses mentioned above: Gawler's employee Von Hoesen, and USMC Sergeant Boyajian.

Hope this helps clarify the situation.

Please make sure that Bill Kelly reads this stuff, so that write Internet posts about this somewhat complex situation on the Internet, the posts accurately reflect the record. (I realize the record can be confusing. These "study aides" should be helpful).

If you have any further questions re these materials, please do communicate with me.

Many thanks.

DSL

ps. Greg they are not uploading for me, i shall be sending them to you, if you would be so kind as to post when you can, thankyou...i think it may be moi, and my good for nothing lap, and or the Gremlin,together again...he loves pulling this crap...

thank you peoples for your time...best b

Hi Bernice,

I'm paying attention but I don't know what I can add to the proceedings.

Certainly the black hearse was from Gawlers, and whoever was in that hearse (Robinson?) should know where the metal shipping casket came from and how the body got into it.

If they released the body to the SS in Dallas under the condition that Gen. McHugh stay with the body, then McHugh should certainly know too.

Is he in any of the photos of the swearing in? Or did he stay with the body?

And if the body was offloaded the front door right side in the metal shipping casket while the 400 pound bronze casket was removed by the fork lift truck into the white ambulance, then the metal shipping casket with the body had to be helicoptered to Bethesda, and the casket moved from the helicopeter pad to the building via the black hearse. Is that right?

Then the guys in the black hearse must know where they got the casket.

That's where my thinking leads me.

BK

bill, i found this thread below, general mchugh and the lbj museum photo site, are mentioned,they may have some information for you...thanks b

http://educationforu...?showtopic=6574

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bernice,

I am attaching the 3 documents I sent previously, now in Word format.

I would think it would be easy to post them. And I would also hope that anyone reading these materials will immediately understand the essence of the shell game which occurred at Bethesda—which, as I have stated, is spelled out in great detail in Best Evidence (chapters 25 – 28).

Thanks.

DSL

sorry i can only get the one Time article posted, there are 3 more, i will contact HELP..thanks much any who are following this, for your patience, he has put them in word, but am being told the same, that i cannot upload this type of file.to the forum, when i have tried to upload, and .....sorry bout that, they will be uploaded eventually by perhaps greg or someone else,whom i can bug again....all have a good un... thank you again...b

Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:blink: one more try a beggar for punishment, best all b :blink: :blink:sorry david did put them in word form, but it is telling me still that i cannot upload this type of file i have sent them to greg, hopefully he will be able to upload them, thanks again am gone bluey.... :blink: no problem, happens with some regularity, only usually not this early in the day... :D Edited by Bernice Moore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...